Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil?

[marune]

Here's another scenario:

A low-level party is approaching the tower of an evil magic-user. The tower is nothing special, nor is the evil magic-user for that matter. But the DM has already made up his mind that they will find a secret entrance and sneak in because he thinks a game should be pre-programmed. The party decides "Screw that! Half of us will scale the tower and attack from above while the rest assaults the main entrance." The DM then starts making one excuse after another as to why the party can't climb the walls or attack the main entrance.

Railroading is a symptom of poor DMing, period.

The problem is not when the DM forces a choice over many uninteresting options (challenge-wise or story-wise) but when the DM don't have the ability to come up with interesting ones.

However, if for some reason, the only interesting way of entering the tower is using the secret door, the DM should not say to the players: "Ok, you are in front of the tower, what you do ?" ! Instead, he can "railroad them" directly inside the tower : "Ok, you sneaked up to the tower, found the secret door the evil-wizard's minion you captured talked about, now will you go in the basement to found this treasure you heard about or go upstairs to kill the madman ?".

That's a very good example of how "good" railroading can really move a game forward instead of spending hours discussing some irrelevant details about how the tower could be climbed.

Of course, in another game session, the main challenge could be to find an entrance in a tower; "good railroading" only gives you a way to skip details you want to skip in a specific part of the game.

 

[Korgoth]

The problem is not when the DM forces a choice over many uninteresting options (challenge-wise or story-wise) but when the DM don't have the ability to come up with interesting ones.

However, if for some reason, the only interesting way of entering the tower is using the secret door, the DM should not say to the players: "Ok, you are in front of the tower, what you do ?" ! Instead, he can "railroad them" directly inside the tower : "Ok, you sneaked up to the tower, found the secret door the evil-wizard's minion you captured talked about, now will you go in the basement to found this treasure you heard about or go upstairs to kill the madman ?".

That's a very good example of how "good" railroading can really move a game forward instead of spending hours discussing some irrelevant details about how the tower could be climbed.

Of course, in another game, the main challenge can be to find an entrance in a tower; "good railroading" only gives you a way to skip details you want to skip in a specific part of the game.

What "other game" are you talking about? D&D is about overcoming challenges, like how to get into the tower (and how to beat the wizard or get his hoard once you do). Railroading is when the DM decides that you're going to go get that wizard, whether you like it or not.

 

[marune]

What "other game" are you talking about? D&D is about overcoming challenges, like how to get into the tower (and how to beat the wizard or get his hoard once you do). Railroading is when the DM decides that you're going to go get that wizard, whether you like it or not.

other game = other game session / module / campaign. I fully agree that D&D is about overcoming challenges, however for each "adventure" the DM and/or the players can choose which parts will be only "narrated/skiped" and which will be actual challenges.

 

[Marshal Lucky]

What "other game" are you talking about? D&D is about overcoming challenges, like how to get into the tower (and how to beat the wizard or get his hoard once you do). Railroading is when the DM decides that you're going to go get that wizard, whether you like it or not.

The clever DM will simply place the tower (from my example), plus other sites, and let PCs work out if and how they want to go at it. Sometimes the planning and preparation are as fun as the assault itself. This not only encourages players to think and improvise (two things that are discouraged in railroad games), but gives the campaign a more natural feel.

For example:

I began a new campaign with the PCs (all 1st level) starting in a small coastal village. I planned the players' map (what their characters would know about -or think they know about). I placed all sorts of monsters and encounters on my map (100 x 100 miles). A pair of hill giants lived in the hills, an annis lived in another stretch of hills, a couple of aquatic ogres lived in the swamp, while a sea hag lurked in a cave by the sea. A wizard's tower guarded by goblins was up in the mountains, and a group of bugbears haunted a ruined castle. A vicious gang of brigands (which I intended to be the party's first opponents) lived in the woods near the village. The party (for reasons I still don't understand) decided to go after the hill giants first! Thanks to their incredible luck (and my incredibly bad attack rolls), the party killed both giants while only losing the cleric's donkey, which was killed by a hurled boulder.

Now in a railroad game, that wouldn't have happened. The party would have been dragged into the woods looking for the brigands. As it turned out, the brigands came looking for them. And if the party had been TPKed (which would have happened if I hadn't rolled so many 1s), they would have learned not to bite off more than they could chew.

The moral to the story is, don't be afraid to improvise and never plan an adventure in too much detail, since no plan survives contact with the enemy. Keep your options open and keep as many of them as possible.

 

[marune]

The clever DM will simply place the tower (from my example), plus other sites, and let PCs work out if and how they want to go at it. Sometimes the planning and preparation are as fun as the assault itself. This not only encourages players to think and improvise (two things that are discouraged in railroad games), but gives the campaign a more natural feel.

For example:

I began a new campaign with the PCs (all 1st level) starting in a small coastal village. I planned the players' map (what their characters would know about -or think they know about). I placed all sorts of monsters and encounters on my map (100 x 100 miles). A pair of hill giants lived in the hills, an annis lived in another stretch of hills, a couple of aquatic ogres lived in the swamp, while a sea hag lurked in a cave by the sea. A wizard's tower guarded by goblins was up in the mountains, and a group of bugbears haunted a ruined castle. A vicious gang of brigands (which I intended to be the party's first opponents) lived in the woods near the village. The party (for reasons I still don't understand) decided to go after the hill giants first! Thanks to their incredible luck (and my incredibly bad attack rolls), the party killed both giants while only losing the cleric's donkey, which was killed by a hurled boulder.

Now in a railroad game, that wouldn't have happened. The party would have been dragged into the woods looking for the brigands. As it turned out, the brigands came looking for them. And if the party had been TPKed (which would have happened if I hadn't rolled so many 1s), they would have learned not to bite off more than they could chew.

