D&D General Why defend railroading?

[billd91]

My take is that it was unreasonable, but from the opposite direction. In my view - and, sadly, I think this view was more common in days of old than it is now - it's not the DM's place to shut the players down like you're describing above. Instead, I see it as the DM's job to roll with whatever the players try to have their PCs do, and have the setting and-or NPCs react accordingly.

In a word, no. In more words, that may work for you, but there are types of games I am not interested in running and will not do so because I'm not the players' screen monkey. We're in this cooperatively and that means we have to both be on board - on both sides of the screen.
What people need to do is communicate with each other when they're getting into territory they don't want to play. And I really hope that people are getting better at that than back in the 1980s when we were kids and handled this sort of thing poorly - often by railroading away an out of game scope issue with an in-game complication.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why not be both?

Failing that, why not at least let the other players be one, or the other, or both?

Usually because unless the GM is effectively running two different games, they aren't compatible. The guy who's gig is that he thinks he's around to protect society and make for a better day makes no damn sense to be involved with robbing a merchant.

 

[Maxperson]

There are no "End of the World" plots in my games. The players have to deal with the political, social, and military consequences of an undead lich kingdom arising and conquering the land, spreading their foul influence.

The threat of killing your PCs to get a desired approach is railroading.

"You're walking through a dungeon and come across a fork. On your left, you see a Glyph of Instantly Kills anybody that walks through the hallway. On your right, you see totally safe not bad path. Forward is also an instant death corridor. Where do you want to go?"

Clearly railroading, right?

Even end of the world plots aren't railroading, since the PCs could just pay someone to get them to another plane and go somewhere else. The players almost always have a choice.

 

[billd91]

Oh, totally agree. And, in hind sight, it certainly could have been handled better. At the time, it was the fact that we had spent the better part of three sessions (among other things) doing this and she never even hinted that it was a problem. We were all completely blindsided.

But, as an example of railroading, it makes a pretty good one, no?

I kind of wonder if one of the aspects of her pulling the railroad and not speaking up might have been because she was a woman sitting in the DM chair. It wouldn't at all surprise me, particularly back in earlier days, for a woman at the table to be a bit more inhibited about speaking up, particularly if she was clearly in the minority, gaming spaces having been so traditionally male.
And honestly, I wonder if other personality aspects might work their way into this sort of situation - for example, someone who is introverted or who lacks confidence might have done the same sort of thing rather than communicate because of the fear of it being perceived as confrontation.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm probably trying to stop continuing to watch this, but I'm amazed how in span of five pages the definition of railroad has evolved again ._.; And I'm once again confused about what is everyone's stance

I will also note that "end of the world" plot isn't usually literally "world blows up", its usually "status quo of world changes drastically". Aka lich undead kingdom IS "end of the world" plot

That is because, most people do not really object to the rail road. They are willing to play what the DM has prepped and only dislike Strong DM Force, where there are prevented from taking options that would be otherwise reasonable in context.
This is strongly countered by people upset by this consensus who have a strong adherence to curated world building or subscribe to some Platonic notion of the imagined world that would be undermined by fakery and ad hoc'ery coupled by the unual internet reluctance to let the other guy have the last word and let the thread die the natural death it deserves.
People are way past, taking past each other.

However, the siege lines have be dug, the countervallations are prepared the heavy artillery is in place and those guns will keep firing until some one else does something outrageous on the internet again.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Having a required goal is a type of railroading, so its fine if they have several other goals they wish to do. They may even want to join the Lich and his dark forces.

Sure. So, if the players are very committed, and have spent considerable time and resources to follow a quest they've selected, it's perfectly fine to require specific actions be completed to complete this quest, because the players chose it and they could just choose to do something else.

This rings very hollow because it excuses every single thing you've sited as railroading so long as there's at least one other choice the players could make -- no matter how unacceptable to the players that may be. It says 'business as usual, so long as I do this trivial caveat.' It's not examining play at all, it's just asserting that 'the way I do things is good, other ways are bad, even though, in play, they can look exactly the same.'

 

[Maxperson]

That is because, most people do not really object to the rail road. They are willing to play what the DM has prepped and only dislike Strong DM Force, where there are prevented from taking options that would be otherwise reasonable in context.

In other words, a railroad. Linear isn't inherently a railroad, and neither is DM prep. It's when player choice is removed through DM force that a railroad happens.

People are way past, taking past each other.

The vast majority of those in this thread agree that the DM removing reasonable options through DM force is a railroad. Most of the disagreement is not over the definition of the railroad, but over what actions qualify.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@Maxperson I am not actually disagreeing as to what the majority think railroading is. I agree with their consensus, however, there are some on this thread that have a more expansive view of what railroading is.

At that point, we are effectively done, there is a fundamental disconnect and the thread lives on because some people just want to have the last word.

 

[TheSword]

It doesn't make sense for there to be any shops selling particularly valuable items outside of major cities. Players never need to buy scrolls. And if they want to part with some treasure they can travel to the city.

It might be smooth, but it makes the world less believable. If I want to by an expensive or rare item I go to London, not my local high street.

A first level scroll is 10-60 gp.
A second or first level scroll is 100-600… still less than several armours…

I personally don’t have an issue with it, then again I spent most of my gaming time on 3e / Pathfinder so it’s probably affected my view on what’s reasonable.

Small towns not having 16,000gp items for sale is a refreshing improvement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I disagree. The GM makes choices for how things happen in the game, but has no special place in the social contract of the table. If someone at the table is misbehaving, it's not the GM's responsibility to take the lead and deal with it, it's the table's. This idea that the GM is the head of the social unit, instead of just having authorities in the game, is one I very much feel is a problem in the community. It shunts responsibility onto someone who has to take on managing a social group in addition in addition to running a game, both of which require different skillsets (with some overlap, yes). I find it deeply unfair to ask the GM to be both a creative and a manager at the same time, and I certainly don't join groups looking at the GM to be my manager at the table and handle personnel issues as anything other than another person.

While I'm sympathetic in principal to this idea, my experience suggests strongly that if the GM doesn't take the lead when it comes to things like that, usually no one does; and in the cases where someone else does, its almost always the same person and that creates its own problematic dynamics. You're too likely to have one or more manifestly nonconfrontational players who will not tell other people they dislike things at any cost, including simply stopping playing if necessary.