Thoughts on railroading?

[Spacehamster]

Is railroading(when light) really all that bad? I mean if I have spent x hours to craft an interesting adventure and my players start doing something that keeps them from enjoying a pre crafted story and force me to come up with things on the fly not only does that put pressure on me to come up with something at least remotely fun, it also keeps my players from a better more prepared experience.

So I guess my question is: do you railroad? And if you do how do you do it to not make it feel forced but more like an encouraging nudge?

[Unoriginal]

Railroading is really that bad when you force players to follow a pre-crafted story, with their intervention and choices being basically meaningless.

Writing a scenario and expecting the PCs to do the adventure proposed isn't railroading, but the idea is to propose something the PCs and players would enjoy doing, not forcing them down a path because you want them to follow the story.

Basically, don't invalidate your PCs' choices, make them influence the story. If they get into a fight with the guard captain instead of investigating the murder, include it in. If they decide to waste time with a long rest when they've been warned several times the BBEG was about to complete the ritual, make the BBEG complete it. If they manage to become friend with the High Deacon of Pelor, have them get some assistance from their friend. If they surprise you with a plan or an idea that let them solve the situation in a way you didn't think of, then let them do so.

I'm not saying to be permissive of everything. Just that if it makes sense of the PCs to do it, they should be allowed to do it, not hit invisible walls and being told "it doesn't work because I say so."

[Specter]

It's only really railroading when there's one scenario AND one resolution to it. You can have them in a linear dungeon where they face one dragon and it's fine, as long as they have options about the dragon (sneaking past it, deceiving it, killing it, etc.). As long as you're open to possible changes from player behavior, you should be fine.

[StoicLeaf]

"It depends".

Take something like portal 2. It's super railroady. And yet highly enjoyable. And on the other end, something like skyrim or fallout 4 (not 100% sandbox but close enough). Not my cup of tea, I don't think super mutants should die to pistols, but there are enough people out there that enjoy those games.
And that's basically it: every player has their own tolerances, although most will be in the middle somewhere; railroading is fine as long as you don't notice it and it serves the story.

With regard to your particular situation:
I can't tell how hard you've railroaded your story without details, but you have two options.
a) find a way to lead them back to where you need them
b) shelve the story for another time using different NPCs/events to introduce it

[Waazraath]

Hell yes I use it as a DM! It can be a very useful tool. The things to keep in mind are 1) "is everybody having fun?", because if yes, then there isn't a problem to begin with, and 2) use it in situations fitted for it.

Some examples on how I used it:
- in one campaign, I used session 1 for the party to meet up, give them their "how our band of adventurers got to get together story. Starting with character 1 in the woods, at night, while freezing and snowing, but there, in the distance, you percieve a light...".At mentioned light, character 2 is waiting of course, et cetera. Bloody obvious railroad, but since all encounters were fun, and everbody got some spotlight time, it worked out great. If at this point the player of character 1 would have said "nah, not going to the light, hur hur", the char would have deserved freezing to death and being eaten by wolves.
- in my current, I started with some players new to either D&D or D&D 5e. So I created a little dungeon, where they were captive and used in arena fights. Again, railroady as hell, since the couldn't escape until 'thing happening' in the third session. But it gave them the opportunity to learn combat rules, and for me to show them how 'interaction with the environment in combat' could be done. And it saves a lot of prep time, to be honest. But it's a cool trope, often as a player been in these arena-dungeon-captivity adventures, and never disliked them 'because railroading'.

When railroading is a terrible option in my view:
- design an obstacle, design how it could be overcome, and stick to that as the one and only solution, ever. Including: having spells and skills you forgot about fail due to DM fiat. That kills creativity, instead players are to guess what solusion the DM came up with (which doen't have to be the most logical).

[Sigreid]

This is a more complex question than you probably think it is. Mostly I sandbox because as a player I'm a big fan of player freedom so I give that my players when I DM but I sandbox by building hooks I'm prepared to follow around their known or stated goals and interests.

