Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil?
- Thread starter Calico_Jack73
- Start date
Storminator
First Post
Thornir Alekeg said:
Wouldn't that be "RollerCoastering?"
PS
DogBackward
First Post
I've always prefered my "Waypoint" method. It basically amounts to "This, this and this need to happen. How it happens, on the other hand, is entirely up to you guys." It seems to work pretty well, and gives all those chances for the players to come up with a cool, unexpected way to do the same thing that I wanted to happen anyway.
Although I will admit, sometimes you do just have to say "I need this to happen in this particular way. Just play along for a while, yeah?" Unfortunately, very few of my tabletop players have ever gotten the point of that.
Although I will admit, sometimes you do just have to say "I need this to happen in this particular way. Just play along for a while, yeah?" Unfortunately, very few of my tabletop players have ever gotten the point of that.
Lord Zack said:
Blanket statements are never a good idea
I've played in both scenarios - if done right, it really doesn't feel like railroading and can be fun. As long as it's not the computer RPG style of railroading where there seriously isn't ANYTHING ELSE to do as a player - that's annoying as sin.
KrazyHades
First Post
As a DM I feel it is important, as many have already said, to provide hooks, let the players find their own hooks if they're not interested in the ones I propose (I like to "start" the next adventure right at the end of a session so if they don't do what I planned I have plenty of time to make a new adventure) and all of that. But if the players are unwilling to go forth in search of things to help their reputation, make them money, or let them track down the ancient sword their looking for, then nothing happens.
My current group of ten (yes, that many) highly-motivated and exciting players always either pounce on a fun hook I give them or go in search of their own. Their decisions ALWAYS affect the world in a noticeable, if small, way. For example, refusing to help a merchant guard his caravan could lead to the merchant's shredded body turning up in the street, leading to a NEW hook about what happened. In more major arcs (such as the current one, with Bane making a move to steal the Shadow domain), failure to follow through and do the right thing can lead to major changes, namely the rise of the tyrannical bane as more powerful than the coalition of gods that stand against him, plunging the world into darkness. If something like this happened, I would start the next major story arc in the same world 50 years later, with the PCs as members of a rebel group or something, fighting against Bane's agents on the Material Plane.
There is always somewhere a DM can go with his hooks, and if the players don't bite, heve there be consequences that lead to even more hooks.
But first, talk to your players and point out that it is their job to go and do things; your job as the DM is to give them opportunities that could become adventures, until they take a hook.
My current group of ten (yes, that many) highly-motivated and exciting players always either pounce on a fun hook I give them or go in search of their own. Their decisions ALWAYS affect the world in a noticeable, if small, way. For example, refusing to help a merchant guard his caravan could lead to the merchant's shredded body turning up in the street, leading to a NEW hook about what happened. In more major arcs (such as the current one, with Bane making a move to steal the Shadow domain), failure to follow through and do the right thing can lead to major changes, namely the rise of the tyrannical bane as more powerful than the coalition of gods that stand against him, plunging the world into darkness. If something like this happened, I would start the next major story arc in the same world 50 years later, with the PCs as members of a rebel group or something, fighting against Bane's agents on the Material Plane.
There is always somewhere a DM can go with his hooks, and if the players don't bite, heve there be consequences that lead to even more hooks.
But first, talk to your players and point out that it is their job to go and do things; your job as the DM is to give them opportunities that could become adventures, until they take a hook.
Gez
First Post
1. Providing a starting point is not railroading. Railroading is forcing a pathway from A to B, not bringing the players to A and letting them know they should find a way to arrive at B.
Mage is a good example of a game in which it's quite hard for the player to go on his own adventure. What is he going to do? Create a cult? Rob a bank? After a few introduction adventures, the characters will be able to make up their own motivations -- help an ally, avenge a friend, defeat a foe... In D&D it's always possible to have the character go in a tavern and gather informations about a possible job, as a way of telling the DM "gimme an adventure!" but such mercenary ways are illogical in Mage's setting.
