D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Desdichado]

It depends how you’re defining a “true sandbox.” Does the existence of adventure hooks or other signposts pointing out where to go to find interesting and challenging things to do disqualify something as a “true sandbox?” If so, yeah, most players probably won’t like that. But, in my experience players do like having multiple leads to follow or avenues to explore at any given time. One might argue that this is more of a branching structure than a “true sandbox”, but I think in such a model that a “true sandbox”
would be a dysfunctional branching structure, in the same way that a “railroad” is a dysfunctional linear structure.

I mean the idea that the DMs don't even provide hooks; the PCs are meant to go make their own adventure or find their own hooks. Or ignore the hooks that the DM has and do their own thing. Like I said, it's a platonic ideal of a sandbox, not a realistic one. But I see sandbox zealots promote that idea frequently.

 

[Mort]

But that's why I don't like that usage; it camouflages the fact that having choices as a player doesn't mean the overall game doesn't have an expected endpoint (i.e. a railroad).

There's lots of choices on a railroad! There are dozens of cars and hundreds of seats. I can sit by myself or try and talk to people. I can take a local or express train, I can pick the timing, there might even be multiple routes.

But if I'm constrained to starting at Boston and ending in Washington DC, it's a railroad.

I prefer the term linear or mostly linear Which is what you are describing. There is a clear start and end point and maybe a branch or two but it's a linear structure.

Railroad, to me, implies the players are unaware of the linear structure or that the DM is taking steps to keep then on the tracks/path.

Also, with a linear structure, the DM isn't fudging it's just that the direction of play is leading somewhere specific. BUT, the players are aware and if they want to go off the path, either they can (say start a different adventure) or can be convinced to keep going.

With a railroad, and the implied negative connotation, the players are unaware of the imposed end point. Generally, even if they want something else, they end up right where the DM/adventure intends instead of where they intended or where expecting.

 

[RealAlHazred]

If it had been a low level adventure, where normal town rioters would be a deadly threat, and going to the other house a no-brainer…
… would it be a “railroad”?

I think not.

Its not the constraint of player choice thats the problem.

Its the constraint of choice clashing against game world sense.

I don't know if I agree.

"Well, I'm Altherian. I'll just go to the Altherian embassy; I'm not a Big Damn Hero, after all. I should probably get out of the way."
"A rioter blocks your path, and does some fancy karate moves in a threatening manner."
"Well, then I'll go to the Milandiri embassy, as I made friends with people in Milandir in my backstory; maybe I can meet one of them."
"A different rioter blocks your path, and does some fancy judo moves in a threatening manner."
"... Are we in a district with competing martial arts schools?"
"There is a break in the crowd of rioters in only one direction. That is the only direction where you don't see any rioters making threatening martial arts moves."

It's still a railroad, because the "ilusion of choice" ("We're on a street in a city that has a grid of streets and locations we can go.") is not real -- you must go in the direction the module specifies.

Now, as DM, you can totally run something else. "You get to the Altherian embassy. After you arrive, you see the Ambassador striding through the hallways, dispatching people to trouble spots. He approaches your party, 'Hey, we received word that <the necessary NPC> is in trouble. Could you go see if they need help?'" But that's not only not covered in the module, the DM is specifically instructed not to let it happen, and provided with ludicrous tools (an infinite number of maximum-level monks) to enforce it. And doing anything else means you're basically running a different adventure.

That's the Railroad. It's in playstyle. Of course, a module can't actually enforce a playstyle, but many authors try.

 

[Scott Christian]

When creating materials, I have always broken this stuff down into three categories: Quests, Explorations, and Adventures. Quests are long, story driven campaigns that may have a couple endings, but the primary antagonist, plot, and some events are set from the get-go. Explorations let the players dive into a single setting. It outlines the tomes, ruins, politics, people, and creatures. It gives plot hooks. And some of the adventures can be tied together. Then adventures are just that, one shots the DM can use. Often, these take the place of a setting. GMs, need an adventurer while your group is on a boat. Here you go. In a mine? Here you go. At a birthday party? Here you go.

I just finished an Exploration called Plumefall Keep. It houses 12 adventures, details the area, provides a hundred NPCs, has downtime charts, and has some new creatures and magic items. Now, the catch is, if we run this, they have to stay in this area. Is that railroading? It also has five interconnecting adventures that all deal with the same antagonist. (The clue is undead and the creation of these frostflowers.) And it has a finale that can be run with the antagonist. Is that a railroad? Also, there are individualized starts for the adventurers based on where they are coming from. Most introduce the setting, a notable NPC, and a possible plot hook. Is that creating a railroad?

 

[payn]

But that's why I don't like that usage; it camouflages the fact that having choices as a player doesn't mean the overall game doesn't have an expected endpoint (i.e. a railroad).

