Railroading is bad?

[rogueattorney]

I think that the biggest arguments I've seen over "Railroading" stem from people's failure to distinguish the DM setting the scenario and Railroading.

Let's put this in a war-gaming setting. The referee sets up the battlefield and places the troops. The players then get to move the pieces, decide who, what, when to attack, etc., etc. The referee comes in to make judgment calls (that unit has 50% cover), but is otherwise hands off.

It's the same thing for D&D. The DM sets the scenario...
Goblin invasion
Meteor Shower
Gate to Hades sucks half the kingdom in
The Black Hand is trying to assassinate King Rex III
Merchant needs someone to recover the Lost MacGuffin of Whosit
Whatever

He sets up the "board" (creates the setting, dungeon, etc.). He places the troops (figures out where the pc's start, when various events occur, etc.). And then he lets the pc's go at it. When something happens that requires a judgment call (Villain is foiled unexpectedly, what does he do now? PC's fail to stop X from happening, what hapens next?) he does so. Otherwise, the pc's have the run of the show.

All of the above is setting the scenario. Railroading occurs when the judge starts telling the players when, where, and how he can move his troops on the 'board'. Of course, RPG's are tougher than wargames because the 'board' isn't well-defined. It's quite possible for the pc's to start moving off of the 'board' (i.e. outside of the parameters of the campaign as envisioned by the referee) without realizing it. That's where the line gets fuzzy, and the DM needs to really think about what he should do in order to prevent bad feelings with the players. This is where the DM's relationship with the players comes into play. Can he focus the pc's without destroying the illusion of choice? Does he have a good enough OOC relationship with the players to just say, "look guys, you're going someplace I wasn't expecting and I'm not prepared"? That's also the point where players have the give the DM a bit of a break and be understanding.

R.A.

 

[barsoomcore]

Actually, the problem with railroading (predetermining the story's progress before the game) isn't because it annoys players. If well done, they won't even know it happened.

The problem is that it makes the DM's job harder.

That's assuming the DM's job is "Run a game that everyone enjoys."

See, when the DM decides ahead of time how things are going to play out, and plans the session that way, they are less well-prepared for kooky direction changes should they happen, and everyone ends up having less fun (all other things being equal). So DMs who want to run fun games ought to develop adventures and campaigns that can accomodate player kookiness. Because players, they can be kooky.

It's a risk management issue. DMing in a railroady way is RISKIER than in a flexible way.

 

[Catavarie]

The problem is when you run into a group like one of my old ones, where you would set the hook, and instead of biting the players just go, "Eh, I think we'll go over here instead." Talk about a pain in the arse, I eventually just dropped them into the middle of a cross road and told them that no matter where they go I have an adventure planned so no more awkward sliences or lengthy smoke breaks at the begining of the sessions. They finnally figured out that my adventures weren't nearly as bad as they thought they would be and from then on they would follow my hooks willingly, up till the group broke up.

Some might call it Railroading, I like to think of it as planning for every possible outcome.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Okay, here's some railroading exampes for ya, Universe.

The PCs are talking to an NPC villian who is pretending to be a good guy. The DM has a plan for how the PCs will uncover his plot and their final encounter with him. But, the PCs figure out that he's evil and decide to attack him. The DM either tells them that they can't or he makes the bad guy get away without the PCs having any chance to stop him (running past all of them opens the door, leaves, closes it behdind him and vanishes).

The DM has a setup where a young girl is supposed to die from a fall after the bad guy drops her from a cliff, but a quick thinking wizard PC jumps off the cliff after her and to cast feather fall on them both. The DM rules that she dies anyway.

How's that?

 

[The_Universe]

Okay, here's some railroading exampes for ya, Universe.

The PCs are talking to an NPC villian who is pretending to be a good guy. The DM has a plan for how the PCs will uncover his plot and their final encounter with him. But, the PCs figure out that he's evil and decide to attack him. The DM either tells them that they can't or he makes the bad guy get away without the PCs having any chance to stop him (running past all of them opens the door, leaves, closes it behdind him and vanishes).

The DM has a setup where a young girl is supposed to die from a fall after the bad guy drops her from a cliff, but a quick thinking wizard PC jumps off the cliff after her and to cast feather fall on them both. The DM rules that she dies anyway.

How's that?

Sure. Those are fine examples. Of course, a decent DM can ensure that all of the above things happen whether players are able to *attempt* to thwart them or not. A bad guy who drops a girl off a cliff (and who *really, really* wants her dead) might have secreted an item that suppressed magic on her person. Surely, he could have expected the relatively common spell of feather fall. Or, he might just do it the easy way and slit her throat, an activity reasonably harder to thwart with common magic (though assuredly not impossible). Now, if your DM just says, "well, that's not how I want it to be" that's *just as bad* as when a player does it, but no worse. Players need to have varied valid choices throughout the game. I wouldn't argue that for a second. But, the assumption cannot be that players get to effect *everything* in the game just because they want to.

Heck, in the "girl dropping" example, we're not even talking about something that effects the players directly. We're talking about contravening their wishes and expectations. It's one NPC killing another NPC. If a villain in a game cannot be allowed to do that, how do you ever have villains?

My beef is when players assume that they must be able to succeed at everything they try. DM's should (of course) not put up capricious or arbitrary blocks to prevent players from attempting to do things. What DM's do not have to do is to allow every attempt to succeed.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Here is an example of Railroading I saw from an old list of different DM types...

