D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Campbell]

I prefer to talk about linear storytelling rather than railroading because I think techniques should be analyzed on a conceptual basis rather than based on if or if not players consent to their use.

Side Note : Obviously if you are making use of GM techniques that players do not consent to you should really have a heart to heart about expectations.

I do think it's somewhat bizarre to say that any game that does not include linear storytelling is going to inevitably descend into chaos because I regularly run and play in games without it that do not descend into madness. The arrangement of players play protagonists who want things, GM provides honest adversity, and we all see what happens together tends to work pretty damn well in my experience. I mean you have to play with people you collaborate with well, but I think that's pretty much the case for linear storytelling as well.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Likewise, a DM not allowing the players meaningful choices in the game is breaking the social contract by removing the cooperative portion of the game.

What if the players agree to be railroaded?

 

[Lanefan]

The acceptability of railroading varies greatly, not just from table to table but from situation to situation at any given table.

Example: a DM might be running a homebrew adventure in which is a room; and in that room, on a desk, is a gem. If-when anyone touches that gem, everyone in the room or nearby will be immediately teleported into the middle (or to the start) of another adventure a very long way away*. There is nothing about the gem to indicate that touching it will have this effect, though Detect Magic will pull it as being enchanted and a few other divination spells might give a hint of some sort, if anyone thinks to use them.

The DM has put the gem there knowing full well that PCs by nature are greedy little things and thus it's inevitable someone will pick it up. Her goal, of course, is to get the PCs into the destination adventure for whatever reason; yet she's ready to handle things if the PCs either ignore the gem or miss it.

Railroad? Yes. Bad? Not at all, unless it happens every time in the field.

* - and yes this might very well permanently split the party if only some of them are in the room when the gem is touched; some DMs would say so be it, while others would make sure the whole party gets blipped.

 

[Lanefan]

I do think it's somewhat bizarre to say that any game that does not include linear storytelling is going to inevitably descend into chaos because I regularly run and play in games without it that do not descend into madness. The arrangement of players play protagonists who want things, GM provides honest adversity, and we all see what happens together tends to work pretty damn well in my experience. I mean you have to play with people you collaborate with well, but I think that's pretty much the case for linear storytelling as well.

From reading many posts of yours over the long run, I rather suspect you play with a much more proactive group of players (and are probably one yourself) than do most of us; and in general the more proactive the players, the less need there is for the DM to do any pushing and-or guiding.

Proactive players can, at their best, keep the DM permanently stuck in what I call "react mode"; where all she can do is react to the players and try her best to run whatever it is they want to do. The DM can't railroad, in part because she can't get a word in edgewise!

Many players, however, tend to start (and often remain) in react mode themselves; allowing and-or expecting the DM to drive the bus most if not all of the time. In these cases, to then cast blame on the DM for driving said bus by calling it railroading or other derogatory things seems a bit unfair.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I haven't read through this thread, but off the top of my head I can only think of a handful of reasons why someone would need to use the railroad plot device.

The Players are Children. If your players are all under the age of 10, a fixed linear plotline (my definition of "railroad," yours is probably different) can really help keep the evening on track. You want your players to have fun playing make-believe, but you also want them to make it to the rest of the story before the end of the game. Thus, you will probably need to deploy some manner of a "railroad" plot. Not because you want to restrict anyone's fun, but because you want them to have a complete experience.

The Players are Behaving Like Children. Some players forget that the DM is supposed to be enjoying the game as well, and try to make things as difficult as possible for the Dungeon Master. If your players are the sort who will narrow their eyes, smirk, and say "Oh we will just see about that, Mister DM" whenever you introduce an adventure hook, a railroad might be the only way to get them to the dungeon in the first place so that the adventure can begin. (It might also be the only way to maintain a healthy blood pressure.)

