D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[bloodtide]

I'm not denying railroading exists (although I agree that the whole thread comes down to semantics), but unless there's data showing it's common, acting like it's an inherent flaw is a stretch. I've yet to see anything beyond anecdotes.

This is one of those impossible evidence things : players that don't like their DM will say they railroad and players that like their DM will say they never railroad.

Do you deny that a lot D&D play is heavily GM-driven? If I go back to this post:

​

My impression is that, in a lot of D&D play, it is the GM who decides, pretty unilaterally, the significant content of the presented scenes, and what is at stake, and what follows next. Do you disagree?

I agree with you. I'd even say it is common in most RPGs other then the ones made specifically to "not be GM lead" as a main selling point for the game.

As I said before, railroading appears rare at most D&D tables. Unless there’s data to suggest otherwise, I don't see evidence it's systemic, nor does it pose a threat to anything. There's no railroading D&D crisis.

The Bad Type of Railroading is common, it is most DMs default "go to" to get things done.

A sizable percentage of players want the DM to tell the story and for their role to be sit back and occasionally participate.

Very True.

The vast majority of players want a near 100% GM lead game. They don't want to play a RPG as a Co-GM, they want to play as a player.

 

[Scott Christian]

Bad Type of Railroading

What is this? Can you please give an example? Thanks.

 

[kermit4karate]

And I'm saying that adventure paths are popular, which shows that style of play is popular. I'm not talking about anything else.


If you're playing a module, then the GM knows what the end-boss/endgame of the module is before characters have even been made. To me, that's PCs as "observers/passengers".

Why don't you give D&D the same leeway you give other games? Why is this taken literally: "If you're playing a module, then the GM knows what the end-boss/endgame is before the characters have even been made"?

D&D isn't a boardgame with a fixed set of concrete, inflexible rules. In my entire life, I don't think I've ever played through a D&D module without changing something, whether it was an encounter, a boss, an area, treasure -- something. Not once, ever. In my experience, that is not unusual.

So why, when multiple people have said that they apparently play D&D differently than you do and their players do have a great deal of agency, you disregard that and go back to repeating that PCs playing a module are simply observers/passengers?

 

[kermit4karate]

This is one of those impossible evidence things : players that don't like their DM will say they railroad and players that like their DM will say they never railroad.

No, not impossible evidence. It would be easily provable. I just think people would rather argue their biases without going through the trouble to objectively prove their theories. They're trusting their gut and the "eye test" (what they say they've seen in real life) versus trusting actual evidence, which is fine, but that puts us squarely in the realm of opinion.

 

[soviet]

D&D isn't a boardgame with a fixed set of concrete, inflexible rules. In my entire life, I don't think I've ever played through a D&D module without changing something, whether it was an encounter, a boss, an area, treasure -- something. Not once, ever. In my experience, that is not unusual.

So why, when multiple people have said that they apparently play D&D differently than you do and their players do have a great deal of agency, you disregard that and go back to repeating that PCs playing a module are simply observers/passengers?

You're saying that you've changed encounters, bosses, areas, treasures as a player?

 

[TwoSix]

I think there can be a bit of a middle ground here.

They're bus drivers. They still have a route they need to follow (to various extent) to get where the AP is going, but they're key to getting it there; they're active particpants, not just observers. They don't have a lot of broad agency, but they do have a fair bit of constrained agency, which I think is a bit of a broader case than "passengers" suggests.

I mean, I’m fine with it if it carries meaning for you, or anyone else who feels the weight of the distinction.

Just because it doesn’t have weight for me doesn’t mean others won’t find utility in describing those distinctions.

 

[kermit4karate]

You're saying that you've changed encounters, bosses, areas, treasures as a player?

Well, that too, yes, when the DM has allowed it, which they do often.

I know it bugs the heck out of some people who've grown to dislike D&D to hear that many DMs actually aren't maniacal tyrants and are totally comfortable letting players take the reins for a while and guide gameplay decisions when they're on a creative roll, but that is, in fact, how flexible D&D is. People have been doing it for years.

 

[kermit4karate]

What is this? Can you please give an example? Thanks.

I can also answer this!

Player: "I draw my sword, and sneak out the back door to escape the guards."

DM: "Nope, you can’t do that. The door is locked. The guards spot you, drag you back to the dining room, tie you to one of the chairs, and force you to listen to Enya until you die."

--THE END--

If you listen to some of the commenters here, that kind of thing happens daily at every D&D table.

 

[soviet]

Well, that too, yes, when the DM has allowed it, which they do often.

I know it bugs the heck out of some people who've grown to dislike D&D to hear that many DMs actually aren't maniacal tyrants and are totally comfortable letting players take the reins for a while and guide gameplay decisions when they're on a creative roll, but that is, in fact, how flexible D&D is. People have been doing it for years.

Talk me through this please. You've been a player in a game run by someone else. The GM has described an encounter, a boss, an area, or a treasure and you've said 'no, I think it should be [different thing] instead'? You've overridden what the GM said? Can you give me a specific example?

 

[TwoSix]

Why don't you give D&D the same leeway you give other games? Why is this taken literally: "If you're playing a module, then the GM knows what the end-boss/endgame is before the characters have even been made"?

I'm reasonably sure I haven't called out, or even specifically mentioned D&D in the last few days on this thread.

Obviously, story/adventure path play is a D&D mainstay, but it's not a specific D&Dism. Plenty of D&D isn't that, and other systems also have adventure paths.

D&D isn't a boardgame with a fixed set of concrete, inflexible rules. In my entire life, I don't think I've ever played through a D&D module without changing something, whether it was an encounter, a boss, an area, treasure -- something. Not once, ever. In my experience, that is not unusual.

I assume most people modify modules to a greater or lesser extent. It really has nothing to do with my point.

So why, when multiple people have said that they apparently play D&D differently than you do and their players do have a great deal of agency, you disregard that and go back to repeating that PCs playing a module are simply observers/passengers?

Because I don't think the kind of agency they're claiming to have matters for my purposes and for what I consider to be important.

Agreeing to a social contract wherein the group will "play through" a module, to me, is only a facade of agency. I've done that style of play a few times as a player, and contributed at a tactical and thespian level, but I've never found it particularly compelling.