• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Hussar

Legend
I mentioned earlier that one of the problems with discussing railroading is the notion that you have a scale with railroading at one end and open ended on the other. This isn't true. The scale is linear to sandbox. You can railroad just as easily in either style. When the DM decides that a particular outcome is best and massages the game to get that specific outcome, that's railroading.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I mentioned earlier that one of the problems with discussing railroading is the notion that you have a scale with railroading at one end and open ended on the other. This isn't true. The scale is linear to sandbox. You can railroad just as easily in either style. When the DM decides that a particular outcome is best and massages the game to get that specific outcome, that's railroading.
Mmmm. I don't agree. If you are railroading in a sandbox game, you aren't running a sandbox game. The moment you railroad, it ceases to be sandbox.
 

I'm going to throw ad in here, just so we keep the conversation focused on the book!

Feel free to scroll past - I have a book to sell!

The Blizzard of Axe and Sword Promo 2.png
 

It's okay to only have one path and it's okay to only have one correct way to follow that path. The path gains unwelcome rails when the player tries to leave it and can't. Railroading is when an adventure has a linear path that players struggle to stay on and the DM is obvious in contriving to force them to stay on it. Bad railroading happens when this bothers people.

The struggle to stay on the path may come from character motivations or lack thereof, from information about the path being poorly communicated or poorly understood, from there seeming to be other paths that seem to make more logical sense, or from there seeming to be other paths that are more fun or interesting. Contriving to force players on the path may take the form of the DM having attempts to deviate continuously fail in sometimes improbable ways, having NPCs swear up and down that they need to do X and improbably unwilling to consider doing Y or Z, giving agency to NPCs, outright making player character decisions for them, telling players every idea they have won't work, or all manner of other sins that break the sense of agency, break the verisimilitude, or otherwise take people out of the game.

Why did players struggle to stay on the path? It may be that the path was just too linear. It may be that the DM (or whoever created the module) failed to give sufficient motivation to get on or stay on the intended path. It may be that they failed to give sufficient information to do so. It may be that they simply didn't think of all manner of alternative solutions to things that the players do think of, either because nobody can think of everything or because the DM or module designer missed something obvious. Sometimes it can be an "unreasonable" player's fault. Maybe they just want to do random things, maybe they have a character who does not accommodate going on the adventure, maybe they don't pay any attention to what's going on and don't know what they are supposed to be doing. Maybe they are just a poor fit for that group or that DM.

In any case, struggling to stay on a linear path is going to happen to some degree or another a certain amount of the time. It becomes railroading if the DM decides they can not or are unwilling to accommodate the alternative path, fails to nudge players back onto the intended one discretely, and resorts to various means players find increasingly obvious and likely obnoxious to keep them on the planned path. Sometimes this may take the perfectly acceptable form of "sorry guys, this is the adventure I have prepped for today" or "this is how the written module goes and I'm not comfortable modifying it for the thing you want to do". This is a form of railroading, but not one reasonable players hold against their DM, especially if the DM was someone who half-willingly stepped up to the plate and/or has a busy life outside of D&D. Other times the DM may nudge players onto the intended path through gentler in-game incentives, disincentives, or just plot developments and the players may simply take the hint and be okay with it, or go along without ever knowing they were steered back onto the rails. No real harm here either; there may be rails but nobody had a quarrel over them.

The railroading problems happen when the DM has put the party on rails, the party tries to get off, and the DM can't just admit that they are railroading the party, tries to coerce them to stay on the rails through in-game methods, and does so in ways that seem unfair, illogical, break immersion, and so forth. A DM with sufficient improvisation talent could probably give players satisfactory reasons to stay on the intended path almost all the time, but they likely don't need to do so much of the time because they likely also have the skills to improvise out many of the alternative paths players may choose. A DM who has a good feel for the players and their characters could have designed the intended path to appeal to them and anticipated what alternative approaches they might need to plan for in advance, either to accommodate a different path of to disincentivize taking it. A DM who can't adapt to an alternative path at all and who did not anticipate obvious alternative decisions players might make, however, is also often a DM who is going to improvise poor methods for coercing people to stay on the path they want because they are likely someone who is inflexible, a poor improviser, and/or doesn't have a good feel for the players and their characters. Naturally the DMs most throughly in this camp are likely to commit all manner of other sins unrelated to putting the party on rails, giving railroading all manner of disreputable associations.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
I normally think of railroading as having a sequence of events that you cannot deviate from. Like you need to follow A-B-C-D. If A is the start and D the destination then B and C will need to be done in a specific order, a specific way. If B says the players must be captured then it doesn't matter what players do, they will be captured whereas if it isn't a railroad then if the players overcome their assailants, the game continues.