Sometimes though, I'm not up for sandboxing. It takes a lot of on the spot creativity and mental energy so I will DM a session or few using a pre-prepared situation. Either a module or something I set up before hand and ask the players to just voluntarily get on the train and go with it. It does make for a much easier session for the DM as I have fewer variables I have to be prepared for. Though I've got a creative group and it's guaranteed that at least one of them will do something totally unexpected.

So, I would say if your players buy in to playing a particular adventure or adventure path and can reason their characters playing along it's ok now and then. I personally think it takes away from the game if the entire campaign is on the railroad though.

Hope that made some sense.

[MeeposFire]

If you need to put somebody on the rails the thing you must do is use a deft touch and try to keep the party from feeling like their on the rails.

If for instance you had an enemy group that you wanted the party to fight on the way to town A but for whatever reason the group goes to town B put the enemy on town B's route (this of course assumes that the party was not trying to avoid that group by going to town B). You want to make it seem organic and you want to make their choices have meaning even if you have to keep them on the rails to some degree. YOU have to be flexible and do your best to go with what they do. If the party wants to avoid fighting orcs and go to the goblins lair and you do not have goblins prepared and cannot do so use the stats for the orcs but make them goblins you get to keep your work but they got to fight the goblins.

[Temperjoke]

I think railroading can be in two forms, positive and negative.

Positive railroading is when you have a plot in mind with certain key objectives that must be met to successfully complete the campaign. To defeat the BBEG, the players need this particular item, which is found in this dungeon, on this island, across this ocean, and they have to accomplish this within a certain time frame or the BBEG wins. All the stuff that happens in between, such as how they get to the island, or make their way through the dungeon, is up to the players, but if they decide to open a bakery in the port town instead, then obviously they're not going to be able to stop the BBEG. Negative railroading would be taking the same scenario, except when the players open the bakery, you have it burn down. And then the players get chased out of town for no apparent reason, with the only escape available being a single ship that happens to be going to the island that you want them to go to.

[OldTrees1]

Is railroading(when light) really all that bad? I mean if I have spent x hours to craft an interesting adventure and my players start doing something that keeps them from enjoying a pre crafted story and force me to come up with things on the fly not only does that put pressure on me to come up with something at least remotely fun, it also keeps my players from a better more prepared experience.

So I guess my question is: do you railroad? And if you do how do you do it to not make it feel forced but more like an encouraging nudge?

The answer is the dreaded: It DependsTM. This is a topic that depends on the preferences that you (the DM) and your players hold.

Some people don't mind Quantum Ogres (retconning the location of an event based on the direction the PCs went)
Some people want hints back towards the adventure if they wander off track.
Others don't want retcon used to railroad.
Others don't want their to be a limited route track to wander off of.


Personally I tend to prefer to run/play in sandbox games. This allows me to have prepared material in every direction. However this comes at the cost of needing motivated PCs & either more prep time or a stronger improvisation game.

Another person might prefer to run/play in a modular game. Where the PCs are guided from module to module but have free rein of direction as long as they accept the objective/goals of the module.

Yet another person might prefer to run/play in a scene to scene game. Where each scene is linked in order but the PCs have free rein inside each scene.


In general it comes down to a few questions:
What choices does the group want to be meaningful choices rather than the illusion of choice? This answers the scale of player agency the group wants the PCs to have.
What kind of illusion does the group want to disguise the illusions of choice? If the PCs are chasing a red herring (and if they want to be railroaded back on track), does the red herring become a real lead (Quantum Ogre) or does an NPC come in with a hint towards the real lead (overruling a player's choice)?



Without knowing your preferences or the preferences of your players I will hazard this suggestion:
Plan your prep time with the expectation that a good chunk of your preparation will not be seen by the players. If there are two general directions the PCs might go, then half of your prep work will not be seen. Prep work that is not seen is not wasted. The unseen prep work allows the players to experience both prepared material & player agency. This is of course in addition to the other benefits: practice makes perfect and old prep material can be used later.

Warn your players when their PCs are headed towards unprepared territory. Allow them to choose to continue in that direction. This lets the players weigh the pros and cons between "Your prepared material & the other choice" vs "Your improv material & the PC's choice". If they choose the unprepared direction, then call for a short (5min?) recess for some quick prep. If the choose the prepared direction, then prepare the original direction for later (if applicable) and update your ability to predict the PCs.

