D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

Option C could be that the DM plans what happens if the path isn't followed.

The king calls for aid. The princess has been kidnapped by Guilder. Who will save her?

The PCs search for treasure in an abandoned mine.

The king calls for aid. The princess has been killed. Who can negotiate with Guilder to prevent a war?

The PCs investigate a legend of a magic fish.

The king calls for aid. Who will help defend the country in the war with Guilder?

The PCs help defeat a ghost in a cellar.

The city is overrun. The PCs are attacked by Guilder's army.

Did the DM railroad the PC's into an encounter with Guilder, or was that their choice through inaction? Does if matter if the DM later claims there were other possible outcomes (like uncovering that Guilder was framed for the kidnapping), but the PCs never learned that information because they refused to engage?

I think to call this situation a "railroad" would definitely be a stretch. Simply put, the players are not being forced into taking specific actions. Things are happening in the world, but the players aren't being forced to interact with those things. By allowing the players to choose to ignore what is happening, the GM has preserved player agency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The agency is that players CAN do stupid things and nonsensical things and things that do not arise naturally from the scenario but instead are just made up on a whim IF they want to. They can do all the random crap that they just pull out of their rear-ends if that's what they feel like. No one will stop them from doing that.

So as long as you don't want to do insane or plainly stupid stuff, there is no agency in your games. OK, then, but I am not sure this is something you should be proud off.

But players don't usually do that because they want to play smart. They want to play to the highest point of their intelligence. If there is a scenario with an issue in front of them... they will use their logic and reason to figure out the solution to the problem that is most likely to be correct, and then do it. Because why else would you try and solve an issue if you weren't actually going to go through the effort to accomplish it?

If making the most obvious choice to solve a problem is a "railroad", it means basically that ALL LIFE is a so-called railroad.

No, because complex problems do not have one obvious solution.

- I'm hungry. I want to have a sandwich. I'm out of bread. I'm going to drive to the store and buy myself some bread. I'm then going to go home with the bread and make myself a sandwich. I will then eat said sandwich. I am now no longer hungry and got me the sandwich I wanted.

That definitely is not a situation that requires any sort of involved decision making.

Simple. Logical. Easy solution to a problem. One part of the scenario leads into another. I had a problem and I solved it the way I wished to in the most effective way I knew how. And if that means I've been "railroaded" in your way of thinking... then so be it. In my opinion then, being "railroaded" is in fact the best way to act, and anyone who isn't "railroaded" is pretty much a schmuck.

And quite frankly I don't think most players play D&D to look like a schmuck.

I mean you seem to be incapable of conceiving nuanced situations that do not have one obvious answer. At this point I am at a loss what to say. It is not always obvious what tactic is the best one, multiple ones might be viable. It is always not clear what outcome is desirable, many might be desirable, but mutually exclusive. It is not always clear what is morally correct, as many situations are ethically complex. Life is full of such decisions, and so should games. And making such decisions is what we have the players for, it is their job to make them and thus influence the direction of the game. And yes, if this is not happening, it is pretty much a railroad.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean you seem to be incapable of conceiving nuanced situations that do not have one obvious answer.

Then gimme one. A standard D&D adventure. Show me what you are talking about.

I mean I mentioned the opening scene of Lost Mines several posts back that illustrated my point of logical next steps, so I'm happy to see what you are referring to when you say there are situations in a D&D adventure that are "nuanced" and don't have an obvious next step.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

And quite frankly I don't think most players play D&D to look like a schmuck.

I want to be charitable, but -- I've played with some players where this appeared to be their primary goal in play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think this is an extremely optimistic view of an at least significant part of the RPG playing populace. There are large parts that don't consider that a priority at all, and a smaller part that consider it more effort than they want to put in.

If this was the case there wouldn't be so much caterwauling about "unbalanced" D&D rules. People want the rules to be balanced so that they can "play effectively". If they can't "play effectively" then what's the point in playing? That has been a clarion call of almost everyone any time we see new rules get introduced in UAs or new books. The game rules have to be good and right so that they can play the game well and correctly.

If people actually wished to play stupid all the time then they wouldn't need or care about balanced rules because they were just going to futz around anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I want to be charitable, but -- I've played with some players where this appeared to be their primary goal in play.

I said 'most', not 'all'. Of course there will outliers. But as I said to Thomas Shey right above this... if people didn't want to play the game effectively there wouldn't be so many freak outs about bad or unbalanced rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then gimme one. A standard D&D adventure. Show me what you are talking about.

I mean I mentioned the opening scene of Lost Mines several posts back that illustrated my point of logical next steps, so I'm happy to see what you are referring to when you say there are situations in a D&D adventure that are nuanced and don't have an obvious next step.

It is not complicated, and I already provided some regrading that dwarf and goblin thing.

Issues of morals are the best ones, IMO. A necromancer promises to reveal who killed a brother of one of the characters if we give a powerful artefact to her. Do we trust her? If we do, is it worth to risk giving this shady individual a thing that could be used for evil to help satisfy a persona revenge?

Or it can be a simple obstacle. In my campaign recently the characters ended up in a high security prison, and I certainly had no idea how they would escape, They ended up trying two different methods, and the second succeeded.

But all of these happen in larger context of the players deciding what their character even want. What their goals are, who to ally with, where to go, what to pursue. And what is worth risking to reach those goals. The players are not just passively reacting, they're contributing to determining the stakes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It is not complicated, and I already provided some regrading that dwarf and goblin thing.

Issues of morals are the best ones, IMO. A necromancer promises to reveal who killed a brother of one of the characters if we give a powerful artefact to her. Do we trust her? If we do, is it worth to risk giving this shady individual a thing that could be used for evil to help satisfy a persona revenge?

