D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Only because you are still seeing railroading as a qualitative term rather than a quantitative thing. The question isn't "Are we railroading or not?" but "How much are we railroading?" Railroading is like temperature. It has a nice zone you want to be in for comfort.

Nah. Ironsworn alone is proof enough that the minimum necessary amount of railroading is zero.

 

[pemerton]

Using my "DM magic" to coax and nudge the players back into the funnel I've planned and prepared for sounds like railroading, but I think it's a good thing for me.

I'm very confused by this thread. If an adventure called The Catacombs of Lusmanora places the catacombs beneath Monomonomp, and the plot revolves around the party's exploration of the catacombs, should we feel bad about trying to guide (a.k.a. railroad) the party to hurry up and get their behinds to Monomonomp?

Why wouldn't you just start the game with the PCs at the entrance to the catacombs?

 

[kermit4karate]

Why wouldn't you just start the game with the PCs at the entrance to the catacombs?

What if the players just decide to nope out and hit a local tavern instead of entering the catacombs?

 

[kermit4karate]

After following this thread, personally, I don't have a problem with the concept of railroading. Like everything, it depends on how it's defined and employed. Lots of the arguments for/against it here are filled with misunderstandings.

I realize that some people think it's a scourge upon gaming and they've vowed to never play in a game with a DM like that, and I can live with that. I'm pretty sure I do it (by most definitions I've read), and it works well for my players and me.

 

[pemerton]

What if the players just decide to nope out and hit a local tavern instead of entering the catacombs?

Then you have a problem: the GM wants to play The Catacombs of Lusmanora, and the players (apparently) don't.

Suppose one person wants to play chess and the other backgammon: there's going to have to be a conversation to get on the same page. It looks like the same thing applies here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then you have a problem: the GM wants to play The Catacombs of Lusmanora, and the players (apparently) don't.

Suppose one person wants to play chess and the other backgammon: there's going to have to be a conversation to get on the same page. It looks like the same thing applies here.

And those people working that out are not going to have a Friendship Master who makes the final call on everything that occurs in this friendship. They'll talk it out like adults and work out which thing to do, perhaps making concessions or plans or splitting time between interests.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@Celebrim

Is railroading always coercive?

 

[Maxperson]

What if the players just decide to nope out and hit a local tavern instead of entering the catacombs?

I don't know who you are talking to, but speaking for myself, the players would nope out and hit a local tavern. Then gameplay would go from there. Maybe they change their minds and go in, maybe they do something else.

 

[kermit4karate]

Then you have a problem: the GM wants to play The Catacombs of Lusmanora, and the players (apparently) don't.

Suppose one person wants to play chess and the other backgammon: there's going to have to be a conversation to get on the same page. It looks like the same thing applies here.

Agreed. And if that fails because they verbally agree to stay on track but still unintentionally chase the blinky lights and get easily distracted, just railroad them and make sure they don't notice.

Sometimes people need a little help staying on task.

(Yes, I realize that you probably hate this, but it works well for my games!)