D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Mort]

A lot of players are influenced by Movies, TV shows and most of all video games : they think there should always be a "Cool Cut Scene " where they the player is given an explanation of everything

Then the player can have their PC "check to see if we are being followed" for no reason while they snicker.

Assuming such play is odd. In my experience many, many players are OVERLY paranoid and will take huge precautions. So should definitely at least have a shot.

But also, some characters are just good at noticing. If a PC has a good passive perception (high wis, certain feats, certain classes), then, absolutely, they might notice something amiss, someone trying to sneak up on them, even if the players haven't taken precautions.

I do agree just fine if the players want to play the game intelligently and take intelligent action. For example, if they randomly want to check if they are being followed or even better do a maneuver to shake a tail.

My problem would come in where the PCs just endless goof around, make noise and let everyone within a mile know where they are at all times...and make no effort to do anything intelligent. But if the DM says OOC "there is an assassin after you guys", the players will Cheat and say "Oh, um, my character makes a check to see if there is anyone following us....um, for no reason, snick snicker".

If the PCs take no precautions and make tons of noise, they might suffer the consequences of doing so.

But if the DM tells the to players there is an assassin after the PCs? Why wouldn't the players get to react to that? Presumably the DM expects them to, having told them.

 

[bloodtide]

Assuming such play is odd. In my experience many, many players are OVERLY paranoid and will take huge precautions. So should definitely at least have a shot.

I agree that as a standard PCs should be paranoid and take repercussions.

But also, some characters are just good at noticing. If a PC has a good passive perception (high wis, certain feats, certain classes), then, absolutely, they might notice something amiss, someone trying to sneak up on them, even if the players haven't taken precautions.

I agree rules wise here.

If the PCs take no precautions and make tons of noise, they might suffer the consequences of doing so.

I very much agree. Plenty of the PCs even leave a trail of dead bodies to follow....

But if the DM tells the to players there is an assassin after the PCs? Why wouldn't the players get to react to that? Presumably the DM expects them to, having told them.

I agree the DM should not tell the players. Some DMs are just Best Buddies with their players. And some DM mistakenly think players can keep player knowledge separate from player character knowledge.

 

[bloodtide]

9. In many cases, players go off the rails unintentionally by simply heading in an unexpected direction once they start an adventure. If they have any freedom in where they go, they might think an area you mention as background detail sounds cool. They might draw the wrong conclusion from clues and head to the ‘wrong’ place. They might just reject the current plot hooks and strike out elsewhere. The DM feels the need to Railroad the PC back on track.



This is the Classic Railroad Example.



The players not taking the current plot hooks is very much an Out of Game Problem. A mistake some games make is doing the pick a plot hook during game play. Having the PCs in-character get and approve plot hooks can often lead nowhere or worse to some random place the players pick. This is simply much better handheld DM to players all out of character.



For cool places, the answer is obvious. Don’t make cool sounding places that are not on the Adventure Path. In the most general sense, you only want to make the immediate area around the Adventure. In general, published modules already do this. Though in some cases you might need to alter things to make them less cool. When homebrewing keep the map vague or even unknown.



Players, by their nature, will often go off in “unexpected directions”. At least unexpected directions to new, inexperienced, or casual DMs. As a DM gains real life experience running games, this should fade away. If you’re a DM that plays with a set group of players, you should be able to get to know them quick enough. With experience predicting players is easy.



And this makes the big step here for dealing with players that go off in a direction, is to simply not make very many directions to go. Like above, you want to keep the Adventure Path tight and focused.



Players will often enough misinterpret a clue or draw a wrong conclusion. In general, as DM, you should not allow this to happen. Information and clues should be made as obvious as possible. And any way to go another path should be covered right from the start.



You might not be able to catch all of the above every time, but you should be able to catch most of them, and avoid the need for Railroading.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So how many of you were given a huge sandbox world to explore and ended up becoming farmers or opening a coffee shop instead???

