D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Bedrockgames]

Question; let's say the PCs come to two doors. The DM's planned encounter is behind the left door.

The PCs take the right door... so the DM moves the encounter to behind the right door.

Is this railroading? I'd argue no, even though it is forcing a certain outcome to happen, and keeping with what the GM has planned. But the players still have choice, even if they don't know they're choices may be meaningless.

No, that is absolutely railroading. It is the text book definition IMO

 

[Ovinomancer]

That wasn't intended as a snipe, and notice he was responding to the discussion I was having with Iserith, which I at no point claimed I was stopping. Basically that statement had nothing at all to do with you.

I don't see Iserith, so no. Don appears to be speaking extemporaneously on the general topic -- there's no mention of Iserith, and he doesn't quote you. Your response is directly to Don, again, no mention of Iserith. Your comment is a continuation of the same arguments you were making to me. It appears to be a snipe because it quotes the comment I had had extensive discussion already regarding, and is extremely dismissive "lost cause" phrasing. I mean, you may have meant that only in regards to Iserith, but if I'm expected to understand you're having a conversation with someone I'm not seeing, then you should also have the duty to understand that your comments that aren't specifically directed are to be read in general.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, I'll point out a fair number of hardcore sandbox proponents are also opposed to "balance" in encounter design.

Eh, good sandbox designers understand that balance is an important tool for making different parts of the sandbox more dangerous than others.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I'll point out a fair number of hardcore sandbox proponents are also opposed to "balance" in encounter design.

Plenty of sandbox GMs and players would take issue with balance (not all all). But I think most would not consider it an issue of railroading. Balanced encounters are not railroads on their own. They are just the types of encounters some sandbox GMs avoid in order to make the game more exciting and to create a sense of a real world (but again it isn't universal and there is plenty of gray area here)

 

[Malmuria]

Question; let's say the PCs come to two doors. The DM's planned encounter is behind the left door.

The PCs take the right door... so the DM moves the encounter to behind the right door.

Is this railroading? I'd argue no, even though it is forcing a certain outcome to happen, and keeping with what the GM has planned. But the players still have choice, even if they don't know they're choices may be meaningless.

Is the dungeon a space to be explored (with the possibility of the PCs not finding everything) or is it a tool for pacing a linear adventure? If the latter, why even bother placing the encounter. You could keep the content--monsters, treasure--of a dungeon separate from the map, and then just choose what the PCs encounter when they enter a given room. However, if the dungeon is a place to be explored in a classic/osr style, then you aren't worried about the players experiencing everything or that the experience produces a well-paced story.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, that is absolutely railroading. It is the text book definition IMO

It's not. It's textbook Illusionism, and it's GM Force, but the decision of the two doors is not to avoid this encounter -- it's just a blind choice in the example. No play choice is being subverted, because the appearance of choice was illusionary (hence Illusionism). And, the outcome of the scene isn't fixed, just that you're going into this scene. It's a different beast -- and one you can absolutely not like -- from forcing outcomes, and doing so repeatedly, which is where you graduate from Force to Railroading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is the dungeon a space to be explored (with the possibility of the PCs not finding everything) or is it a tool for pacing a linear adventure? If the latter, why even bother placing the encounter. You could keep the content--monsters, treasure--of a dungeon separate from the map, and then just choose what the PCs encounter when they enter a given room. However, if the dungeon is a place to be explored in a classic/osr style, then you aren't worried about the players experiencing everything or that the experience produces a well-paced story.

Doesn't have to be either or. You can have a map and key adventure site with some linear parts. The forced encounter might be "when the PCs have explored 3 rooms, this encounter happens."

 

[iserith]

Question; let's say the PCs come to two doors. The DM's planned encounter is behind the left door.

The PCs take the right door... so the DM moves the encounter to behind the right door.

Is this railroading? I'd argue no, even though it is forcing a certain outcome to happen, and keeping with what the GM has planned. But the players still have choice, even if they don't know they're choices may be meaningless.

It's hard to say in this example. We don't know what the table agreements are, whether this is a false choice, whether there is something behind the left door at all, etc. I think there's commonly a rush to say something is or isn't railroading when it's not easy to say when the example is missing a lot of context. I point back to the definition I prefer and ask, based on that, whether you think your example is railroading or not.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Question; let's say the PCs come to two doors. The DM's planned encounter is behind the left door.

The PCs take the right door... so the DM moves the encounter to behind the right door.

Is this railroading? I'd argue no, even though it is forcing a certain outcome to happen, and keeping with what the GM has planned. But the players still have choice, even if they don't know they're choices may be meaningless.

Aaand we'ere off!

We have already had this discussion and it is one of the irreconcilables that make all these "how to run an game/best practice/should and should not do's" so fraught and ultimately to go nowhere.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Aaand we'ere off!

We have already had this discussion and it is one of the irreconcilables that make all these "how to run an game/best practice/should and should not do's" so fraught and ultimately to go nowhere.

I totally agree it's a preference separator, but I think it's useful to drill into to clean up and clarify terminology. Calling this railroading leaves no useful term for persistent play like this, and serves to label what can be healthy play (even if someone doesn't prefer it) with a negative term (and railroading should be for unhealthy play). Which is why I broke down how this is an example of GM Force (where the GM forces their preferred idea into the game outside of the channels of prep or setting), and specifically Illusionism, which is offering a choice that actually isn't a choice. It might be railroading for some people, in that any such deployment of GM Force is unhealthy, but, for most it's not.