"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Lanefan]

I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.

Sometimes the "random, pointless and disruptive things" *are* the game, and as long as people are having fun, so what?

There seems to be a type of player who's end goal seems to be disrupting gameplay, rational behavior or party goals. Its kind of like if one of the actors on the set of a movie decided to not only ignore the script, but to do everything in their power to tank the filming.

That'd be me.

The minute I start feeling like I'm supposed to follow a script narrower than broad story-lines, I start looking for ways to do something - anything - else. And while it may "tank the filming" of that one particular episode, who knows what other interesting things might end up getting filmed instead?

From the DM's side, one of the first things I learned was that I had to be able to hit the curveball; to roll with it when the party (or individual characters) pulled a sudden left turn, and find a way to fit what they did into the campaign. And if this means abandoning a pre-planned story arc, well ::shrug:: so be it; if it's that good I can always find a way to resurrect it later.

Lan-"the Buffy-shotgun approach works for me"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Railroadings's just another word for nothing left to choose,
Playing don't mean nothing honey if choice ain't free, now now.
And railroading seems easy, Lord, when the GM is new,
But now there's no railroad that's good enough for me,
Good enough for me 'cause my players are free.

 

[invokethehojo]

Hmm... I would approach it a bit differently. It's bad form to tell a player what his/her character would or would not do, under almost any circumstances. Instead, I would point out that the chances of success are low, the chances of escape if you fail are even lower, and the penalty for being caught is execution.

If the player went ahead and did it anyhow, I would fast-forward through the whole thing. Roll a Thievery check to see if you succeed--no? Okay, one of the guards spots you and steps forward to grab you while other guards block the exits. What do you do? You're running? Exits are blocked, you can try a bull rush if you like. You're pulling out your dagger and trying to stab one of the guards on the exits? Really, a weapon in the king's presence? The guards attack without mercy. Hang on a second. (consult Monster Manual, get suitable stats for the guards, triple their damage and reduce their hit points to 1/3 normal in order to speed things up) (brief and brutal combat ensues) Looks like you're dead. Make a new PC while the rest of the party apologizes to His Majesty and tries to smooth things over.

I'm not saying your wrong, but handling it that way seems like it would only get more complicated. For instance: what about the rest of the party? If their friend ends up in jail they might want to break him out, especially if he has a valuable item the party needs. Or what are they going to do if the gaurds slaughter their friend? The rogue can easily decide it's not in his character's best interest to pick the kings pocket, but putting the other players in a position where their characters are supposed to let a friend die without intervening... unless this is a very draconian party I'm guessing they couldn't do that without compromising their characters personalities, so that's a difficult situation for everyone.

I know telling a player what his character would or would not do seems like bad form, but it seems like the best way to get things accomplished. I don't mind when players give me advice on how my world should operate, so I don't see why it shouldn't go both ways. As a DM I will help players from time to time by telling them that while they may not think of something, their character has spent his whole life in that world, so he might have some ideas. As long as the DM is impartial about it, or at least working towards the better of the whole group, I don't see it as being bothersome. But that is my opinion.

 

[the Jester]

I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"'

As always with discussions about story-driven vs. sandbox gaming, it's all about playstyle.

That said, I find the comments you posted from the podcast to be pretty insulting. I've had plenty of sandbox games where lots gets accomplished.

To me, 'railroading' is a pejorative term for "a game in which the players' choices are restricted."

Like Lanefan, I'm fine with a system that is explicitly railroady. I'm fine with other folks playing story-driven games, but I much prefer running and playing in sandboxes. And usually stuff gets done, even if the 'stuff' is only a bunch of roleplaying sometimes.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would politely excuse myself the moment it became clear that the players' in-character choices were not driving the game, for I want nothing to do whatsoever with that gaming style.

Woah, hey there, buddy. I never said the players' choices weren't driving the game. I was just recounting one of the (very rare) occasions that I got accused of railroading. I had a new player who got frustrated with me because I wouldn't let him change the adventure from my carefully-adapted "CM1: Test of the Warlords" to his improvised "LOL: Look At My Awesome Rogue."

That's not railroading. If I'm guilty of anything, it's hogging the remote.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not saying your wrong, but handling it that way seems like it would only get more complicated. For instance: what about the rest of the party? If their friend ends up in jail they might want to break him out, especially if he has a valuable item the party needs. Or what are they going to do if the gaurds slaughter their friend? The rogue can easily decide it's not in his character's best interest to pick the kings pocket, but putting the other players in a position where their characters are supposed to let a friend die without intervening... unless this is a very draconian party I'm guessing they couldn't do that without compromising their characters personalities, so that's a difficult situation for everyone.

Well, to some extent it would depend on the rest of the party. But if they want to bust the rogue out of jail, I can work with that; at least then the whole party is involved. I don't mind the story going to some odd and unexpected places, I just don't want three-fourths of the players sitting around twiddling their thumbs. I'll improvise a jailbreak adventure for this session, and after it ends, I'll overhaul my plans for future adventures to bring them in line with the party's new situation.

If the guards were aiming to outright kill the guy, I'd be fairly generous if the other PCs intervened to save him somehow. Since the player was new to the group, I'm assuming the character was new as well, so there wasn't necessarily a strong bond of in-character friendship there.