The Story Is Too Convoluted. We've all done it before: created an enormous, interwoven, tangled mass of plots and subplots and intrigue and interwoven factions, and thrust it all upon our players in a single lump of exposition. And even if your players are the sort who will hang on to your every word, using yarn diagrams and post-it notes on the wall behind them, chances are they are going to miss that Obvious Hint (one of several) and miss a crucial part of the adventure (one of several). Unless you gently (or not-so-gently) direct them onto the right path, you can look forward to a long and frustrating night of players saying "ummmmmmm" to each other and staring at you expectantly.

We All Think Differently. I'm ADHD, and I'm just one of a handful of neurodivergent players in my gaming group. (Two of us are ADHD, another is dyslexic, and one is on the Autism spectrum.) I find myself wheeling off onto tangents easily, and getting distracted with things that don't matter, and getting frustrated with players that don't pick up on the things I think are obvious. A linear plot can sometimes be useful to keep me on track, and to ensure that the framework of the story stays intact.

TL;DR: railroads aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I think they have their place at the table.

I don't have anything to add, I just wanted to say I thoroughly agree with your post. And I'm the type to fetishize sandboxes/open-ended games heavy on player agency.

 

[Hussar]

How is a linear adventure not forcing an outcome, though? If you have to go through the wickets, then... well, the game is forced to go through the wickets. You can dress this up, and even hide it (Illusionism is a good term, here), but you're still doing this.

Railroading is the term for the degenerate form of play that "linear adventure" manages to do without the degeneracy. You can structure a linear adventure such that it progresses smoothly -- ie, the players are incentivized and want to go through the next wicket. This becomes a "railroad" when the GM has to force it noticeably. Pretty much any of the WotC adventures is linear in this regard -- you have to go through the wickets. Some, like CoS, hide this well by letting you go through the middle wickets in any order. IE, wickets B, C, and D, are really just Bi, Bii, and Biii. At least one B is required for C. And, this is great! It's actually pretty well done, because it does a good job of incentivizing players to jump through these wickets. It goes sour, though, if the players decide to do something off-script, and the GM forces a wicket on them. That's when "railroading" gets deployed.

"Railroading" is not especially different from quite a lot of fun, entertaining, and frankly common play approaches. It's just the degenerate form of it, where something has gone wrong and the response by the GM is to step on the game to force it. It's not actually a different thing, just a bad version of a quite common approach to play. Now, that said, some people have a strong aversion to that approach to play, and characterize any form of it as the degenerate version. And, the degenerate version can be quite unenjoyable -- badly so -- and so there's a lot of stigma built up about it, so anything close enough for someone to get a whiff gets pounded -- but that's really silly. It's been a predominant approach to D&D and D&D-alikes (most games with high GM prep and the GM centered at the source of most of the fiction) that it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not the only way to approach these games, not at all, but it's a very common one.

See, I don't really bother with trying to make the distinction here.

Linear is a plausible set of scenarios where progression is A to B to C. If you are traveling from New York to Boston, it is EXTREMELY unlikely you will pass through Rome. And, frankly, a player who decides that he wants to go to Rome and is prevented from doing so is a different issue from railroading. That's a complete failure of player buy in. Now, if we add a time limit to the scenario, and you must travel from New York to Boston in under 4 hours to stop the assassination of the very important NPC, then, well, you have to fly. You cannot take a train, boat or walk from New York to Boston in under 4 hours.

So, we have a linear scenario where choices are constrained. Is it a railroad? No. It's entirely plausible and no meaningful player choices have been removed. There is only one way to travel that distance in that amount of time. You aren't "forcing" the PC's to fly as opposed to any other choice because, well, there is no other choice.

Railroading, OTOH, removes meaningful player choice. As in choices that the players can plausible make in the scenario are being constrained, not because of the facts of the scenario, but because the DM/GM has determined a specific outcome that cannot occur if the choice is allowed.

That's the difference between linear and railroad. In a linear adventure, the PC's could still fail. They could, for whatever reason, miss their flight and fail the mission. The scenario does not have a fixed ending, despite the facts of the scenario limiting choices that the player might make. A railroad will have a fixed result, regardless of any decision the players try to make and any action the players take that conflicts with this DM determined outcome (not scenario determined) will be blocked by the DM.

