What's the problem with railroading?

[kitsune9]

I don't really understand the universal hatred for "rail-roading" players. I like having a couple avenues to chose from but "sandbox" games I've played in have been pretty awful.

Maybe it's because I'm more of a writer than a gamer, but I like to make a character, get presented with clear goals (perhaps with a few possible ways to reach that goal), and then go after that goal. The goal will ideally lead to the next goal and form an arc.

I have never found the game where we a dumped into a city and asked what our characters do next.

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the terms. Can someone explain the appeal?
--

Players who hate railroading campaigns don't want to feel constrained by the adventure. They have the vision that adventure is out there to sought for, expeditions to be planned, dungeons to be raided, and gold and glory is at the end only for those who are brave enough to seek it. The GM's job in this case is to accommodate the players by letting them go where they please and do what they please, send the appropriate encounters their way whatever the risks and challenges there may be. This is a good sandbox campaign.

The real extreme of railroading is that players don't have any control over their characters' lives and in many cases, don't even get to roleplay their own actions. The GM starts out that you've been summoned to a noble's villa for a job and he wants you to go rob some graves, retrieve an item he wants, and he'll give you some money. Unfortunately, you're a playing a paladin and finding this distasteful is an understatement. Nevertheless, the GM will throw this hook at you at every turn even though you're making it clear by your character's actions that you would not be interested. The GM, wanting to run this adventure, ensures that no matter what you do, you will wind up in that graveyard shovel in hand.

As with any campaign style, there are pros and cons to railroading, and GM's have to take care to avoid the cons of such styles and focused on bringing the good parts to light.

As for me, I tend to a railroading GM. I won't force my players to go on the adventure, but I know my players and their play styles. They will want to do heroic things, they will want go on adventures seeking gold and glory and feeling good about themselves for doing right, so I throw these adventures at them and with the appropriate hooks. But if the players suddenly decided, "You know what, we're not going to be bothered with saving the village, we're just going to head north," then they know I'm done for the day unless they want me to break out the random encounter charts. Next session will be me planning on what happens when they go north.

 

[jdrakeh]

Nothing if you're content with not having your character's choices and actions matter.

 

[C_M2008]

My style is vastly different I run what a call an "evolving sandbox"
I create dozens (if not hundreds) of NPCs complete with traits, motivations & plans, create many exciting locales complete with histories,
create tables to account for changes over time to the NPCs and setting locales, make hundred of hooks to engage a variety of PC motivations.

The setting changes as the NPCs move to complete their motivations & as the PCs persue their goals, ideally some of these will interact and generate more hooks. Typically the game world generates hooks continuously as the players pursue their goals - After setting creation the game requires very minimal effort from myself to maintain, I might spend 10 mins per session if that. Of course typical inital prep is on the scale of 50+ hours - which is why I do all my game planning during holidays/vacation......

The best part is the game plays like a sandbox but according to players I run a "story-oriented game"; the exact feeling I was trying to create in my players.

I'm no longer interested in the pre-session prep treadmill that other game styles seem to require, but I can't fault anyone for liking something different.

 

[kitsune9]

Nice topic , I have learned many information , looking forwad to updating !

Yeah, ugg boots. That was my next thought. You deserve some XP.

Mooooooooooooooooooooods!

 

[shadzar]

Totally Off-Topic, I never cease to marvel how unprecise the english language is.

That is because it changes every 5 minutes because someone wants to redefine a word or term to better benefit them.

-------------
Railroading is playing through Lord of the Rings and the players have to follow the same path the 9 followed.

If the players are allowed to decide to leave as a fellowship and take a different, or many different paths to get the ring to Mordor, then they are not being railroaded.

Railroading is then where players have little or no choice, or the choices they make are rendered moot for the sake of the story.

Just as a train has rails it must follow, the players must follow the rails down the linear predetermined path. Leaving those rails would cause a wreck.

Now that railroading has been explained...the problem is that not everyone wants to ride the train, but would rather drive a car so they can turn where they want to take another direction rather than follow the prescribed path.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Railways and the rails themselves have existed since the 1750s or so ... but the term "railroaded" to refer to a swift and/or unjust criminal conviction of a person on trial didn't come into being until the 1880s.

