Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil?

[Remathilis]

The problem with rail roading becomes much worse when a DM has a linear plot rather than a nonlinear. If events MUST happen in a specific order without a chance of deviation, then you're railroading. If PC choice MUST be limited because "it will mess up the story" that is railroading. When a certain PC or NPC is immune to death (fudging rolls, etc) because he's needed for the story, THAT is railroading. If a specific character MUST die for the story to work (and the PCs must be powerless to stop it) that is also railroading.

Railroading must feel like no matter whether the PCs succeed or fail (or how they succeed or fail) the ending is predetermined and thus PC actions weren't truly important.

 

[marune]

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.

The solution would have been simple enough, only have one door. If there isn't a real choice, why fake one ?

However, there is worse, a real choice (one good door, one bad door) without any way for the PCs to get an hint on which is good/bad.

 

[marune]

If PC choice MUST be limited because "it will mess up the story" that is railroading.

The players have the right to start follow an hook than change their mind. The DM has the right to call the night off

I.E. If the players are not jerks, they will help the DM know in which directions they will go and don't change randomly to make his prep useless. Of course it can happens a time or two over a long campaign.

 

[Oryan77]

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.

Well, I still don't see how it's not railroading. The railroad comes into play due to the fact that the DM wants the players to fight the dragon, not just necessarily when or where they fight the dragon. If the players didn't want to fight the dragon the first time and they are willing to lose out on treasure, then how is it not railroading if the dragon suddenly appears outside and is flying head-on in the PCs path?

Sure, the DM didn't railroad them into fighting the dragon the first time, but he railroaded them into fighting the dragon later on....it's no different. I personally don't see it wrong being handled either way (if the group is in agreement for that style of play), but the DM is still railroading his players into doing what he wants them to do...which is what railroading means to me.

Pretending that everything can be considered railroading is a good screen to hide behind if you're a serial railroader I suppose

If calling me a serial railroader makes you feel like you're a better DM, then I'm glad I helped in boosting your ego. But I'm not hiding behind any screen or pretending in order to make myself feel better...I'm just trying to point out how the term 'railroading' isn't necessarily a bad term.

 

[Gez]

I just DMed something extremely railroaded. Giant metaphysical unnatural dungeon, very tedious, inhumanly linear. No crossing, no curve, no decoration -- just a plunging corridor going on and on for countless miles, leading from the surface to the utter nothingness below even the nether planes. Heh.

It was the conclusion of a story arc that lasted far too long already, and they knew what they were getting into long beforehand. The characters completely destroyed their knees and will need a physical therapist to get rid of the pain in their legs (for those who don't know, it's very harmful to walk too long downward a steep slope, climbing it is less damageable to your joints), but they got rid of the Evil McGuffin of Doom and they got to see, at the end of the tunnel, a quite impressive vista.

 

[buzz]

If the player isn't going to be an active participant in what happens to his character then I as the DM must do all the work to come up with an objective and story to deliver to the player. If they choose not to bite the plot hook that I've created but then still expect me to drop the adventure into their lap then I feel totally justified in railroading their characters into the situation. I'll drag them kicking and screaming if I have to... I invest too much into my games to see the work wasted.

I'm having a hard time parsing your post, and part of the reason, I think, is that there are some assumptions built into it that are confounding me.

First off, the play example you provided doesn't really seem relevant to the issue at hand. You and the player were obviously on different pages about how the game was supposed to work. Both of you were expecting the other one to initiate action to which they could react. That it ended up being un-fun is no surprise.

The second thing that's flummoxing me, in both your posts and others, is that it doesn't feel like anyone is talking to each other pre-game.

Any campaign or game I start begins with the group talking about what we're going to play, what kinds of PCs everyone would like to create, and what pre-existing hooks exist. I.e., we all know that we'll be playing Eyes of the Lich Queen, that it starts in nation X, and we have some idea of why the party is together to begin with. Ergo, when we start the first session, nobody is sitting around waiting for something to happen. We all know we're here to play.

And, even given the linear plots in most published adventures, I'm not "railroading" the players to make specific choices. Nobody is dickweed enough to just have their PC up and leave the party to run a tea shoppe in Korranberg. They know there's an overarching "mission," but I am not going to dictate how they accomplish it.

Even if we're talking about more free-form play, I don't see any need to force players down certain paths or remove their ability to make meaningful choices for their PCs. I mean, that's what "railroading" is, as I understand it; you might as well just read them a story.