DM: "You pump the bartender for information and he tells you about a red dragon's lair to the west."
Player: "Too risky, we go to hear rumours somewhere else."
DM: "A man offers to hire you to clean out a red dragon's lair for him."
Player: "We say no thank you and leave for the next village."
DM: ""On the way to the village you stumble onto a red dragon's lair..."

 

[Agamon]

Yeah, railroading is fine line. It's really more to do with player perception than what the GM does. If the players feel frustrated that they are being led by the nose with little choice, and the feeling that certain events are bound to happen regardless of what they might do to oppose them, that's railroading. If they are content that what they chose for their PCs to do matters and has consequences in the overall campaign, then it's not railroading.

Offering choice, or at the very least, the illusion of choice, makes players happy, as does allowing their actions to have consequences (of course those consequences may not always be good... )

 

[ThirdWizard]

Sure. Those are fine examples. Of course, a decent DM can ensure that all of the above things happen whether players are able to *attempt* to thwart them or not.

Yes, but if the attempt is doomed before it begins, not because the PC shouldn't be able to do something (which might be a perfectly reasonable expectation), but because the DM doesn't want it to happen, is that any different than not being able to attempt something?

Should an NPC be able to escape just because the DM wants it? I guess some would say "yes." :\ I would want the NPC to have to attempt the escape just like a PC would, though, with a chance for the PC to stop them in the act.

Example
DM: The count begins running away!
Fighter PC: I try to trip him with my AoO as he runs by me!
DM: Um, you can't, he's too quick.
Wizard PC: I cast web on him!
DM: Um... he dodges the web spell.
Monk PC: I chase after him. My movement is 50.
DM: He gets away.

 

[The_Universe]

Yes, but if the attempt is doomed before it begins, not because the PC shouldn't be able to do something (which might be a perfectly reasonable expectation), but because the DM doesn't want it to happen, is that any different than not being able to attempt something?

I'd say no, not necessarily. Which is why I think the definition of railroading around here is far too broad. At the very least, it's weighted far against the DM.

Not every puzzle needs to have a solution, and every trap need not be designed with a bypass in mind. In order to avoid the situations that are commonly defined as railroading (at least as far as the thread is concerned) the players must have a reasonable chance at succeeding at *any* action they attempt.

A single man rides in an escape attempt, and finds himself faced by thirty warriors. He can try to fight them, but he should know that his chances of success are essentially nil (saver perhaps all of them rolling ones, and him rollign all twenties). He can either surrender, or die. Not much of a choice.

The player cries, "railroading!" His choices have been eliminated. He must either surrender or die. He sees the hand of the DM returning him to the product of his fickle will.

The DM thinks, "this is completely reasonable." The men whom the player has escaped from probably have more than one patrol in the surrounding area, and the player made no precautions to ensure an alarm was not sounded. They'd be searching for him, and they're certainly not going to be in a mood to bargain.

The player sees a railroad, and the DM sees a consequence. And here's the thing: it's the same event! The only way to avoid it is to allow the player to succeed despite the reasonable consequences of his actions. And, at that point (as I've said before) what's the point of even having a DM? The player clearly wants to play a story that has nothing to do with DM's, that's focused entirely on his own desires. Is this any worse than a DM whose story proceeds without input from the players? I'd say they're *both* bad, but that DM's are most often blamed for it, while players *expect* that the same kind of behavior will consistently work in their favor.

 

[Jupp]

I'd say no, not necessarily. Which is why I think the definition of railroading around here is far too broad. At the very least, it's weighted far against the DM.

Not every puzzle needs to have a solution, and every trap need not be designed with a bypass in mind. In order to avoid the situations that are commonly defined as railroading (at least as far as the thread is concerned) the players must have a reasonable chance at succeeding at *any* action they attempt.

A single man rides in an escape attempt, and finds himself faced by thirty warriors. He can try to fight them, but he should know that his chances of success are essentially nil (saver perhaps all of them rolling ones, and him rollign all twenties). He can either surrender, or die. Not much of a choice.

The player cries, "railroading!" His choices have been eliminated. He must either surrender or die. He sees the hand of the DM returning him to the product of his fickle will.

The DM thinks, "this is completely reasonable." The men whom the player has escaped from probably have more than one patrol in the surrounding area, and the player made no precautions to ensure an alarm was not sounded. They'd be searching for him, and they're certainly not going to be in a mood to bargain.

The player sees a railroad, and the DM sees a consequence. And here's the thing: it's the same event! The only way to avoid it is to allow the player to succeed despite the reasonable consequences of his actions. And, at that point (as I've said before) what's the point of even having a DM? The player clearly wants to play a story that has nothing to do with DM's, that's focused entirely on his own desires. Is this any worse than a DM whose story proceeds without input from the players? I'd say they're *both* bad, but that DM's are most often blamed for it, while players *expect* that the same kind of behavior will consistently work in their favor.

This event IS railroading if the DM decided to have the patrol encounter the players

-without rolling a % DC on the encounter,
-without regard to the precautions the players (eventually) have taken to evade the patrols,
-without acting with common sense,
-just because he just wants it to happen to continue a special part of his beloved plot.

Thats railroading because the DM enforces something that should not necessarily happen onto the players and they do not stand a chance to prevent it.

Now if the players were dumb enough to

-slowly ride away
-make a fire at night in the plains and you can see that fire hundres of mile away
-walk around telling everyone and his dog that they are on the flight from someone
-stumble around without going for cover where ever possible to evade who is following them
-miss the DC for the encounter

Then its not railroading but the result of events that finally led to the encounter.