D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[CleverNickName]

It doesn't need to involve deception.

Let's say, for example, the story depends on the party falling down a certain shaft in the dungeon--otherwise they will never find the Thing that they need to finish the Job they are on. So the shaft is covered by a trapdoor, which is operated by a lever. Do the players pull the lever, or not?

The answer is "yes." If they pull the lever, the trap is activated and they fall into the shaft (and the next chapter of the story). If they don't pull the lever, the trap isn't deactivated, and they fall into the shaft (and the next chapter of the story.) It's a classic Kobayashi Maru situation, but only the DM needs to know that.

It's best to use this type of thing very scarcely, and be very subtle about it. Without the illusion of choice, players will lose interest quickly.

 

[NotAYakk]

How is that not a lie of omission?

Something is only a lie of omission if it is (a) important and (b) the person you are talking to's business.

The fact I haven't told you my hair color (if any!) is both (a) not important to this discussion, and (b) not your business.

Omitting things is required for a lie of omission, but it is not sufficient.

The mechanics of encounter and adventure building are not the player's business. Failing to relay said information is not a lie of omission.

Using storytelling illusions to hide a railroad is a mechanic of encounter and adventure building. That isn't the player's business.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Using storytelling illusions to hide a railroad is a mechanic of encounter and adventure building. That isn't the player's business.

We can agree to disagree. Seems like a lie to me, but you might see it differently.

 

[NotAYakk]

It doesn't need to involve deception.

Let's say, for example, the story depends on the party falling down a certain shaft in the dungeon--otherwise they will never find the Thing that they need to finish the Job they are on. So the shaft is covered by a trapdoor, which is operated by a lever. Do the players pull the lever, or not?

The answer is "yes." If they pull the lever, the trap is activated and they fall into the shaft (and the next chapter of the story). If they don't pull the lever, the trap isn't deactivated, and they fall into the shaft (and the next chapter of the story.) It's a classic Kobayashi Maru situation, but only the DM needs to know that.

And this is an example of why the illusion has such issues.

There are a myriad of ways to determine in D&D what that lever does. They could easily do those things (divination, using scouts, blah blah).

Now you either have to force it harder (which will break the illusion), or find a "solution" that doesn't involve falling down that pit. What more, when the players get out of that pit and examine what is behind it, you need to populate that area and have a plausible reason why the story would have continued (otherwise, they see the cardboard set dressing).

The illusionary choice there let you be lazy, but also meant you where lazy.

The sandbox solution would have both the pit trap and not the pit trap both lead to something sensible and interesting and advancing the story.

Now the risk of having to ham-hand the pit trap goes away, exploration after the fact reveals no cardboard... and, the structure of each path has to be at least sketched in, even if they only go down one path the fact that plot-bones support the other one integrates their path better into the world.

Maybe they'll later find the back end of the other path, for example.

 

[CleverNickName]

And this is an example of why the illusion has such issues.

You're not wrong. If a DM needs to constantly use no-win scenarios like this to tell the story, they need to take a closer look at how an adventure is supposed to work and how one should be put together.

I'm not trying to comment on how much/little of railroading should be used in the game, and I'm not trying to claim it's fair/unfair...that all depends on your group. I'm just suggesting that, if it's done properly, railroading will be completely invisible.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would call it railroading when the DM makes every but one strategic choice feasible.

For example, your task is to infiltrate a castle:

DM: "You see the guards have left the main door slightly open. What do you do?".
Players: "It seems too easy, I don't trust it. Let's try to find a window.
DM: "The castle has no windows, it's airtight".
Players: "Let's climb the wall".
DM: "You can't, it's too high, covered in oil and has spikes everywhere".
Players: "We cut a whole through the wall".
DM: "Nope, it's adamantine".
Players: "We cast Passwall".
DM: "The whole hill is under an antimagic field".
Players: "We catapult ourselves directly into the inner yard".
DM: "There is no yard, it's a hemispherical castle, you slide back to the outside".
Players: "Sigh... ok, we go through the main door which the guards left slightly open".
DM: "Good puppies! Now, you enter the main hall, there are three doors: a white door closed, a black door open, a red door semi-open. What do you do?"