[Thrudd]

Question: What do you think the purpose of the game (D&D, TTRPGs in general) is? What is the objective of the players in the game? In a game, any game, players make decisions and do things in the pursuit of some objective. I don't mean a specific campaign objective, I mean in the most general terms. And what role do the players and the GM have? What are they supposed to be doing, what things should they be making decisions about?

The "right" way to run the game can only be answered in the context of what the game's objectives are. What you decide needs to be communicated to the players, so they don't have unmet expectations that cause frustration and dampen the fun.

Can you imagine playing a game like Monopoly, or Risk, where you never told anyone what they're supposed to be doing in the game, and they all just assume they know? One person thinks you're supposed to move your game piece around wherever you want and pick whatever they want to buy, he doesn't really know what the dice are for. Another one gets mad when you don't agree to trade properties with him, or ask for more than original price, because he thinks that's against the rules. The third one thinks you're supposed to get one of each color of property, and thinks he should have won the game when that happens. This is basically what's going on in very many D&D groups. You need to really think about what you expect the game to be about, and the players all need to know that, too.

For instance, if you told me that in your game the role of the players is to uncover the story you have written by participating in a series of planned scenarios - and my main challenge in the game is to do my best to pretend to be my character and to decide how they would act in the scenarios you present - I would say no thanks. That sounds boring. But this is what many people think a game is/should be and enjoy a game like that. They like acting and sharing each other's stories and pretending to be in a fantasy world. and that's mainly all they are concerned about. This game is almost definitely a "railroad" - there's not really another way to tell a story to the players. Players who want to be told a story don't mind that, they're expecting it.

If you said your game was a like a "choose your own adventure" game, where there are a number of planned paths, and the decisions I make and how I perform in overcoming obstacles with my character's abilities at certain crucial points will dictate how the story plays out - and there are multiple possible endings to the story depending on how things go with my choices and the dice -
well I'd say that sounds like more fun than the first. Maybe still a little skeptical, because I know that events are all planned out and it's near impossible to actually plan for every possibility and contingency - but probably willing to participate in the game. At least there's a reason for my character sheet and I can affect what happens to a degree. Should you railroad in this game? Not nearly as much as in the first, but some DM's might be tempted to use some railroading techniques so that the game stays along one of the predetermined paths - a "quantum ogre", a little dice fudging so that certain characters don't die in the wrong spot, etc. However, you could prepare this in such a way that it shouldn't be necessary, provided you gave the players enough guidance and restriction before the game started.

The type of game I would like the most is one where I know that my success or failure is not assured, and that the setting will react to my actions in a way that is appropriate. I want to know what my goal/objective/mission is and have the ability to approach that goal in whatever way makes sense for my character and the world they are in. I want to have the ability to make choices that actually affect what happens, and that the mechanical aspects of the characters are actually relevant. I would like to think that my DM is deciding things fairly, according to the rules, and in a way that makes sense for the fictional world - and that they have the ability to improvise in an appropriate way to deal with whatever might happen. My general objective as a player is to overcome the challenges presented to my character by the game world in pursuit of some goal, in a way that makes sense from the character's point of view. There should absolutely be no railroading in a game like this, there is no need for it. Some scenarios have been planned, but not their outcomes. Improvisation of new scenarios is expected. There is no investment in whether or not the characters succeed - the game is about seeing how the players go about accomplishing their goals and whether or not they succeed.

There's a lot of other possible ways to approach the game which can overlap. Some people might feel that the game for the DM is mainly about providing scenarios in which the players can feel like awesome powerful characters, and the players main goal is to act out their fantasies of being powerful or cool or evil or whatever. Maybe the story isn't so important to them, but what is important is that the players always eventually win with their fantastic powers, and epic scenarios are devised so that they can show off how awesome they are. Another one I generally have no interest in playing. Do you railroad in this game? Maybe not railroading, exactly, but you almost certainly fudge dice rolls and play loose with the rules in order to let things happen in the way you and/or the players believe is most "awesome" or "epic". This is game is dictated by "rule of cool" above all else.

