What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[TaranTheWanderer]

I have a hard time reading people say,

“They wanted to do Quest X and you wouldn’t let them, therefore railroading”

If the players make uninformed choices that get their characters stuck in a pocket dimension, that’s just interacting with the campaign world. It’s world building and discovering new information.

A DM could hint at a potential danger or if a player has their character specifically research the current fey politics, then they should have knowledge to make an informed choice.

It’s like saying putting a hidden pit trap in front of a door is railroading.

“We didn’t see the pit and now we are stuck in it and can’t immediately pursue our goals. Railroading!!”

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I have a hard time reading people say,

“They wanted to do Quest X and you wouldn’t let them, therefore railroading”

If the players make uninformed choices that get their characters stuck in a pocket dimension, that’s just interacting with the campaign world. It’s world building and discovering new information.

A DM could hint at a potential danger or if a player has their character specifically research the current fey politics, then they should have knowledge to make an informed choice.

It’s like saying putting a hidden pit trap in front of a door is railroading.

“We didn’t see the pit and now we are stuck in it and can’t immediately pursue our goals. Railroading!!”

I think this is a good question to ask!
There are so many situations in rpgs now that this has an example of one of many.

If players are doing whatever they want and step into a situation they must now address (short of walking away in utter failure and consequences). Then "the act of doing stuff leading to situation" = I don't feel most players would consider that rail roading at all.
- BUT if after they entered the situation, they realized there was no way at all to have avoided it (or the clues to avoid it were unfairly obscure), then yeah, they will still feel 'railroaded' into the situation.

AND there are times when the players never got a choice. The GM showed up and said "this event it happening deal with it or suffer", then right off the bat players will feel railroaded as no choice they made led to this (or no meaningful choice either).

It's all about perception of choice on why they have to deal with this, AND how many options there are to deal with this such that it ends in success.

The more a GM takes away choices at any point, the more the game will feel "on rails".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would not call it railroading per se, but it is rather heavy handed in way that I can understand the player's frustration.

But a lot of these things really depend on how the situation is presented. It is important to get the player buy in. They need to think that this is what they want to be doing even though it also was what the GM wanted them to be doing.

 

[Umbran]

Go back and re-read TwoSix post. And mine for that matter. As well you are making a non-valid dichotomy between situation and plot.

What a person expects in freedom of choice will set their definition of 'railroad'.

Wit respect, if their expectation is that the first thing they try is necessarily going to get them what they want, they have an expectation that doesn't fit typical RPG play. I think it would be odd to still have that expectation after an entire campaign.

Like, not all locks open on the first roll, not all orcs fall on the first swing.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think this is a good question to ask!
There are so many situations in rpgs now that this has an example of one of many.

If players are doing whatever they want and step into a situation they must now address (short of walking away in utter failure and consequences). Then "the act of doing stuff leading to situation" = I don't feel most players would consider that rail roading at all.
- BUT if after they entered the situation, they realized there was no way at all to have avoided it (or the clues to avoid it were unfairly obscure), then yeah, they will still feel 'railroaded' into the situation.

AND there are times when the players never got a choice. The GM showed up and said "this event it happening deal with it or suffer", then right off the bat players will feel railroaded as no choice they made led to this (or no meaningful choice either).

It's all about perception of choice on why they have to deal with this, AND how many options there are to deal with this such that it ends in success.

The more a GM takes away choices at any point, the more the game will feel "on rails".

Odysseus’ player was constantly complaining to his DM,

“I just want to do some politics-themed adventures!! Why won’t you let me travel back home!”

 

[Reynard]

The more I read the responses, the more I think I definitely crossed the "railroad" line with the setup. I wanted to do a side adventure, which was also a call back in a few ways to previous campaigns with the same players, and so just did it. This was partially in response to how this group of players has not really embraced the "player driven campaign" setup throughout this whole campaign, but I sort of over corrected I guess.

But now they have the tools to leave if they want. I will be curious to see, now that it really is up to them, will they stay and try and solve the Winter Coup thing anyway, or leave the Faewild to its fate.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Wit respect, if their expectation is that the first thing they try is necessarily going to get them what they want, they have an expectation that doesn't fit typical RPG play. I think it would be odd to still have that expectation after an entire campaign.

Like, not all locks open on the first roll, not all orcs fall on the first swing.

Well, maybe that is due to 'over time each situation felt samey' ...or to say 'it always feels like we are having our choices limited' ergo the players are likely to say 'the game feels railroaded'. How much a GM limits choice at any given time will be noticed...and it adds up.

Odysseus’ player was constantly complaining to his DM,

“I just want to do some politics-themed adventures!! Why won’t you let me travel back home!”

Yes, and? A great many stories, some of the best, STRONGLY take away main-character agency. So yeah, if you run most stories as they are written, you are gonna get a lot of comments of 'this feels railroaded'.

Notice how many stories are not like GTA... very few are just us watching a person do whatever comes to mind, and changing on a whim. But for things like Skyrim or GTA or Outter Worlds etc etc = that can be the majority of play! And very very few people would say that those open-world areas were 'railroad' feeling.

Heck, some players even avoid the 'main quest' because it feels too on rails...

 

[RenleyRenfield]

The more I read the responses, the more I think I definitely crossed the "railroad" line with the setup. I wanted to do a side adventure, which was also a call back in a few ways to previous campaigns with the same players, and so just did it. This was partially in response to how this group of players has not really embraced the "player driven campaign" setup throughout this whole campaign, but I sort of over corrected I guess.

But now they have the tools to leave if they want. I will be curious to see, now that it really is up to them, will they stay and try and solve the Winter Coup thing anyway, or leave the Faewild to its fate.

If I can say at least one thing that I feel really matters here = railroad is not truly a negative thing. It's a feeling players get when choice is limited. But in some games and some plots and some situations, that can be very fun! Your idea was really fun! So I don't feel you should be put down just because it may have feel railroad.

 

[Reynard]

To answer part 2) myself:

I don't mind the situation being clear and everyone being "in" for the adventure (I have been a player in a number of WotC 5E adventures, for example). The only time I worry about "railroading" from a player perspective when it is less about a plot that needs to be followed in order, and more about the gM wanting to "tell the story" a certain way. The Gm is not a director or novelist and trying to force story beats and plot points and dramatic moments almost always falls down. I'm not sure if that actually qualifies as "railroading" but it feels like it.

otherwise, I am totally in for a rollercoaster -- that is a railroad that is fun.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyway, two questions:
1) Do you specifically think what I did here was "railroading"?
and 2) In general, how do you define "railroading" or being railroaded as a player ina game?

1. Not a railroad.

2. Generally I don’t. For me a railroad is more of an extreme thought experiment construct than a term describing actual reality. For me the quintessential railroad is when a PC with nearly unlimited options does things and no matter what the PC does the DM responds in such a way that he is forced into a particular situation.

Some situations naturally limit choices. These are not railroads. Some situations naturally compel players towards a particular solution. That is not a railroad either.

Generally when a player complains of a railroad it means they cannot immediately do something they want to do and oftentimes see no way to achieve it. Thats useful information, but you’ve got to consider the totality of the circumstances to determine if it’s a complaint more reflective of you or them.

One thing that can often help is giving hints as to how they might can obtain the thing they desire.