 

[jmartkdr2]

I would call it railroading when the DM makes every but one strategic choice feasible.

For example, your task is to infiltrate a castle:

DM: "You see the guards have left the main door slightly open. What do you do?".
Players: "It seems too easy, I don't trust it. Let's try to find a window.
DM: "The castle has no windows, it's airtight".
Players: "Let's climb the wall".
DM: "You can't, it's too high, covered in oil and has spikes everywhere".
Players: "We cut a whole through the wall".
DM: "Nope, it's adamantine".
Players: "We cast Passwall".
DM: "The whole hill is under an antimagic field".
Players: "We catapult ourselves directly into the inner yard".
DM: "There is no yard, it's a hemispherical castle, you slide back to the outside".
Players: "Sigh... ok, we go through the main door which the guards left slightly open".
DM: "Good puppies! Now, you enter the main hall, there are three doors: a white door closed, a black door open, a red door semi-open. What do you do?"

I'd go a step further - if all the reasons to not go any other way make sense within the narrative, then the players will just see obstacles. If they don't fit the narrative, then you have a dissonance. That dissonance is 'bad railroading.'

It's not the existence of limits, it's the noticed presence of limits that don't fit the genre or setting-as-described.

(Which means that a lot of not-obvious things can affect when and where the problem occurs, if it does at all - like genre, how the limit is described to the players, what sorts of things they consider needs vs wants, etc.)

 

[Charlaquin]

The fact I haven't told you my hair color (if any!) is both (a) not important to this discussion, and (b) not your business.

So, ginger?

 

[Kinematics]

From some of the comments here, there is the idea that railroading can be defined with a single incident. However the definition for railroading is a bit like the definition for a Mary Sue — each comprises a number of different behaviors, each of which, taken individually, is not that bad, or in some cases actually beneficial and productive to the story. The problem comes from the combination of the behaviors over an extended period of time.

Forcing a decision on your players in order to cover up a weakness in your planning? Doing it once is understandable; nobody is perfect. If it's a regular occurrence, though, it's a problem. There could be any number of reasons for it occurring, from bad GMing to poor planning, to not interacting well with the players' way of interacting with the game. But the end result is taking away players' agency, and cutting off avenues of exploration in the game world.

As some have said, sometimes it works. Some people may not care, or maybe the railroad was the story they really wanted to follow anyway, so it doesn't matter. Where it becomes the pejorative, however, is where it interferes with the enjoyment of the game. If the players are frustrated because of a lack of ability to do what they want, that's often where the word gets trotted out. It's not a single event; it's a series of events. It's not a guideline; it's a straitjacket. It's a pattern of behavior. It's a continuous effect, not an instantaneous one.

That makes it more difficult to describe, because any single instance that contributes to the railroading effect can be argued away or dismissed.


I would personally define it as the GM regularly and repeatedly removing agency from the players as a whole, either in personal actions or in story direction, that is done in service of the GM's personal vision of the story rather than all the players' vision of the story.

The most extreme version of this that I've encountered was a GM that had literally written out large scripts for the story, as narrated by his NPCs, while leaving the PCs as spectators with little ability to influence the intended story (as already written before the game started). The players were basically the baggage carriers for the protagonists of the story that was already fully predetermined.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I know that the term means a lot of things to a lot of people, but for me it's more about looking at "how would this game go with different groups of players and characters?"

If having different players or characters means that the game would play out differently, then it sounds like there's room for player choice to have an impact on the outcome.

If having different players or characters means that the game would not play out differently, then it sounds like everything has already been decided and player choice will have minimal or even no impact on the outcome.

There are degrees, I think, but that's generally how I look at it. If the game doesn't change because the players and/or characters change, then it's likely a railroad.