But the terminology makes sense if you think of two of the possibilities of playing D&D: one where the "point" (or goal) is to collectively tell a story and develop characters in a variety of ways, and one where the "point" is to get to point B from point A the way the DM expects you to. One focus is the journey; the other is the destination.

If you want to get somewhere and you do not expect to deviate in any way from the established norm, you can utilize a railroad. It'll get you to point B the same way it's gotten everyone there ... the problem is, you had no say as to where the tracks get laid down. That's all been done long before you -- in this case, by the DM, not underpaid workers from other countries.

But if you want to take a side trip somewhere, or NOT go head directly to point B after leaving point A, you can't take that train ride. Instead, you want the freedom to make the journey to point B a memorable one. Players who prefer this method absolutely resent being told exactly by a DM how their characters' lives are going to unfold.

My take? There's nothing wrong with railroading, unless you are a smart player, a creative player, an inquisitive player, or an opinionated player. If you are one of those, it's probably not going to go over well with you.

 

[Coldwyn]

My take? There's nothing wrong with railroading, unless you are a smart player, a creative player, an inquisitive player, or an opinionated player. If you are one of those, it's probably not going to go over well with you.

That´s a bit one-sided, don´t you think?
Methinks it comes down to knowing and agreeing it´s a railroad and maybe probing the boundaries.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I don't really understand the universal hatred for "rail-roading" players.

Okay, three points...

Maybe it's because I'm more of a writer than a gamer, but I like to make a character, get presented with clear goals (perhaps with a few possible ways to reach that goal),

(1) That's not a railroad.

(Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure. If you've got meaningful choices built-in from the get-go, you don't have a railroad.)

I have never found the game where we a dumped into a city and asked what our characters do next.

(2) That's a crappy sandbox.

(Successful sandboxes tend to include one or more "default goals" that serve as a guiding structure / launching pad. "Explore the megadungeon" is the grand-daddy of them all. The West Marches used "explore the frontier" to similar effect. Plopping the PCs down on the equivalent of a featureless plain and saying, "Where do you go?" is just crap design.)

(3) "Railroad" is not the opposite of "sandbox" (or vice versa).

(This is a common mistake, but it completely warps any discussion of the two terms. The most useful definition for sandbox I've heard is something along the lines of, "Allowing players to choose the scenario." The opposite of that is, "Not allowing the players to choose the scenario." That's certainly a kind of railroading, but it's pretty much the lightest form of railroading possible. So by treating "railroad" as the opposite of "sandbox" you've immediately radicalized the conversation by implicitly pushing a position straddling the middle of the continuum out onto the extreme fringe.

The opposite of railroading, on the other hand, is non-linear design. Sandbox campaigns are certainly one form of non-linear design, but they're not the only form. It's also possible to have sandbox campaigns which include significant non-linear elements. So by treating "sandbox" as the opposite of "railroad" you are non-usefully lumping all kinds of stuff into sandbox play that don't really belong there.)

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

Railroading: When the GM says "You can't do that or go there." when you reasonably could.

That's about it, I think.

If you're running through a published adventure or something with a structure as part of a story (or say investigation), then there are going to be key points you have to hit to continue that story (they may shift depending on play but you'll either find them somewhere else, or in a different form), but you need to get clues to solve mysteries, like you need to have evidence in a court to convict someone. (A Judge won't put someone in prison for you just because he likes the look of you).

"Sandboxes" can be great if you have a GM with a lot of creativity, quick-thinking and time - but that's not always an easy combination to find!

 

[pemerton]

Players who hate railroading campaigns don't want to feel constrained by the adventure. They have the vision that adventure is out there to sought for, expeditions to be planned, dungeons to be raided, and gold and glory is at the end only for those who are brave enough to seek it. The GM's job in this case is to accommodate the players by letting them go where they please and do what they please, send the appropriate encounters their way whatever the risks and challenges there may be. This is a good sandbox campaign.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but this post is exactly buying into the notion of a railroad/sandbox spectrum that I tried to dismantel upthread.

Some players hate railroading but aren't interested in the sort of sandbox you describe. They want a game in which the GM serves up situations that speak to their PCs and to their own interests in the game, and which they get to resolve as they wish to, rather than as dictated to by the GM.