Railroading, Yay or Nay?

[Obryn]

I think it's a shame that the definition of "railroading" has ballooned well past the point of usefulness.

I remember when "railroading" was something very specific - heavy handed DMing where players' actions literally could not change the outcomes.

 

[Umbran]

Moderation in all things. Which is to say, a little railroading now and then, thoughtfully applied, can be a constructive and useful thing. I would not use, or like to play, a constant diet of it, but that's not enough to brand it unclean, never to be touched.

Not that we've actually defined "railroading" clearly, mind you, but I expect my position stands, regardless.

These discussions seem to usually polarize into attempts to make blanket statements - Always or Never. My experience is that the game is most usually payed somewhere in between, with shades of grey and nuances, and thus Sometimes rears its ugly head, and makes a mess out of our attempts to make the analog world into digital, two-state systems.

But, really, let us look beyond the common part of the analogy - the rails, the lack of choice in how we get from A to B. Let us note how that choice is not the only thing of value in the Universe...

Consider that, if you drove from A to B, you'd probably take one of the common highways anyway. You *could* take a hugely variant route, but let us be honest - you probably won't. And those highways typically follow the same general paths as the railroads. So, being on the railroad probably isn't all that different than driving your car, in terms of route.

And, while you've lost the ability to choose the route, you *gain* the ability to enjoy the ride. The driver of a car is busy driving the car. The driver cannot spend much attention on the scenery, cannot read a book, or take a nap. Discussion is limited to only the few people that are in the same car. Meanwhile, on the train you can get up, stretch your legs and get a sandwich in the next car, strike up conversations with strangers, dance in the aisles a bit if the mood strikes you. The railroad frees you to pay more attention to your *local* events, without having to concern yourself with the action of travel!

So, if you know you're going to point B, and there's a railroad going there, it may well make sense to jump on the train. The train is only eliminated as a reasonable choice if you've chosen a destination that trains don't run.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think it's a shame that the definition of "railroading" has ballooned well past the point of usefulness.

I remember when "railroading" was something very specific - heavy handed DMing where players' actions literally could not change the outcomes.

I'm with you on that. My definition taken from another thread is basically an elaboration on the tried and true that you have above:

Railroading - A technique of scene, setting, and/or story design/preparation in which the GM has prepared a rising conflict/climax and maneuvers or otherwise determines that character activity inexorably leads to this scenario.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I feel like "railroading" is largely defined by it's negative connotations, to the extent that it basically means "the DM providing more guidance than the players want."

So asking whether it's good or not is sort of a foregone conclusion.

This exactly. I have (within gaming) rarely seen the word railroad used to mean anything other than "a game or a part of a game that forces players to accept more structure than they want."

And I think that James Jacobs said it best in the intro to one of the Paizo APs:

Personally, I’ve grown to sort of resent the terms “sandbox” and “railroad” as ways to describe a campaign. Maybe it’s because those terms seem to be used most often by gamers seeking to crusade for their own preferred style of play and thus eager to deride or belittle the other style. But I think it goes deeper than that. A campaign that’s a purely sandbox game, with no pre-calculated plotlines ready to help shape the experience, is just as frustrating to me as a GM or player as would be a campaign that simply presents an immutable series of encounters that must occur in one exact order or else the entire thing comes crumbling down in chaos.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think it depends on the group. I run quasi-railroads. There's an express story taking place and you can participate in it, or not. Outside of the story is the world in which it exists, that world might not have the localized epic events in it, but there's still things to do.

Imagine that the "story" is what gives you your level progression in a regular fashion. But the world provides you things to do, which may not directly contribute to your level/power progression, but they're an available alternative.

Generally I don't have a problem with my players wanting to follow the story and it's associated events. I create interesting stories.

 

[Quickleaf]

So I'm curious, regardless of edition, do you as a player like having your possible solutions to problems to be restricted to a predetermined few which the DM finds the most entertaining?

No. Thats what is great about tabletop RPGs - failure can be fun and you arent limited to a menu of choices. Heck, I don't even like the restriction you describe as DM

I do notice my players wander lost without strong direction or even rail-railroading.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

It's a matter of scale.

Railroading on a tactical level would be horrendous. I don't want the GM to tell me what options my character has, e.g., in combat or while exploring smoe dungeon.

On a more strategic scale, I enjoy it, though. I love a good story in an adventure and I love to see things unfold over the cause of a campaign. I don't have a poblem with a string-of-pearls concept, where a sequence of adventures tells a storyline, but where the players are predominantly free to act as they please*. Considering the apparent success of Paizo's Adventure Path products, I don't feel alone in this.

*: Thinking about it, the qualtiy of the story has a large impact. If it is convincing and believable, the players would be more inclined to go with the flow. If they don't buy into it, on the other hand, they might tend to rebell and act contrary to it just because.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want the PC characters to have an effect on the outcome of the story, for sure. Thus if railroading means "no matter what you do, the BBEG is always going to do this", then it doesn't feel right to me.

But OTOH the DM has to make the NPC have a mind of their own... they can't in turn just stay there and wait for the PC's actions. Even in a sandbox game, the PC might be free to choose where to go and explore, but usually they stumble upon monsters and NPCs and trigger some plot (unless the game is just a collection of quasi-random encounters).

As a player I don't mind heavy railroading now and then, but the DM has to make us feel like there is no railroading really, it should keep it believable.

I also like the sandbox gamestyle, but it can be stressing to a lot of players and DMs alike. It can become boring if there is a feeling of the game always be the same, trackless dragging on among scattered events.

 

[delericho]

London Underground.

That is, there are lots of different railroads going off in several directions, they intersect and influence each other, and if you know where you're going they can take you to all manner of interesting (and some not-so-interesting) places. Plus, if you really want, you can ditch the system entirely and go for a wander topside.

Oh, and just like the London Underground, it's perpetually under construction.

 

[pemerton]

The driver of a car is busy driving the car. The driver cannot spend much attention on the scenery, cannot read a book, or take a nap. Discussion is limited to only the few people that are in the same car. Meanwhile, on the train you can get up, stretch your legs and get a sandwich in the next car, strike up conversations with strangers, dance in the aisles a bit if the mood strikes you. The railroad frees you to pay more attention to your *local* events, without having to concern yourself with the action of travel!

I read this as a metaphorical way of expressing a characterisation I have sometimes given of adventure path-style play: the GM/module author have established, more-or-less, the basic plot of the game (who the principle enemies of the PCs are, roughly what events will happen when and where, etc); and the role of the players is to contribute colour and a bit of local content via their play of their PCs.

I have very much enjoyed playing Call of Cthulhu in this style, though in 1 to 3 session games rather than ongoing campaigns. D&D not so much, but that's probably just a personal idiosyncracy of me.

As a GM I don't think I'm very good at this style - I'm not that good at injecting rich colour for the players to riff on - and I much prefer something more player-driven.