Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil?

[Mark]

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.

Looking back on it he had a valid point, maybe not for the way the group was used to playing, but valid nonetheless. As time has gone on I've found fewer and fewer players who take charge of the game and work to accomplish their characters objectives. The majority of the players want the adventure dropped in their lap. This in my opinion makes the situation extremely ripe for railroading.

Begin Rant

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.

End of Rant

Anyway... my point is that on this board railroading is a bad word and DMs who appear to railroad their players are sometimes accused of being bad DMs. To the other DMs who occasionally have to railroad:

I feel you pain brother... I feel your pain.

What you describe is not railroading. When players need and want direction, it is not railroading. Railroading is when the DM puts players on a single track toward the DM's chosen destination when the players would wish to choose otherwise.

 

[Marshal Lucky]

As DM your job is to take the PCs on an adventure.

Wrong. The DM provides the setting, friends, foes, etc; and makes sure the rules are enforced. The DM is essentially in the same position as the commissioner of the NFL, NBA or MLB. He sets out the rules and arranges the game. Although the DM usually controls one of the "teams", he DOES NOT tell the teams which plays they have to call and he sure as hell doesn't "fudge" (i.e. cheat) to cause a certain outcome. That's the equivalent of pro wrestling, which also has scripted encounters rigged action and fixed outcomes. Just as pro wrestling isn't a sport but a clown act, railroading isn't gaming, but also a clown act. The point to a game is that the play and actions are variable, and that there is some kind of contest. Railroading turns a game into something that is not a game anymore. Would you watch a sport on TV if you knew the fix was in? Would you ante up at a card table if you knew the dealer had a "story" where X happens no matter what?

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?

It is not possible for a game to have a "story" unless it's fixed. At that point it isn't a game, now is it?

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?

Because railroading means you're no longer playing a game. An NBA referee in under investigation by the FBI for point shaving (cheating to make sure a game fits a predetermined outcome) and tampering with basketball games in other ways. Would you buy tickets to a game if you even had reason to believe the fix was in?

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?

If the players at a blackjack table think that every hand they play matters, does it make a difference if the dealer was using a stacked deck against them and had already decided who was going to win and lose?

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

Nice straw man.

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?

So as long as point shaving is kept secret, sports fans have no business complaining if the games they invested time and money in were rigged, right?

 

[rounser]

I think you're stretching things semantically to the point where, by your definition, it's railroading for the DM to run a D&D game, period, because, hey, what if the player really wants to play Scrabble?

Erm...I'm not sure what you're thinking - I think you've got my argument almost exactly back-to-front.

I'm saying that if even the inclusion of combat in a D&D game is enough to prevent accusations of railroading, then that's a nonsense definition of the term. Every "normal" D&D game that isn't about political intrigue at a fancy dress ball or the like will include combat, so it's tantamount to saying that railroading in D&D doesn't exist. I don't agree with that at all.

 

[buzz]

You are missing the point. "From a player perspective" in my example, he has plenty of choices.

Only if I, as a player, am unaware, i.e., have successfully been duped by the DM into thinking my input matters. My point above was from the perspective of a player who is aware that my freedom of choice is an illusion. This has happened to me before, and it really spoils my enjoyment of the game.

Now, I suppose you could make a point about this being my GM's fault for not being good enough to keep me in the dark. But, honestly, is this really the kind of relationship you want the group's fun to be based upon? A lie?

And, might it not be even more fun for the DM/GM if they too have no idea how a scenario is going to end? Isn't that the whole point of bringing a group of people to the table and using the rules (e.g., rolling dice) in the first place? So we can surprise ourselves with what we end up creating? Isn't that why we're playing an RPG instead of watching a movie, or writing a book?

 

[buzz]

I'm saying that if even the inclusion of combat in a D&D game is enough to prevent accusations of railroading, then that's a nonsense definition of the term. Every "normal" D&D game that isn't about political intrigue at a fancy dress ball or the like will include combat, so it's tantamount to saying that railroading in D&D doesn't exist. I don't agree with that at all.

I think the point LostSoul was making was that, even in your example of an ambush that the PCs "can't avoid," the players are still the ones who will determine the outcome... assuming the DM isn't going to fudge things in order to insure the PCs win or lose, regardless of what they do, of course.

This harkens back to an earlier point that it's not railroading to present an encounter that has to be deal with. Presenting encounters, i.e., situations, is the DM's job. What's more important is whether the outcome has been predetermined, as well as the larger context of the encounter.

The issue is the illusion of choice. A dungeon that consists of a single 100' corridor, monster encounters every 25' feet, and the Golden MacGuffin at the end is not railroading. Sure, it's not particularly interesting scenario design, but there's no deception involved. There's just a very obvious goal and path toward it. Railroading is only an issue if the DM made it look like there were other ways to reach the goal when really there were not, or else insured that the PCs would or would not reach the MacGuffin no matter what happened.

 

[buzz]

I agree with buzz.

(I should put that in my sig. )

I'll put that in mine.

 

[buzz]

When players need and want direction, it is not railroading. Railroading is when the DM puts players on a single track toward the DM's chosen destination when the players would wish to choose otherwise.