The moral to the story is, don't be afraid to improvise and never plan an adventure in too much detail, since no plan survives contact with the enemy. Keep your options open and keep as many of them as possible.

IME, this kind of "sandbox / simulationist" games end because they are boring or because they caused the death of the party.

This "more natural feel" idea is a false idol*, average people work day has a woundrous "natural feel", but nobody care. The DM's job is to offer many interesting plot hooks (any RPG) that are good challenges for the PCs (D&D specific).

*For it's own purpose, of course it can be achieved as a side-effect by adding some flavor over the hook/challenges, like some bit of acting (a.k.a roleplay) with various NPCs and/or narration done by the DM/players.

 

[JustinA]

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.

To me, this isn't a lack of railroading. This is the lack of a plot hook.

If you're failing to provide a plot hook, then you're not giving the player any mechanism for getting their character engaged in the world (beyond the level of microwave dinners and Seinfeld).

If your players are consistently failing to bite at your plot hooks, then there's something wrong with your hooks. If you can't figure out what's wrong, you need to take a step back and have a conversation with your players: Why aren't you biting at these hooks? What types of things would your characters be interested in?

Now, with all that being said, allow me to answer your question: Railroading is never, ever necessary. It is best understood to be a tool. But it's a tool with very limited utility and will generally annoy most players. (A distinct, but notable, minority of players prefer to be railroaded.)

 

[Felix]

I think the examples IMO don't quite do the subject justice. In the third case your choices are also -
--snip--

Metaphor.

The choice of turning right or left in the dungeon is symbolic of the player's choice of what to do. The point was to provide an example where the players both had no way to effect a difference upon the outcome of their decision and be aware of that fact. Was the example deficient to that purpose in some way?

I think this is essentially being dishonest with your players, regardless of whether it saves you work. You're essentially saying to them, even if covertly, that you know better where the game should go than they do. That they may be unaware of what you're doing is not really a reasonable justification, IMO.

Absolutely it's dishonest. You're not behind a DM screen for your health!

As DM your job is to take the PCs on an adventure. If deceiving the players now and again into thinking they have control of the story helps you in that purpose, isn't that a good thing? I agree that as soon as the players are aware that they have no control the railroading has defeated its purpose; but as long as the players remain ignorant, how does railroading adversely affect the game?

If the players think that every decision they make matters, and that everything that has happened is a direct result of what they have done, regarding their gaming experience does it matter that they are completely wrong?

A low-level party is approaching the tower of an evil magic-user. The tower is nothing special, nor is the evil magic-user for that matter. But the DM has already made up his mind that they will find a secret entrance and sneak in because he thinks a game should be pre-programmed. The party decides "Screw that! Half of us will scale the tower and attack from above while the rest assaults the main entrance." The DM then starts making one excuse after another as to why the party can't climb the walls or attack the main entrance.

Railroading is a symptom of poor DMing, period.

"Here is an example of bad DMing. It is railroading. Therefore all railroading is bad." Welcome to the logical fallacy of Converse Accident.

Again: if the purpose of the DM is to provide a good gaming experience, and railroading allows the DM to do so without the players' knowledge, then how has railroading adversely affected the game?

 

[Glyfair]

As DM your job is to take the PCs on an adventure. If deceiving the players now and again into thinking they have control of the story helps you in that purpose, isn't that a good thing? I agree that as soon as the players are aware that they have no control the railroading has defeated its purpose; but as long as the players remain ignorant, how does railroading adversely affect the game?

I agree with this. Why are we at the table? Presumably to have fun. If the players & DM are having fun then who cares whether the choice is illusionary or real?

Sure, there is an issue with this from a game design point-of-view. Many DMs aren't capable of engendering the illusion that there is a choice. So, don't design a professional publication this way, or give excellent tips on creating that illusion.

A lot of time spent discussing game design and adventure design is giving tips on having a more fun game. Sometimes too much emphasis is spent on following those tips and not enough on looking at whether what is being done is creating that fun.

 

[buzz]

I agree with this. Why are we at the table? Presumably to have fun. If the players & DM are having fun then who cares whether the choice is illusionary or real?

For some groups it may not matter. IMO, I think that it's kind of a cheat. "We're all going to collaborate to create a fun adventure story... as far as you know."

From a player perspective, it makes my role seem sort of pointless. I also don't see that it is at all necessary. I would also feel pretty ripped off if a published product basically outlined a big, immovable plot and then advised DMs to not give their players any input, but make it feel otherwise.

That said, I understand that D&D, in particular, is a very prep-heavy game, and one in which the DM pretty much has absolute narrative power anyway. Ergo, it's basic kill-and-loot mode works just peachy even if the players are being led around by the nose.

Nonetheless, I think that avoiding this sort of bait-and-switch technique will result in better gaming. Or, at the very least, be up-front with the players that, yes, there's a big plot here that we're going to follow.

 

[Glyfair]

From a player perspective, it makes my role seem sort of pointless.

You are missing the point. "From a player perspective" in my example, he has plenty of choices. The DM knows that whichever path the player chooses that a particular encounter happens, but the player isn't given a clue that is what is happening.

Clearly this is an art. Take a simple dungeon where you have two paths and you know one is trapped and one isn't. If every time you make a choice you encounter the trap you will suspect that the DM is "railroading". However, if half the time you encounter the trap and half you don't, then you'll never know the the DM decided each time whether the trap would be there.

Obviously in real play it's more complex than this. Maybe the DM created a mystery about where the BBEG's location is. He throws out a number of clues pointing at 3 different locations. The players spend a session or two deciphering the clues and coming up with a logical conclusion. Then, no matter which location they deduced, that's where the BBEG turns out to be. The players get the feeling they solved a mystery as long as the DM doesn't clue them in that no matter where they picked would be correct.