There's lots of choices on a railroad! There are dozens of cars and hundreds of seats. I can sit by myself or try and talk to people. I can take a local or express train, I can pick the timing, there might even be multiple routes.

But if I'm constrained to starting at Boston and ending in Washington DC, it's a

If I can’t leave forgettable realms for the marvel universe or a galaxy far far away in Star Wars I’m railroaded anyways.

 

[TwoSix]

If I can’t leave forgettable realms for the marvel universe or a galaxy far far away in Star Wars I’m railroaded anyways.

I mean, you can determine your personal usage of the term in whatever manner you prefer. (As I am!)

I don't think a game needs to allow the player maximal freedom, such that they can setting or genre hop, to not be a railroad. A "non-railroad game" simply needs to have a non-defined endgame.

 

[NN]

I think we are agreeing.

I think you would be happy with a reasonably statted mob that reasonably arose from the fiction and reasonably made some player choices costly.

What you object to is the railroading devil on the author’s shoulders whispering “Scene A…then Scene B…

 

[Mort]

I don't know if I agree.

"Well, I'm Altherian. I'll just go to the Altherian embassy; I'm not a Big Damn Hero, after all. I should probably get out of the way."
"A rioter blocks your path, and does some fancy karate moves in a threatening manner."
"Well, then I'll go to the Milandiri embassy, as I made friends with people in Milandir in my backstory; maybe I can meet one of them."
"A different rioter blocks your path, and does some fancy judo moves in a threatening manner."
"... Are we in a district with competing martial arts schools?"
"There is a break in the crowd of rioters in only one direction. That is the only direction where you don't see any rioters making threatening martial arts moves."

It's still a railroad, because the "ilusion of choice" ("We're on a street in a city that has a grid of streets and locations we can go.") is not real -- you must go in the direction the module specifies.

Now, as DM, you can totally run something else. "You get to the Altherian embassy. After you arrive, you see the Ambassador striding through the hallways, dispatching people to trouble spots. He approaches your party, 'Hey, we received word that <the necessary NPC> is in trouble. Could you go see if they need help?'" But that's not only not covered in the module, the DM is specifically instructed not to let it happen, and provided with ludicrous tools (an infinite number of maximum-level monks) to enforce it. And doing anything else means you're basically running a different adventure.

That's the Railroad. It's in playstyle. Of course, a module can't actually enforce a playstyle, but many authors try.

The 5e Spelljammer adventure Light of Xaryxis has a similar start. The PCs are in a coastal town when twig blights start bursting up from everywhere and attack. If the PCs go to the docs (as the adventure, through NPCs and other means, hints to do), they get to the docs and things move on. If they try to go ANYWHERE else, the blights just keep coming an coming until the PCs decide to go to the docs or die. That's a clear railroad.

 

[RealAlHazred]

If I can’t leave forgettable realms for the marvel universe or a galaxy far far away in Star Wars I’m railroaded anyways.

Of course you can! How do you plan to get there? You've heard there's a Gate of Infinite Worlds, and it happens to be located in the castle that the last twelve NPCs have tried to hire your group to go to...

 

[CreamCloud0]

Agreed. I consider there to be a difference between a Railroad and a regular road. When I take the train, I have to follow the railroad. I don't have a choice about turning off somewhere, I'm going to the destination with several specified stops along the way.

But a regular "road"... it still has "stops" and it can even do the same stops as the train, but you can always stop at any point along the way. And the grid of roads is much more varied in destinations than the grid of rails. Just having "stops" doesn't necessarily make it a Railroad -- if, as GM, I force the players to go to the "stops" I want, then it's a Railroad no matter what it looks like. It's the Quantum Ogre question. If it doesn't matter which way the players go, they will encounter the Ogre, then it's the illusion of choice.

the difference between linear and railroad in my eyes is well, a railroad is practically running off of a script: You will Go Here and Meet X, You will Do Y which WILL result in Z happening regardless of how you attempt to solve it, this leads into going to location M where you meet N character and O happens, and so on and so forth.

everything will end up resolving the way that it is planned to resolve, it's basically irrelevant who your characters actually are because what they choose to do won't influence things, your bard got a crit on their negotiation persuasion roll to make peace between the two armies? well tough, your words didn't move them, or a soldier's crossbow accidentally went off and the fight started anyway, and your general dies, every time in every scenario.

in a linear adventure what the characters do and choose matters, you might end up in the same places but the situation could be very different depending on what you've previously done and chosen, that crit 20 persuasion you got? you brokered peace! and now at the final battle instead of having one battleworn army backing you up you've got two fresh to go, even if you hadn't kept the peace on a different roll you could still end up protecting the general depending on your actions, which would go on to affect other things.

it's comparable to (what i know of) BG3, with all it's different endings depending on what questlines you did and the answers you picked in conversations, did you save the tieflings? did the druids close up their grove to outsiders? those things have knock-on impacts down the line and it matters if and how you did them.