D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[overgeeked]

I played in a Freeport-set sandbox game once where the GM told us we could do anything and go anywhere, and there would be something to do. Only one of these was true. In all of Freeport, there was apparently only one thing to do. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember the PCs having an extended conversation with a passive-aggressive mouse, who was very frustrated that we hadn't picked up on what we were supposed to be doing.

Yep. Best sign of a railroad. Being told you have agency when you have none. So much better to actually have choices that matter. What a novelty.

 

[zarionofarabel]

If the GM needs to do something to keep the players "on track" well then...there's tracks...which a train runs on...so...

 

[Maxperson]

I played in a Freeport-set sandbox game once where the GM told us we could do anything and go anywhere, and there would be something to do. Only one of these was true. In all of Freeport, there was apparently only one thing to do. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember the PCs having an extended conversation with a passive-aggressive mouse, who was very frustrated that we hadn't picked up on what we were supposed to be doing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One alternative I've used with some success is to have the player author the inciting incident for their PC. Details here: Repost- first session of Dark Sun campaign

Another one is to have things like beliefs/bonds/goals/etc. which can be used by the GM to put the PCs in a situation. Something like @bloodtide's riot scenario, for instance, might be engaging because the PCs have an established viewpoint on lawlessness, use of force, oppression, whatever.

 

[pemerton]

To me, "linear adventure" seems like a description of the way a pre-written scenario is presented: as a sequence of "scenes" or "events" that the GM hopes to present, more-or-less in order, to culminate in some intended climax.

Whereas "railroad" seems like a description of an episode of actual play: how it unfolded at the table.

The relationship between the two might be that one way to actually successfully play through a linear adventure is to railroad the players.

 

[Deset Gled]

Like most of these terms we spend so much time arguing about, railroading is fairly easy to define. Most of the arguments come from people not wanting their preferred style of play called railroading, not the actual definition.

Does the referee negate player agency to preserve their preferred outcome?

That’s railroading.

I think a lot of arguments arise because actual play is much less binary than this definition implies.

Agency can be manipulated without being negated. One person can have more or less agency than another without control being complete. Compromises exist. And agency can change over time.

Some people call anything approaching linear a railroad. Others don't like to be grouped in with "railroad" style play because they feel like they have lots of agency (even if they could have more). And the term being used as a pejorative certainly doesn't help.

Personally, given the binary implications, the decades of stigma, and the endless arguments around the adversarial nature of the term (i.e. sandbox vs railroad), I'm ready to assert that "railroad" could be considered an archaic term that is best avoided by those interested in serious discussions about game design. Let it go the way of "consumption", "Spanish fever", or "wolfram"; people may know what you mean what you say those words, but it isn't a great way to communicate or promote discussion. "Openness" and "Linearity" are much better terms that describe the modalities of low restriction plots and/or more directed adventuring. But these words give a much more clear description of the full gradient of possibilities within each, and promotes the idea that while they can be alternatives they are not necessarily antithetical.