D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Cadence]

You seem to be defining railroading so broadly that any instance where the DM has any meaningful input in the game becomes railroading. That's not what railroading is. The Alexandrian defines railroading thus: railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome. I would define it as the DM removing meaningful and consequential choices from the player. Neither definition really applies to most of what you're calling railroading below.

I absolutely would not call that railroading. Limiting character creation choices in broad strokes isn't railroading. You're not completely removing meaningful, consequential choices from the player. Even drastically limiting choices, like say humans only, still isn't railroading. For character creation to be reduced to a railroad the DM would have to supply pre-generated characters.

They have a choice and are allowed to make it. You then prep the content they chose. Unless you prep the same content regardless of their choice, then it's not railroading. They have a meaningful, consequential choice. That's the opposite of railroading.

I disagree. The players being unaware of the railroad doesn't preclude it from being a railroad. The DM is removing meaningful, consequential choice from the players. That's railroading.

Giving your definition at the start of the thread might have helped...

 

[Charlaquin]

I think a common disconnect that can occur between DMs and Players.

As a DM, I think there is a natural desire to challenge the party. You make encounters, and so you want those encounters to "matter". So when players curb stomp something this can make you feel the effort was "wasted" and so want to fight against that happening.

However, with increased DM experience I find nearly all players enjoy curb stomping some of the time. That encounters that a DM may feel is a waste are actually some of the most memorable for players. As always its a question of degrees, if everything is a cakewalk then it gets boring, but if everything is a major challenge players never get to appreciate how strong they really are.

Similarly, fights often feel more tense for the players than they do for the DM. We DMs have full information about the monsters’ ACs, HP, attacks, limited resources, etc. while the players don’t. So we can often tell where a fight is going long before the players can. A medium encounter (one where, as the DMG defines it, there are maybe one or two scary moments but the players will most likely emerge victorious with no casualties) can look unengaging from the DM’s perspective but actually be very intense from the players’ perspective.

 

[overgeeked]

Giving your definition at the start of the thread might have helped...

Given that I came to the definition through the thread...

 

[payn]

LOL.

So explain to me how it's a role-playing game if the player isn't allowed to play their role.

No thanks. That would only devolve into "x,y,z only count as role playing" type of discussion. I dont mind discussing these concepts and preferences, but im not in the business of telling people they play wrong.

 

[overgeeked]

Should a DM be able to say no to a player who wants an evil character who steals from the party?

Yes.

Should the DM just roll along with it when one of the players pretty much always once to split off from the party and almost never picks up on the hints offered?

If the player made a character that's not compatible with the campaign, that's bad player behavior in the realm of "please make an adventurer". It's "please make an adventurer who's willing to be part of a team".

This is where I will fundamentally disagree with you. If the players don't feel they are being railroaded....then effectively no railroading has occurred.

Until you discover that I've stolen $5 from you, I haven't actually stolen $5 from you. It's not Schrödinger's Railroad. Either it's an event that happened or it isn't.

Player perception is everything in dnd, which is why white room theory analysis often falls short. If the players feel like their actions have mattered....than to them the game is a success....regardless of the "trickery" used behind the scenes.

Disagree.

 

[Maxperson]

I’d really like to know. I keep seeing arguments about player choice and agency and railroading. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would defend railroading. Any advocates of railroading willing to explain why it’s good to do?

One example is training new DMs. When one of the guys in my group wanted to try his hand at DMing for the first time, he asked us to stick to the rails, because he was learning and didn't think he could handle trying to cope with that AND learn the basics of how to run a game at the same time. We agreed and it was fun, if less fun than normal campaign.

 

[ReshiIRE]

One example is training new DMs. When one of the guys in my group wanted to try his hand at DMing for the first time, he asked us to stick to the rails, because he was learning and didn't think he could handle trying to cope with that AND learn the basics of how to run a game at the same time. We agreed and it was fun, if less fun than normal campaign.

This is a great point.

I would also argue that by necessity a lot of campaigns have to start off with some somewhat pre-determined things to get a sense of how the characters and team will gell, and to start with an interesting opening scenario, e.g. you've all gone on this quest for a guild or you've all met at a funeral for someone you know, etc.

After that, things can become much more open and player driven.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes.

If the player made a character that's not compatible with the campaign, that's bad player behavior in the realm of "please make an adventurer". It's "please make an adventurer who's willing to be part of a team".

Interesting - my philosophy on such things is almost the direct opposite of yours. In my games you can, within the parameters of the setting*, play your character as being pretty much any alignment/personality/etc. you want. Evil? Go for it. Sneaking backstabber? Fill yer boots.

I also allow the party, in character, to sort these things out among themselves. Backstab a party member? Fine, but if your backstabber gets kicked out of the party (or killed) then you're either rolling up something new or playing solo (or both at once; I've seen it done).

BUT: once these characters get into the field and start adventuring then there's going to be times when they have fully-free choice in what they do and there's going to be times when they don't. It'll vary depending on a bunch of circumstances which will inevitably wax and wane over the long run.

* - e.g. if there's no Gnomes in the setting then you're not playing a Gnome; or if there's no Monks then you're not playing one, etc.

Until you discover that I've stolen $5 from you, I haven't actually stolen $5 from you. It's not Schrödinger's Railroad. Either it's an event that happened or it isn't.

Er...if that $5 is in your pocket rather than mine then you have in fact stolen it, even if I've yet to notice its absence.

 

[overgeeked]

No thanks. That would only devolve into "x,y,z only count as role playing" type of discussion. I dont mind discussing these concepts and preferences, but im not in the business of telling people they play wrong.

The best definition I've found for role-playing is "making decisions about your character in a game with a persistent world where your character improves based on the decisions you made."

For them to be playing wrong they'd have to be playing in the first place. That's kinda the point. If the DM doesn't actually allow the player to play their role, it's not a role-playing game.

So if you're not allowed to make those decisions, it stops being a role-playing game.

Related tangent. I get the idea of not telling people their preferences are wrong or bad. At some point that wishy-washy, anything goes, it doesn't matter notion literally prevents conversation from happening. It stop us from being able to do simple things like even define what a role-playing game is because that will inevitably result in hurt feelings. Sure, that's a noble goal. But as we're seeing with the toxic and regressive elements of gaming culture, we clearly need to be a bit less everything's perfectly and equally great and a bit more...rigid...adamant...self-protective...something.

 

[overgeeked]

One example is training new DMs. When one of the guys in my group wanted to try his hand at DMing for the first time, he asked us to stick to the rails, because he was learning and didn't think he could handle trying to cope with that AND learn the basics of how to run a game at the same time. We agreed and it was fun, if less fun than normal campaign.

Great example. That's definitely a time when railroading would be not only acceptable, but likely necessary.

Like bumpers in bowling. You're learning the ropes. But once you've learned the ropes, it's time for the rails to go away.