With non-rail road adventures D might still be the destination but the players know this, they know where they are headed, but they can make decisions that affect the adventure. They might end up going A-C-B-C2-D, meandering about finding and overcoming challenges and, hopefully, overcoming the final challenge to succeed at the quest.
 

I normally think of railroading as having a sequence of events that you cannot deviate from. Like you need to follow A-B-C-D. If A is the start and D the destination then B and C will need to be done in a specific order, a specific way. If B says the players must be captured then it doesn't matter what players do, they will be captured whereas if it isn't a railroad then if the players overcome their assailants, the game continues.

With non-rail road adventures D might still be the destination but the players know this, they know where they are headed, but they can make decisions that affect the adventure. They might end up going A-C-B-C2-D, meandering about finding and overcoming challenges and, hopefully, overcoming the final challenge to succeed at the quest.

Still seems like a railroad if the GM knows what's going to happen in the end. Let's say A = read humor about a cult performing a ritual to end the world. Is D "defeat the cult"? What if the players decide to join the cult? What if they go their own any and let some other adventurers handle the problem?
 

Coroc

Hero
Just to offer up an example of this that wasn't bad.

One of the players in my group wanted to try his hand at DMing. He picked out a 3.5 module to run and studied up. Before the game started he came to the rest of us and said that even though he knew there were a lot of other places in the area we could go(it was set in FR), would we please not deviate from where the story was going. He didn't want to be overwhelmed while he was learning how to run the game. We all agreed and away we went.

He cut off options that didn't fit the predetermined story, but did so in the right way. He got our buy in and had a legitimate reason for doing so.

Well some argue it is best to offer three or four directions to go and let the layers decide and argue, that this would save time and work, since the players will surely take one bait. You also see that often in bought modules.

But: Unless your "sidequests" are not very level independent, and e.g. your clues on the big McGuffin which the players might find, distributed into the sidequests, are pretty generic, and placeable out of context, the DM has got to do 3x or 4x the upfront work, as compared to the solution your DM took.
And still it does not warrant, that the players do not chose a 4th or 5th direction, which the DM did not cover.

Having this optional paths given in a bought module does only partially solve the problem, the DM still has to prepare several options that might not come into play at all depending on the players actions.
 

Coroc

Hero
Still seems like a railroad if the GM knows what's going to happen in the end. Let's say A = read humor about a cult performing a ritual to end the world. Is D "defeat the cult"? What if the players decide to join the cult? What if they go their own any and let some other adventurers handle the problem?
Let me guess: In your case the player chose to join the cult more often than not? (Because slave trade and such )

(Just joking)


But seriously, I do not hesitate to give players McGuffin artifacts from time to time, with which they can chose to either save the world or destroy it. If they chose to destroy it then the campaign might be over at level 8 or 12.

Same if they ignore the main thread going on, or instead join the evil side, then things simply run just like they would in reality.

At one point you will have blown up all campaign worlds eventually, but all your campaigns had epic endings at least :p
 

Let me guess: In your case the player chose to join the cult more often than not? (Because slave trade and such )

(Just joking)


But seriously, I do not hesitate to give players McGuffin artifacts from time to time, with which they can chose to either save the world or destroy it. If they chose to destroy it then the campaign might be over at level 8 or 12.

Same if they ignore the main thread going on, or instead join the evil side, then things simply run just like they would in reality.

At one point you will have blown up all campaign worlds eventually, but all your campaigns had epic endings at least :p

I'm not sure what my players would do. I don't typically give them hooks that might result in the end of the word. I'm too lazy. I've been running games in the same little hex-map since 2008. If I ended the world, I'd have to build a new one from the ground up.
 

I think one aspect of railroading vs. sandbox play is the notion of adventure-building vs. world-building. Some DMs enjoy crafting adventures. Some enjoy crafting world. Others still, enjoy crafting both.

Crafting an adventure is often inspired by the questions, "What if X happened?"
When crafting a world, the DM typically asks a different one: "What is the world were like X?"

Both questions result in adventure material, but do so in very different ways. If I had to guess, the first question is more prone to railroading than the second.
 

Remove ads

Top