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.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

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.

Sure, I was thinking more of people who show up with the apparent intention of engaging in rank schmuckery rather than people who like funny voices and rolling d20s. I guess there could be an overlap between the two at certain tables, but casual, beer & pretzels play seems benign to me.

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.

It's not my strongest suit as a player or a GM, and I find some of the ways it manifests in play tedious (when part of the game becomes avoiding the actual game, it's lost me). I think I've mentioned before how bad my 4e group was at playing 4e, but there really was a robust gameable space to grab onto that I loved.

 

[pemerton]

But wouldn't that then mean that anything or everything the GM does, without prior express player consent, in essence, be railroading?

No, because there are ways of not acting unilaterally that don't depend upon express consent.

Here's just one simple illustration, from 4e D&D play: a player builds their PC, and plays their PC, as a fanatical devotee of the Raven Queen; and so I, as GM, introduce undead, and Orcus cultists, as threats to the PC or to things the PC cares about.

That is not unilateral: the player is the one who has made the Raven Queen vs Orcus/Undead conflict salient. But it doesn't depend upon express consent.

Upthread, @chaochou talked about who authors the players' goals for their PCs. And I talked about the players exercising real influence over the significant content of the presented scenes, and their stakes, and what follows next. Those aren't exactly the same, but they're in the same general space. In my illustrative example, it is the player who - by way of their build and play of their PC - is shaping content and stakes.

To provide a fully-worked illustration, more would be needed. For instance, if the whole scenario is a GM-orchestrated "fetch quest" and the GM just replaces goblins with skeletons then, while the player has influenced the colour of the opposition, it is still the GM determining the stakes. And so I would still see that as pretty railroad-y. It becomes non-railroad-y when "threat to the PC or to things the PC cares about" is also responsive to player-established priorities. Which comes back to @chaochou's point about *who picks the PCs' goals?"

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?

As I posted upthread,

GM presents and players interact is pretty fundamental to RPGing (except at the avant garde cutting edge). But that doesn't mean that all RPGing has to involve the GM dictating what happens.

There are plenty of ways of the GM adding to the fiction that don't involve the GM unilaterally deciding on the significant content of scenes, the stakes of scenes, and what comes next.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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".)

What, you don’t love watching players turtle at the slightest indication of a trap?

Characters hurl themselves at dragons and giants and so on… but the mere possibility of a poison dart grinds the game to a halt.