2. Railroading can be useful, even though it shouldn't be abused. The railroad ought to be logical -- not "an invisible wall prevents you to do that", so work the pretexts in the story. An example of bad railroading is in the OotS, when Miko defeat the whole gang in fight and chains them up to bring them to AC. It reeks of bad railroading because, to the player, it can easily look like the DM fudged and cheated to put them in that situation.
Mage is a good example of a game in which it's quite hard for the player to go on his own adventure. What is he going to do? Create a cult? Rob a bank? After a few introduction adventures, the characters will be able to make up their own motivations -- help an ally, avenge a friend, defeat a foe... In D&D it's always possible to have the character go in a tavern and gather informations about a possible job, as a way of telling the DM "gimme an adventure!" but such mercenary ways are illogical in Mage's setting.
2. Railroading can be useful, even though it shouldn't be abused. The railroad ought to be logical -- not "an invisible wall prevents you to do that", so work the pretexts in the story. An example of bad railroading is in the OotS, when Miko defeat the whole gang in fight and chains them up to bring them to AC. It reeks of bad railroading because, to the player, it can easily look like the DM fudged and cheated to put them in that situation.
Oryan77
Adventurer
Railroading happens whether you notice it or not. I agree that it's not always bad.
Take this for example:
Instead of railroading them into killing the dragon in the Lost Crypt, you are now railroading them into killing the dragon outside the crypt if they want to save themselves or the countryside. And to top it off, they don't get the treasure since they didn't follow your railroad tracks :\ Either way, you are railroading them into killing the dragon. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I'm just pointing out that railroading is a normal part of running a game. It's not necessarily a bad thing like so many people like to make it out to be.
My opinion is that people just toss the word 'railroading' around in an attempt to make themselves look like they are better DMs than other people. I believe that it's actually very hard to run a campaign without some sort of railroading.
The only time railroading is bad in my eyes is when ridiculous events happen to purposely thwart player actions. If a player attempts an action that could & should happen, and then all of a sudden an unbelievable event happens just to stop the players action, then it's bad railroading. And even then, this is only bad if it's obvious to the players. I believe a DM who can railroad players into finishing an adventure he created the way he wants them to finish it without the players noticing the DM's influence on their actions is just as good of a DM as one that can wing an entire adventure. Not every DM wants to waste the hours he spent on an adventure that he prepared by letting players do their own thing instead of completing the adventure.
Take this for example:
All this is doing is telling your players, "See, if you just followed my railroad tracks & entered the Lost Crypt then you wouldn't be in this situation & you would have more treasure".Lord Zack said:
Instead of railroading them into killing the dragon in the Lost Crypt, you are now railroading them into killing the dragon outside the crypt if they want to save themselves or the countryside. And to top it off, they don't get the treasure since they didn't follow your railroad tracks :\ Either way, you are railroading them into killing the dragon. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I'm just pointing out that railroading is a normal part of running a game. It's not necessarily a bad thing like so many people like to make it out to be.
My opinion is that people just toss the word 'railroading' around in an attempt to make themselves look like they are better DMs than other people. I believe that it's actually very hard to run a campaign without some sort of railroading.
The only time railroading is bad in my eyes is when ridiculous events happen to purposely thwart player actions. If a player attempts an action that could & should happen, and then all of a sudden an unbelievable event happens just to stop the players action, then it's bad railroading. And even then, this is only bad if it's obvious to the players. I believe a DM who can railroad players into finishing an adventure he created the way he wants them to finish it without the players noticing the DM's influence on their actions is just as good of a DM as one that can wing an entire adventure. Not every DM wants to waste the hours he spent on an adventure that he prepared by letting players do their own thing instead of completing the adventure.
+5 Keyboard!
First Post
FickleGM said:
LOL. That's too funny. I like your players. Easy to please
First, some RPGs have an implicit goal, some don't. D&D has one : getting to the 20th level. (Of course, usually DMs add a nice flavor to it).
DMs can expect that the characters are adventurous heroes/anti-heroes that will become legends at some point, willingly or not.