 

[payn]

So how many of you were given a huge sandbox world to explore and ended up becoming farmers or opening a coffee shop instead???

Took over the setting with my coffee franchise Sandbucks.

 

[pemerton]

So, in Burning Wheel, as you pointed out, the GMs entire purpose is to foster narrative that engages the players interests by focusing on the PC's Beliefs. With the PC's Beliefs being an expression of the themes and ideas the player is interested in experiencing via the game's fiction. MouseGuard offers an alternative to BW's singular focus by splitting the narrative focus, specifically, by splitting the game sessions between a so called "GM Turn" and "Player Turn" respectively. During the "Player Turn" the GM is supposed to foster narrative in a fashion similar to BW in that the narrative is focused on what the player wants to do, giving the player meaningful influence over scenes and how they play out. However, during the "GM Turn" the GM is given free reign to fame scenes, and the stakes therein, independent of player influence, in order to present impersonal challenges the PC's must overcome. So, if I do, in fact, understand MouseGuard's play loop correctly, I have the following questions.

1) Would you still consider the "GM Turn" to be a railroad as the GM is the one who is supposed to set stakes and frame scenes independent of player influence?
2) Does the railroad-y-ness of a game's play loop depend on an expressed (or implied) agreement via "social contract" that the GM and players are supposedly following?
3) Is it possible that scenes and so called "world events" created by the GM independent of player influence, not be suppressing player agency, if and only if, the players do not feel as their choices are being invalidated?

I've never read or played MouseGuard, though I have heard of its phases/turns before. (I know TB2e fairly well, but it uses a different phase structure.)

I'm curious about your (1) - as in, to what extent is the GM free to set the stakes in the GM turn? Is there some expectation that these will pertain in some way to "guard" stuff? I ask because you describe them as "impersonal challenges".

The reason I'm curious is because this seems to affect the degree of railroad-y-ness: if the players know, in general terms, what will be at issue in the GM's turn, then the GM is not unilaterally setting the stakes even if they are controlling the details of the framed scenes.

The comparison I'm drawing in my mind is to Torchbearer 2e, where the whole structure of the game creates a default stake that the GM can introduce really at any time in the Adventure Phase, which is can some loot be obtained? So although it is the GM who sets up all the details around this, it is the game and not the GM that makes this a default possibility.

I think this thought/question also addresses your (2). I'm not sure about (3), because I'm not sure which choices you have in mind. If the GM is framing scenes having regard to player choices about (say) where to go and who to value and what risks to take, then it's no longer fully unilateral, is it?

 

[zarionofarabel]

I've never read or played MouseGuard, though I have heard of its phases/turns before. (I know TB2e fairly well, but it uses a different phase structure.)

I'm curious about your (1) - as in, to what extent is the GM free to set the stakes in the GM turn? Is there some expectation that these will pertain in some way to "guard" stuff? I ask because you describe them as "impersonal challenges".

The GM Turn is basically the PCs being given "orders" to complete a particular objective. The objective is whatever the GM decides. The conflicts the PCs will face is also whatever the GM decides.

The reason I'm curious is because this seems to affect the degree of railroad-y-ness: if the players know, in general terms, what will be at issue in the GM's turn, then the GM is not unilaterally setting the stakes even if they are controlling the details of the framed scenes.

The comparison I'm drawing in my mind is to Torchbearer 2e, where the whole structure of the game creates a default stake that the GM can introduce really at any time in the Adventure Phase, which is can some loot be obtained? So although it is the GM who sets up all the details around this, it is the game and not the GM that makes this a default possibility.

I think this thought/question also addresses your (2). I'm not sure about (3), because I'm not sure which choices you have in mind. If the GM is framing scenes having regard to player choices about (say) where to go and who to value and what risks to take, then it's no longer fully unilateral, is it?

I'm not sure, that's what I am wondering. If the GM is free to choose objectives for the PCs to complete, and challenges for the PCs to face, without having to take the players interests in to consideration, is that a form of railroading? Does it stop being railroading if the players specifically agree to play in a game where the GM is free to do so?

