What do you consider a "railroading" module?

[Celebrim]

I have one nitpick on the definitions on railroading. I think RR-ing is not when the PC's have no choices...

<<<SNIP ALOT OF GOOD ADVICE AND COMMENTARY>>>

...If, however, you make the transition from pre-scripted module encounters to improvised encounters seamlessly, then the players will never know when they are really in control of the plot, and when they are being railroaded, and they will default to a feeling that they are always in control.

If you don't mind me saying so, you sound like the sort of DM whose games I wouldn't mind being a player in.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you don't mind me saying so, you sound like the sort of DM whose games I wouldn't mind being a player in.

Agreed. I certainly hope Old Drew Id posts more.


RC

 

[Hussar]

To me railroading in modules or adventures means that any group proceeding through the module will have almost identical experiences each and every time. I certainly wouldn't toss the G series in there since there are simply so many things that you can do to finish those modules and, while some experiences might be shared, they will vary greatly from group to group.

 

[Mark CMG]

I can't say anything about the new DL stuff, but yeah. . . the original DL modules are pretty bad. People often complain about the iconic FR NPCs hogging the spotlight, though the case to made against the DL iconics is even stronger -- the whole freaking setting (well, Krynn, anyhow) is largely designed around them. PCs don't matter a great lot in DL of old (again, I have no idea how the new stuff fares).

The difference between being told how to participate in a D&D game and being told to sit back and watch one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me railroading in modules or adventures means that any group proceeding through the module will have almost identical experiences each and every time. I certainly wouldn't toss the G series in there since there are simply so many things that you can do to finish those modules and, while some experiences might be shared, they will vary greatly from group to group.

I would certainly accept that definition.

RC

 

[fusangite]

Railroading modules are those whose contents are hard or impossible to use easily without radically restricting or over-ruling player choice.

If the contents of the module are still useful if the players make unexpected decisions, then the module is not railroading me. If the contents become inconvenient or impossible to use, then the module has fallen into the railroading trap.

My definition is not especially associated with the conscious intent of the designers. Some modules intend to send the players through a very specific set of decisions and actions but are still useful, in spite of themselves, when players don't do these things.

 

[Agamon]

Look at the front and back cover. If there is reference to AD&D 2nd Edition, odds are pretty good that the inside's got rails.

 

[tx7321]

Hussar: "To me railroading in modules or adventures means that any group proceeding through the module will have almost identical experiences each and every time."

Good point.

To me the worst offending modules are those that break the DMs back to adapt unexpected free behavior. As P&P mentioned above, an NPC who pops in and out at different times who is key to the adventure and can't be killed without giving the DM a migrain.

 

[ssampier]

I'll see your Avatar Trilogy, and raise you one Hour of the Knife!

Not familiar with that one, sorry....

 

[grodog]

Any module where decisions are made in stead of the PCs/players outside establishing the starting conditions. I think that's a vital distinction. In campaigns, even the latter may be railroading in some cases - but in its milder forms, probably acceptable in order to get the game going.

An excellent point, Gabor: many early modules have less-than-stellar setups, but that's OK because the DM was expected to customize the module to his home campaign requirements anyway.

Before I start, I think there's bad railroading and good railroading. [snip]

the bit in A3 where the players are captured because the plot requires it is "bad railroading"

The bit at the beginning of G1 where the player characters are given a reason to go kill the giants, told to go kill them, then suddenly appear near the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, [snip] Thus it strikes me as a railroad that's relatively less unpleasant for the players than one that happens during play. Hence, "good" railroad -- effectively a taxi-ride to the start of the adventure.

Good points, Stuart: although, enabling the PCs to be captured in A3 in order to be able to share the pleasures of playing A4 may well make that railroading "good" too, depending on the players/group. The A3 capture is certainly more heavy-handed than I prefer, but A4's such a unique challenge among modules that it's well-worth a little freewill sacrifice, if the players are up for it, IMO. (Aside: there are so many other possible ways to capture the PCs in Suderham (in the brothels, to pull one example from oodles) that the DM can likely make capture a more-natural consequence of the PCs' actions too, with a little work).