Is Railroading ever a good tactic?

[Professor Phobos]

That example- with the docks, and the escaping bad guy- is a perfect example of railroading.

The DM presents them with a problem. They find a way to solve it- one not part of the DM's plan- and the DM tries to stop it.

Bad. Tsk tsk.

Easy enough to let them try to capture the guy- and then just run with the consequences of their actions. This is why detailed notes on events are a hindrance to GMing- it'll never, ever happen the way you plan. Hell, that's kind of the point to RPGs- spontaneous, unpredictable storytelling. With Mountain Dew.

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

Bullplop! Starting conditions are not railroading. Nor are tacit agreements before play- if I tell my players "I'm running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil next week" and they say "sure!" then they're agreeing to go into the damn temple.

It isn't railroading if the players agree to it.

And as for the "unmotivated players" problem, I'd find it an easier solution to just say "Hey, guys? You want to adventure? You've got to go and find it" rather than say "Go into this temple, here, and there'll be stuff to kill."

 

[Cor Azer]

I tend to consider railroading to be when the DM makes the decision as to what a player character does, rather than just presenting one option. There are certainly times in my games when there's only one real option present to the player characters, but it's still there choice to persue it or not (and if they don't choose to take it, sometimes it may come back to bite them in the ass). But I feel that there is a decided difference between:

1. The Duke, who holds PC1's sister hostage, asks the party to clear the woods of their resident bandits in exchange for her safety; and

2. You agree to help the Duke clear his woods of bandits, knowing that it is the only way to save PC1's sister.

A caveat: I do use railroading of a small degree in my play-by-email games quite frequently. Mostly because I like to keep the flow of the adventure fairly brisk, and having to stop after each sentence is murder on pacing. But the 'decisions' I make for my PCs is usually just stuff to gloss over, ie "After healing your comrades after the final battle, you give a good search of the area - finding a few baubles, and then return home."

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

In media res is narrative tool, and whether it is rail roading or not depends on whether you use the tool to rail road.

Example: For my campaign, we started in media res, after the players decided how they knew each other, and where they were. In order to explore characterization and combat abilities, we decided that they were in the middle of a border conflict with a neighboring nation, so we laid out the battlefield, I randomly generated about thirty soldiers on both sides in their "area", and the story began! War cries were yelled, the dwarf got a nickname for his unlucky rolls, etc.

Railroading? Hardly. The plot wasn't even part of it.

In media res is a tool used to draw people into story and demonstrate some aspects of protagonists' character. It may or may not have anything to do with plot.

The railroading in my campaign happened later, when the wartorn PCs had to make their way back to a temple-fort to heal the strength damage done by an enemy wizard, and a quest was waiting for them there

 

[Cheiromancer]

That example- with the docks, and the escaping bad guy- is a perfect example of railroading.

The DM presents them with a problem. They find a way to solve it- one not part of the DM's plan- and the DM tries to stop it.

Bad. Tsk tsk.

[snip]

Starting conditions are not railroading. Nor are tacit agreements before play- if I tell my players "I'm running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil next week" and they say "sure!" then they're agreeing to go into the damn temple.

It isn't railroading if the players agree to it.

Now, isn't the case of the docks and escaping bad guy an example of prior player agreement?

DM: So you all want to go have some desert adventures in Khavayin?
Players: Yeah, that would be cool!
DM: Okay everybody give me a list of cool things your characters might want to do there.
[Everybody, except the bard dutifully comes up with hooks for their characters in Khavayin and emails them to the DM.]

Next Session:
DM: Okay, you see one of the bad guys you'd presumed dead leaving port on a ship. A little investigation tells you the cargo ship on which he's booked passage is heading to Khavayin....

Maybe the players didn't understand that the DM was providing a segue to Khavayin adventure, or maybe I am misunderstanding the situation. But it looks to me like the players are backing out of an expressed willingness to follow a particular plot line. They've bought the tickets, but through inadvertence or perversity, suddenly decide they don't want to go on the train. Is it railroading if the DM is flummoxed by this unexpected opposition and doesn't change his plans for the session?

 

[Simplicity]

In general, I try not to railroad. That doesn't mean I don't occassionally limit the choices the PCs have. I just try not to force something on them.

There is one major exception in fantasy however:
Prophecy.

