D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Don Durito]

A few points on the general discussion.

- People really need to be clear if railroad is inherently a dysfunctional state or not. The term was certainly invented to describe dysfunction so it seems a little bit weird with people saying "this type of gaming is a railroad and that's ok.". It's a little bit like saying "this form of dysfunction is not dysfunctional". I think the distinction between linear storyline (potentially functional) and railroad (dysfunctional) is a useful one.

- People seem to be leaving out a big middle between an open sandbox hexcrawl and the most extreme linear form of story; there's continents between the two.

- At the same time, I know from experience that the fact that the GM is theoretically ok with the players ditching the adventure and moving to Chult is not sufficient to avoid players feeling like they're being railroaded. If the GM is relying purely on social pressure (ie. the expectation of the players themselves that they won't be a dick and completely derail the game for each other and not just the GM), then you may still end up with acrimony and accustations of railroading. If it turns out that there is only ever one reasonable choice, then you still have issues. And insisting after the game breaks down that actually you would have been perfectly ok with anything the players chose to do, really, is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A few points on the general discussion.

- People really need to be clear if railroad is inherently a dysfunctional state or not. The term was certainly invented to describe dysfunction so it seems a little bit weird with people saying "this type of gaming is a railroad and that's ok.". It's a little bit like saying "this form of dysfunction is not dysfunctional". I think the distinction between linear storyine (functional) and railroad (dysfunctional) is as useful one.

- People seem to be leaving out a big middle between an open sandbox hexcrawl and the most extreme linear form of story; there's continents between the two.

- At the same time, I know from experience that the fact that the GM is theoretically ok with the players ditching the adventure and moving to Chult is not sufficient to avoid players feeling like they're being railroaded. If the GM is relying purely on social pressure (ie. the expectation of the players themselves that they won't be a dick completely derail the game for each other and not just the GM), then you may still end up with acrimony and accustations of railroading. If it turns out that there is only ever one reasonable choice, then you still have issues. And insisting after the game breaks down that actually you would have been perfectly ok with anything the players chose to do, really, is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

This is largely because the term railroad has been smeared to any use of GM Force, rather than persistent use of it. This clouds the discussion. I'm very much in the camp that says GM Force is a legitimate tool in the box and can be used responsibly. However, I believe railroads to be degenerate play and should be avoided. The line where GM Force becomes persistent enough is blurry, and can range from once to almost always, depending on the table. As such, I'll defend the tool of GM Force because I think it's valuable in trad play (which 5e primarily supports, especially with the printed material). However, my use of these terms is not nearly universal enough (get onboard people!), so railroad is standing in for any and every use of GM Force -- persistent or otherwise.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

A few points on the general discussion.

- People really need to be clear if railroad is inherently a dysfunctional state or not. The term was certainly invented to describe dysfunction so it seems a little bit weird with people saying "this type of gaming is a railroad and that's ok.". It's a little bit like saying "this form of dysfunction is not dysfunctional". I think the distinction between linear storyine (potentially functional) and railroad (dysfunctional) is a useful one.

This confuses me a bit... the term "railroading" or "being on a railroad" seems contrary to dysfunction. It's inherently functional, isn't it? It's just very limiting in choice.

 

[Maxperson]

Well I’m not trying to be clever, I was just trying to respond to Max’s assertion that moving an encounter (the infamous ogres) from one route to another in order to complicate the player’s journey was not a big concern for me. I “force” the action to where the characters are, not where they might have been, because the players want to have an adventure.

Again, I’m not going to “force“ something to happen that the players are trying to avoid unless of course they totally cock it up!

I don't need to force anything, though. I'll have fun and interesting stuff no matter which way they go.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is largely because the term railroad has been smeared to any use of GM Force, rather than persistent use of it. This clouds the discussion. I'm very much in the camp that says GM Force is a legitimate tool in the box and can be used responsibly. However, I believe railroads to be degenerate play and should be avoided. The line where GM Force becomes persistent enough is blurry, and can range from once to almost always, depending on the table. As such, I'll defend the tool of GM Force because I think it's valuable in trad play (which 5e primarily supports, especially with the printed material). However, my use of these terms is not nearly universal enough (get onboard people!), so railroad is standing in for any and every use of GM Force -- persistent or otherwise.

Yep. Basically people get tired of arguing over the definition of railroading so they just say "I think this type of use of GM force, or railroading if you want to call it that, is fine."

 

[Ovinomancer]

This confuses me a bit... the term "railroading" or "being on a railroad" seems contrary to dysfunction. It's inherently functional, isn't it? It's just very limiting in choice.

If the expectation is that you're in a game where your choices matter, then it's dysfunctional. If that's not your expectation, if you expect to be moved along the plot in a timely and entertaining manner and just visit the shops along the way, then, yeah, cool. But it's kinda like promising Risk and then playing Candyland.

 

[Greg Benage]

This confuses me a bit... the term "railroading" or "being on a railroad" seems contrary to dysfunction. It's inherently functional, isn't it? It's just very limiting in choice.

If we can stick to "railroad" as a verb, it's inherently dysfunctional. The DM has a script for what the PCs do, the players try to do something else and the DM railroads them, forcing them back onto the script. There can be some built-in remediation through Session 0s, social contracts and whatnot, but I don't think that makes it any less dysfunctional.

The thing is, despite the length of this thread, I've been playing for 40 years with all kinds of players and I've yet to encounter one at the table who likes being railroaded. I've met plenty who are resigned to it when it happens or just don't care because they have other priorities (e.g. getting to the next combat), but I've never met anyone in an actual game who enjoys being railroaded.

 

[Don Durito]

Yep. Basically people get tired of arguing over the definition of railroading so they just say "I think this type of use of GM force, or railroading if you want to call it that, is fine."

I often think that railroading may be best understood as a subjective player state. The 'feeling of being railroaded'

At least in that case, I think we could all agree that there is some sort of problem somewhere.

 

[Malmuria]

If the expectation is that you're in a game where your choices matter, then it's dysfunctional. If that's not your expectation, if you expect to be moved along the plot in a timely and entertaining manner and just visit the shops along the way, then, yeah, cool. But it's kinda like promising Risk and then playing Candyland.

Thing about candyland, is that you can't intentionally lose because it's pure randomness. Whereas if you are playing risk with a child, you can intentionally make poor choices and throw the game, so as to make your wee opponent happy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I often think that railroading may be best understood as a subjective player state. The 'feeling of being railroaded'

Yes, that's how I see it, but that's not how people use it in this thread.