Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil?

[Scribble]

Railroading seems to get too much of a bad rap on this board. Sometimes I believe it is necessary depending on the players.

Example: Waaaay back in the day when Mage: The Ascension first came out I ran a session for my group. Now this group had played Vampire before in Sandbox style so generally all I had to do as a Storyteller was sit back and react to what the players did. We had one player though who unfortunately played his Mage as he figured would be normal. He had his character come home from work, pop a frozen dinner in the microwave, then sit down to watch Seinfeld. I reacted in a fashion I thought was appropriate... nothing happened. In my view if you don't go looking for trouble typically trouble won't find you. After the game he started ranting how bored he was. He said he was waiting for ME to do something.

I don't consider this a case of railroad vrs not railroad...

I consider this, like your friend, boring...

Not railroading doesn't imply nothing to do. It just implies not forcing something on someone.

Here's how I see the difference:

Non Railroad 1st game:

DM: Ok, so you're in your apartment after a hard day of work. It's pretty much a normal day for you so far. What do you do?

Player: Well, uh, I guess I defrosta microwave dinner...

DM: As you're pulling out said dinner, you hear a small swish sound, as a small folded piece of paper slides under your doorway.

Player: I pick it up.

DM: It's a note inviting you to meet someone by the name of Mr Capalini at a small resturaunt north of your apartment.

*****

Railroaded Version

After coming home from your regular day, you receive a note inviting you to meet a Mr Capalini at a small resturaunt north of your place. You grab your gear, head to the resturant, only to be ambushed by several large men with pipes...

The difference in my eyes is the moment that forces your player to think: Uhh wait, I do?

True, he might just go along with it simply because thats the adventure the DM wrote and he knows it... But the point is that he gets to do so in a way that might better prepare him for a possible ambush...

 

[robberbaron]

What I think of as railroading is something I don't want to do.
I mean, steering the party from encounter to encounter without giving them any options.

Over the years I have planted plot hooks in their path - some they have taken, some they haven't. Some they have given up halfway through and gone to do something else.
Fine. I just take that encounter set and use it later. No biggie.

For my current campaign, after a hiatus of several months (to get back the enthusiasm for running the game that I had lost a while back) I told the players that, for it to work, I would need to rely on their cooperation.
Unspoken = if you screw me around with this I'm out of the DM chair.

Now I have an evil party (well, CN through LE to CE) who are out to save the world.
Actually, not so mad as you might think. After all, if the world is destroyed where are they going to live?

My campaign is a railroad, with scheduled stops but, at least for the present, they can get off wherever they like and stretch their legs.

 

[Glyfair]

During one game, after dropping plenty of hints that the adventure was out in the swamp, and the players showing no sign of leaving the city, I simply said "if you want to do something in the city, we'll simply have to adjourn until next week".

In addition to the many good points here, one thing to remember is that the type of game matters. If I'm running a one-off adventure in a public place, it almost certainly isn't going to be a "sandbox" type game. If you wander off into areas that would not reasonably be expected, than I would likely just shut the game down to prepare for the next week (assuming I'm willing to have a "sandbox" type game). If there is no next week, the game is over.

In one game I ran the players ended up forcing themselves into a position where they were arrested and taken to prison within the first 20 minutes of the game. It's pretty tough to have a reasonable prison break scenario, or run through the legal system scenario, off-the-cuff. Usually when it's done it has been very unsatisfying, unless the DM has done so before in that area.

As usual, the key is to know the group and the situation. If you are a player who prefers a "sandbox" type experience, and the rest of the group doesn't, then you should realize you won't get the freedom you want and decide whether to continue with the group. It's silly to rail about them "playing the game wrong."

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Railroading is probably a bad term that is being used in a blanketed way. But at the same time the topic is a pretty good one.

Sandbox games are not for everyone. I had players who griped and complained that they wanted a sandbox supers game. I reluctantly agreed. It was a mess. We adjourned after a few sessions and I came back and did things differently in a more traditional style. That told me that the group wanted all this freedom but they did not have the spontaneous creativity that would make for a good game.

So we should not confuse the need for serious direction with railroading.

When I have a game ready for game night - whether it be a dungeon, a superhero fight, a Call of Cthulhu mystery, etc., there is a certain amount of understanding that the characters/players will go ahead and do that. I prepped all week for something specific. If they suddenly decide not to do that I either have to create something on the fly (which may or may not be easy), adjorn until next week, or trick them into doing the prepped adevnture.

 

[Thurbane]

In my practical experience, it's almost impossible to run a coherent campaign without some railroading...

 

[rounser]

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".

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.

