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

[Maxperson]

Who decides reasonable here Max? You mean all DMs are reasonable. Ok. That actually goes along with my experience, but I know it doesn't match yours. So the DM that says, "Well, I was just waiting for you to do something reasonable, like ring the fairy bell five times, eat the kale salad, and enter the walnut tossing competition to break the Winter Court's hold" is reasonable?

You see, that is where every definition and every argument falls apart. I have had this discussion before. Some say having five ways out of the Feywild, and ten other side areas to explore is still a railroad - because it doesn't allow player agency. Others say curating a single session beforehand is railroading - even if they know the players are going to spot X. Some, like you, are a little more middle, saying it is when the DM says there is one solution, yet only if that solution is written down are they railroading. And then others like me say railroading isn't really a thing unless the DM never listens to the players. (Which I have yet to find one that was actually looking for a group to play with.)

All of it is so vague and interpretive. Do you think Janelle Monáe or Thom York is a better interpretive dancer? That is about how abstract this discussion is.

The DM shouldn't be coming up with all the ways out in the first place. The players will often have great ideas that the DM never considered. At this point I rarely stop to think about how the players are going to overcome an obstacle I put into the game. I just trust that they'll figure out a way and they generally don't disappoint.

It's only in the rare cases where the game stalls that I think of potential solutions that the PCs might know of and start asking for rolls.

 

[Scott Christian]

Possibly, but a game that features prepared plotlines and such guarantees that outcome, as actions PCs take will not alter the sequence of events that MUST happen according to what the GM has prepared. No matter what you do in BG3 you MUST go to Baldur's Gate and confront the Brain Monster. In a TTRPG version of BG3, if the GM is willing, the PCs might actually have the option of going to Waterdeep or Thay and not confronting the Brain Monster.

I was more thinking along the lines of a DM that prepares plotlines for each session, taking into account what happened last session. But I get your point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Players mysteriously loosing valuable item is basic find & retrieve quest. It's classic hook in ttrpgs since forever. If quests had a fossil record, "you wake up and your important thing is gone" would be in the oldest layer.

And in my experience it is one that has been mostly deservedly left in the dustbin of history or at least for the greenest of groups or for things that aren't actually possessions of the PCs (like people or public objects). Because the oldest learned behaviours of players start with things like setting watches and locking doors. And then either (a) you get an arms race that's not much fun, (b) you have the DM ignore the precautions and destroy player agency, or (c) find a better plot that does not encourage turtling.

Meanwhile the plot in question gives the gates, seemingly out of nowhere, the ability to be set to steal small objects. And yet seemingly this was not a known feature (because it would be the sort of thing people would share) and the fey never use it for pranks or for disarming people - or for simple robbery (taking gold rather than tuning forks). And if you want to avoid interference it is a weird choice to do that at the known gates.

 

[Scott Christian]

The DM shouldn't be coming up with all the ways out in the first place. The players will often have great ideas that the DM never considered. At this point I rarely stop to think about how the players are going to overcome an obstacle I put into the game. I just trust that they'll figure out a way and they generally don't disappoint.

It's only in the rare cases where the game stalls that I think of potential solutions that the PCs might know of and start asking for rolls.

I agree with your first paragraph for some scenarios. But for something like escaping a plane, in a game like D&D where players rarely contribute to the setting, I think it is pretty fair to say the DM can come up with most of the ways. I mean, in your scenario of the players coming up with ways, how would they do that? They do not have any of the other spells. The gates are closed. The plane is "locked down." Their tuning forks are gone via pilfering magic that happened to them when they magically got pulled into the plane. I am curious how the players will come up with ways to planeshift? (Especially in a game like D&D where players don't often say: "You know, my dad, the 17th level wizard, lives in the Feywild. We'll go see him." Things like that are generally the purview of the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with your first paragraph for some scenarios. But for something like escaping a plane, in a game like D&D where players rarely contribute to the setting, I think it is pretty fair to say the DM can come up with most of the ways. I mean, in your scenario of the players coming up with ways, how would they do that? They do not have any of the other spells. The gates are closed. The plane is "locked down." Their tuning forks are gone via pilfering magic that happened to them when they magically got pulled into the plane. I am curious how the players will come up with ways to planeshift? (Especially in a game like D&D where players don't often say: "You know, my dad, the 17th level wizard, lives in the Feywild. We'll go see him." Things like that are generally the purview of the DM.