Another great definition! In fact, this may point to a useful distinction between railroading and the "illusion of choice" issue. I.e., "railroading" is when the players are acutely aware that, yes, they have no say in what's going to happen.

 

[Glyfair]

Now, I suppose you could make a point about this being my GM's fault for not being good enough to keep me in the dark. But, honestly, is this really the kind of relationship you want the group's fun to be based upon? A lie?

My preferred "relationship" would have the DM making the experience as fun as possible for all involved (which isn't necessarily "the most fun at the moment"). If I play an adventure that felt that I was complete control and I wasn't, I have as much fun as if I am in complete control.

And, might it not be even more fun for the DM/GM if they too have no idea how a scenario is going to end?

Depends on the DM. I've met a few who base their enjoyment mostly on how enjoyable the game was for their players. I've met a few who prefer to have control over much of the outcome.

Isn't that the whole point of bringing a group of people to the table and using the rules (e.g., rolling dice) in the first place? So we can surprise ourselves with what we end up creating? Isn't that why we're playing an RPG instead of watching a movie, or writing a book?

For the most part yes. I don't really think that's the "absolute" reason we do this.

In practice however, we are talking about an element of the game. Such "railroading" isn't going to involve the whole adventure. A few DMs might try to, but they aren't going to be able to pull off the feel of giving players choice for a whole game, or even just a session.

Look at my example of the DM who gives his players the mystery of finding the villains lair. Whichever path they take will lead to the lair, but "story" the players are creating will still be different based on their paths. Once they get there the outcome is still determined by their actions. What they have to combat the villain likely varies based on which path they take.

Now we have a major element of the story that is a "railroad." However, the player's choices are significant to the feel of the game, and might even have direct effect on the outcome of the adventure.

 

[Felix]

Although the DM usually controls one of the "teams", he DOES NOT tell the teams which plays they have to call

You had said something about a strawman? Perhaps you refer to my T-intersection metaphor? Where the DM controls the environment and the PCs must react? How is that telling the PCs what they have to do?

If the DM controls how his team will react, would you mind telling me how the players will know what the DM's team would have done differently had they chosen differently? What is the difference in game experience for the players?

and he sure as hell doesn't "fudge" (i.e. cheat) to cause a certain outcome.

Oh. Huh. My DMG must have left out that page. Would you mind citing it for me?

railroading isn't gaming, but also a clown act.

Oh, you mean BADWRONGFUN. Right, right. Is there anyone besides yourself who knows you hold the divining rod to what is Real Gaming(tm) and what isn't? You should call WotC.

It is not possible for a game to have a "story" unless it's fixed. At that point it isn't a game, now is it?

Yeah. Because stories with villains that have certain goals... like a goal to bring the world under the domination of undead, I don't know, Centipedes for an age... that's not real gaming. It's not possible.

I mean, how stupid would a linear story line and adventure hook after adventure hook keeping you on task to make sure that you avert the coming of the undead Age of Centipedes be? Who would play that? Pfft.

Because railroading means you're no longer playing a game.

Some people think it does.

If the players at a blackjack table think that every hand they play matters, does it make a difference if the dealer was using a stacked deck against them and had already decided who was going to win and lose?

The players would not know the difference based only on play experience, no. Suckers walk away from Three-Card-Monty games thinking that they were beaten because the dealer's hands were quick. To them it didn't matter that the fix was in: they thought they were playing a straight-up game, and their experience was of a game where they had full control of things. Do you suggest that simply because someone loses at a game of cards, they'll be justified in crying foul? Because if all it took was to lose to know that you had been set up, then nobody would deal card games because if the dealer won, they'd be branded a cheater.

Kinda like how you're branding every DM who conducts clown acts, blights the game in general, and viciously deceives his not-playing-a-gamers into thinking they're having a good time. I imagine with being that busy running not-a-game, he'd be hard put to find the time to twirl his mustache.

Nice straw man.

You suggest you didn't do this? You didn't propose an example of railroading (1); you didn't quickly follow that showing how that railroading ruined the game (2); you didn't conclude your argument with a generalized theory based on one specific example (3)?

Let's dig more closely shall we? Here's what I said you did:

Here is an example of bad DMing. (1) It is railroading. (2) Therefore all railroading is bad. (3)​

Right. Now here was your proffered argument:

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. (1) 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. (2)

Railroading is a symptom of poor DMing, period. (3)​

So... strawman?

So as long as point shaving is kept secret, sports fans have no business complaining if the games they invested time and money in were rigged, right?

When you watch WWE, do you see empty seats?

I'm still waiting for your explanation of how railroading is a blight on the game and, heh, "not real gaming" but only a clown act when the only thing you can support that with is your misdirected passion. You don't like railroading in your games? Ok. Go nuts playing "real games" over there. But you have some damn inconsideration to come into my game and tell me I'm ruining the game and staging a clown act. Who do you think you are?

 

[buzz]

My preferred "relationship" would have the DM making the experience as fun as possible for all involved...

Understood, but I like it even better when the fun isn't the sole responsibility of one person. I love it when anyone at the table can surprise the group with their contributions and send the night's play into unexpected directions. It's really difficult for this to happen when the DM is insuring that their chosen outcome will prevail.

It's entirely possible that this may not bug some people. FWIW, I know that I am not one of them.