D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[bloodtide]

Logical consequences resulting from the players actions are not railroading!

Not to many players. If they don't like something, they cry Railroad!

And you must ask yourself, why it is that I can see and predict for most situations the course the players take?

Well, really humans are simple creatures to figure out, RPG players even easier.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Or even if that's not avowedly their purpose, they're there to swing swords/sling spells and do funny voices, and putting much effort into thinking through a problem is just not a priority.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If this was the case there wouldn't be so much caterwauling about "unbalanced" D&D rules.

You're conflating the people who talk about things online with the gaming populace as a whole. This is a categorical error. The people willing to take the time to analyze and otherwise think about rules are the other part of the gaming populace. Even if they're in a minority, there's still plenty to do all that "caterwauling".

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.

Again, you're conflating two different groups of people. And you're also doing binary thinking; there are some who sort-of care but aren't always willing to put in too much effort or do so consistently.

 

[pemerton]

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?

In my view, if the bulk of play in some episode of RPGing involves the players solving a puzzle or "issue" that the GM has more-or-less unilaterally put in front of them, the play is probably pretty railroad-y. It can depend a bit on what the puzzle or issue is - if the players are mostly interested in RPG-as-crossword-puzzle, and the puzzles are reasonably intricate, then the play has focused on that field of activity where the players want to exercise their agency. But if the puzzles or issues are about identifying the next breadcrumb in a trail that will lead the players through a series of pre-authored scenes, then to me that looks like a railroad.

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.

In my view, this depends. If the fictional elements the players are engaging with are also unilaterally presented by the GM; and/or if the bits the players are ignoring come back to establish stakes or consequences for the decisions they make in relation to the things they are focusing on; then it seems to me like is might be railroad-y.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Absolutely one of my lowest priorities for D&D in general. What is actually gained by playing "smart"? (Defining "smart" here as relatively cautious play with a focus on advancing the overall "storyline".)

 

[zarionofarabel]

In my view, this depends. If the fictional elements the players are engaging with are also unilaterally presented by the GM; and/or if the bits the players are ignoring come back to establish stakes or consequences for the decisions they make in relation to the things they are focusing on; then it seems to me like is might be railroad-y.

But wouldn't that then mean that anything or everything the GM does, without prior express player consent, in essence, be railroading? How then could a GM function as a member of the group with the power to add to the ongoing narrative? The players are entitled to add to the narrative unilaterally, shouldn't the GM have the ability to do that as well without it automatically being labeled railroading? I mean, how is a GM supposed to function, on a fundamental level, if all instances of narrative manipulation are automatically considered to suppress player agency and be labeled as railroading?

 

[pemerton]

Absolutely one of my lowest priorities for D&D in general. What is actually gained by playing "smart"? (Defining "smart" here as relatively cautious play with a focus on advancing the overall "storyline".)

I suck at "smart" play both as player and GM. It's why I'm not a very good GM of classic D&D dungeon-esque stuff. And why I loved 4e D&D.