D&D General Why defend railroading?

[overgeeked]

Sure. If that’s how you want to define railroading, then the former question is applicable: is it actually “railroading” to have a fixed, linear path if the players want to go on that fixed, linear path? It seems like you would answer no, and under that definition of “railroading,” I would agree. The latter phrasing is a reframing of the same question, under a different definition of railroading. Either way, they express the same fundamental concept, that linearity and lack of choice aren’t always bad. Secondarily, I think it illustrates that “railroading” is a nebulous and not very useful term.

Railroading is the absence of meaningful choice on how the events in the game unfold. Whether the players agree to that beforehand or not, it's still railroading.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that railroading is always bad because by definition it involves force via subverting choice a player believes he or she made in good faith; however, if a player agrees to choose certain things over others (e.g. follow the plot of the module everyone agreed to play to the exclusion of choices that aren't on that plotline) or agrees the DM should, say, engage in the illusion of choice for whatever reason the group agrees is acceptable, the DM is not railroading since the DM is not forcing those outcomes.

This.

I would define railroading as the DM forcing specific outcomes because the DM has decided that that specific outcome will happen regardless of any action within the game and that no action taken in the game can change that outcome.

So, a linear adventure isn't a railroad since the DM is not forcing specific outcomes. A dungeon where you have three rooms connected by a single tunnel is not a railroad. No choices are being forced on the players.

@iserith has a really good definition here.

 

[Charlaquin]

Railroading is the absence of meaningful choice on how the events in the game unfold. Whether the players agree to that beforehand or not, it's still railroading.

Right, so under that definition of railroading, the second question applies: is railroading always bad? I would argue no, not if it’s what the players want.

 

[Malmuria]

A premise in dnd is that the dm creates and plays the world, putting in a lot of work behind the scenes. They are also responsible for the pacing and fairness of the game, at least more so than the players. There might even be an expectation that they be entertaining. Players, conversely, must respect the dm prep by playing along, to a certain degree.

But I wonder if we can reject that whole premise by using tools and sensibilities from other games. The dm can become more of a player than the mastermind behind the screen, and in fact you don't even need a screen because its not the dms job to fudge dice for the purpose of a narrative. In front of the dm, instead of a plot, would be tools for improvising. And the dm could say to the players, look, I don't know exactly what's in that ruined castle, but let's figure it out together. "Play to see what happens."

 

[Mallus]

Repeat after me: some people like railroading. They like participating in the DM’s plot & story (or the Adventure Path’s writers). In the same way people enjoy heavily-scripted CRPGs like Mass Effect. Not everyone enjoys open-world and sandbox play.

Note: this shouldn’t be construed as a defense of railroading. It’s an observation about how some people have played the game for the past few decades…

 

[Charlaquin]

See, in this thread, we have at least two competing definitions of railroading: we have “lack of meaningful player choice,” which I would argue is not necessarily a bad thing if the players are cool with it, and we have “removing player choice without their consent,” which I would argue is always a bad thing, but obviously not all removal of player choice falls under that definition.

 

[overgeeked]

Right, so under that definition of railroading, the second question applies: is railroading always bad? I would argue no, not if it’s what the players want.

Railroading is the absence of meaningful choice on how the events in the game unfold. Whether the players agree to that beforehand or not, it's still railroading.

Is "railroading" always bad?

Is "the absence of meaningful choice on how the events in the game unfold" always bad?

Yes, it is. Because the whole point of role-playing games is to have meaningful choices that effect how the events of the game unfolds. If you have no meaningful choices to make, you're not playing a role-playing game. The DM is reading you a story and you occasionally rolls some dice between their talky bits.

 

[MerricB]

My take on it:

I think the first half of DL2 Dragons of Flame is railroading. It is also, possibly, the adventure that contains the longest continuous sequence of boxed text during which the characters can't make meaningful choices. Or, really, any choice. (The characters are captured by the dragonarmies and taken on a trek until they're rescued).

After that? The raid on Pax Tharkas? Not railroaded. But a lot of people don't make it that far.

The end of A3 Aerie of the Slave Lords is railroaded: the party MUST be captured and put in the dungeon for A4 to work.

Below that level you move into extremely linear adventures. Adventures that have only one path through and no branches. Road trip adventures are often of this sort (you have encounters along the road, which you can't bypass). But you have small freedoms in the encounters.

Then there are just linear adventures that require one thing to happen after another. Hoard of the Dragon Queen has you following the path of the treasure, so of COURSE it's linear in form. However, in each section, you have a wide variety of options as to how to handle things. It's just that the paths out converge to take you to the next section.

After that, you get into node-based design and "sandbox" play (whatever that means - it's different to everyone).

Cheers!

 

[Cadence]

Is "railroading" always bad?

Is "the absence of meaningful choice on how the events in the game unfold" always bad?

Yes, it is. Because the whole point of role-playing games is to have meaningful choices that effect how the events of the game unfolds. If you have no meaningful choices to make, you're not playing a role-playing game. The DM is reading you a story and you occasionally rolls some dice between their talky bits.

Presumably even in a linear story, the choices in combat and interactions affect the resources available at the final encounter and the chances of ultimate success.

 

[Deset Gled]

Railroading is always bad because it's forcing people to do things without their consent.

The way some people talk about railroading, you'd think the DM had shackled them to a gaming table in the basement.

Edit: deleted some words that were more inflamitory than intended. Apologies if I was offensive.