D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

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.

Ah, so you're saying railroading is dysfunctional when players try to "leave the tracks." Well, yeah. I agree with that. It does add more meaning to the word railroad than it actually has, but I guess in a gaming context people assume that this will always exist.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Oddly, this is often in nebulous tension with the "feeling of not knowing what to do next." As in mystery/investigation scenarios, where what is obvious to the dm is not at all obvious to the players, and important clues are gated behind dice rolls that fail. Unfortunately, the state of players not knowing what to do is taken as the same as player agency, leading DMs to feel that they need to railroad the players in order for something to happen.

 

[Don Durito]

Oddly, this is often in nebulous tension with the "feeling of not knowing what to do next." As in mystery/investigation scenarios, where what is obvious to the dm is not at all obvious to the players, and important clues are gated behind dice rolls that fail. Unfortunately, the state of players not knowing what to do is taken as the same as player agency, leading DMs to feel that they need to railroad the players in order for something to happen.

I think they're two different failure states, rather than two sides of the same coin. There's lots of ways to thread the needle between the two.

Justin Alexander's three clue rule is one good example

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, I don't disagree this has happened a lot, or isn't common, my point is that it's toxic to the culture of gaming. You make this claim but don't see that such infantilization of players in favor of aggrandizing GMs as supervisors of the social contracts is one of the things that's received such negative attention in the hobby. That so many recent positive improvements have been to let people know that they can, indeed, speak up and the GM won't just slap them down and kick them out for bucking their rule. That assuming that it's the incapability of people that requires their supervision by someone that isn't at all vetted for the job (seriously, what qualifications are necessary to be a GM and, according to you, de facto supervisor of the social contract?) is part of the continuing problem.

You seem to think the people I'm talking about were keeping quiet because of things done by the GM. That can happen too.

But no, I'm talking about people unwilling to have conflicts with other players. And that was almost always because no one else was willing to intervene, GM, players or anybody.

I'm not going to disagree that there are problems with the topdown approach to this. But absolutely nothing has suggested to me that getting it handled on a player-group level works better.

And with that I'm done with this. As usual with you, I think you're sufficiently certain of the obvious rightness of your own position on this that talking to you further on it is literally a waste of time.

 

[iserith]

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.

Here, here. It's probably worth saying that all railroading isn't malicious either and a DM isn't necessarily a bad person for doing it. Often it comes from inexperience and/or a mismatch in expectations at the table as to how the group will play the game. But it is dysfunctional in my view. It's what railroading in any other context means.

I also think partly the issue is one of prep. A fairly linear plot-based adventure can be thrown together really quickly. That makes it attractive to DMs who are, like many people, pressed for time. Contrast that with a fully prepped adventure location with no plot - this can require a greater investment in time. However, whereas the plot-based adventure can be less prep, it's also a great deal harder to run at the table. Even if the players are bought into staying on the plot, the DM feels the need to obscure it in order to preserve mysteries or reveals to make the most of the planned experience. This can be difficult to manage at the table.

On the other hand, a hex crawl or a dungeon where there is no plot to follow, is just a matter of resolving where the characters go and what they run into there in whatever order and pace they see fit. So it's very easy by comparison to run at the table - but again, usually more to prep. And if you don't use some of that prep for whatever reason, no big deal, it can be repurposed in some other game. While neither approach is immune from railroading DMs, there is in my view more pressure on the plot-based DM to engage in railroading because there often is no adventure outside of the plot. (If the players agree to stick to the plot or that the DM should engage in illusion of choice to keep them on it, then it's not railroading, of course. But it's still a harder than running a dungeon!)

 

[Stalker0]

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.

This is a good summary

 

[Thomas Shey]

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."

Yeah, at some point trying to make terminological distinctions becomes an exhausting side-show even if you think its being over-broadened. You just want to get on to the actual topic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Again, that depends on how fussy you are about how the term is being used. As I've noted, the "where is my chalkline" players are absolutely a thing. At the very least that's people who clearly prefer pretty linear play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, so you're saying railroading is dysfunctional when players try to "leave the tracks." Well, yeah. I agree with that. It does add more meaning to the word railroad than it actually has, but I guess in a gaming context people assume that this will always exist.

That is not at all what I was saying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You seem to think the people I'm talking about were keeping quiet because of things done by the GM. That can happen too.

But no, I'm talking about people unwilling to have conflicts with other players. And that was almost always because no one else was willing to intervene, GM, players or anybody.

I'm not going to disagree that there are problems with the topdown approach to this. But absolutely nothing has suggested to me that getting it handled on a player-group level works better.

And with that I'm done with this. As usual with you, I think you're sufficiently certain of the obvious rightness of your own position on this that talking to you further on it is literally a waste of time.

It is so weird to keep being treated like I'm being unreasonable for staking a position that people should be treated as adults and not like children in need of supervision, just because they play an RPG. I mean, you're infantilizing RPG players, here, and then trying to treat me as if I have a bad take and am too certain of my own position because I'm not agreeing with you that this is the best way to treat people who play RPGs.

I'm at a complete loss that this is even a thing, and deeply concerned as well.

The only bright spot here is the unintentional irony at the end of this post.