D&D General Why defend railroading?

[overgeeked]

I’d really like to know. I keep seeing arguments about player choice and agency and railroading. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would defend railroading. Any advocates of railroading willing to explain why it’s good to do?

 

[commandercrud]

All DMs railroad. It's only a "bad" thing when players think that's what's happening because the internet told them so.

 

[Don Durito]

I’d really like to know. I keep seeing arguments about player choice and agency and railroading. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would defend railroading. Any advocates of railroading willing to explain why it’s good to do?

1) Railroading is ill defined, so people aren't always thinking the same thing when the word comes up.
2) People see other people talking about railroading and decide that it applies to the way they run their game. This means they can then take umbrage and defend themselves, something people on the internet are always itching for an excuse to do.

 

[Morrus]

Start by defining railroading, because nobody agrees on what that is.

But there's no badwrongfun. Some people might just enjoy a different style of game to you. They don't need to defend that to anybody.

 

[Don Durito]

All DMs railroad. It's only a "bad" thing when players think that's what's happening because the internet told them so.

See? It can mean anything!

 

[guachi]

Because players trust the DM to come up with interesting adventures that everyone will enjoy participating in.

Something like this often occurs at the start of a campaign. Player: "I don't know enough about the world, my PC, or the other PCs to really know what I want to do. So I'm game for whatever you have planned."

 

[Don Durito]

There's probably two ways to think about railroading.

1) It's something that the GM does, either deliberately or through enacting bad design from an adventure module. In this case it generally means either never offering the players meaningful decisions or invalidating their decisions by always leading to the same result

2) It's the player experience and frustration of having their decisions invalidated, and not matter.

These sound like the same thing but they're not. In the case of 2) railroading is pretty much bad by definition, it's a negative experience. However, the situation of 2) is something that can actually arise through miscommunication or simple inexperience.

In the case of 1) it may actually not be an issue in a game if everyone is having fun. However, in terms of GMing advice and scenario design it's usually better to focus on avoiding 1), because 1) is obviously the most common cause of 2)

 

[Asisreo]

Many people have a different definition of Railroading, so one's definition might not align with another and the arguments may start to talk past each other. The method in which railroading is enforced also changes.

Some people define railroading as a linear path the player's must complete. First, get the sword. Next, climb the tower. Then, defeat the wizard. Finally, rescue the princess.
Certain DM's force this structure through their adventure design: The player's can't defeat the wizard without the sword and the wizard never leaves his tower and the spell imprisoning the princess is magically tied to her life.
Other DM's force this structure through external means. "Can we go rescue the princess first?" "No. Kill the wizard first." "Why?" "Its more interesting."


Some DM's regard railroading as controlling the very last outcome, meaning that as long as the wizard is defeated, you win. But that still means that the DM must somehow enforce that the wizard is defeated somehow. The previous two methods occur but there is a third for this case.
Some DM's may decide that the wizard just dies no matter what because the next steps of the adventure requires it. So even if the players are able to reason with the wizard, the wizard dies anyways because Chapter 2 is about the aftermath of the wizard's death. Clever writing could make this work, but many times it falls flat.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

It is guiding the PCs when the players are enjoying the game/agreeing on the direction. It is railroading the PCs when the players are not having fun/want to go in another direction, but can't.

 

[overgeeked]

There's probably two ways to think about railroading.

1) It's something that the GM does, either deliberately or through enacting bad design from an adventure module. In this case it generally means either never offering the players meaningful decisions or invalidating their decisions by always leading to the same result

2) It's the player experience and frustration of having their decisions invalidated, and not matter.

These sound like the same thing but they're not. In the case of 2) railroading is pretty much bad by definition, it's a negative experience. However, the situation of 2) is something that can actually arise through miscommunication or simple inexperience.

In the case of 1) it may actually not be an issue in a game if everyone is having fun. However, in terms of GMing advice and scenario design it's usually better to focus on avoiding 1), because 1) is obviously the most common cause of 2)

I would basically agree with this definition of railroading.

Railroading is the DM removing agency from the players by removing meaningful choices from the players that would otherwise effect how the game unfolds.

If the DM puts whatever adventure they planned in front of the players and doesn’t allow them to go left when the adventure is to the right, that’s railroading in the form of removing choice.

If the DM puts whatever adventure they planned in front of the players no matter which direction they go, that’s railroading in the form of the illusion of choice.