What's Wrong with the Railroad?

[fba827]

as said above, it really just depends on the preference of your group, no other opinion matters. If the group likes it (or is at least okay with it) you can start passing out the golden tickets for the train ride. If the group doesn't then it's not a good option.

 

[gizmo33]

I guess it's part of the current gamer zeitgeist.

Yea - if the "zeit" your talking about is any time that includes me playing DnD. This isn't a fad, and railroading is something I've seen since I've started playing - even if the terminology is recent.

My question is - what's necessarily wrong with a railroad plot? Now, hear me out. I understand *how* a railroad can be bad in games. If the plot of a game feels completely artificial and the PCs are not allowed to do anything that deviates from the predetermined plot, sure. The game feels fake and you might as well show up for the DM's novel every week.

IMO you basically answered the question that you asked. You mean *besides all that* everything about railroads is good? I think the downside you mention is a pretty big downside.

However, I'm playing in a railroad campaign right now and here's why it's fun for me and our group. The campaign, the plot...all of that is background. The true *story* of our D&D game is our characters. How they grow, and how their interactions change with each other.

So if I can read into what you're saying here: the fundemental part of the game that you enjoy is *not* being controlled by the DM. He's not telling you what your characters say to one another, is he? I think this is what everyone wants out of playing. I just think that when the players want to make decisions about things that the DM should recognize that and take it seriously. Some players and playing styles aren't entertained by the same things that you are- which isn't right or wrong.

It seems to me, too, that a railroad plot certainly works with a module. Module series seem to be extremely popular these days. What with the Pathfinder series, and all. But when you play a module series, you are essentially signing up for a railroad. Right? So why no complaints about that?

Modules by necessity are limited to describing a finite number of things. Allowing my players an infinite number of choices does not require that the materials that I use be infinite in length. I expect modules (Pathfinder or otherwise) to detail the likely scenarios and leave it to me to detail the rest. Obviously, there is some subtle encouragement to continue with the "path" (a lack of non-plot NPCs running up to the PCs begging them for help, for example) but my enjoyment as a DM comes from facilitating the kind of adventures that the players want to participate in, and that means being open to a change of course.

Just throwing this out there. Wanting to get feedback.

I've played with people that enjoy the kind of game you describe. I have no problem with any of it as long as it's not treated as a fundemental and only way to play RPGs. IMO fudging and railroading is easier to add to a game system than to remove if the system has been designed to expect it. That's why I rant against railroading becoming a core expectation in the way that DnD is played. I also rant against what I perceive to be basic dishonesty when the DM wants to railroad things against the expectations of players. Again, this obviously does not apply to your situation where it appears that you and the DM are in harmony with regards to expectations.

 

[nightwyrm]

I think adventure path type railroads where your PCs have an impact on the adventure can be actually pretty good (ie. the PCs collects the MacGuffins, go attack BBEG's lair and save the kingdom) if your players agree to play that type of game. But the really bad railroad is when the PCs gets reduced to being spectators. If nothing the PCs do matters or makes an impact to the world, then it's no fun for everyone.

 

[Desdichado]

I love railroads. Old timey steam locomotives are one of my favorite inventions ever. If I were a retired emtpy nester, I'd probably convert my basement into one of those museum diorama quality model railroad worlds.

In gaming, the so-called "benevolent railroad" is fine, I suppose... but where do you draw the line? I mean, have you ever been in a campaign where half a dozen very reasonable (and clever) solutions to a given problem were shot down "just because" and the adventure wasn't written that way? I have.

There's a fine line between the players' "responsibility" to buy into the game that the GM brings to the table, and the GM's need to let the PC's do things their own way. The two endpoints are railroads and sandboxes, and in my opinion, exist only in theory, not in reality. But head too much in the direction of a railroad leads to very frustrated players after a while. I'd submit that your example game isn't really a railroad at all; it's right at the ideal point where players and GM are on the same page about what the campaign is about and what everyone should be doing.

 

[maddman75]

A wise RPGnet poster once said "No one minds a railroad if there's pretty scenery outside the window and the train tracks lead to awesome-town"

Personally I find railroads boring to both play in and GM, but if you're having fun more power to you.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

well

I am OK with railroads at the very beginning of the campaign. the Savage Tide Adventure Path has a pretty railroady scene early on that is IMO worthwhile, because it sets up a lot of coolness later on.

What I am not OK is a situation where the long term course of the campaign is predetermined. In my mind, the DM should set up a situation, not an outcome, whenever it is possible.

I still think that sandbox play is the ideal, but it takes both a ton of prep work and a pretty self-motivated group to pull it off.

Ken

 

[Treebore]

My first thought was "There is nothing wrong with locomatives."

The times railroading goes bad is when it forces the players to act in ways they don't want or to pursue plots and adventures they don't want. Railroads can be done right. I've had a lot of fun with the Eberron series of modules and Shackled City and Savage Tides, and others like them. But they are not for everyone and there are ways to run and play them to ensure more fun for everyone just like there are ways that can really make them not fun.

