What do you consider a "railroading" module?

jonathan swift said:
I'm not sure I buy that. To me it's more of a there is only one way between point A and point B.
It is the definition of railroading to me. They can have to go from point A to point B but can do so in multiple, alternate ways, in which case that's not railroading. But if they have to do it 'this way', a precise, no-alternative way, then it's railroading.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I liked it when my players starting crying railroad because in order to get ot the top of the tower they "had" to recover 4 items spread through the other levels of the tower.

They started crying "railroad". I said, "Yeah, its horrible that the guy (high level NPC wizard, module author, you pick) actually made it impossible for low level nobodies like you to get in without doing it the way he designed for you to get in."

To me, Railroading is done by the DM, and it is when the DM allows only "one way" to work. No matter how good other ideas may or may not work. Unless, like in my example from Goodman Games "Mysterious Tower" DCC ( DCC 3, I think), the adventure scenario is designed to be hard for anyone to get in, that is low to medium level, anyways.

Its not a crime for a wizard (or DM) to try and design something with only one way in. Especially if they were good/smart enough to do so. Especially for the lower levels. Why avoid designing such impenetrable places just to avoid being called a "Railroad". So what if it is? As long as it is fairly designed and built, your not supposed to like the "ride", but if you want to get to point "B", then you better ride the "train" until it gets there.

So only when the DM says, "No, that doesn't work." and it does, or could, is it railroading that players can cry about. That I'll listen to anyways.

If they are such babies that they cry about the DM or NPC being able to design something that actually challenges them, makes them come up with new ways to accomplish things, or dares to force them to collect 4 keys to get in, too bad. They can either get over themselves or they can DM.
 

Q: "If you've got a portion of the dungeon that gives on a single room, no matter what path you take, and that this room as a single door forward, with a uber powerful trap which would have a single way of being disarmed, then it is a railroad in this precise instance."

I totally disagree. If your walking down a hall and a troll is up ahead in a room, and there is no other way to get around it (then passing it dead or alive) thats just a dungeon. Typically there are no other ways around a linier hall...what are you talking about...secret passages the DM is supposed to create to facilitate play. Railroading to me relates to the stuff involved with plot and usually the "getting to the dungeon part". not the dungoen itself. I don't think most people consider underground dungeons as "railroading". Thats "top-side plot stuff"
 

Crothian said:
The reason I say DM can only railroad is the players always have the choice (unless the DM denies it) to go do something else. They don't have to go into the dungeon or follow the plot. Granted it takes them aways from the module but they have that choice.
This is the heart of the railroading problem - that even if an adventure is as railroady as the Trans-Siberian Express, the DM need not adhere to such a structure. A pity that more DMs do not grasp this (or that adventure designers don't make it easier on the DM to make such adjustments).

That said, there are adventures that can lead to railroaded games if the DM is not willing (or able) to take a step back and loosen things up a little. To give a recent example, Shadows of the Last War for Eberron is a hideous piece of railroaded design which, even though I played it over a year ago, I am still ranting about. Issues? Me?
 

I find myself in agreement with Raven Crowking and Odhanan. When the GM usurps player choice in order to force PCs down a certain path, that is railroading. I also agree with Crothian after a fashion -- the decision to limit player choices is solely on the GM's shoulders. That said. . .

Some adventure modules come very close to demanding that a GM choose to usurp player choice (White Wolf's Giovanni Chronicles modules comes immediately to mind). These modules are written so rigidly, with such ingrained default assumptions, that even tiny deviations from the prescribed plot invalidate the rest of the module (or module series).
 


Well... I suppose there are different degrees of railroading.

The worst is when the module/DM tells the PCs what they are doing.

i.e. you walk through the archway and find yourself in the abyss.
Problem: first PC walks through the archway and disappears. What do the other PC's do? Just keep walking without thinking/talking about it first?

Not likely.
 


If you examine the thread that spawned the poll, and you examine the responses after the thread definitions were brought up again, I think that the choices were fairly clear. It was brought up in the poll thread that I might have been too...generous...in the way I worded the "As the Player Defines it" choice, and the responses were not of the "That would have changed my answer" type.

RC

EDIT: In any event, that thread and the linked thread found within offer some interesting insight (IMHO) as to how people define railroading.
 
Last edited:

Crothian said:
Modules cannot railroad only DMs.

I tend to agree with this but I remember DM'ing the Avatar triogy of moduals and all three were a super railroad.

tsr9247dn9.jpg
 

Remove ads

Top