Sometimes, things foretold in fantasy just will be true, and all of the efforts of the characters do not swerve the course of destiny. Obviously this is a rare case. You don't lead the players to the red dragon's lair because it's their "destiny" to go there. And also some prophecies have multiple resolutions...

A little bit of futility can be a useful plot device as well.

In saving the king from a foretold death, the players may wind up being the ones who kill him...

 

[Desdichado]

In general, I try not to railroad. That doesn't mean I don't occassionally limit the choices the PCs have. I just try not to force something on them.

There is one major exception in fantasy however:
Prophecy.

Sometimes, things foretold in fantasy just will be true, and all of the efforts of the characters do not swerve the course of destiny. Obviously this is a rare case. You don't lead the players to the red dragon's lair because it's their "destiny" to go there. And also some prophecies have multiple resolutions...

A little bit of futility can be a useful plot device as well.

In saving the king from a foretold death, the players may wind up being the ones who kill him...

Railroading is not equal to removing everything from the campaign that is out of the PCs control. Rather, it means that PCs can pursue their own course of action and it won't automatically fail just because it's not the GM's pre-planned one. Both are equally arbitrary, and both serve to sever the connection between the player, the PC and the setting; i.e., it serves to remind the player that he's playing a game, not acting through a "realistic" environment. I think the defining characteristic of railroading is arbitrariness. After all, if the PC tries something really stupid, it's only natural that his course of action will fail, regardless of his expectations. It's not railroading to let the PCs face the logical consequences of the decisions they make, it's railroading to remove those consequences for the purposes of pursuing the GM's pet plot.

Or something like that.

 

[RFisher]

Railroading is when the players only have one option, and they didn't get into the position of having only one option through their previous actions.

Decision making is one of the key elements in most games. So, 100% railroading would likely be little fun for the players, but 100% railroading doesn't happen that often.

I'm of the school of thought that says railroading in roleplaying games should be kept to a mimimum. I try to make sure the players always have at least three options, and I'm open to letting them choose options I didn't forsee. I've embraced an improvisational DM style. Its fun when you don't know where the game is going to go any better than the players do.

So, is railroading sometimes OK? Sure.

For tournaments & one-offs some measure of railroading is usually called for.

If you like a heavily combat oriented style, you can have a fun game where the plot is all railroad just to get you to the next fight. Arguably it may more wargame than roleplaying at that point, but it can still be fun.

In "regular" campaigns, however, I consider it a bit of a failure when I resort to a little railroading.

 

[DaveMage]

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.

I agree with this completely.

I also think that "railroading" more of an issue for story-driven games (as someone pointed out above, the DL1-14 were the worst examples).

That's why I love dungeons, and especailly big dungeons. If the PCs want to explore area A - fine - let's go there. Area B - that's ok too. They want to jump to level ZZ, ok, no problem there - it's all ready for you. (You may die more quickly by jumping into places you shouldn't, but I'd rather have that than worrying about following someone's direct storyline.)

Rappan Athuk was great for this type of play.

As long as the players and the DM are on the same page as to what type of adventures they like, there really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Eosin the Red]

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.

To that I would reply - "My character is a thinker he would never allow himself to be put in this situation. You railroaded me and did not take my concept nor style into consideration." It IS railroading - give it a fancy name but that does not change the fact that the game took away my choices. It is not necessiarily bad - I think railroading is occassionally good. There are many stories that connnot be told without some railroading ...

No "You are the Chosen One" stories
No "There can only be One" stories
No "But Frodo you are the only one who can carry the Ring" stories

All of which are railroading. Are they bad? not IMO. Taking choice from players is taking choice from players. I don't buy your qualifiers.

 

[Eosin the Red]

In media res is narrative tool, and whether it is rail roading or not depends on whether you use the tool to rail road.

In media res is a tool used to draw people into story and demonstrate some aspects of protagonists' character. It may or may not have anything to do with plot.

Being the chosen one is a narritive tool.
Being a highlander at the DMs whim is a narritive tool.
Being mistaken for somone who looks just like you is a narritive tool.
Being Frodo is a narritive tool.

They are also examples of railroading in RPGs.

We can obviously demonstrate that we have quite different definitions of Railroading. To limit player choice is my definition - and I view some degrees of it as essential to a good campaign. Feel free to disagree but just because something also belongs in category X does not mean that it is excluded from the possibility of also being a tool to railroad players. Or at least that is my mantra

I am being railroaded here!