 

[bloodtide]

10. DM: The king wishes to speak to you about the recent aid you lent to the merchants guild.

Player: I do not wish to go before the king. I want to skip town and make a run for the hills.

DM: OK, cool. On your way out of the city, the guards stop you and bring you before the king.

Player: .…

This is Railroading. Though it also should not happen.

This is a bit of a simple one I tell most DMs: if a player willing stops the game, then stop the game.

As soon as the player is like “run to the hills”, then close the game book and end the game sesion right there. I also recommend not playing with that player ever again.

Too many DMs let themselves get dragged into the silly Player Sandbox. Where the player will be happy as a clam just randomly wandering around in the hills and doing nothing. For hours.

Now, if you’re a DM that likes this sort of mundane non-adventure play, then sure you can stay and have a happy time as the PC goes fishing or whatever.

If you’re a DM wanting ti run a more action adventure game, then just end the game there.

The player might have a good reason for running for the king, but note this is the other side of the coin where the DM does the same thing to the player. For example, a player wants their PC to go to a bar and the DM says “sorry no bar in town”. The player gets mad.
But if it is Okay for a player to do it to a DM, it is Okay for a DM to do it to a player.

If the player does have some alternative adventure they want to go on, that is great. But as said above that is more of an Out of Character point to make. The player should bring it up before the game.

If you are in a complex game, as DM, you should allow the player to “escape” the king. For a long running deep immersion role playing game, it is not a big deal. Though just remember the next time the PC wants anything from a NPC, to have them “run to the hills” too. All is fair, after all.

 

[soviet]

10. DM: The king wishes to speak to you about the recent aid you lent to the merchants guild.

Player: I do not wish to go before the king. I want to skip town and make a run for the hills.

DM: OK, cool. On your way out of the city, the guards stop you and bring you before the king.

Player: .…

This is Railroading. Though it also should not happen.

This is a bit of a simple one I tell most DMs: if a player willing stops the game, then stop the game.

As soon as the player is like “run to the hills”, then close the game book and end the game sesion right there. I also recommend not playing with that player ever again.

Too many DMs let themselves get dragged into the silly Player Sandbox. Where the player will be happy as a clam just randomly wandering around in the hills and doing nothing. For hours.

Now, if you’re a DM that likes this sort of mundane non-adventure play, then sure you can stay and have a happy time as the PC goes fishing or whatever.

If you’re a DM wanting ti run a more action adventure game, then just end the game there.

The player might have a good reason for running for the king, but note this is the other side of the coin where the DM does the same thing to the player. For example, a player wants their PC to go to a bar and the DM says “sorry no bar in town”. The player gets mad.
But if it is Okay for a player to do it to a DM, it is Okay for a DM to do it to a player.

If the player does have some alternative adventure they want to go on, that is great. But as said above that is more of an Out of Character point to make. The player should bring it up before the game.

If you are in a complex game, as DM, you should allow the player to “escape” the king. For a long running deep immersion role playing game, it is not a big deal. Though just remember the next time the PC wants anything from a NPC, to have them “run to the hills” too. All is fair, after all.

How is 'anytime you resist my plot hooks, the game immediately ends' not also railroading?

 

[bloodtide]

How is 'anytime you resist my plot hooks, the game immediately ends' not also railroading?

It sure does not fit.

Why should a DM have to just sit there and say "yes player" to whatever the player does?

And why is the reverse not true? Should not then the DM be able to say "the adventure is X" and the players will say "yes DM"?

Why is it when a player resists a plot hook it is seen a a great and noble thing?

Then a DM resisting a player suggestion should be a great and noble thing, right?

As I said, this should really be talked about outside the game, and very much before the game.

Some of the WORST players are the ones that pretend to be okay with the hook or adventure, then wait for the game to start to do their little trick of "nope we don't do that DM, haha, fooled you!".