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

[Cergorach]

While appreciate you making an effort to help me figure out "what went wrong" I have a bunch of follow up posts in this thread that, if you had read them (or if you did, absorbed them), invalidates a good chunk of your response. I think maybe you are projecting a little bit based on your own recent struggles at the tble?

I've read them, I've absorbed them, maybe I just have a different perspective on what you wrote then you do? "Invalidates"... No, you just chose to ignore them. And isn't 'projecting' what we do as players and DMs, we roleplay a situation based on our (perceived) experience...

In any case, the situation is resolved. The players now have the freedom to chart their own course.

The incident might be resolved, but is the underlying problem?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well but it does not seam anything thats the thing. Thats just again GMs thinking they can decide what players should feel.


No sorry but if a GM goes out of the way to make 1 spell not work, then I assume other similar uses of magic do not work if not its just annoying GMing.

Either you make no magic work to port out from there, or you dont do anything. Yes I am assuming GMs do things with intention and not just random nerf 1 spell, which is silly, since if you can teleport out with a spell than GM could have been not annoying and say "you dont have the spell components for that but you could still cast wish".


This kind of nitpicking is not clever and not fun for players. This is a roleplaying game, not a rules layering simulation and I expect GMs to also treat it as that.

People have intentions which are bigger and not details. People wanted to get out of there using a spell, if it was possible they should do (with wish).

You are making a lot of assumptions about what other people like and find fun. Perhaps you should focus more on how you feel and less on how "people" feel.

 

[Reynard]

The incident might be resolved, but is the underlying problem?

In all honesty, likely not. The particular player in this situation is not the best fit for my GMing style and while we have played together for 30 years, we don't usually play two campaigns in a row together. I suspect that he won't be particularly keen on joining the next campaign (probably Dungeons of Drakkenheim).

 

[Scott Christian]

1) Do you specifically think what I did here was "railroading"?

I know I am in the minority here, but it is railroading IF you as a DM didn't set up a reason as to why and how all the exit points are blocked. And by that, I mean, if this was something that just kind of appeared out of nowhere, without interconnecting threads ting the big-bad in your climax to coercing or having control over the feywild's gates, then it would seem odd to me. Odd to me, and I wouldn't care. But to some, it could be considered railroading, if and only if, those threads weren't tied.

2) In general, how do you define "railroading" or being railroaded as a player ina game?

I don't use railroading as a pejorative term. So my definition is:

"Having a sequence of events in a story that have been thought through by the DM. It can still have options. The play can happen in different sequences at times. It can still follow player's interests and/or include their PC's stories. And it can still go off rails at times."

To me, that is a railroad.

 

[Reynard]

I know I am in the minority here, but it is railroading IF you as a DM didn't set up a reason as to why and how all the exit points are blocked. And by that, I mean, if this was something that just kind of appeared out of nowhere, without interconnecting threads ting the big-bad in your climax to coercing or having control over the feywild's gates, then it would seem odd to me. Odd to me, and I wouldn't care. But to some, it could be considered railroading, if and only if, those threads weren't tied.

The faewild stuff had nothing to do with the BBEG or main "story" at all. It was a side jaunt.

 

[Scott Christian]

The faewild stuff had nothing to do with the BBEG or main "story" at all. It was a side jaunt.

Then I can see why a few players might find it railroading. Again, I do not agree with their take. And personally, I like the concept behind the adventure you set up. But listening to posters on EnWorld, I can see quite a few who would think of this as railroading.

All players are different. And all tables are made up of different players. So as long as your table is having fun, then disregard the comment.

If you want to try and fix it for that one player, ask him his definition, and then keep that in mind while making the next campaign - or don't.

 

[zakael19]

When I’ve done “side jaunts” in the past with the most success, I worked out the themes and rough concept with the players - and then we embarked together. Kinda exploring something in the gazette or world they were interested in seeing as a break from the “main plot.”

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't want to get too into the weeds on this specific situation, but I really did not have a solution in mind. That is usually how I frame things. there is a situation ("You are trapped in the wintery Faewild taken over by a Winter Court coup, and you cannot simply plane shift out.") and then I let them go ("What do you do?").

On a side note, this statement also leans more into the railroad for many players. So now, the players are just acting on impulses you provide (not them), and they have to appease and succeed whatever veiled solution (that you don't even have) in order to get out. If you had specific ideas in mind and written out. Ones that you know they could logically do in the sandbox you created - that would be much less of a railroad than, find a solution and I'll decide whether it works at that moment.

 

[Reynard]

On a side note, this statement also leans more into the railroad for many players. So now, the players are just acting on impulses you provide (not them), and they have to appease and succeed whatever veiled solution (that you don't even have) in order to get out. If you had specific ideas in mind and written out. Ones that you know they could logically do in the sandbox you created - that would be much less of a railroad than, find a solution and I'll decide whether it works at that moment.

That seems completely opposite of the general definition.

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyway, two questions:
1) Do you specifically think what I did here was "railroading"?

No, I think it was mostly fine.

Every now and then, there is a player who makes the party take a choice which effectively results in them quitting the adventure. Perhaps you don't need to be too forceful, but there are famous published adventures which try hard to prevent the PCs from running away (e.g. Ravenloft). The question is obviously, if the DM prepares an adventure, and a player decides his character doesn't want to do it, do you give precedence to the adventure or to player's entitlement? You could let him do what he wants, let them run away, and end the adventure there. Or you can let them know before they really choose that...

If I understand your case however, this wasn't an adventure-ending decision, but just about a chapter that was meant to give them room to earn xp and level up. Well, earning xp generally happens because the PCs do the right choice, so if I were you I'd just allow them to do the wrong choice.