D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[TwoSix]

I’m guess not so concise or useful because these are not my experiences.

Feel free to qualify if you disagree, of course.

I feel like my posts are aggravating you for some reason, but I'm not sure why.

 

[payn]

Feel free to qualify if you disagree, of course.

I feel like my posts are aggravating you for some reason, but I'm not sure why.

All good just not agreeing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Railroad isnt a play style, it’s at best the illusion of choice on the GMs part and an unenjoyable enforcement at that.

Linear games may have campaign conceits and natural conclusions like Balders Gate ending in Baldurs Gate, but they are flexible enough to allow player input and adjustment of the meta plot and endgame. As run by a person and not a video game of course.

I'm curious how you view typical Adventure Path and Plot Point style campaigns.

I've played in a couple of Paizo's for PF2e, and while they technically weren't on rails, wandering far from it was going to be--largely pointless at least. In a few spots it was going to blow up the whole rest of the adventure probably (in that its hard to see how you'd get from C to F if D got disrupted too much).

I tend to think of them as at least indistinguishable in practice from a railroad other than everyone knowing what they're getting into up front.

 

[Desdichado]

What even is ‘an adventure hook’ other than a telegraph that interesting things are happening in the world? I think all RPG worlds should have interesting things happening in them.

Reducto ad nihilis isn't an effective way to have a conversation. The fact that there's a hex map or something like that with stuff on it isn't a hook, unless you reduce the meaning to hook to something that is meaningless. I'm talking about the sandbox zealots who ardently preach, complain, exhort and chastise anyone who plays in any way other than completely PC-driven play. They will literally tell you that "interesting things" is what the PCs go and make happen, not what the GM presents. To me, that's a "true sandbox" in the sense that it's a platonic ideal of a sandbox. But there are people—and quite vocal ones—who insist that the platonic ideal can actually exist in the real world.

And lest we lose sight of what we're actually talking about, my point is that as you approach that level of sandbox play, you're actually going to frustrate most normal players rather than entertain them.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm curious how you view typical Adventure Path and Plot Point style campaigns.

I've played in a couple of Paizo's for PF2e, and while they technically weren't on rails, wandering far from it was going to be--largely pointless at least. In a few spots it was going to blow up the whole rest of the adventure probably (in that its hard to see how you'd get from C to F if D got disrupted too much).

I tend to think of them as at least indistinguishable in practice from a railroad other than everyone knowing what they're getting into up front.

You can't easily write a satisfying and interesting adventure without at least some assumptions of what the PCs are going to do. I mean, even a completely site-based dungeon-crawl assumes that the PCs aren't going to say, "screw it!" and head to town to set up a thieves' guild or something else that completely ignores the dungeon. How an adventure is written and how it is run are two different things. Adventures are written "like" railroads because there isn't really any other way to write them, but if they actually become railroads or not is up to the person running it.

 

[payn]

I'm curious how you view typical Adventure Path and Plot Point style campaigns.

I've played in a couple of Paizo's for PF2e, and while they technically weren't on rails, wandering far from it was going to be--largely pointless at least. In a few spots it was going to blow up the whole rest of the adventure probably (in that its hard to see how you'd get from C to F if D got disrupted too much).

I tend to think of them as at least indistinguishable in practice from a railroad other than everyone knowing what they're getting into up front.

Some of it will come down to the writing and some GM execution. Not all adventure paths avoid tendencies to railroad and a GM cleaving too close to the script might lean railroad to save it. Though they are not inherently railroads ime.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Reducto ad nihilis isn't an effective way to have a conversation. The fact that there's a hex map or something like that with stuff on it isn't a hook, unless you reduce the meaning to hook to something that is meaningless. I'm talking about the sandbox zealots who ardently preach, complain, exhort and chastise anyone who plays in any way other than completely PC-driven play. They will literally tell you that "interesting things" is what the PCs go and make happen, not what the GM presents. To me, that's a "true sandbox" in the sense that it's a platonic ideal of a sandbox. But there are people—and quite vocal ones—who insist that the platonic ideal can actually exist in the real world.

And lest we lose sight of what we're actually talking about, my point is that as you approach that level of sandbox play, you're actually going to frustrate most normal players rather than entertain them.

I don't think that "platonic idea of a sandbox" as you describe it is a sensible one. The idea that the world would be static and nothing would happen unless the PCs make it happen is neither realistic or interesting. To me sandbox implies a living world and living worlds have all sorts of interesting things happening them in all the time.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think that "platonic idea of a sandbox" as you describe it is a sensible one. The idea that the world would be static and nothing would happen unless the PCs make it happen is neither realistic or interesting. To me sandbox implies a living world and living worlds have all sorts of interesting things happening them in all the time.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

 

[Mort]

I tend to think of them as at least indistinguishable in practice from a railroad other than everyone knowing what they're getting into up front.

To me, that's the HUGE difference. If they players come in eyes open (player buy-in) then "railroading" and all the negative connotations that apply, don't attach. The players choices are severely constrained, but everyone is aware of this and simply choosing to move forward.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Quoted for Cosmic Truth!

...and for saying it better than I would have...