Or it can be a simple obstacle. In my campaign recently the characters ended up in a high security prison, and I certainly had no idea how they would escape, They ended up trying two different methods, and the second succeeded.

But all of these happen in larger context of the players deciding what their character even want. What their goals are, who to ally with, where to go, what to pursue. And what is worth risking to reach those goals. The players are not just passively reacting, they're contributing to determining the stakes.

So the necromancer doesn't have one obvious answer, it has two. Give the artifact or don't give the artifact. Two completely logical answers to this problem, both of which are valid and obvious and the players just have to choose one of them. And I am willing to bet that whoever the DM was (you or whomever) knew what the necromancer would do with the artifact if it was given, or do to the party if they did not. So your scenario is railroading the party just as much as any other scenario.

And the prison? Getting out and escaping WAS the obvious solution to the problem was it not? So you've railroaded the players there too, by putting them in a situation where there's only one logical result-- escaping the prison. Sure the methodology for how to accomplish it could have various answers, but the solution to their problem was railroaded by you from the get-go.

Where's the supposed nuance? Your examples seem no different than any other scenario suggested by almost every single adventure or story written by any DMs, all of which you have classified as "railroady". So to me these ideas of yours are just as railroady as any others by your standards.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So the necromancer doesn't have one obvious answer, it has two. Give the artifact or don't give the artifact. Two completely logical answers to this problem, both of which are valid and obvious and the players just have to choose one of them. And I am willing to bet that whoever the DM was (you or whomever) knew what the necromancer would do with the artifact if it was given, or do to the party if they did not. So your scenario is railroading the party just as much as any other scenario.

Well, two options is already more than the one you seemed to think usually exists. It literally gets us from having no choice to having a choice. And of course there are other options, such as tricking the necromancer by giving her a counterfeit, thus fooling her long enough that she divulges the information. (She'll not be pleased later when she notices that she was tricked.)

And the prison? Getting out and escaping WAS the obvious solution to the problem was it not? So you've railroaded the players there too, by putting them in a situation where there's only one logical result-- escaping the prison. Sure the methodology for how to accomplish it could have various answers, but the solution to their problem was railroaded by you from the get-go.

But the choice of methodology actually matters, thus it is a meaningful. And there was a time pressure, so it mattered how long it took. And they were in the prison in the first place, as they chose to surrender rather than fight earlier. And they were arrested because they chose to aid an enemy of the de facto leader of the city. And why they were in the city in the first place? That was due decisions they made earlier. And so forth and so forth. It is a chain of players making choices, some more predictable, some much less so. The overall structure this forms has sufficient number of decisions points without obvious answers, that it becomes unpredictable.

Where's the supposed nuance? Your examples seem no different than any other scenario suggested by almost every single adventure or story written by any DMs, all of which you has classified as "railroady". So to me these ideas of yours are just as railroady as any others.

Given that you insisted situations have only one sensible outcome, and this is not the case here, what you say obviously does not follow. And of course you utterly ignored the part about the players setting up the goals, in the first place. Like my campaign has had several adventures about exploring ancient giant culture and their downfall, and this was solely because after a random encounter with giant one player decided that their character becomes hyperfixated on giants and wants to learn about them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If this is true, I have no idea what not a railroad even means.

In my experience, it means where the goals of play are chosen by the players. Or if there’s a goal of play determined by the premise of the game, then it's broad enough to allow players to choose how to achieve that goal.

I’ve finally come to realize the note struck in me about the linear = railroad claim. I’ve experienced GM force to the point of railroad in sandbox games more than I have in linear ones. Yet, there is a notion that sandbox is railroad proof.

I think that notion is mistaken. I think that sandbox play can indeed be subject to GM force. Honestly, in a way it may be worse because it’s less obvious… so players may think their choices matter more than they do.

Most sandboxes still rely on heavy GM prep. The focus of play is often still going to be the material the GM has created. So while this material may not be presented in a linear manner, it’s still largely pre-determined. It’s more like a menu of GM material, and the players choose what they’d to engage with. There may be some more freedom within this structure than in a linear adventure, but it’s not really any less susceptible to GM force.

Lost Mines uses a pretty classic narrow-wide-narrow design.

The beginning is almost completely linear, pushing the PCs through the first two encounters. Then it widens out to a sandboxy area where the PCs have lots of room to maneuver and lots of choices as to where to go etc. Then as they explore, it narrows pushing/pointing the PCs to the ending/final encounters which are set.

Well, the beginning is there to get things started. I’m fine with a module that just starts off with a situation that demands attention. Why beat around the bush?

Then, as you say, it opens up quite a bit in the middle. I think this is why the module is highly regarded. It gives the GM enough guidance to handle the material, but doesn’t dictate how the players must engage with it.

Again, compare the reaction to this module to that of the Tyranny of Dragons books and I think the distinction is obvious.

I would too... but Crimson has been saying that any adventure where a breadcrumb is left to potentially lead a party somewhere next is "railroady". They are not going as far to say that the players are actually being railroaded to go from the road to the goblin caves to Phandalin to the Redbrand Hideout to the various locations in the valley to eventually Wave Echo Cave... but because there is that path laid out per the author's design that it is like a railroad. It's railroad-y. And I guess they think that a completely non-breadcrumbed "open sandbox" is somehow a better option for players.

I, of course, disagree.

That’s fine! I don’t know if that’s quite what was being said. However, as I just said above, I don’t think that “sandbox” play is automatically a better option, or somehow exempt from GM force.

I think the only way you can have a game where GM force becomes obvious is one where the players truly are free to declare what they want to do and how they want to do it. If that’s the expectation, and if the game functions that way, it becomes incredibly obvious when the GM tries to force anything.