So think about what, exactly, you think the objective for players should be. In D&D, in most RPGs, it is a combination of all these things - it isn't as simple as a board game - but certain ones rule supreme over others according to different people's preferences. Tell your players which one you prefer to run, and in what ways, exactly, they will be able to interact with and affect the events of the game.

[90sMusic]

If you craft a story for them to follow, that is railroading and it isn't D&D. You might as well be writing fan fiction and have the characters do exactly what you want.

Their choices have to matter. If you have the exact same story in mind start to finish, that is just a hardcore railroad and isn't enjoyable to a lot of folks. But if the story changes and evolves because of the things players say or do, that is a living world.

When players start to feel like they're on tracks and nothing they do really matters or changes anything, they become uninvested in the story and stop trying and stop caring. They have to feel like what they are doing has an impact.

[bid]

Railroading is like theater. If you follow the script of Romeo and Juliet, you can concentrate on acting and ignore the consequences. Players can still ask you for Waiting for Godot, but they have no free will once the story is picked.

You can direct your players with a light touch, giving them a short script such as "the princess will ask you to find something in a fortress hidden somewhere" and let them choose how these moments will come to pass.

Or the party can negociate to do a pirate treasure hunt next time.

I don't think free-for-all works, unless you are expert storytellers. Both DM and players.


So... you have to craft a story in most cases.

[Catullus64]

Quite a lot of thoughtful discourse has been offered as to whether railroading is good or bad in itself, so I won't take up space with that. I will instead offer an observation on the subject of demeanor. When you make decisions intended to funnel the players down an intended path, be it for logistical or narrative reasons, they will, in my experience, react poorly to it if they perceive it as an angered reaction to their own "incorrect" decisions. Maintaining a calm face, level tone of voice, and sharp focus will diminish the players' perception that you are directly quashing their attempted deviation, even if that is precisely what you are doing.

Now, a question: does it qualify as railroading when you, as the DM, shift space and time to make the intended events and content come about as a direct consequence of the players' divergent actions? Example: the players decide to tunnel through part of a dungeon instead of taking the progress route you planned. While it is clearly railroading to say "a magical forcefield stops you from tunneling, now get back on the path", is it also railroading to quickly rearrange the layout of the dungeon to move the challenge rooms that they were going to bypass into their new path?

[UrielAwakened]

Generally speaking most people don't know what railroading is.

Railroading is not just having a plan. Railroading is forcing your players to adhere to those plans without any choice in the matter.

It's not railroading to set your players on a collision course with the BBEG, but it is railroading to entirely dictate the terms of that collision.

[Sigreid]

Quite a lot of thoughtful discourse has been offered as to whether railroading is good or bad in itself, so I won't take up space with that. I will instead offer an observation on the subject of demeanor. When you make decisions intended to funnel the players down an intended path, be it for logistical or narrative reasons, they will, in my experience, react poorly to it if they perceive it as an angered reaction to their own "incorrect" decisions. Maintaining a calm face, level tone of voice, and sharp focus will diminish the players' perception that you are directly quashing their attempted deviation, even if that is precisely what you are doing.

Now, a question: does it qualify as railroading when you, as the DM, shift space and time to make the intended events and content come about as a direct consequence of the players' divergent actions? Example: the players decide to tunnel through part of a dungeon instead of taking the progress route you planned. While it is clearly railroading to say "a magical forcefield stops you from tunneling, now get back on the path", is it also railroading to quickly rearrange the layout of the dungeon to move the challenge rooms that they were going to bypass into their new path?

Yes, that is railroading and would tick me off if I found out it was happening as it's negating the party's choice.

[UrielAwakened]

But it's not railroading.

You aren't playing a simulation and one of the strengths of roleplaying games is the malleability you possess as a DM.

To dismiss the possibility of reusing content elsewhere just because you didn't plan for the party to take an alternative route is silly.

Ideally you still want to reward their creativity though, in some way. But that reward doesn't have to be bypassing literally everything of note in the dungeon.