I disagree. IMO, that's not railroading, that's just consequences. If the adventurers don't want to adventure some current event, that doesn't mean that the consequences of ignoring it just cease to exist. There's just an opportunity cost which they've paid, which has consequences they must live with. Player choice has had meaningful impact on the direction of the campaign; ergo, railroading has not occurred here.

An obvious way in which you can improve on this scenario is by having more than one hook available, and only limited time to complete the quests, such that by pursuing one, the opportunity to do the other is lost. That way, the player decision is even more meaningful and important, and directive of the campaign's flow.

Pretending that everything can be considered railroading is a good screen to hide behind if you're a serial railroader I suppose, because it encourages the idea of not even trying to give the players any control, but it's a bit intellectually dishonest IMO.

 

[Janx]

I disagree. IMO, that's not railroading, that's just consequences. If the adventurers don't want to adventure some current event, that doesn't mean that the consequences of ignoring it just cease to exist. There's just an opportunity cost which they've paid, which has consequences they must live with. Player choice has had meaningful impact on the direction of the campaign; ergo, railroading has not occurred here.

An obvious way in which you can improve on this scenario is by having more than one hook available, and only limited time to complete the quests, such that by pursuing one, the opportunity to do the other is lost. That way, the player decision is even more meaningful and important, and directive of the campaign's flow.

Pretending that everything can be considered railroading is a good screen to hide behind if you're a serial railroader I suppose, because it encourages the idea of not even trying to give the players any control, but it's a bit intellectually dishonest IMO.

I agree with the first 2 paragraphs in particular. Computer RPGs tend tend to suffer from problem that if you don't take on the quest and rat-kill for 3 real time months, the quest is still waiting for you, and the villain hasn't made any headway. This is a prime example of not enforcing consequences for NON action.

This in turn is where I disagree with the 3rd paragraph. I think it is PLAYERS who cry "Railroading!" when the GM enforces consequences for players actions and inactivity. Just because the PC didn't want to kill the dragon, doesn't mean the dragon sits around waiting for them to come kill it.


The fact is, the GM is responsible for all interesting events in the game. If a PC sits around the house, the DM chooses to make something happen or not. If the PC goes a pub and tries to start a fight, the GM chooses to have the patrons react violently or not. If the PCs choose to NOT pursue a plothook, the GM chooses what consequences happen.

Because of this, the PCs are always under the influence of the GM's events. If the GM is a good one, the things that happen to the PCs in both challenging and entertaining.

 

[Storminator]

What I think of as railroading is something I don't want to do.

Cue the irony music!

PS

 

[marune]

I disagree. IMO, that's not railroading, that's just consequences. If the adventurers don't want to adventure some current event, that doesn't mean that the consequences of ignoring it just cease to exist. There's just an opportunity cost which they've paid, which has consequences they must live with. Player choice has had meaningful impact on the direction of the campaign; ergo, railroading has not occurred here.

Problem with D&D and "dealing with consequences" : If the players don't catch a specific hook, they'll grab the next and get to the next level anyway (or the DM says "campaign over"). D&D is not about making difficult choices, it's about overcoming challenges.

Of course you can cross your fingers and hope the flavor you added to it will get the players attention, but it's nothing more than wishfull thinking.

Some RPGs are about making difficult choices, give them a try

CRPGs have a very limited set of available hooks and/or different possible challenges for one of them, that's why we feel railroaded playing them.

 

[Atavar]

I am reminded of a line I heard from the movie JFK (paraphrasing here):

"Can a traitor ever be a hero? No, because if he truly is a hero then we wouldn't call him a traitor."

My point?

Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil? Yes...but when done correctly, it isn't railroading. I think it's a matter of degrees.... If you make all (or most) the decisions for the PC's, or if you make it clear that the PC's choices make little or no difference in the outcome, then you are railroading, and badly so.

If, on the other hand, you can...encourage...your PC's to make decisions that will make the game more fun for everyone, but do it in a way that the players feel that they never lost their ability to choose, then one COULD argue that you are railroading...but if they never see the train coming (and even afterward never knew a train was anywhere near them), then ignorance is bliss, I say.

Finally, I am also reminded of a Dork Tower comic from an issue of Dragon a while back. The players had to choose one of two doors to go through. The DM built an awesome encounter behind, say, the right door, and the left door went safely past the encounter. The players, knowing that one door was dangerous and the other safe, randomly picked the left, safe door. The DM, unknown to them, arbitrarily changed which door was which, and they ended up having their cool encounter anyway. The players were none the wiser.

Railroading? Definitely. But the players never knew and still had fun anyway.

Ah, bliss.....

Take care,

Atavar