Is railroading sometimes a necessary evil?

[Thornir Alekeg]

Railroading as Crothian describes is not bad, as long as everyone agreed to get on board.

IMO, there is what I refer to as Extreme Railroading. Extreme Railroading is when the players are strapped into their seats on the train and can do little but watch the scenery pass. An example of this would be if the players try to negotiate with an NPC rather than fight them. The GM doesn't want to have to consider how the NPC might react, so he just attacks them anyway, despite the PCs making a good effort and persuasive arguement.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm not an entertainment center. If I don't feel like ad-libbing, and don't see a chance to get the adventure back on track (especially if I feel like players are willfully ignoring plot hooks), then I eventually decide maybe they really don't feel like playing.

I've been told this is railroading on my part. I told the young man who said this to me "no, I'm not saying you have to leave the city, I'm saying if you want an urban adventure come back next week".

You hit the nail on the head!!!

 

[Umbran]

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.

Well, there's a few questions I have to ask with reference to this...

1) Before the game start, did you ask the player if the character had any objectives? As described, the issue may be less with him failing to take charge, as of having no agenda that needed shepherding. If you want self-motivated characters, you ought to specify that before the game starts.

2) Whatever the answer to the above, did you inform the player/character of set pieces in the world with which he could/should/might interact? If not, the issue may have been that the player saw little difference between wandering around at random looking for trouble, and sitting at home waiting for it ('cause home is as likely a place for it to show up as anywhere else, all things considered). If you want characters who interact with the world, you have to give them compelling things in the world with which to interact.

That being said - railroading is a tool. If it is your only tool, then as a GM you have a hammer, and you hope to heck all your problems are nails. For some groups, everything is a nail, and railroads can be a lot of fun. For other groups, you have folks who need the occasional socket wrenches and left-handed hydro-spanners, and you'll need other tools in the box.

 

[TerraDave]

Agree with:

-You may really be talking about plot hooks. And these are needed.

-Its ok to "rail road" by steering players from one adventure to another and using cut scenes.

-I am not an entertainment center!

And

-Players should be willing to "go along" with the GMs strategic choices--adventure in White Plume Mountain--and this is where those plot hooks come in.

-Players should have lots of tactical choices, which a sandbox type game may actually inhibit, if it leaves the GM making up some bland, er, sandcastles.

 

[painandgreed]

I'd say yes, but I define "railroading" as a bad thing. Providing an plot hook or adventure path is not railroading. It becomes railroading when the players want to get off and they are not allowed to for no good reason other than the DM has already decided what is going to happen. Especially when no character action can affect the outcome. I usually use the term railroading when the game has become the players just sitting back and watching the scenry go by. They see the things going on around them but can't actually interact with them in any meaningful way. Often as not, it is in the players favor as although the players are still rolling dice the outcome is not in doubt no matter what they do or how badly they do it.

On to the character that doesn't do anything so nothing happens to them. Sometimes, players just need to admit that they have created a decent character that they like, but one who has no reason to leave the house. Such characters don't do very well and the player should just roll up another. However, soemtimes in sandbox play this seems to happen, but the GM must learn to deal with it. If there is nothing happening, then there is nothing that really needs to be RPed. Simply skip over the character till they become involved or say, "two weeks later" and provide them the new news or event that will drag them in. Definatly, plot hooks need to be provided. Although it may be a sandbox type game, players are not actually living that life and will be unaware of much of the rumors, small talk, news, that the character is aware of. They need to be condenced into plot hooks and simply told to the players. Metagaming needs to happen simply because the players haven't sat around a campfire eveynight night talking to eachother for the past four months like the characters have.

 

[Eric Tolle]

AFAIC, railroading is only one way to deal with passive players, and frankly, one of the crudest. A more sophisticated method is to make sure that the players want to go someplace you find interesting before the game even starts, by having described motivations and goals. Someone who has the goal "Become the greatest swordsman ever, and find the man who murdered my father" is going to be much less likely to sit around on the couch than a person with no goal.

I also use Kickers and Bangs, which may be the only good thing to come out of the indie game movement. Briefly, Kickers are events that take place right before the opening of a game, that change a character's life: ex, right before the game starts, the character comes home to find his wife missing, his house splattered with blood, and police are pullign up outside. Bangs are events in game that force characters to make choices that may alter the path of a game: the demon hunter's former lover and current antagonist shows up saying that his organization is deceiving him.

Between the two, I've never had a problem motivating characters- though it really helps if there isn't an established plot, where Y has to follow X. I prefer a situation where the antagonists have their goals they pursue, and reactnaturally to the actions of the characters.

 

[Korgoth]

Any DM can only have a finite amount of "game space" defined. If the players hear about the Plague Wastes and want to traverse the entire campaign map because they've decided they need to go there (chance of this approaches 100% as you fill in more and more details of your map besides the Plague Wastes)... well, you're just not ready for that. If you detail the whole kingdom, they may up and decide to go to a different one.

