Some novels are well written. Some novels are poorly written. All novels, though, are written; and all (or near enough to all) aspire to be well written, or, at least, engaging to the reader. The novel that sets out to be boring, a bad read, poorly written, etc is a pretty rare exception.
RPGing is a leisure activity, a pastime. For most RPGers, the "story" - the shared fiction - is an important part of what makes it an attractive pastime. So, the quality of that fiction is not an irrelevant consideration. RPGing is also a participatory pastime in a way that reading a novel is not. So, the quality of that participation is not an irrelevant consideration either.
The two also interact, in at least this way: player participation in RPGing heavily shapes how they "receive" the fiction, and hence what makes the fiction good or bad. For instance, players - as an audience - are unlikely to experience an epic NPC backstory and character arc in the way that they would experience that character's arc in the reading of a novel. So even if it would be good fiction in a novel, it may not be good fiction in a RPG, for the player audience. To make a similar (perhaps the same) point slightly differently - the participatory structure of a RPG means that the protagonists in the fiction, if their exploits are to be enjoyed by the player audience, must typically if not always be the PCs.
There are ways, in RPGing, to achieve good fiction together with, and within the constraints that are generated by, participation. Those different ways will appeal to different people, who have different expectations both for their fiction and their participation.
The most egregious railroading, in my view, is railroading that blocks or negates or undoes participation in the service of poor or trite fiction. Yet this seems to be surprisingly common!
