Railroading, Yay or Nay?

[teitan]

Meh... It's all good until someone's character dies. Then it's "railroading".

When it is forced as an essential part of the story yeah

 

[Gomer212]

The DM has the ultimate power of suggestion. Place adventure in front of your players and most of the time they will pursue it. If they don't, then what's the point?

For instance, this...

The PC's rode away while someone else took the glory (and treasure).

sounds like the most boring game of D&D ever, in my opinion.


Playing D&D is about enjoying a story, similar to reading a book or watching a movie. Sure there's plot holes, sure some stuff doesn't make perfect sense, but that's the price you pay to be entertained.

The issue of "how come there aren't other groups of heroes doing this instead of us" has never once come up with my group simply because we play for the excitement of play. We don't play to have the DM bring in a bunch of NPCs and play the game for us. That type of game, to me, is many times worse than a "railroaded" game.

You're telling a story, not the DM, the whole group collectively is telling a story. If you want that story to be a group of people who uncover the makings of an epic journey then suddenly get cold feet and ride off before the final battle only to let someone else take over....well that's your story. But really, that's a pretty disappointing story to me.

And whether the players like it or not, eventually the DM needs to force them to face encounters that they rather would have avoided, otherwise, again, what's the point?

Gaming isn't realistic, it's fiction, and constant attempts to make the game more "realistic" seems to do more harm than good.

Perfect quote, and this is how I like to run my games.


Of course everything in this paragraph is pure opinion. By all means, play the game that you and your players most enjoy. But simply speaking as a long time DM who has run many systems for many players, I would say most PCs wont mind a touch of "railroading" if you make the ride worthwhile.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure, but whose to say that the players are the only heroes in the world?

I'm sure Luke wasn't the only jedi-born who had great natural talent. I'm sure that someone other than Frodo could have handled the ring. But the game isn't about "those other guys" doing "that stuff" over there. The game is about YOU and the adventurers you're playing. If the game was about the exploits of some other adventurers, we'd be reading a book, not playing D&D.

If they feel overmatched by the lich or just dont care about the town then why does the lich automatically win? There are other adventurers, knights, witchhunters, holy priests etc in the town.

Are there? I mean why are we assuming there are? Because our players are there? Certainly there may be soldiers, knights, mages and other people with classes, but there's no guarantee that they're as skilled as our players. I mean, if those guys could stop the Lich, then the players would likely have never come to the town in the first place. I mean, the whole reason players go to a town, story or no story is that there is usually some kind of unresolved problem that is available for the players to solve.

If the townsfolk could take care of their own, we wouldn't need adventurers! And by the suggestion of "what if they don't think they can win" or don't care, well, it's not like I'm throwing them up against something I don't feel they can handle, but it seems to speak to a desire not to be challenged. I'm not going to simply provide trees full of kittens to save all day. If that's what the players want they're welcome to run that game, but it holds no interest for me. As far as them "not caring", I usually simplify plot events to a dice roll. Powerful monster vs place the players didn't want to save. Depending on how strong I set that place up to be it's just a nice modifier. Maybe the Lich wont win. But the reason the Place seeks aid is generally because they're outmatched. Again, if the town could handle things, we wouldn't need adventurers.

With something like that I've had pretty good luck in the past with letting some other group come and take the final battle, because they were ALSO working against the lich the whole time and working on other plots of his that the characters didnt know about.

As much as I endeavor to create a living world, the actions of my table are the focus of the game. If the players have chosen a less confrontational approach(suberting the Lich's plans, invading the sancurary of his phylactery, etc...) then those are the things we're going to focus on. When the Lich moves to attack Placeville, he finds the land consecrated, graveyards dug up and burned, and feels a shiver up his spine as the players approach his hidden sanctum. The guards of Placeville fend off the Lich(which I simply mention as an aside if the players efforts were up to par), but we focus on the players actions in the now dungeon-delve to reach the Lichs phylactery.

The PC's rode away while someone else took the glory (and treasure). Ham it up big and the odds of your group ever doing that again go down considerably without an ounce of railroading.

I do this. When players choose not to deal with the "epic problem" of the world, it either overwhelms the world, or someone else comes along. There's no guarantee of either(though it can depend on my mood) and yeah, I do emphasize that "Your desire to fight kobolds for days on end meant *insert evil name here* the demon-dragon to devour *places and people*, but he was brought down by an intrepid group of warriors who then raided his lair for incredible riches!" I say it a little better, but yes I do that.

I don't want to railroad my players, but when there is a story that they follow, I feel it should be more difficult to hop off the train the closer you get to end. The world begins responding to you more and more, and okay; you CAN do it, but it's gonna take some serious effort to lose all the friends and foes you've made.

The living world simply continued to live, and someone else became the big, rich, famous, adored by slutty commoners, hero while they slunk off to heal at the tavern.

Fortunately, I don't have these kinds of players. I have folks who enjoy that big, epic, super-story stuff.

 

[Hand of Evil]

There is a time and place for everything and a lot will depend on the type of game you are running and what you are trying to accomplish. The trick is balancing what the players do and the impact to the campaign and having fun. Game masters need to discuss house rules and such with players prior to the start of the game. What MAY look like railroading to players, could just be the way the campaign works.

Examples of topic:

• Defining good and evil, it is more than label - What is evil? Slavery, worship of a god, cannibalism, being an orc, etc., the players need to know. Once ran a game based around a Viking(ish) theme, good was your word and loyalty to your clan. Evil was breaking your word or killing a clan mate, that was it.
• Laws of the land, crime and punishment - players roam game settings doing what they will but where are laws, after a few burn down inns and taverns someone is going to know as a firebug! In my Viking(ish) game it was "weregild" system.
• Nobility, privileges of birth - If you are going to be playing a medieval setting, some people are going to be playing with nobles, this means that they can do things most players are not going to be able to do; like speak their mind, insult people as they feel and command, whip or rape as they see fit.
• Status Quo - Large groups of people don't like a boat to rock but large groups of people act and move together. Adventures rock the boat, they come into town, go on an adventure and the next thing you know, you have a ratman problem. Adventures are outsiders and people don't like outsiders.

The GM needs to discuss the setting/game concept with the players.

 

[teitan]

When players let evil abide to go do something else... I let evil take over. Screw another party taking down the threat. They are the big damn heroes, even if they are anti-virus. That villain just became a bigger threat and eventually is going to come after them because their power is becoming a threat to their own.

 

[Gilladian]

I'm sure other folks have said the same thing I'm going to say, but I'll say it anyway; I can take (and dish out) railroading in the vein of "this is the quest I've prepared, so please at least try to engage with it"; but what I can't take is "this is the quest I've prepared, and as you are following along it, you get to roll some dice to see if you win or lose the fights!"

My PCs are often given a list of options by me: 1) continue to explore the dungeon, 2) go hunt those bandits you were attacked by last week, 3) go check on your friend who wrote you a letter hinting at trouble. When they indicate a direction, I then provide them with adventurous outcomes. HOW they handle each scenario is up to them, but I DO ask that they NOT choose 4) leave the kingdom...