Yep. Then there are players that are just over sensitive. Like I have had players cry "Railroad!" because the Archamge made it very hard to get past a door without certain "keys". Because they had to get these keys to get past the door, at their level, they felt it was a "Railroad". Nevermind it was well within the archmages means to do what was done, and the things behind that door were very valuable to the Archmage and others. Plus the keys were recoverable.

Plus I think people are just sensitive to Railroading, at least in the USA, because we are Railroaded every year on April 15th.

 

[Dausuul]

The traditional definition of "railroading" is distinct from "linear plot." Railroading means forcing the PCs to follow the plot whether they like it or not, usually in a heavy-handed manner.

The most common form of railroading is simple refusal to let any "non-approved" strategy succeed:

DM: "Okay, you don't follow the old man's tip to search the Mountains of Mysteriousness. You're in a farming village. There's nothing to do."
Player: "We go look for clues in the Wild Woods, where the Duke's body was found."
DM: "Okay. You wander around the Wild Woods for a while. You don't find anything."
Player: "We go in the Caverns of Unspeakable Dread, since that's where the evil wizard must have gotten the monsters to kill the Duke."
DM: "Okay. You explore the Caverns. All the unspeakably dreadful things have gone away. There's nothing here."
Player: "...I guess we head for the Mountains of Mysteriousness then."

More sadistic DMs punish PCs in arbitrary ways for not staying on the rails:

DM: "There's a road leading up to a high pass over the Mountains of Mysteriousness. At the crest of the pass is a cave mouth with wisps of smoke curling up from it."
Player: "That looks dangerous. I'll bet there's a dragon in there. We'll head south through the foothills for a while, see if we can find another way over the Mountains."
DM: "As you start off into the foothills, you get attacked by a pack of rabid dire weasels. Roll initiative."
<combat ensues, two PCs are eaten by the dire weasels, the rest barely survive>
DM: "Just as you finish off the last weasel, you see another pack coming toward you. You remember that there's an enchantment on the road that keeps the dire weasels at bay."
Player: "Uhh... I guess we'd better follow the road then." <sighs>

In the worst-case scenario, the DM won't even let the players try to leave the rails:

DM: "You stand over the fallen dragon and deliver the death blow..."
Player: "Wait a minute, I'm not killing it yet. Now that we've beaten it, I want to talk to it. I tell it that we'll spare its life if it agrees to fly us out of the Mountains."
DM: "It's an evil dragon. You're a paladin of Bahamut. You smite it and it dies."
Player: "No, I really want to talk to it. Hey, maybe I can even redeem it. That'd be awesome."
DM: "You feel the power of Bahamut flow through your body, taking control of you and forcing you to smite the dragon's head off."
Player: "...You know, I'm gonna go play video games. Here's my paladin's character sheet. You might as well keep it since you're playing him anyway."

 

[Ydars]

I also think the definition of the dreaded RR-word has expanded.

In my first days as a roleplayer, using the MERP system, we recognised a railroad when we saw one.

I think it was when, in one game, Gandalf started directing us with a few well placed lightning bolts, that I knew things had got out of hand. Everytime we did anything the DM didn't like, there were unexpected and illogical consequences.

It was years before we let that guy DM again.

 

[gizmo33]

Dausuul,
I really like your post and I think it contains some great examples that could be given names so that they can be referred to in shorthand. But as the post with the archmage/keys shows, I think players (at least on the internets) can be a little too quick to call "railroading" in situations. Fundementally, it's about player choice, but a key thing to note is that sometimes other characters and the world in general are going to limit your choices. This is in itself IMO is not railroading.

So to try to be a baatezu's advocate:

DM: "Okay, you don't go on the quest to the Mountains of Mysteriousness. You're in a farming village. There's nothing to do."

Well, maybe there *is* nothing to do in the village, or forest for that matter. Just because PCs are heroes doesn't mean that every time they walk into McDonnal's for a burger they should get attacked by a dragon. I think there's a fine line between being open to the possibility of an adventure in a different locale, and feeling a mandate to provide one.

DM: "Just as you finish off the last weasel, you see another pack coming toward you. You remember that there's an enchantment on the road that keeps the dire weasels at bay."
Player: "Uhh... I guess we'd better follow the road then." <sighs>

Obviously, since you've provided some insight into the motivations of the DM, this sort of thing is pretty easy to call egregious railroading. But in a game based on what I call "fey-type" reasoning and other mythical elements, it makes sense to me that certain odd rules would apply that would encourage PCs to certain paths. A wizard very-well may have enchanted the road to keep his visiting friends from being killed by weasels. Judging these things from the other side of the DM-screen can be difficult.

Or a more reasonable example: a castle inhabited by folks that know about magic should consider the possibility that flying/teleporting enemies will attack them and take counter-measures. It's not "railroading" if the consequence of this is that an on-foot approach of the castle is the most reasonable option because an enchantment/ritual prevents other options.

DM: "It's an evil dragon. You're a paladin of Bahamut. You smite it and it dies."

Short of magical domination I can think of no caveat on this. My baatezu powers fail. The player would have to suffer the consequences of displeasing his god, and perhaps he should be given the information about Bahamut's belief's upfront, but having a god act in such a direct way is inconsistent with the rest of the game.