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

[Reynard]

It's not only this; you can design a linear adventure, but still run it as wide open and reacting to the full range of player expression and agency. The players can absolutely hop off the tracks. You can put signposts to help the players get back on the tracks, but if you're not telling the players "no, you can't actually do that" when they try to leave the beaten path, you aren't really railroading.

Sure, but that is beside the point of the comment I was replying to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not only this; you can design a linear adventure, but still run it as wide open and reacting to the full range of player expression and agency. The players can absolutely hop off the tracks. You can put signposts to help the players get back on the tracks, but if you're not telling the players "no, you can't actually do that" when they try to leave the beaten path, you aren't really railroading.

The usual issue is that those are kind of what I think of as 'side tracks"; you can absolutely go off on them and do something that even may be of interest--but they won't lead you to anything else, and the GM probably isn't going to feel obliged to supply anything interesting to be found where you ended up. So you'll end up back and the main line at some point anyway.

That may not be hard-edged, but I suspect some people in this thread would consider it a railroad anyway. Of course they probably see game structure in a very binary way here.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't quite understand what people see as the difference between a linear adventure and a railroad. It is just linear if the players follow the tracks willingly, but if the GM has to force them to stay on them it is a railroad?

i feel like that scenario isn't a railroad, but it's a false positive of not being a railroad simply by the players just so happened to never make a choice that contradicted the GM's intended plot and solutions.

not railroading isn't about the players following the plot, it's about players actions and choices having meaningful impact on what happens and not being undermined just to force another outcome.

 

[Gradine]

The usual issue is that those are kind of what I think of as 'side tracks"; you can absolutely go off on them and do something that even may be of interest--but they won't lead you to anything else, and the GM probably isn't going to feel obliged to supply anything interesting to be found where you ended up. So you'll end up back and the main line at some point anyway.

This is entirely dependent on the GM's improvisational skills, and/or the depth of their content back pocket. Deciding that nothing exists outside the linear path is of course railroading; I'm assuming that a GM that is giving their players the full range of agency is going to have meaningful reactions to sidetracks. That's GMing 101, honestly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is entirely dependent on the GM's improvisational skills, and/or the depth of their content back pocket. Deciding that nothing exists outside the linear path is of course railroading; I'm assuming that a GM that is giving their players the full range of agency is going to have meaningful reactions to sidetracks. That's GMing 101, honestly.

I think there's a difference between "Nothing exists" and "nothing exists that's going to be interesting to adventurers". The expectation that the world is going to be stuffed full of different things of the weirdness that demands adventurers is, honestly, kind of contrived. The fact that people used to sandboxes expect it doesn't seem to require it for a game to not be a railroad.

As I noted before, games focused on a central quest may have some side trips along the way, but the whole point often is the central quest is a big dramatic problem that isn't typical of the world as a whole, and to expect to find a bunch of other things worth doing in an adventurer sense is not something I think should be required.

 

[Scott Christian]

Legitimate question: what is the difference between doing this beforehand vs in the moment?

A DM that does it beforehand is similar to a DM that does dungeon ecology beforehand. Remember when the dungeon had skeletons in one room, a shambling mound in the next, a couple carrion crawlers in the hall, twelve bugbears sleeping next to a black pudding, and then a vampire? That was because people were just interested in one thing, the fight and treasure. Then along came someone who asked, why is that vampire in there? (Poof, Ravenloft, the story adventure, was born.) They started thinking about dungeon ecology, and suddenly, the adventures started making more sense from a story standpoint.

Remember when a map had rivers that just ended, or falls that could be heard twenty miles away, or deserts in the middle of continents with giant tropical jungles in the middle of all that sand? That was because people were just interested in a setting for exploration and combat. Then along came someone who really thought about topography, what was common, what was uncommon, and what doesn't exist. Those same people started making more realistic maps, and suddenly, the world started making more sense.

I say all this because those are two examples of doing things beforehand versus in the moment. Putting careful consideration into those things literally changed the game.

The same is true for coming up with paths beforehand. They can be created by the DM alone, or by the DM using player input from the last couple sessions or character backgrounds, or in some table's cases, by just the players. Coming up with those things ahead of time allows the DM to anchor the party's objective. And in this case, it was to escape the Feywild. It allows the DM to compare/contrast the party's chances. It allows the DM to have a backup plan when the table decides they don't know what to do. And most importantly, it keeps the DM honest. It also has other boons to certain players, but that is beside the point.

And again, you can have a different definition. That is ok. I respect your opinion and your ideas behind railroading. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. I just happen to add an extra page. And that page details why coming up with things in the moment can be just as much railroading as the DM who wrote down one path, one solution, and is forcing the players down the path and onto the solution, which is probably already predetermined.

 

[bloodtide]

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

No.

But I would guess at least 50% of all players would think so. After all, I run into this all the time. As soon as a player encounters anything they don't like: they cry "railroad".

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

I don't really. I find the whole idea useless. Though I'd point out the DMs that are just mean do stand out.