Does that make better sense?

 

[MGibster]

You’ve got to give them reasons to want to put whatever they’re doing off to check something else out! Don’t just have a sign pointing to Starmount, have smoke rising from the horizon in the direction of Starmount!

I think it's important to point out when presented with adventure hooks the players should bite. I.e. Players need to make characters who are interested in engaging with what the DM is offering. If we're playing a Call of Cthulhu campaign, don't make a character who has no interested in being an Investigator.

A few years back I participated as a player in a one-shot GURPS Fantasy game at my local game store. The game started off with us arriving at an inn after traveling a great distance and getting some sack time. It was pretty obvious to me that this was where the adventure was supposed to start, but one of the players, who had a ranger type character, was insistent that his character would sleep in the wilderness outside the city. I wish the GM had just said, "Hey, it's easier if you start at the inn with everyone else because that's where the adventure is going to start" instead of trying to coax the player into having his character just start out at the inn. Having to work around this player's decision just ate into the limited amount of time we had to finish the scenario without adding anything of interest or amusement. But I guess the DM didn't want to railroad the player. But that game was stupid for so many other reasons....

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it's important to point out when presented with adventure hooks the players should bite. I.e. Players need to make characters who are interested in engaging with what the DM is offering. If we're playing a Call of Cthulhu campaign, don't make a character who has no interested in being an Investigator.

A few years back I participated as a player in a one-shot GURPS Fantasy game at my local game store. The game started off with us arriving at an inn after traveling a great distance and getting some sack time. It was pretty obvious to me that this was where the adventure was supposed to start, but one of the players, who had a ranger type character, was insistent that his character would sleep in the wilderness outside the city. I wish the GM had just said, "Hey, it's easier if you start at the inn with everyone else because that's where the adventure is going to start" instead of trying to coax the player into having his character just start out at the inn. Having to work around this player's decision just ate into the limited amount of time we had to finish the scenario without adding anything of interest or amusement. But I guess the DM didn't want to railroad the player. But that game was stupid for so many other reasons....

Yeah, there’s a line between railroading and buy-in, and where exactly that line lies will vary from person to person. I do think in this case “the adventure starts in the inn” is information the GM probably should have been up-front with to get player buy-in.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, there’s a line between railroading and buy-in, and where exactly that line lies will vary from person to person. I do think in this case “the adventure starts in the inn” is information the GM probably should have been up-front with to get player buy-in.

Most players should have picked up on that. But then, we do have a thread on here about making sure clues aren’t subtle…

 

[Hussar]

In my opinion, the issue here is trying to make the term Railroad do too many jobs. There are so many issues being tied together under the umbrella of "railroad".

Take @MGibster's example above. That's an issue of player buy in that was compounded by the DM trying to force things. IOW, it's not really a railroading issue at all. It's a buy in, social contract issue. The player just isn't on the same page here and the differences in expectations is causing the game to go pear shaped.

Additionally, people want to frame the issue as railroad vs open world sandbox. But, that's not the two ends of the spectrum. The two ends are linear vs open world sandbox. You can railroad in a sandbox just as easily as you can in a linear adventure. Again, the above example of the sick abbot is a perfect example of railroading but, it could have occurred in an open world sandbox or in the tightest linear adventure.

That's why I keep trying to keep the terms separate. Railroading is a degenerate DM behavior where player options are being constrained in order to arrive at a result 100% determined by the DM. @Lanefan's example of the teleporting gem isn't a railroad at all. The players were not forced to touch the gem. There were hundreds of options available to them - research the gem, various spells like Augury or Contact other Planes to determine what might happen if the gem is touched, use disposable NPC's, like a summoned monster or an Unseen Servant to pick up the gem, Bardic knowledge, questioning the dungeon's inhabitants, etc.

Now, if the DM decides that one of the PC's touch the gem no matter what the player's declare (oh, sorry, you tripped and touched the gem...) THAT'S railroading. But a teleporting gem trap? Nope, not railroading at all.