Likewise, I've removed monsters from places in a dungeon because the party wasn't doing as well as I thought and the excess challenge looked to be too much for them. Is that also railroading? In a way I'm railroading them to a victory.

[Sigreid]

But it's not railroading.

You aren't playing a simulation and one of the strengths of roleplaying games is the malleability you possess as a DM.

To dismiss the possibility of reusing content elsewhere just because you didn't plan for the party to take an alternative route is silly.

To me it's railroading because if the party is going to the trouble to tunnel, spending resources to attempt to avoid some of the obstacles, moving those obstacles back in there was is exactly the same effect as telling them the forcefield is preventing the tunneling. It's cheap.

[Tanarii]

First question I always ask myself before running an adventure, module, adventure arc, whatever:
What happens when the PCs just abandon the adventure part way through?

What's my backup adventure/module? Can I wing it when they go off in a random direction that doesn't even *have* anything appropriate written for it? What are the logical consequences of the Party failing the adventure they abandoned?

In cases like DDEX (or personally designed adventures similar to DDEX), which are generally one session 3-4 hour adventures, I usually skip the backup. If the the players don't start, abandon, or fail at the mission objective ... session ends early & consequences happen.

In a large adventure/module spanning multiple sessions, I always have a backup. What happens if the players are doing B4 The Lost City, negotiate food and water from the first pyramid faction they encounter, and march back off into the desert? I'll warn them they may die, if they want to give it a shot, we'll do a short 'survive the desert' session, and if they live we'll run another module. Player Agency AND possible consequences for choices preserved.

If they choose to abandon a 'save the world from a terrible thing being summoned' quest? Probably lots of horrible stuff happens, and then some other band of unlikely heroes stops it. Usually the world isn't totally destroyed by these things. :smallwink: And maybe the PCs get branded cowards or worse, if anyone could have logically known.

[OldTrees1]

Quite a lot of thoughtful discourse has been offered as to whether railroading is good or bad in itself, so I won't take up space with that. I will instead offer an observation on the subject of demeanor. When you make decisions intended to funnel the players down an intended path, be it for logistical or narrative reasons, they will, in my experience, react poorly to it if they perceive it as an angered reaction to their own "incorrect" decisions. Maintaining a calm face, level tone of voice, and sharp focus will diminish the players' perception that you are directly quashing their attempted deviation, even if that is precisely what you are doing.

Now, a question: does it qualify as railroading when you, as the DM, shift space and time to make the intended events and content come about as a direct consequence of the players' divergent actions? Example: the players decide to tunnel through part of a dungeon instead of taking the progress route you planned. While it is clearly railroading to say "a magical forcefield stops you from tunneling, now get back on the path", is it also railroading to quickly rearrange the layout of the dungeon to move the challenge rooms that they were going to bypass into their new path?

Yes that is railroading(neutral connotation):

The players made a choice to go left instead of right. You negated that choice by replacing the outcome of going left with the outcome of going the "correct" right path. The Quantum Ogre is a related term if you want to get further opinions.

Quantum Ogres are a form of railroading that can be nigh invisible to the players. As such some players will mind it less than more overt railroading. (as we can see in the difference in reactions by UrielAwakened and Sigreid)


I would note that this is when you take a real choice and turn it into a false choice. There can be choices with no meaningful difference between the options.

Consider a Bandit Queen that wants to ambush the PCs. She has enough men to post ambushes at both of the major roads out of town. She even has informants in town that will try to inform her of which way the PCs went. Now it does not really matter which road the PCs choose to take. There is an ambush waiting for them and if they are seen leaving the town the ambush will be reinforced by the Bandit Queen herself.

However remember that you do want the PCs to have meaningful choices. Not every choice must be meaningful, but a lot of enjoyment comes from those kinds of decisions.

[Wolfkingleo]

I will put my 2 cents on this matter, based on previuos situations that were presented in my table.

The true question is: What do you consider to be railroading? Because technically every single GM act is railroading and players answer to this accordingly and the story keeps flowing toward an end (yes, there is an end to all things). So yes, it depends on what wich, who or when something happens.

