D&D General Why defend railroading?

[MerricB]

I guess some DMs like to be the giant watchmaker in the sky. Set the sandbox in motion and let the chips fall where they may. The prep effort, though, just seems immense…

It is.

The games that come closest to this breadth of sandbox style are computer games. And even they have rails for individual missions. Some are far more obvious than others. I've been playing Grand Theft Auto V recently, and am amazed at how little I can deviate in a mission. Yeah, GTA-V may have all these sandbox elements, but the moment you try to get onto the story, the rails grab you.

If you want a broad sandbox, it is pretty certain you'll need to improvise encounters during play. Random Encounter tables aid this by providing limits on what you can find. So things make sense. And, honestly, can lead to amazing play. Or awful play.

I am not personally fond of the "I move this encounter to where it makes sense" mode of play. Despite improvising encounters all the time. I like the sense of there being a defined world that the players can explore, even if it has undefined elements that are expressed through random tables.

I'm just horrible at prepping for the sessions these days.

I'm pretty convinced that there are a sizable chunk of players who LIKE defined stories that they play through. I think the Dragonlance adventures, if released today, would do better in a world used to the idea of story-arc D&D rather when they were released. Some of the adventures don't hold up and need reworking, but others I think are fascinating. (Sales of Pathfinder APs indicate that the form has legs. Consider that Paizo mostly discontinued their one-shot line of adventures).

And a major part of the reason for these adventures is to reduce the burden on DMs. Creating an entire living, breathing world is a lot of work.

One of the things I have liked about the current range of D&D adventures is that Wizards have experimented with the form. The adventures are not all alike. I pay a lot of attention to the structure of adventures, and they keep trying new things. Not all the experiments are successful (Descent into Avernus is the one I really dislike), but enough are.

And not all the adventures are for everyone. I personally think Tyranny of Dragons is one of the top adventures of all time for D&D. I've run it three times, and it's been an amazing success each time. But I know that many DMs struggle with it and dislike it. I'm lukewarm on Tomb of Annihilation, but I have friends who absolutely adore it.

Of the current adventures, I'd say that Rime of the Frostmaiden is the closest to pure sandbox, even though it has scripted elements. And it has all the challenges for the DM that a sandbox has: lots of details to keep track of, and it works best when the DM is proactively using the villains. (Princes of the Apocalypse would be similar).

I mean - it's 320 pages. Yes, there are bigger adventures, but not many!

Cheers!

 

[robus]

Not all illusions are deception. Films are an illusion but we watch them in the full knowledge of that for entertainment purposes. Just like a roleplaying game.

I think we’re confusing illusion with suspension of disbelief?

 

[Maxperson]

This feels like something I wouldn't do because the players were promised a choice about something in particular (even if it was essentially random) and it didn't happen. If they didn't suspect the McGuffin was behind one of them, then at first it doesn't seem bad to me to make it the last .. but then later when the emergent story includes how unlucky they were picking the other two doors when they could have ended it does feel bad to me. (On the other hand, in terms of quantum Ogre, I don't picture anyone making being unlucky about finding an ogre in a place they might very well have found an ogre, a big part of the story later. Maybe something worse would have been down the other path, for example).

I think if the DM had put the promised McGuffin behind door A and left it, that putting an ogre behind whichever they pick first (including A) feels bad to to me compared to either putting the ogre behind whichever wrong door they picked first or having or having predecided the ogre was in the McGuffon room. I'm not sure that's rational, but there it is.

All the bad feeling goes away for me if it's a magic dungeon (like in one of Cook's 'Dread Empire' prequels) that clearly has been messing with the players ('you move toward door A and hear a rumbling of giant machines' or 'there's a mist at the door and you feel your stomach lurch as you walk through [teleporting]'). Then the story afterwards isn't them being unlucky, it's the sentient dungeon being an expletive.

I agree. Doing that with the doors is just as bad as encountering an ogre no matter what you choose. In both cases you are rendering the choice of the players meaningless, which is railroading them onto the path you choose, rather than the one they chose. To me the promise doesn't make it much worse than the ogre issue, because the primary problem is with the DM forcing what the DM wants to happen no matter what, not whether or not the DM told you something.

Were I to make those doors, the first thing I'd do is have some clue either somewhere else in the dungeon or on the doors themselves, so that it's possible for the players to figure out the correct door. Simply leaving it to blind chance doesn't seem very dramatic to me, nor very fair to the players. Second, I'd make it McGuffin behind one door, and then a trap or an encounter for the other two doors, rather than just two encounters.

Others have argued that the ogre is okay, because the DM is improvising. No. That's not an excuse to railroad players like that. I improvise a lot and what I would do if they came to that fork is choose one that has an ogre down it. Say the right fork. Down the left fork I'd probably place a small village. That way there is meaning to the players' choice on which way to go. Maybe I'd have it being harassed by an ogre. Giving them another meaningful choice. Do they decide to help the village or move on and leave the ogre behind.

Improvisation is not an excuse to railroad the players by forcing an ogre on them no matter what they do, rending any choice they make meaningless in the process.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think we’re confusing illusion with suspension of disbelief?

The former is used to uphold the latter.

 

[Maxperson]

Life is full of meaningless choices.

I play the game in part to escape real life. I get enough of life in..........................life.

 

[Umbran]

How can we ever discuss better or worse practices if any and all conversation is always shouted down with these BS claims?

There are two different types of conversations:
1) Y is bad. (Sometimes, allied with X is good)
2) X and Y are tools. Both can be incredibly useful. Here are their strengths and weaknessess, situations where they are applicable, and not, etc.

When the argument is just against a tool, and contains no clear (and non-condescending) acceptance that it is sometimes a good and appropriate thing, we are in (1), and that's generally what is seen on this topic.

 

[Maxperson]

Not all illusions are deception. Films are an illusion but we watch them in the full knowledge of that for entertainment purposes. Just like a roleplaying game.

I disagree that films are an illusion. They are make believe, but make believe isn't the same as illusion. When a stage magician performs an illusion, he is expressly deceiving the audience in the process.

 

[Maxperson]

The road doesn’t lead to the ogre, the ogre is a speed bump along the way to whatever their real destination is.

That's a cop out. All roads lead to ogre. THEN lead somewhere else after, probably the same place no matter what the PC's choose.

Saying that all roads lead somewhere other than the ogre just means that they never lead anywhere, since no matter what destination you choose, unless you plan on trapping the PCs forever, there will be somewhere else with a different destination afterwards.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When a stage magician performs an illusion, he is expressly deceiving the audience in the process.

Yet it is fun and no one gets upset.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet it is fun and no one gets upset.

In large part because they've agreed to it in advance.