Players: Does anyone else not mind railroading?

[Stalker0]

What I've found is that my players like railroading up to a point.

Generally they prefer that I provide them plot and push them in a general direction. What they don't want is if they do have a particular thing they want to pursue, I go out of the way to stop them.


So basically a railroad where the players choose the pitstops works pretty well.

 

[Doug McCrae]

2) I can ride the rails. This involves a spoiler to the first adventure of WotBS.
[sblock]The first adventure's big crux is: Escape the city to Save the Country. Getting out appears relatively easy. But a hefty amount of the module consists of "But here's a lot of things you COULD do on your way". All my character cared about was getting the hell out, as that was the clear objective, but the rest of the content is "Here's a side mission to save/stop/bla".

I wanted to just jump up and down and say "Can we LEAVE? That's our mission!"[/sblock]

Interesting. There's no point in a sandbox when the PCs have a clear objective, eh?

My current thinking on campaign structure, inspired by The Enemy Within scenario series for WFRP, is that what works for most games is 'narrow-wide-narrow'.

Piratecat has proposed this as a structure for adventures - the start is fixed, the ending (probably a confrontation with the BBEG) is also set, but what happens in between, how the PCs get from opening to denouement, is up to the players.

I think a similar plan works for campaigns. At the start the players don't know anything so they are much more willing to, and indeed should, be led by the GM. Once they hit the middle, the players know enough to make their own decisions, so they can wander about, poking whatever interests them. Eventually though, a decision will be made, about who to ally with, who to thwart, how to go about it and so forth. The identity of the BBEG and/or MacGuffin will become apparent. At that point, the pacing speeds up and the game becomes linear again. The players' course is now easier for the GM to predict - they have a clear objective, they have the weight of past actions upon them, and the personalities of the PCs have been clearly established.

 

[TheNovaLord]

i dont mind it too much

anyone who watches a movie or reads a novel is being rail-roaded

its ok knowing we 'have' to go from A to B to C, as long as we can have fun on the way and add in stops A1, A2, etc along the rails!

 

[Azgulor]

On the surface, I don't mind the occasional railroad. Since I've GM'd far more than I've played, I can appreciate the time a GM spends putting together a storyline. I'm usually far more likely to take obvious plot-bait than people who are exclusively players.

However, the execution of the railroad is almost always so ham-fisted that anything outside what the GM has prepared or anticipated is heavily resisted. Once a plausible course of action has been shot down "just because" or due to some weaksauce excuse, the itch to jump the tracks starts growing.

 

[questing gm]

I never quite understood why people slam railroading as if it's some cardinal sin in gaming or a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Personally, all the great CRPGs I played were the ones that were railroaded rather than the ones that gave you a sandbox and it is something I try to emulate in my games to a certain extent.

Maybe it's the way I was brought with those games but sometimes having no choice in dealing with a situation creates more memorable/dramatic moments than having a freedom to avoid it altogether.

Railroading can also save more time too.

As a DM, you only have to prep what you need to move the narrative forward and your players don't spend too much time wandering aimlessly around the sandbox looking/waiting for the DM to throw them their next plot hook before they get down to business.

Railroading is alright as long as the ride is awesome, in my book.

 

[Windjammer]

The bad rap of railroading entirely stems from occasions when DMs nullify player input without the player's consent. Basically, if the players don't mind the DM to control certain of their PC's decisions and actions, fine.

If you go by this definition, it's fine as a DM to weasel your way out of this issue by hiding the fact to your players that you're nullifying their input. That's frequently referred to as the "illusion of choice".

Neither is good for the game. The first results in a power struggle, the second smacks of dishonesty with sooner or later the risk of hurt feelings cropping up.