Some others RPGs (mainly skill-based ones) doesn't have this implicit goal, in some case there is an explicit one, in others, players must write on their character sheets what their goals are. (These goals are then used by the advancement system).
Second, the "sandbox" or "simulationist" problem is a quite dangerous one... (having suffered from it personally !) You have to help this player understand that D&D or any other RPG isn't and never will be an "alternate fantasy world" simulator (of course we have the right to dream.
Finally, what is railroading? Let's say there is two kinds of railroading, the good one and the bad one. Problem is, people don't use enough the first one and too much the second one. The good railroading is the one that move the game forward without loosing time messing up with every damn details (i.e. sandbox). The bad railroading happens when the goal(s) is not clear or when the DM doesn't have the ability to offer interesting way(s) to achieve it.
DMs can expect that the characters are adventurous heroes/anti-heroes that will become legends at some point, willingly or not.
Some others RPGs (mainly skill-based ones) doesn't have this implicit goal, in some case there is an explicit one, in others, players must write on their character sheets what their goals are. (These goals are then used by the advancement system).
Second, the "sandbox" or "simulationist" problem is a quite dangerous one... (having suffered from it personally !) You have to help this player understand that D&D or any other RPG isn't and never will be an "alternate fantasy world" simulator (of course we have the right to dream
.Finally, what is railroading? Let's say there is two kinds of railroading, the good one and the bad one. Problem is, people don't use enough the first one and too much the second one. The good railroading is the one that move the game forward without loosing time messing up with every damn details (i.e. sandbox). The bad railroading happens when the goal(s) is not clear or when the DM doesn't have the ability to offer interesting way(s) to achieve it.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
My informal poll response: 'Railroading' is not always neccesarry, nor is it always evil... but sometimes its both... like when the group gathers at the table at looks blankly at the DM with expressions that scream 'entertain me!'
Sometimes is good...
QFT...
If your at my table and complain about railroading... I will ask what your characters *active* goal is and why the character is not pursuing it. Don't leave me to design the goals of the game and then complain you didn't have any input in them!
Best campaign I have ever played in had numerous PC's actively engaged in various goals. We made the DM's job extremely easy because we were always bumbling into one hornets nest or another. All he had to do was worry about continuity and provide the NPC's we were trying to foil/foist/destroy. I don't think he places a single plot hook in the last year of the campaign... {4+ year game played at least once a month...}
On the flip side one of the best games I ever ran was basically prescripted... the Agency wanted a Corporate War and enticed a PC to run a virtual maze to start it. The player didn't put it all together until the following day... a great example of railroading being good!
{seriously advanced the plot, was all in character and did not involve thwarting the PC's actions}
Of course, I also have the horror stories of railroads gone bad... like that one 'Magic Bank' that was impenetrable.... {it wasn't really, altho once proven it was mildly funny how the entire high level town guard shows up in less than a minute.. fully kitted out and aware of how many Thieves there are... and where they are...
}
Anyway, I'm over it
Sometimes is good...
Janx said:
QFT...
If your at my table and complain about railroading... I will ask what your characters *active* goal is and why the character is not pursuing it. Don't leave me to design the goals of the game and then complain you didn't have any input in them!
Best campaign I have ever played in had numerous PC's actively engaged in various goals. We made the DM's job extremely easy because we were always bumbling into one hornets nest or another. All he had to do was worry about continuity and provide the NPC's we were trying to foil/foist/destroy. I don't think he places a single plot hook in the last year of the campaign... {4+ year game played at least once a month...}
On the flip side one of the best games I ever ran was basically prescripted... the Agency wanted a Corporate War and enticed a PC to run a virtual maze to start it. The player didn't put it all together until the following day... a great example of railroading being good!
{seriously advanced the plot, was all in character and did not involve thwarting the PC's actions}
Of course, I also have the horror stories of railroads gone bad... like that one 'Magic Bank' that was impenetrable.... {it wasn't really, altho once proven it was mildly funny how the entire high level town guard shows up in less than a minute.. fully kitted out and aware of how many Thieves there are... and where they are...
}Anyway, I'm over it