In those cases, I suggest a "metagame" discussion. Like, "Guys, I'm not ready for you to go there yet." That's all... but some people treat it like it's a sin! So they have to come up with some convoluted explanation: "An invulnerable UltraKraken is destroying all the ships headed for that kingdom! And it's hit by a plague! And the king forbids travel there!", etc. Why go through all that? If you need them to continue exploring this kingdom, just say so. The DM is only human, and probably has other things in his life besides just crafting this world (at least, I hope he does). And the players are responsible for not deliberately sabotaging the DM. Never tell the DM "Give me a reason to adventure!" If you didn't make a character who has a reason to go adventuring, shame on you.

But "railroading" is never OK in my book. What I consider railroading is when the DM already decides how you're going to solve the adventure, or that you have to go to a particular set piece. If the DM forces characters along the particular lines of a pre-scripted plot, there's no point in having a game. "No, you're supposed to betray Duke Blackraven!" "No, you can't help the people trying to oust the king!" "No, you can't sneak into the fortress, you're supposed to fight your way in and be outnumbered so that Mari-Su UberLeetPwnMastor the NPC can come in and save you! I have it all planned out!" Not cool.

 

[Desdichado]

It's not even evil. At certain times in every campaign a little bit of railroading is appropriate. Especially at the beginning when the players don't usually have a strong enough grasp of their characters and their place in the setting to really start taking charge of events.

But anytime the players are kinda stumped; sitting around trying to figure out what to do, a bit of subtle railroading usually gets things moving along nicely again.

 

[Janx]

As in most of these discussions, a lot of good points about what is/is not railroading, as well as points on valid use of DM guiding.

I use the following meta-game rules of thumb, which hopefully avoid true railroading, yet encourage players to work together towards having an adventure:

Never write an encounter where the NPCs will do something, write it so it says they will TRY to do something. The difference is the word 'try' means they might not succeed. The other version gets the DM into the mindset that he must cheat to make it happen, should the PCs come up with a viable solution

Always plan on several solutions to any encounter/problem. The following are common solutions that should be anticipated: PCs flee, PCs fight and win, PCs fight and lose, PCs surrender, PCs negotiate. There's more possibilities, but the DM should not expect only one possible outcome.

Always have a few random encounter/events for idle times. If the PC sits around in his house (or they argue about treasure in a dungeon corridor), have something prepared to instigate action. This is the trouble finds them, solution.

If you plan on the "adventure in the swamp" and the PCs decide to stay in town (and wonder why nothing extra interesting happens), tell the players that you don't have anything extra prepared for that area, and you'll have to stop the game to prepare. You should also mention that you do have material prepared for areas they have gotten several plothooks for. This is the "The DM is not a World Simulation Machine" solution.

Players should work to involve others in the storyline/scene (if appropriate). That means, when PC1 discovers a sinister plot surrounding his mentor, he should call up PC2 who is sitting at home watching TV and ask for his help. To do otherwise leaves a player out of the story.

Players should select a plothook and follow it. They should not expect the game to get interesting if they pass up every plothook. They may have to rationalize why their PC would get involved. To do otherwise will cause the game to get stuck, and not move.

Players should propose active goals their PC wants to pursue at the end of the game session, so the GM can incorporate it into future sessions. If they don't have any active goals, they should help out with someone else's, or be willing to pick up a plothook.



These rules of thumb are how my group plays. It means that generally, as players we bite the plothook, for the sake of making sure the game goes forward. Ideally, the GM will make adventures focussed on our characters. However, players have to reciprocate by actively engaging in the adventure the GM has prepared. If either side fails to work toward this, then the game group is going to be in trouble.

 

[GlassJaw]

Railroading is not even always evil. Most adventure paths are rail roads and people love them. I'm playing in Savage Tides right now and running Shackled City and having a great time. But both of them are basically railroads. There is nothing wrong with a rairoad campaign as long as that is what the players want.

For my Shackled City game We play once a week. Everyone has families and jobs and just not a lot of time outside of game. So the railroad campaign works great for them. It limits their choices but they don't mind that since they don't have to waste time they don't have on the choices.

Railroad to me is just another style of gaming. And like many styles it is not easy to play in or to run for everyone.

I usually have players that want to be railroaded. You can tell by their actions...such as when they say, "Just railroad us, dude. That's what we want."

Both of these are great points, although in these cases, I would describe this style of game as linear rather than railroading. In my mind, there is a difference.

I generally view the term "railroading" as a negative term. Railroading is when the players want to have options to choose from yet regardless of what they choose, the DM is going to unveil his story at his pace. That's not fun for the players.

Now, if the players are fully aware that they are going to be playing an Adventure Path campaign, they expect to take the bait when the plot hooks present themselves and the DM should expect the same. I don't consider this railroading.