What is railroading?

[The Shaman]

It seems railroading is when your DM doesn't let you do something you think you should be able to.

I think that's something of an oversimplification.

I believe the difference is, do player choices affect the outcome or not? Or is the GM so hell-bent on "telling a story" that the players have no option but to sit and listen and roll the dice when (if) they're told to?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Okay, rather than use examples, I'm going to go theoretical.

There's something I'll call "GM Force" that's basically the GM's ability to influence events in the game. In traditional games, this power is very broad; often it's defined as "anything outside the PC's skin".

I'm using Force as a neutral term here -- as in "force of gravity", not "forced to do something".

If you present a plot hook, have the party attacked by NPCs, or even tell them what the road they're traveling on looks like, you're applying some amount of Force. The only way you could GM without applying Force would be to never narrate anything, and only adjudicate player actions by looking in the rulebook.

I then define Railroading as "Force applied in a way the players are uncomfortable with". It's something that violates the social contract. The most common thing players are uncomfortable with is having decisions made for them, so telling them there are two paths but they can only choose one is Railroading.

Telling a player what their character does is Railroading unless there's an in game justification that the player accepts. So I think Charm Person isn't railroading if the player is okay with being charmed, and it is railroading if they're not okay with it.

Scene framing can be railroading or not, again depending on player acceptance. I've run scenes that started with the PCs having been captured "off camera", with the players unable to stop it. I don't think it was railroading any more than having them be attacked by orcs, because both were setting up a scene for the players to make decisions within. But if the players hadn't been on board with what I was doing, then it would have been railroading.

That's why I don't think in-game examples tell the whole story. Railroading isn't about what you do to Fizzgig the Dwarf; it's about what you do to Fred the player, and how he feels about it.

On a separate note: What about Illusionism? Some GMs will restrict player choice as much as a "railroad" would, without letting the players see behind the curtain. If you present the player with two choices, and play out the outcome the same no matter which they choose, is that the same thing as not letting them choose in the first place? Same amount of Force applied, but it's done invisibly, and the player believes that they have not been restricted.

 

[Aristotle]

Which of the above would you call a railroad?

Railroading is a tricky subject. The first thing you have to come to grips with, as a player or DM, is that almost every adventure module (purchased or home built) contains some railroading. Most have a climactic enounter (a destination) that the PCs are expected to get to and overcome. The real trick is not to avoid railroading, but rather to learn how to cover up the tracks that lead the PCs from the introduction to the climax.

While a few of your examples stand out as more blatant railroading because they not only force the direction of the adventure but the means by which the characters encounter it, none of them are railroading on their own (IMHO). It's when you string a couple of them together and make a complete adventure that forces the character's in one direction over and over again that folks start to complain about being railroaded. Linear adventures seem to suffer from obvious railroading the most, while flowcharted adventures often cover the tracks by giving the illusion of choice (multiple paths to the same end).

A poorly written adventure module or an inexperienced DM can easily fall into the trap of railroading. The real key to avoid your players feeling like the whole story was forced onto them is to encourage them to come up with sollutions and to give the alternative efforts of the PCs some weight within the story.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It seems railroading is when your DM doesn't let you do something you think you should be able to.

I would slightly alter that to say:

It seems railroading is when your DM doesn't let you try to do something that you should be able to do. This applies to roleplaying scenarios involving player choice and rules scenarios involving player abilities (usually Spot, Listen, and Initiative).

I change it to try because success isn't really part of it. If the DM is railroading, you can't even attempt to alter the course of the train you're on, because any attempts are doomed to failure beforehand. You will also seemingly randomly go into cut scenes where the world moves around you, yet you arn't allowed to react at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I would slightly alter that to say:

It seems railroading is when your DM doesn't let you try to do something that you should be able to do. This applies to roleplaying scenarios involving player choice and rules scenarios involving player abilities (usually Spot, Listen, and Initiative).

Well, after reading the previous thread I know that some people view it as railroading even if you CAN attempt it, if the DM knew you weren't going to succeed.

An example given was when the PCs were captured and attempted to escape, the DM let them get out of their cells, out of the building and wandering the wilderness when they encountered a patrol of scouts looking for them who worked for the people they escaped from.

It was said that this was railroading because the DM decided that the scouts found them instead of having a preplanned patrol route and a timetable of when the scouts would be where. I believe it was said by someone that even making a random roll based on how often you thought the scouts would cover a certain area wasn't good enough. That having the party be found out was railroading by not allowing them to escape.

Thus, I have broadened my description of railroading to include the DM not allowing you to succeed at things you think you should be able to. Also, I would include the DM nudging you on adventures you didn't really want to play.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The inescapable black sphere is railroading if:

1. The DM, in his pre-session set-up, decided that today would be a city adventure, whereby the Foozle is attempting to monopolize some resource.
2. The players, upon learning of the Foozle operating in the city, decide to flee to the countryside rather than face him.
3. Totally unprepared for this eventuality, the DM encases the city in an inescapable black sphere, forcing the players to remain in-town and deal with the Foozle.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Thus, I have broadened my description of railroading to include the DM not allowing you to succeed at things you think you should be able to.

But, that can't be right, because as a player, I could fully believe that the commoner isn't a polymorphed dragon and hit him over the head expecting to knock him out. When that doesn't happen, suddenly its railroading? Or what if I expect to hit the guy with high AC but no visible armor easily, and can't? Is that railroading? What if I pay a cleric to use some divination spell to find someone, but they're wearing an Amulet of Undetectable Alignment so the cleric can't find them, is that railroading? What if I try to run away and expect to get caught, but escape, is that railroading?

Players try to do things all the time, sometimes they fail when they think they'll succeed, sometimes they succeed when they think they'll fail. Not having expectations met has nothing to do with it. Not having real choices has everything to do with it. Just becuase some people can't tell the difference doesn't mean they're right, it means they're problem players.

 

[TerraDave]

Jumping on the "none of the above" bandwagon...

D&D is a game where a DM contrives seemingly natural scenarios for players who willingly suspend disbelief. At the end of the day, it's only railroading if they notice (and say so).

YES. But, a certain level of tactical choice, where the choices have vissible consequances, can help add to that "natural" feeling.

On some metagame level, the players also have to acknowledge the DMs limited time and resources as well as his or her personal preferences, and hence "go with the flow", again given that that flow seems natural and it at least feels like their PCs are making the key decisions.

 

[Quasqueton]

I wonder, are people more willing to accept some scenarios in a game than they are to accept the same scenarios on a message board?

I've seen lots of statements in this forum to the effect of, "If my DM pulled that, I'd leave the game immediately."

Quasqueton

 

[The Shaman]

I wonder, are people more willing to accept some scenarios in a game than they are to accept the same scenarios on a message board?

I've seen lots of statements in this forum to the effect of, "If my DM pulled that, I'd leave the game immediately."

As several people have noted already, the situations you outlined may or not be railroading depending on the context: what leads to these options being placed before the players, and more importantly what happens after the options are presented, are more indicative of railroading than the situations themselves.

Patryn of Elvenshae and Henry each give examples of how a GM could turn a simple plot hook into a set of steel rails.