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

If lack of information leads to players not enjoying the progress of play, I would rather just tell them.

Mysteries and puzzles can be fun when they generate more conflict, less so when they leave the players unsure what the path forward is.
There's a middle ground: them actually looking for different paths and solutions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There's a middle ground: them actually looking for different paths and solutions.
Sure, but that's something you have to be very careful of as a GM. What's apparent in your mental frame as a GM often doesn't translate well to the players in terms of "what options are available to me that are meaningful".

Scenarios where you as players have to debate between 3 or 4 options with unclear odds of success is totally great. Scenarios where players are struggling to come up with one plan of action are less fun.
 

Sure, but that's something you have to be very careful of as a GM. What's apparent in your mental frame as a GM often doesn't translate well to the players in terms of "what options are available to me that are meaningful".

Scenarios where you as players have to debate between 3 or 4 options with unclear odds of success is totally great. Scenarios where players are struggling to come up with one plan of action are less fun.

This is why I've turned "figure out the right-ish answer" puzzles into entirely optional bonus stuff! Players see them there, feel smart when they solve them, but we never run into the all so frequent "discard the correct solution they come upon almost immediately and now you're like how hard do I have to hint" scenario where half an hour of play goes by without anything happening.
 

This should not be understated.
Good players rub off on poor/bad players as they find inspiration from them and happily surprise you when their roleplaying style starts to match the table's. Carrots whether it be via the narrative or small mechanical benefits as rewards also help retrain their ways.

I have a player who is returning to the game after a long absence from RPGs where of old we had terrible habits...and I can see the process of him improving.
I'm glad it is happening at your table. Our group has a few "off track" players, but they are only off track at times. The others help them improve all the time. In the end, people improve when they are surrounded by people who want them to improve. (And, there needs to be chemistry in there too, but that is a whole different topic.)
 

Again, if we talk about railroading as something the GM does, then we can break the implicit link between linearity and railroading. It means railroading is the GM saying "no" when they should otherwise be saying yes to player choices of action. Note that this does not say anything about outcome -- the dice and the fiction determine "yes" or "no" then.

I made the distinction between “a railroad” as a noun and “railroading” as a verb up thread. I think it’s an important one. Linearity in adventure design is often labeled as a railroad… but that doesn’t really say anything about the experience of play. Is that linearity an engaging experience for the players? Is it largely what they expected or signed up for? Is there enough freedom of choice within the overall path to satisfy whatever need or desire they have for such?

None of these questions are answered by the use of railroad as a noun.

But when we instead consider railroading as an action by the GM… that is the use of force to reach some predetermined state… then we at least begin to address those questions. The idea of “being forced” that railroading implies seems far less neutral. It hints at overriding choice, at subverting freedom… of removing decision making from the players.

So I think the best way to examine play to see if railroading is happening is to look at GM decisions and the reasons behind those decisions. And then to consider how this seems from a player POV… how do these decisions shape the play experience. Are the reasons for these decisions somehow a higher priority than maintaining player choice?

That’s what needs to be looked at and interrogated. How one feels about the conclusions will vary, I expect… but I think that examining GM choices is what’s necessary.
 

I made the distinction between “a railroad” as a noun and “railroading” as a verb up thread. I think it’s an important one. Linearity in adventure design is often labeled as a railroad… but that doesn’t really say anything about the experience of play. Is that linearity an engaging experience for the players? Is it largely what they expected or signed up for? Is there enough freedom of choice within the overall path to satisfy whatever need or desire they have for such?

None of these questions are answered by the use of railroad as a noun.

But when we instead consider railroading as an action by the GM… that is the use of force to reach some predetermined state… then we at least begin to address those questions. The idea of “being forced” that railroading implies seems far less neutral. It hints at overriding choice, at subverting freedom… of removing decision making from the players.

So I think the best way to examine play to see if railroading is happening is to look at GM decisions and the reasons behind those decisions. And then to consider how this seems from a player POV… how do these decisions shape the play experience. Are the reasons for these decisions somehow a higher priority than maintaining player choice?

That’s what needs to be looked at and interrogated. How one feels about the conclusions will vary, I expect… but I think that examining GM choices is what’s necessary.
For sure.

I think at least some portion of GM railroading comes from insecurity: that is, being uncertain about being able to flow with out of the box player thinking. This can really only be mitigated by experience: the more you GM, the more confident you become improvising and following the players wherever they go.

I don't think railroading is limited to only new GMs, but I bet that it is more common among them.
 

In another thread, I identified something I would consider railroading if it happened in any game in which I agreed to play. I.e. if I declared an action for my character, and the GM said my character wouldn't have thought to attempt such an action because my character's Intelligence score is too low.
 

I made the distinction between “a railroad” as a noun and “railroading” as a verb up thread. I think it’s an important one. Linearity in adventure design is often labeled as a railroad… but that doesn’t really say anything about the experience of play. Is that linearity an engaging experience for the players? Is it largely what they expected or signed up for? Is there enough freedom of choice within the overall path to satisfy whatever need or desire they have for such?

None of these questions are answered by the use of railroad as a noun.

But when we instead consider railroading as an action by the GM… that is the use of force to reach some predetermined state… then we at least begin to address those questions. The idea of “being forced” that railroading implies seems far less neutral. It hints at overriding choice, at subverting freedom… of removing decision making from the players.

So I think the best way to examine play to see if railroading is happening is to look at GM decisions and the reasons behind those decisions. And then to consider how this seems from a player POV… how do these decisions shape the play experience. Are the reasons for these decisions somehow a higher priority than maintaining player choice?

That’s what needs to be looked at and interrogated. How one feels about the conclusions will vary, I expect… but I think that examining GM choices is what’s necessary.
If you're going to get this deep, then you also need to look at not just how a player feels at the conclusion, but how they felt in game, and how they feel ten-years later. During play, they may be having fun and not really consider it railroading. Once the campaign is done, they may sit down with another player and start to believe they were railroaded. Ten years later, they may reflect fondly on the campaign and not remember the railroading at all.

That is the problem with feelings, they change based on who we're with, where we're at, and the amount of time that has passed.
 

If you're going to get this deep, then you also need to look at not just how a player feels at the conclusion, but how they felt in game, and how they feel ten-years later. During play, they may be having fun and not really consider it railroading. Once the campaign is done, they may sit down with another player and start to believe they were railroaded. Ten years later, they may reflect fondly on the campaign and not remember the railroading at all.

That is the problem with feelings, they change based on who we're with, where we're at, and the amount of time that has passed.

Naw, the only thing that matters in this context is how the player feels as they are engaged with the campaign - in the moment and on reflection. Thats where they’re going to provide feedback, have resentment, etc.

If 10 years later you feel a game was full of railroading, that’s a learning experience.
 

The only aspect that could be considered railroading is the inclusion of the Deck of Many Things without providing a means to deal with the consequences of the deck draws. Sealing off planar travel is a plot hook not railroading.
 

Remove ads

Top