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

[Gradine]

Railroading is when the referee denies player choice. I don't see how denying this choice is less railroading than denying that choice. If you're saying denying player choice outside of the session is separate and distinct, sure. We'll just need a new name for that particular kind of railroading. Light railroading. Pre-game railroading. Etc.

The problem with this is that the term "railroading" is never going to be able to drop its derogatory baggage. And so insisting that setting campaign expectations is necessary some form of "railroading" is to necessarily designate that as a "lesser than" style of gaming. Which I get is your position, but that is neither a common opinion nor does it lead to anything resembling useful discussion on the topic.

I appreciate that you do not see the difference between establishing campaign expectations and directly countering player agency in-game, but I am telling you that these are extremely significantly different, different enough to warrant entirely different terminology for. Certainly different enough that using different terminology would help us maintain the distinction without saddling a very normal thing that a lot of games include with the very derogatory (which I would argue is earned) connotation. I prefer the term buy-in, but I'm open to other suggestions that do not relate this, again, very common behavior to railroading

 

[CreamCloud0]

railroading to me when the GM only has a single goal for the situation/campaign that they are going to allow, one that they will enforce by denying all solutions or ideas that do not directly lead to that goal and even sometimes denying ideas to that goal that don't follow the path they imagined you taking to get there.

 

[GrimCo]

I get that some people really don't like premise of their belongings getting stolen. It's not everybody's cup of tea. Same with getting captured, getting their items destroyed, mind controled etc. On the other hand, there is chunk of people who don't mind that as adventure hook. Pretty much all my friends and acquaintances that play D&D and myself fall into that cattegory. Double so if item stolen is start of the adventure. It's just preference thing.

Long post was about core premise and game play loop. Item x gets stolen (from PC, from friendly NPC), PC snoop around to find out who took it and where, PCs go there, retrieve item or die trying. Same game play loop is for MacGuffin search quests. They find out about it, they snoop around to find where it is, they go there, retrieve it or die trying. Oh, and MacGuffin getting stolen from party when they rest in "safe" space is classic hurdle that get's thrown in for good measure. It's game play loop repeat essentially.

I personally don't find anything wrong with OP's adventure framing. Hell, to me, that sounds like solid frame for start of adventure in new place. I would rather have DM paint big signposts "Adventure this way" and "this is quest" wow question marks on NPCs than just DM saying "Ok guys, here you are, what you do?" and then procede to waste half an hour of session figuring out what the hell we are going to do. Some people like that open player driven style more. Great for them. In the end, every DM knows his group best, knows their play style, knows how sensitive they are to losing player agency, what they don't like etc.

 

[Gradine]

I get that some people really don't like premise of their belongings getting stolen. It's not everybody's cup of tea. Same with getting captured, getting their items destroyed, mind controled etc. On the other hand, there is chunk of people who don't mind that as adventure hook. Pretty much all my friends and acquaintances that play D&D and myself fall into that cattegory. Double so if item stolen is start of the adventure. It's just preference thing.

Long post was about core premise and game play loop. Item x gets stolen (from PC, from friendly NPC), PC snoop around to find out who took it and where, PCs go there, retrieve item or die trying. Same game play loop is for MacGuffin search quests. They find out about it, they snoop around to find where it is, they go there, retrieve it or die trying. Oh, and MacGuffin getting stolen from party when they rest in "safe" space is classic hurdle that get's thrown in for good measure. It's game play loop repeat essentially.

I personally don't find anything wrong with OP's adventure framing. Hell, to me, that sounds like solid frame for start of adventure in new place. I would rather have DM paint big signposts "Adventure this way" and "this is quest" wow question marks on NPCs than just DM saying "Ok guys, here you are, what you do?" and then procede to waste half an hour of session figuring out what the hell we are going to do. Some people like that open player driven style more. Great for them. In the end, every DM knows his group best, knows their play style, knows how sensitive they are to losing player agency, what they don't like etc.

This is why I think it's important to have a definition of railroading that isn't needlessly broad. When "bad thing happens to my character" or "obstacle placed in my way that I have to overcome" are considered railroading the term loses any meaning. I am a living human being with real human agency; that hasn't stopped me from having things stolen from me. A massive accident that blocks the main road between my work and my home doesn't take away my agency, it's just a thing that happens that's unfortunate and requires me to problem solve to get around.