Let's look at your example again.

It is not your job, as GM, to sit there and get pissed that the player is not actively pursuing their PC's agendas or putting all your prep work to waste. The players do not exist to justify your prep (and vice-versa). Not to mention, many RPGs don't ever ask the player to define goals or agendas as part of chargen. Ergo, your player may very well be sitting there knowing what their PC can do, but have no idea what drives them to do it.

Your job is to create adversity. Conflict drives good play, IMO.

So, when that player, for lack of any ideas as to what he was supposed to do, had their PC go home and make dinner, it was indeed your job kick them into action. Ideally, there's some sort of hook on the PC's character sheet; say, a rivalry with another mage or whatever. Ergo, as soon as the PC sits down to eat their Hungry Man, you have their door burst open, their rival rush in, covered with blood and missing an arm, and have the rival say, "YOU! I KNOW YOU HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS! PREPARE TO DIE!"

As long as you don't dictate how this is all going to end, YOU ARE NOT RAILROADING. You're just doing your job as GM. You're framing a scene that demands the player make a decision. This is the GM's bread and butter.

Okay...

It's certainly true that some players prefer a very laid-back style of play. They want to enjoy a story more than create one. They want to sit back and have the GM drive things forward, only making a few key rolls, or maybe only getting active when combat happens.

Now, if you don't really like this, guess what? DON'T PLAY WITH THESE PEOPLE. You're never going to be happy, because your priorities are just too far out of line with theirs.

So, to sum up, "railroading" in the common sense, is, IMO, completely unnecessary.

 

[LostSoul]

Railroading is difficult to discuss because people have their own definitions for it. Sometimes it means a linear adventure. Sometimes it means that the GM dictates the plot or story.

I like to think of it as one player taking away someone else's ability to make meaningful choices.

What meaningful choices are will vary from player to player, from group to group, and even from campaign to campaign, so one man's railroad is another's train to adventure!

 

[rounser]

Well, I still don't see how it's not railroading.

IMO, it's not railroading at the "what adventure's next" level because the players have decided to ignore an entire dungeon's worth of adventure. That was their decision, and it has important consequences. The players had a choice, but if the campaign world is such that the dragon was always going to come after them (which is screwy if you ask me, and bad DMing in itself), then that's as immutable as running into a city at a location that the DM has arbitrarily decided it exists.

So yes - the dragon coming after the PCs is probably unrealistic, bad DMing which compromises player choice, but the fact that the PCs got to ignore the hook for the next adventure suggests that it's probably not railroading in the "the next adventure is X, you don't have a choice" sense. Expanding that definition to include anything in the campaign world happening which the players don't like is a stretch, else putting mountains in some location where the PCs wish they weren't is railroading, and that's a useless scope for the term.

So to summarise: Railroading by my "PCs choose the hook" definition? No. Bad DMing anyway? Quite possibly.

 

[buzz]

I like to think of it as one player taking away someone else's ability to make meaningful choices.

I think this is definitely the most useful definition.

 

[rounser]

I think this is definitely the most useful definition.

It's open to misinterpretation, though. For example - the PCs get jumped by assassins and thieves in the inn they're staying at. They have no choice in the matter; it just happens. IMO this isn't railroading, but by your definition it is.

Say the assassins fail, but the thieves steal the mcguffin from the PCs. Whether or not the PCs have a choice in pursuing is where the point of potential railroading happens, because there's clearly an opportunity for meaningful choice presented there in the form of an adventure hook, and the DM can potentially take it away in some sort of metagamey way ("you guys should really get after them, or the world will end"...or, "that's all I've prepared"....or, "oh yeah, and they took the paladin's sword and your spellbook too, so you really should get after them.").

That's why I go for the rather narrower definition of railroading as something like "presenting adventure hooks that cannot be rejected", or even, "presenting a campaign arc which has no opportunity for meaningful player choice with regard to it's direction" (e.g. an adventure path where no matter what the PCs do or choose, the next adventure is the next adventure in the path. The campaign's on rails...or a path with no forks, if you prefer). These are open to hair-splitting, but that's the nature of the term - the distinction isn't a black and white one.

Neither is railroading necessarily bad. If everyone's bought a Savage Tide ticket and gets on the train willingly and, knowing the nature of the beast, just follows where their nose is being led, there's no bad wrong fun there. Would it be better if there were less railroading? Probably...but that's a luxury which couldn't be afforded as written.