D&D General Why defend railroading?

[overgeeked]

So prep = railroading? Interesting. I think this shows that the definition being used is incoherent, but maybe we can work with this.

If you force that prep in front of the players, thus negating their choices, then yes, that's railroading. But no, not all prep is railroading.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I dont' see how I changed the parameter of the example. If I understood correctly, you didn't present the choice of path as mutually exclusive, i.e. the players can only ever go on one path, right? Or that they must all go on that one path and cannot turn around to pick the other for x reason, right?

In which case, the scenario I presented - possibly picking both paths, whether by changing their minds or deciding to go on both after completing one - is within the possibility of the example.

Which I think helps demonstrate the potential problems of setting up the same encounter on the two paths... or deciding to move it between both paths.

Honestly though, I feel this article will summarise my thoughts best (especially since I feel it's not... constructive to keep talking about prep equalling railroading, especially after I talked about the Alexandrian article about prepping scenarios vs plots. There is a very large difference.). In particular, keep these two responses in mind:

"If I have a wandering monster table with 1 encounter and a 100% chance of that encounter - how is that different then the quantum ogre?"

Cute. Well, the original article postulated 3 options (groves of trees), and a DM that no matter what the party did, found the ogre in the first one, and the mcguffin in the last one the party entered. And there was nothing they could do to change or avoid the outcome.

This strawman assumes that all improvisation on the part of the Dungeon Master is negative. Clearly there are appropriate times to do all of the things that I recommend against doing. Older editions even contained rules to bypass the need to do them! A classic example is morale. In Pathfinder, if the party has clearly won the fight, and there are just a few orcs left, having a player kill one instead of leaving it with one hit point is a perfectly acceptable time to fudge the dice, because the outcome doesn't matter. All you are doing is facilitating interesting choices, instead of uninteresting ones. In earlier editions they would have already fled due to morale failure.

You will spring an encounter on the PC's You will roll sometimes and ignore it. You will dictate player actions. Just always be sure to do so in a way that maintains agency. ("Well, unless you two are interested in playing homosexual characters—we're going to re-roll on the how did you meet table", "You set up camp and turn in for the night")

"The players don't know the difference! I can lie to them all I want! There's no difference between a quantum ogre and a wandering encounter."

Have you ever seen the film where they underestimate the audience? Notice how all the best films don't do that?

 

[Steampunkette]

The illusion of choice is still railroading.

This, right here, is wild.

All of our choices are illusory. And all of them have consequences. And it's up to the DM to determine what the consequences are. This is not a shell game, where you're trying to find the Ace of Spades.

They're only two times when "railroading" or the illusion of choice are actually a problem.

The first is when the DM is actively playing against the characters. When regardless of what you choose the story progresses on a specific line. I'm not talking about a quantum ogre, here, I'm talking about a game where regardless of what you do the evil king always kills the princess because the DM decided that the princess had to die. If you save the princess she has a heart attack and dies.

The other time that railroading becomes a problem is when the player is going against the DM. When the player decides that no matter what plot hook is waved in front of them or what the agreed upon story was to begin with they are going to go off and do their own BS. When railroading happens in those situations The problem is that the DM is trying to keep a problem player in the game instead of inviting them to leave.

The rest of it? Doesn't matter.

 

[overgeeked]

How.does deciding there will be Ogres down either path not leave a ton of places for player input?

Because it effectively removes their choice. You as the DM decide there will be ogres down tunnel A. The players then decide to go down tunnel B. If you as the DM decide to then move the ogres from tunnel A to tunnel B you have railroaded your players by giving them the illusion of choice. Their choice didn't matter, thus you've effectively removed that choice.

Bad wrong funning by claiming exclusive ownership of definitions also matters.

I don't claim ownership. Through this thread I've come upon two definitions that I think work. A few people are arguing against those definitions. Bringing it back to the OP, I'm curious why DMs would railroad their players. If the players don't actually have any relevant, meaningful, consequential choices, why have players at all?

 

[Li Shenron]

DM style aside, one reason railroading persists is because it is easier for module writers. Whether that's homebrew or published, it's much easier for a DM to prepare for a flowchart, where scene A leads to scene B leads to scene C. When players get off the rails and don't take on scene C like the DM expected, all the time and expense of preparing scenes D-Z is wasted. That can be super frustrating if the DM has spent a bunch of time planning how everything is supposed to come together, or if they've spent a bunch of money buying a published campaign or the exact right minis or terrain or something.

Well said.

My favourite GMing style is "sandbox-y", so I can't be said to be a railroading GM really...

Still, I will totally defend a GM who goes railroading out of frustration (or sheer panic!) because her players aren't following the story at all, either by mistake or because they decide to be antagonistic to it.