A character is going to get robbed. They're going to get trapped with no obvious means of egress. That's not taking away their choices. It's presenting them with interesting circumstances normally outside of their control and asking them to find a solution.

 

[zarionofarabel]

And those are just the kinds of solutions that actually work in Baldur's Gate 3, a video game without a human GM, who can respond to the infinite range of ideas the players can come up with, no matter how outlandish and/or stupid they are (and we are talking about players here, so you know it's going to be extremely outlandish and stupid).

Not even in the slightest. When I played BG3 I wanted to go to to Waterdeep to see if I could find a cure for the tadpole, but the GM railroaded me into going to Baldur's Gate and confronting the giant Brain Monster instead. I constantly use BG3 as an example of how a railroad game and a "linear" game are functionally identical, the only difference being whether or not the players are okay with being limited to experiencing what the GM has prepared for them to experience. I am always saddened when I think about how most people play TTRPGs in a "linear" fashion because it fails to take advantage of the single thing that makes TTRPGs unique, that there doesn't need to be a preplanned series of events.

 

[zakael19]

I think you can railroad players into dealing with what you want them to deal with when they’d rather not, though. Because as noted railroading is largely a matter of perception and player action.

By definition, a railroad runs on tracks. Getting off those tracks derails a train. If your adventure is constructed such that it has a singular forward direction with no space but one way to play, it’s probably a railroad by design! The players might be able to walk around their cars, but if the most decision they can make is stuff like “go down this wing of the dungeon or that one” they aren’t really making choices that mean anything.

If your adventure has a series of scenarios which link together to tell an A->B->C plot, but have big wide open stations or prairies to explore with decisions and you’ll work to get them what’s needed for the next bit, that’s linear (->) but not designed as a railroad.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You should look at this thread, because again, almost everything "modern" has been around for 30+ years.

R

Thread 'What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?'

Oct 3, 2025

This came up in another thread and I wanted to spin it off for its own discussion.

When talking about TTRPG mechanics and how the medium has evolved and advanced over the last 5 decades, are there specific sorts of mechanics that you consider more "modern" than others?

Where do you draw the line at "modern"? Is it arbitrarily some year or the advent of some game? Or is there a qualitative to "modern" that transcends a clear line?

And with the dicsussion of "modern" -- are there games with mechanics ahead of their time? Are there "regressive" games now?

Finally, does it matter to you...

• Reynard
• Replies: 1,378
• Forum: *TTRPGs General

• 

 

[Tigris]

You should look at this thread, because again, almost everything "modern" has been around for 30+ years.

R

Thread 'What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?'

Oct 3, 2025

This came up in another thread and I wanted to spin it off for its own discussion.

When talking about TTRPG mechanics and how the medium has evolved and advanced over the last 5 decades, are there specific sorts of mechanics that you consider more "modern" than others?

Where do you draw the line at "modern"? Is it arbitrarily some year or the advent of some game? Or is there a qualitative to "modern" that transcends a clear line?

And with the dicsussion of "modern" -- are there games with mechanics ahead of their time? Are there "regressive" games now?

Finally, does it matter to you...

• Reynard
• Replies: 1,378
• Forum: *TTRPGs General

• 

Just because many people make bad examples, because they dont really know much about modern gamedesign does not mean that old gamedesign is not bad.


People in there also claimed "oh I played MTG in 1992" when I brought it as an example of modern gamedesign, completly missing the point that MTG did change A LOT (it even literally has a format called "modern" which only has modern cards allowed which are nothing like the 1993 cards: https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Modern).


Also sometimes people dont understand how some small changes can make things more modern and think an old similar mechanic was the same. (Like people thinking "oh advantage and disadvantage is nothing new its just dice pools", when its about simplifying modifiers).


And of course RPGs are just really really not advanced when it comes to gamedesign, partially because of players and especially GMs which still use and want old things. And also because many gamedesigners making RPGs just dont have a broad horizon when it comes to other games/modern gamedesign.

 

[Maxperson]

"GM force" just sounds like "GMing" to me.

A lot of times it is. DM Force like DM fiat are critical and amazing tools when running D&D. Both, though, can easily be abused by a bad DM and result in railroading.