That plane was explicitly not locked down, though. @Reynard used unfortunate language in his OP that sort of set this thread in motion. If you ignore the "locked down" portion and read what he really said, there are other ways off the plane. They have wishes in their pockets that would work.

As for how players could come up with the ways....

1) "Hey DM, we're going to go search for a neutral Archfey and negotiate our way off the plane."
2) "Hey DM, there are gods that live here and they can get us out. We're going to look for a deity domain and see if we can negotiate with the god or its minions for a way off the plane."
3) "Hey DM, we're going to try and find one of the natural crossings between the feywild and the prime plane(s) and use that to get out."
4) "Hey DM, we don't want to use our wishes, but there are beings here that can grant them. We're going to try and find out and work out a deal."
5) Lots of other ideas.

Proactive players turn the DM into being reactive to what they try to do, which is the best way to play in my opinion. It makes my life so much easier when they tell me what they are going about and then I just have to work on things in their path and relating to what they are trying to do.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't see a problem with relieving the players of campaign busting tools. That said, I would probably tell them where those forks are and let them decide if getting them back is worth the trouble. Just making them disappear is a bit of heel turn. IMO, of course.

I would only tell them in game play. They would have no way to know how or why in game unless they did investigating, in which case they could find out.

 

[Reynard]

So it is the Winter Court that altered the gates to steal the forks? Why are they doing this? Also, while they are at it, why not make it steal other spells components, weapons and magic items too? After all, the intruders are way easier to handle then, and if they prove to be trustworthy, the items can always be returned.

Yeah, I think it is somewhat contrived to have the gate set to steal this one item, and also now that is is established that such magic exist, I as a player would be paranoid about what else it could be used for.

Oh no! An adventure situation is "somewhat contrived."

I literally don't understand what you are opposed to here. Literally, no hyperbole, every adventure is built on arbitrary constraints.

Go ahead and tell me im wrong. Give me an example of an adventure that doesn't require some limitation in its design.

 

[Professor Murder]

How does that jive with challenges that really only should have 1 solution?

Something may have "only one solution" but the method that solution gets enacted can vary wildly. Perhaps for example the only course of action is to fight and defeat the villain. It's not railroading if the players are allowed to devise and execute a strategy they develop themselves. It is railroading if you hand them the strategy and allow no other ones to possibly work.

 

[Tigris]

I would disagree. Just cause it's old, doesn't mean it's bad. It's simple and effective plot hook that works. You can have better or worse framing and execution, but from adventure design point, it's solid. It gives party clear short term goal, removes analysis paralysis and gets game going.

Yes things are bad because they are old most of the time. Time does not stand still. Gameplay evolves as does everything.


We come a long way from Gygaxian GMing. At that time it was good, because nothing else was known.

But we now have learned that GMs do not have to be so adversial to players.

Something may have "only one solution" but the method that solution gets enacted can vary wildly. Perhaps for example the only course of action is to fight and defeat the villain. It's not railroading if the players are allowed to devise and execute a strategy they develop themselves. It is railroading if you hand them the strategy and allow no other ones to possibly work.

No. If you tell people what to do its railroading. Railroading is about limiting choice. Choice is mostly WHAT to do, not how to do.

This for me is just a cheap GM excuse about "actually its not railroading."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh no! An adventure situation is "somewhat contrived."

I literally don't understand what you are opposed to here. Literally, no hyperbole, every adventure is built on arbitrary constraints.

Go ahead and tell me im wrong. Give me an example of an adventure that doesn't require some limitation in its design.

Yes, they require limitations. But the thing is that if the way by which the PCs were prevented from leaving seems contrived to the players, it reads as "the GM doesn't want us to leave" as opposed to "this fictional situation is such that we cannot leave." And that casts shadow over any other plans for escaping to the place, because of course GM can always prevent them from from working if they want to. If the fiction doesn't seem organic, it destroys the engagement with it as fiction, and we are playing the game of "guess what the GM wants us to do" instead.

Look mate, I already said it was not exactly railroading, but I was merely offering my reason why the player might gave reacted the way they did and how to avoid it in the future. If you don't care for it, then that's fine, but you started a thread about it!