 

[the Jester]

But this isn't exactly cool, either. Players hate it when the DM "railroads" them into something they don't want to participate in. And in the same vein, everybody hates it when a player starts "showboating," and makes the game all about himself and his character.

Speaking for myself, as long as the dm keeps the showboat's time to a minimum, I would much rather deal with a showboat than ride a railroad.

Woah, hey there, buddy. I never said the players' choices weren't driving the game. I was just recounting one of the (very rare) occasions that I got accused of railroading. I had a new player who got frustrated with me because I wouldn't let him change the adventure from my carefully-adapted "CM1: Test of the Warlords" to his improvised "LOL: Look At My Awesome Rogue."

That's not railroading. If I'm guilty of anything, it's hogging the remote.

Well, no offense, but from your description, it sounds very much like railroading to me: you are restricting player choice.

In fact, I'd amend your statement to say that the players' choices were driving the game- as long as they fell within the acceptable limits of the story that you had already determined to tell.

Now, while there is nothing wrong with this, I firmly stand on the other side of the divide here- Lanefan's comments about trying to throw the train off the tracks as soon as he feels a hint that he's on the rails at all rings very true for me, both from experiences dming and from my experience as a player. Again, it's all about playstyle.

A key to making a sandbox work with players that aren't super proactive is to offer lots of hooks everywhere. Explicit, juicy hooks offering monsters, treasure, exploration or what have you.

A key to making a story-driven game work with players that prefer their freedom is to allow the illusion of choice- let them make up their own mind about what to do and just feed them to the same storyline regardless.

 

[The Shaman]

Woah, hey there, buddy. I never said the players' choices weren't driving the game. I was just recounting one of the (very rare) occasions that I got accused of railroading. I had a new player who got frustrated with me because I wouldn't let him change the adventure from my carefully-adapted "CM1: Test of the Warlords" to his improvised "LOL: Look At My Awesome Rogue."

That's not railroading. If I'm guilty of anything, it's hogging the remote.

The problem for me is, what happens if I'm not interested in walking through your "carefully-adapted" module? What if I'm more interested in pulling off a heist of the crown jewels, and I convince the other players? Do you stop the action to tell us we're off your reservation?

To me, this . . .

Like most everyone else, I run a plot-driven game. I start a campaign by writing the story first, and then all of the adventures are just steps in a progression. My campaigns work sort of like a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: there is a main goal that needs to be accomplished (stopping Willow, for example), and every episode of that season is a step toward accomplishing that goal.

. . . is exactly what I don't enjoy in roleplaying games. Multiple ways for me to follow your story do not constitute "player choice" in my book, particularly if I can look forward to a meta discussion along the lines of, "No, you can't pickpocket the king because you need him on your side in Episode 3!"

CleverNickName, I've no doubt at all that your style works fine for you and your group, because you clearly share the same expectations for what you all want from a roleplaying game. My expectations are quite different, and they don't mesh cleanly with yours, which would make me a poor player candidate for someone running a game in the same way you do.

 

[Celebrim]

I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."

Any approach can be bad if done wrong.

The opposite of the railroad is what I call the rowboat or rowboat setting. A rowboat setting is when the players have the appearance of complete freedom but can't actually do anything. The actual rowboat setting would be literally:

"Ok, you are in a row boat in the middle of the ocean. There is no land in sight anywhere and you have no idea where you are. What do you want to do?"

However, any sparcely described setting with few obvious features, limited player mobility and empowerment, and no discernable purpose or direction qualifies. Virtually every setting I've ever encountered by someone who prides themselves on their ability to 'wing it' qualifies.

In essence, both a rowboat setting and a railroad reach the same end from opposite directions. In neither case does the player have any real choices. In the literal rowboat setting, players can do 'anything', but 'anything' here consists of solely rowing in a randomly chosen direction through a vast and featureless ocean with only the faintest hope of finding land and with an even fainter hope of finding anything interesting when you get there. And whatever happens, the DM will take no responsibility for the outcome and instead blame the players for their 'poor choices' even though the players had literally nothing to base their choices on.

However, just because the two extremes arrive at a bad place if followed to long or unwisely, doesn't mean that either plots or sandboxes are bad or even incompatible in moderation.

Whether or not you think 'railroads' or 'rowboats' are inherently bad probably depends mostly on your personal experience. If you were abused by a bad DM that put you on rails, you probably hate railroads. If you were abused by a bad DM that left you to flounder pointlessly in a rowboat, then you probably hate rowboats and think the term 'railroad' is used by bad DMs to justify hellish rowboats.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Whether or not you think 'railroads' or 'rowboats' are inherently bad probably depends mostly on your personal experience. If you were abused by a bad DM that put you on rails, you probably hate railroads. If you were abused by a bad DM that left you to flounder pointlessly in a rowboat, then you probably hate rowboats and think the term 'railroad' is used by bad DMs to justify hellish rowboats.

Or if you had a great DM who espoused a certain style you probably view that style more favorably. For example, in my nearly twenty years of playing, I have never played under a bad railroading DM. My only experiences with bad railroading DMs comes from horror stories I hear on these boards. I have, however, played under two great sandboxing DMs. My DMing style and my opinions on sandboxes in general is very much influenced by them.