A third issue is that for players to not mind rail roaded, the GM's anticipating player choices (and writing the module around such anticipations) ought to make sense for the players and their characters. That is, the GM shouldn't anticipate the players and their PCs making choices which are, all things considered, utterly counter-intuitive.Mary Yamato of the Paizo boards once expressed this best:

While some amount of railroading is necessary to make any [adventure path] work, I do think there are plotlines that take too much of it, and a player can legitimately object to that without demanding that the GM go totally freeform.
If someone threatens the PCs or those they care about, it's perfectly legitimate to expect them to respond. If they accept a job to investigate something, it's perfectly legitimate to expect them to investigate it (and it's generally reasonable to expect them to take job offers, unless the offers are blatantly awful).
It's not so good if the module author gives the PCs evidence that they can't fight something, and then expects them to fight it anyway. Or if the PCs are hired to investigate something, but are expected not to investigate it, or to investigate something else instead. Or if they are expected to abandon the things they care about, or to fight for things they actively dislike, or to take jobs from someone who has previously betrayed them. Or if they are given clues that do not fit the actual solution, so that they can never successfully put the clues together. (I can give a published example for each of these, alas.)

(Source for final quote: Part 1, Part 2.)

 

[Umbran]

So basically a railroad where the players choose the pitstops works pretty well.

I've been thinking that there are two basic forms of railroad that tend to work well:

1) The Piecewise Railroad - the GM uses a railroad to get you from point A to point B, but during the stop at B you get to do what you want, and that will change the next ride - maybe you ride to C in 1st class, or you head to D instead of C based on what happened at B. This GM may or may not have the ultimate final destination determined. For some, this is only questionably a railroad.

2) The train to Awesometown - the GM has figured out what it is you're looking for (through any of a variety of means), or something that you'd really like. However, it may be that you aren't headed in that direction right now, or that you'd not ever choose to go in the direction that makes arrival at Awesometown possible. When it works, you get to spend some time in Awesometown. When this fails, it does fail kind of miserably.

 

[SteveC]

I am onboard with railroading, providing the GM is taking us to an exciting destination, and the scenery along the way is pretty.

I prefer some sort of a hybrid game, where, as others have mentioned, the end and certain setpieces might be stops along the way might be set, but beyond that, you have freedom of movement. Sort of a cruise where you stop at different ports of calls, and have free time for a daytrip.

I've come to this realization after playing a lot of open-ended games when I was younger... sure you might have a fantastic and intricately developed world, but if I don't see the vast majority of it because I'm "going my own way," what's the point in that?

As I get older, I have a lot less time to invest in roleplaying, so less time spent getting to the point, and more doing something genuinely interesting please!

--Steve

 

[Diamond Cross]

Well, as for me I've come to hate being railroaded with a passion.

Msotly it's ebcause of my former friend. When he'd run games he has a clear story he wants to run and if you don't go the path he wants you to go he will kill off your character no matter what.

Basically, his style of DMing is to give the players the illusion of free will and control.

And as for me, I stopped playing games with him a couple of years ago.

So no, I will not support railroading player characters.

But the question is, how do you avoid railroading them?

 

[Azgulor]

Well, as for me I've come to hate being railroaded with a passion.

Msotly it's ebcause of my former friend. When he'd run games he has a clear story he wants to run and if you don't go the path he wants you to go he will kill off your character no matter what.

Basically, his style of DMing is to give the players the illusion of free will and control.

And as for me, I stopped playing games with him a couple of years ago.

So no, I will not support railroading player characters.

But the question is, how do you avoid railroading them?

Here's how I do it. The degree of success varies but overall, it works.

1. Campaign Start: Quiz the players on the type of game they'd like to play. This can be an informal Q&A but in my experience, you get vague answers. Alternatively, you can provide a shopping list of campaign starters or themes. However, unless you have a very clear picture of how you expect the campaign to evolve (like an AP outline level of detail), be sure to acknowledge that not every session will be tied to that starter or theme.

2. Develop Threads: 3-5 threads/plot seeds should have at least a bare-bones outline. I'm talking a paragraph or two or bullet list for each. Plot, key NPCs, and timeline (if any).

3. Session #1: Bait your hooks. Cook up a straightforward intro session. Create a situation where all the players can be involved and where it will be difficult to avoid being drawn in to some degree. Dangle the threads/seeds in front of the players and see what grabs their interest.

4. Session #2: Flesh out the two threads of greatest interest to the party (it always pays to have a backup plan). If the players are proactive rather than reactive, they'll steer you towards the things that need greater attention/focus. If the players are reactive, pick the thread of greatest interest to you and "depart for the next station on the rail".

IMO, most railroading fails when the GM thinks the route AND destination are set.