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

[AnotherGuy]

Because to me one of the most classic forms of railroading is "DM changes the rules/way the universe works to force a specific course". It's not outrageous railroading because it's not totally inconceivable that someone would come up with a spell specifically to target the components of the Plane Shift spell, but, it's not a good look, and it frankly opens the door to a lot of spell shenanigans that isn't attractive. I also disagree that this is merely "setting up the premise of the adventure", because there's no option to say "no thanks" and there was no warning beforehand, the already-existing characters are already in the situation.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this mostly to organise my thoughts on this, so I welcome the push-back.

If PC travel into Undermountain for the first time and discover that their teleportation spells do not work and can thus come to the assumption they can only leave the way they came through...is that Railroading?
I am trying to understand how what @Reynard did is not the same as a location whether it be Undermountain, a Plane or anything else - which has unusual restrictions, whether the PCs were aware of it or not.
If the answer is because its established prior play, it is only established on the DM's side, it is not necessarily player-facing, so how does that matter?

Again, I'm just exploring the argument for my sake.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it was. One act of railroading is still railroading. It's just a less-bad kind. This all feels a bit "Do they give a nobel prize for attempted chemistry?" as an apologia.


This is silly literalism of the kind that is seemingly preventing you from understanding the issue. Your analogy confuses and obfuscates, rather than illuminating (to be fair, many bad analogies do). It doesn't need to be a literal railroad, that's just an allusion/metaphor.

One act literally cannot be railroading. It takes more than a single railroad tie(event) to build a railroad(series of forced events). You must have connecting events that force the PCs down that line no matter what they may wish. That simply did not happen here.

You're literally arguing that any force applied at all in any way is a railroad. It's not. Force =/= railroad. You need more than a single event of force.

 

[Reynard]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this mostly to organise my thoughts on this, so I welcome the push-back.

If PC travel into Undermountain for the first time and discover that their teleportation spells do not work and can thus come to the assumption they can only leave the way they came through...is that Railroading?
I am trying to understand how what @Reynard did is not the same as a location whether it be Undermountain, a Plane or anything else - which has unusual restrictions, whether the PCs were aware of it or not.
If the answer is because its established prior play, it is only established on the DM's side, it is not necessarily player-facing, so how does that matter?

Again, I'm just exploring the argument for my sake.

As I have said since the OP, I definitely railroaded the party INTO the scenario. But i also don't think it remains a railroad after that, and I certainly do not agree with (or even understand) the idea that me not having a required solution is somehow also railroading.

 

[Umbran]

Sure it was. One act of railroading is still railroading. It's just a less-bad kind. This all feels a bit "Do they give a nobel prize for attempted chemistry?" as an apologia.

Let us turn this around: What uses of GM force AREN'T railroading?

 

[AnotherGuy]

As I have said since the OP, I definitely railroaded the party INTO the scenario. But i also don't think it remains a railroad after that, and I certainly do not agree with (or even understand) the idea that me not having a required solution is somehow also railroading.

Let us park the solution aside as I mentioned nothing about the solution.

You may have posted it after the OP, but in the OP it does not say you forcefully placed them in the Feywild. I'm equating them going to the Feywild in the same way adventurers enter Undermountain. I think I was pretty clear in my post.

I am merely discussing the missing tuning forks with the limitation of Teleportation in Undermountain (or any other location which reflects a limitation) and then comparing the two in terms of Railroadness.

 

[TwoSix]

Let us turn this around: What uses of GM force AREN'T railroading?

If railroading as a term is kind of fraught, isn't "GM force" just as challenging? I don't know what boundary I would draw around "GM force" and "normal GM play", and my gut feeling is that it's certainly game specific.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let us turn this around: What uses of GM force AREN'T railroading?

That's an interesting question.

