Is Railroading ever a good tactic?

[Quicken]

Is Railroading ever a good tactic?

What is Railroading? What defines it?

When you have an adventure you want to run, how do you get the PCs into it without railroading?!

Railroading can be the only way to tell a grand tale of which the players will partake. It's fine but needs to be in moderation.

Railroading is describing a crypt to the players, having them walk right on past it, and spending the next three sessions trying to convince them to go into it. Forcing any encounter onto the players despite their best attempts to avoid it is railroading. It's easier to do with a character or an object but locations can be near impossible.

Know the players (and the characters). Know what motivates them. Even take the time to talk to them in turn about their characters. Use those motivators in your campaign when you need to drive them. Some will go into the crypt for the gold, others because they've been given aid from the local church, some will want magical toys and the worst are just looking for XP. Don't overdo it but try and make it appealing to the majority of players and work it in in advance of the encouter. I know I wouldn't go into a strange spooky crypt.

 

[Eosin the Red]

I think it has its place and its time. Used carefully, it is an indispensible DM tool.

In media res is railroading. No choice. No options. Railroading.

I also think that supplement railroading is overrated. It is the railroading DM that has me worried - not the module that he is reading. Some heavy handed fellows can turn the most extemporaneous modules into A ----> B ----> C

They usually begin the game with the statement, "My old PC will be travelling with the group incase you need some extra fire power."

I will say that the end of "Vecna Lives" bit sour donkey droppings...railroding at its worst but still good in a literatary way.

 

[dren]

True railroading, no. Players greatly resent campaigns that have no true options and they can do only what you tell them to do.
Players should have options, controlled ultimately by their dice rolling and their own imagination. This is the difference between gaming and reading.

 

[S'mon]

In media res is railroading. No choice. No options. Railroading.

Naw, railroading is where the PCs are forced down preset tracks _within the adventure_ - the set-up/start-conditions are NOT railroading, as long as the PCs have a free choice where to go from those start conditions.

I think railroading, defined as taking away meaningful player-choice _within the scenario_, is always bad. In a typical D&D campaign game I think players should also wherever possible have a choice what scenarios they 'bite' on, but they have to understand that if they refuse to take the adventure opportunities offered, their PCs stay home & there's no adventure, so good players will either bite on the GM's plot hooks or else self-motivate and create their own adventures via their own goals & actions.

 

[KenM]

The trick with railroading is not to make it look like railroading to your players. I lost faith in a DM that railroaded us. We had to get rid/ destroy a evil magic item. Whenever a player suggested a way to do that. the DM just said "no, that won't work, i won't let you do that.". In game research said we could only destroy it one way. We finally got around to trying that, and the DM had it NOT WORK. This was over about 2 years of real time with the item, trying to get rid of it. We did what the DM wanted, and it did not work anyway. If the DM did not want it destroyed in the first place, he should have just had us try one of the ways a player mentioned, and have that not work. Gives better sense of immersion.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Sometimes, especially with difficult players. I was running a Mage game once and I was planning on running it pretty much free-flow... reacting to the players actions and giving them ultimate freedom. One of the players saw no reason for his character to deviate from his normal schedule of going to work, coming home, eating dinner, going to sleep, and repeat. I had to pull teeth and do some railroading with just his character to get him involved in the game. Then again, he was always that kind of player... if he wasn't especially excited in what the group was playing he'd do his best to ruin it. Thank god I don't play with him anymore and he is half a continent away.

Naw, railroading is where the PCs are forced down preset tracks _within the adventure_ - the set-up/start-conditions are NOT railroading, as long as the PCs have a free choice where to go from those start conditions.

Wouldn't most modules be considered railroading? I know that if as a DM I spent considerable time and even a little money on buying and reading a module I'd be pretty pissed if my players decided to just skip the whole adventure by, regardless of the hooks I've laid out. Then again, I'd probably start packing things up to go home and tell the group that I'd see them next week after I figure out what to do with the story. It isn't fair to ask a DM to toss aside a week or more of prep work because the players don't like being railroaded into an adventure and sidestepped the whole thing. I can just see it now...

DM: (has just spent several weeks reading through and preparing to run RTToEE) The party has received a special summons from a wizard of some repute in the village of Hommlet.
PC Group Leader: Nah, we decided that we'd much rather do something else. We aren't going anywhere near there. Instead we want to go kick some giant butt in Geoff.
DM: ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

 

[StalkingBlue]

...DM: (has just spent several weeks reading through and preparing to run RTToEE) The party has received a special summons from a wizard of some repute in the village of Hommlet.
PC Group Leader: Nah, we decided that we'd much rather do something else. We aren't going anywhere near there. Instead we want to go kick some giant butt in Geoff.
DM: ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

??

Talk to your players beforehand? That could save lots of pain ...

 

[Darklone]

Railroading by pushing the players along and presenting a multitude of possibilities who lead to the same end is the perfect way how to DM a group of newbies.

 

[Joe123]

Railroading players is necessary in some cases, according to Gary Gygax.

I view railroading as simply limiting players' choice to a single course of action. As others pointed out, when DM's run the game this way, regardless of how many alternative paths or ways to solve a problem players come up with, they will not be able to act on them, because the DM will only account for one possibility. That is, for one path to follow, or only one way to solve the problem.

Surely, that is no fun for players. It also reduces the spontaneity for the DM too. For if he envisages only one way for players to do something, where's the surprise? Where is the excitement and interest for the DM? Usually zero if he railroads constantly and through out the game session. (As opposed to unexpected PC actions, that the DM accounts for, surprising the DM and making the game more interesting for him/her).

In my experience, the best games are those where the DM allows unexpected PC actions to occur, or at least, let them try whatever scheme or plan the players have in mind. As others mentioned, this is what makes it fun for players. When they can actively choose how to proceed, instead of having a plot shoved down their throat, from which the DM does not let them deviate.

As someone said, the opposite of railroading is letting the players do absolutely anything, without any prepared plot/story or NPCs. When given this limitless opportunity, perhaps the players might simply not know what to do or where to go. Not very interesting.

Thus, probably an ideal might be somewhere between both extremes.

 

[S'mon]

??

Talk to your players beforehand? That could save lots of pain ...

Yes! Ask your players what they want to do _before_ you spend weeks prepping a module, make sure they're keen on doing what you intend to run. If they don't want to spend months hacking through the TOEE, don't try to force them to do it! If they have other plans, run with it - you'll get a much better game. Of course, if you've bought the module, you can still mine it for stuff - maybe the Temple, unstopped, eventually succeeds in its goals and Much Badness Is Unleashed.

Also, be ready to change plans in mid-game if things aren't working. I was all fired up to run Necropolis. A few weeks into it, we realised that IT SUCKED BIG TIME. We abandoned the scenario ASAP and everyone was much happier, me included. More commonly, the players are keen to finish the scenario, but come up with a way to do so the authors didn't foresee - playing Lost City of Gaxmoor, my players decided to raise an army and reconquer the city. The module didn't deal with this as an option, but I went with it and it made a good game.