Think about it: you agreed to play, your DM has spent time or money into an adventure, trying to make it the most interesting and vibrant with details... then you decide you don't buy into saving the prince(ss) and prefer to go doing something else.

Now, if you play with ME you'll be fine, because I have like a hundred other things up my sleeve, or I can just make something up (with a sandbox approach, the idea is that the PCs seeks adventures rather the other way around). But a less prepared/experienced GM can feel pretty insulted. Imagine how YOU would feel if you'd invited guests for dinner, spent time and money to prepare a great meal with care, and then your guests look at your work and decide they're rather have a beer?

A good GM eventually learns not to have specific bottlenecks, like the proverbial hidden door you MUST find to continue, and be ready to allow many (even unexpected) paths towards victory, as well as paths to failure, or different outcomes in general. But that takes years to learn! Certainly I would not blame a GM who bought a 50$ adventure to actually want to play out at least a good chunk of it, and if a bit of railroading is needed to keep going, so be it.

 

[ReshiIRE]

For the record I may have misintrepeted what Ovino was saying when having the Orge encounter be the same on both paths. If it's the exact same I find that strange and almost as if it's being moved between two places. But if there are important differences and there's a good reason for all the Orges around the place, I think that's fine.

 

[iserith]

And I've hit people who disagree. As I mentioned, I've seen people who consider any campaign where the PCs have to, on occasion, follow orders a railroad.

Probably no need to hit them.

 

[payn]

The benefit is we get to have a working definition of a common phrase so we can then effectively talk about it, devise best practices around it, etc. Without being able to make even that basic definition we can't talk about these things. The purpose isn't to exclude, it's to discover. If we can't try to define terms for fear of hurt feelings or exclusion, then we can't even talk about gaming beyond "that's fun". We can't talk about good habits or bad. Good prep or bad. Good use of time or bad. And besides, I don't know about you, but considering the toxic and regressive elements of the hobby, I'm honestly looking for a little bit of exclusion.

We have working definitions of common phrases, its just that they are not specific enough for you apparently. Your definitions solidly fit your preferences and exclude others. Gatekeeping is a hallmark of the toxic and regressive elements of the hobby. Just sayin.

 

[overgeeked]

To quote you, "This, right here, is wild."

This, right here, is wild.

All of our choices are illusory. And all of them have consequences.

Which is it? It can't be both. If you mean illusory in the sense that they're not real in the meatspace sense of real, then yes, they're illusory by dint of them being choices in an elf game. If you mean illusory in the sense of them not having meaning or consequence in the game, then they're clearly contradictory statements.

And it's up to the DM to determine what the consequences are. This is not a shell game, where you're trying to find the Ace of Spades.

It becomes a shell game if the DM moves things around so that the players' choices don't matter.

They're only two times when "railroading" or the illusion of choice are actually a problem.

The rest of it? Doesn't matter.

To you, perhaps.

The first is when the DM is actively playing against the characters. When regardless of what you choose the story progresses on a specific line.

So it's bad when no matter what you do the DM forces their predetermined story on the players? Got it.

I'm not talking about a quantum ogre, here,

So now it's perfectly fine when no matter what you do the DM forces their predetermined story on the players? That's confused.

I'm talking about a game where regardless of what you do the evil king always kills the princess because the DM decided that the princess had to die. If you save the princess she has a heart attack and dies.

It's only a question of scale between Quantum Ogres and the Dead Princess. Both remove meaningful, consequential choice from the players.

The other time that railroading becomes a problem is when the player is going against the DM. When the player decides that no matter what plot hook is waved in front of them or what the agreed upon story was to begin with they are going to go off and do their own BS. When railroading happens in those situations The problem is that the DM is trying to keep a problem player in the game instead of inviting them to leave.

The problem is that the DM has forgotten that it's a collaborative storytelling game. If the player doesn't want to engage with those hooks, the DM should talk to the player and design better hooks.

 

[Cadence]

Because it effectively removes their choice. You as the DM decide there will be ogres down tunnel A. The players then decide to go down tunnel B. If you as the DM decide to then move the ogres from tunnel A to tunnel B you have railroaded your players by giving them the illusion of choice. Their choice didn't matter, thus you've effectively removed that choice.

I don't claim ownership. Through this thread I've come upon two definitions that I think work. A few people are arguing against those definitions. Bringing it back to the OP, I'm curious why DMs would railroad their players. If the players don't actually have any relevant, meaningful, consequential choices, why have players at all?

It feels like you keep saying "doesn't have any" but mean "has any taken away at all".

Deciding an ogre will be on the path still feels like it leaves lots of choices.

Is this ok for avoiding your definition? "The two roads to the village each have an Ogre showing up later today and then daily for a week until one of them meets a bad end. In that case the other one will skedaddle when his buddy doesn't show up in the evening. After a week they both move to greener pastures."?