I think when they're not setting the course the PCs must take in any meaningful way, they're force but not railroading. That's going to be judgement call on a case by case basis but so are all "railroading or not?!" questions. Like, if you stole the spell components for Fireball, say, that's be pretty annoying, but it probably wouldn't actually delineate the course of the adventure meaningfully, or the force the PCs into a specific situation (unless something truly strange was going on!).

Likewise, having an NPC the PCs like assassinated with no rolls is definitely DM force (if on-screen, and maybe also if off-screen, but that's more arguable), but unless that NPC was a big part of what the PCs were likely to want to do.

On the flip-side, negating a single ability or spell can easily get into railroading. Like we had a party get hit by a spell that, on paper, three of the PCs were explicitly immune to, but the DM was like "No it affects you" and couldn't/wouldn't explain why, he just rushed on to narrate an GMPC-style NPC arriving, killing the baddie and "saving" us. We certainly got railroaded through that specific scene, but the DM turned out to be unwilling to railroad further when we simply refused to cooperate with said GMPC.

I think a lot of borderline stuff tips over into railroading or feeling like railroading if it traps the PCs or prevents them from making a lot of choices they would like to make, and especially if it doesn't flow naturally from the situation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't know what boundary I would draw around "GM force" and "normal GM play", and my gut feeling is that it's certainly game specific.

Yeah I can think of a few things which would be close to unarguably "GM force" but it's not much less fraught as a term as you say, and it's group-specific but also game-specific. I know the "pay a Fear" in Daggerheart lets you get weirdly high levels of buy-in on stuff players might be moaning extensively about in D&D, which is arguably "GM force".

 

[Celebrim]

1) He's not wrong that that's railroading, imo.

Mine as well. I can even name the technique being used under my scheme: obdurium walls.

It's when in order to confine the players to the area or problem the GM desires or to force the players not to use some simple solution, he creates an impassable barrier.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely railroading. "Passwall doesn't work on this wall.", "The riddle door is magically indestructible to any method at your disposal and can't be battered down by brute force.", whatever

2) Railroading exists on a spectrum rather than being an absolute, and different people have different tolerances for it. Different things trigger people too.

This is I think the key issue. Railroading is a technique (or set of techniques) for limiting player choice, and "a Railroad" is a subjective evaluation of when the those techniques have been overused. The sentence, "You are railroading" is answered by "But it's not a railroad", and it's a legitimate answer in some sense but it is also a failure of understanding. What they really mean is, "Sure I've limited player agency, but in a good and necessary way, not in a way that should make people feel uncomfortable or which is bad."

Some DMs railroad simply through lack of preparation/interest - i.e. they only prepare one path and if you don't take it just try to herd you back on to it. That can be extremely irritating if the path is at odds with what makes sense or has big plot holes, and it probably does.

This is true. But in the sense that what most people find frustrating about railroading is nothing happens but what the GM wants to have happen, a GM can also railroad by preparing nothing. If the real goal of the GM is total control of the game through the exercise of fiat, no prep is far superior than prep. A GM that prepped knows when the monsters hit points run out. A GM that doesn't prep just decides when the monsters hit points have run out. A GM that prepped knows what spells the wizard has available. A GM that doesn't prep can pick the spell that is needed at the moment or decide what spells are already active. A GM that prepped knows the hardness of the door. A GM that didn't prep can ad hoc defenses as needed to thwart the PC's schemes and plans, as if the BBEG can and did anticipate everything.

 

[Reynard]

a GM can also railroad by preparing nothing. If the real goal of the GM is total control of the game through the exercise of fiat, no prep is far superior than prep. A GM that prepped knows when the monsters hit points run out. A GM that doesn't prep just decides when the monsters hit points have run out. A GM that prepped knows what spells the wizard has available. A GM that doesn't prep can pick the spell that is needed at the moment or decide what spells are already active. A GM that prepped knows the hardness of the door. A GM that didn't prep can ad hoc defenses as needed to thwart the PC's schemes and plans, as if the BBEG can and did anticipate everything.

Interesting, I had not thought about GM fiat as a form of railroading.