Citing the Quantum Ogre theory, I do not think that it per se, is a bad railroading, but the way how you reach the ogre is the problem if it is forced on the players. Refer below to see where I am getting into:

Your party are hired by the locals to slay a bandit warlord that is holed up with his crew in a castle ruins nearby, so when you are aproaching the place and ask the GM what do you see, (s)he said that "It is a very torn castle with some gaps around the walls, but you can spot only one entrance throught the front gate that is being watched by 4 bandits". This moment you can guess the DM (possible) first intention: To your party storm the castle. However the rogue in your group asks if, since there is flaws in the walls , the party can bypass the encounter by challenging themselves against the environment. Or the bard can try to convince the bandits into allowing them by any non-violent means inside the castle or whatever.

If it is plausible to the party trying different approachs and the DM denies it because he prepared this combat and want that to happen, then yes, this is a BAD railroading. But mind this: Everyone wants to face the warlord and see what will unfold during the intercalation. Doesn't matter if the confrontation will take place in the bandit quarters or the fallen mead hall, it will happen, but the players are not trying to prevent it, just approach it in a different fashion. If he allows it, it is not bad railroading at all. The DM still have his way to reach the enemy, but the players choose how to do it using their skills.

Now let's change the view to another situation: The players are loose in the world, they do not know what they could do, and they do not have a BG to point a right direction. Then the DM put's a rumor regarding a damsell in distress to be rescued in an BBEG tower, but the players dismiss the rumors and keep strolling around, then when looking for something to do the very same issue appears again and again until they are won over the persistence of the GM using some EX MACHINA to coerce the players into this (Like arresting them without any hint of that happening, for a crime that they did not commit only to make them rescue the princess). It starts as a good way to conduct the players by making them see their choice, but derail soon starts to force them in the way by overeacting and imposing without having a way around, that's bad DMing.

And finally, in a open world the DM just give the rumors and the players choose not to follow them, then another rumor of a different quest appears and the players decided to follow it, eventually completing this quest and receiving more info toward the previous one that was rejected. Having the thrill of their choices respected and have a better look in the matter, the party decided to follow this one throught and settle it. This is good railroading.

That said, as someone already posted here, the good rails are the one that leads to a fun ending, but what makes it fun is how the players have means to reach that ending without having enforced something down their throats. So that's how it is.

Cheers

[GlenSmash!]

Perhaps this is semantics, but maybe my ramblings can help with the conversation. Here we go.

There is a difference between railroading, and getting buy in from your players to engage with the adventure.

So I wouldn't move rooms in a dungeon to make the party end up in the same place regardless of their choices. Instead i would design the dungeon so that if they play well/overcome challenges with expending few resources/find the easier path then the can get to the goal of the dungeon most prepared for the climax of this part of the story.

Conversely if they play poorly/expend many resources/choose the most difficult path they will be ill prepared for the challenge ahead.

If the players choose not to engage with the adventure (ilike say not go in that dungeon at all) then the question I would ask myself is not "am I railroading?" but "am I doing my part in creating a set up that will help the group have an exciting memorable scenario?" and the the question I would ask my players is "what can i do better?"

[Yagyujubei]

who cares as long as its fun? maybe don't make everything 100% scripted and give players multiple ways to solve the problems that you have pre-scripted, but like...all of the WoTC modules are pre-scripted for the most part and people still play them and enjoy them all the time.

I don't see what the problem is, If you're the type of person who comes upon a setting like "you find the remains of a horse and carriage that seems to have been attacked. upon further inspection you see three pronged footprints and faint traces of blood leading into the woods" and responds by saying "you cant tell me what to do! im gonna go the other way and look for a beach to chill on" then you are a douche and I cant see how anyone would ever want to play with you tbh.

[Chugger]

Not everyone is good at making up amazing content on the spot. Some of us, when we DM, need to carefully prepare, seek inspiration, and make a mission-type adventure that the players really need to follow. And that's perfectly okay. Play to your strengths.

If they don't take your carefully prepared mission, let them do a randomly rolled adventure from the back of the DMG. And let them see how that goes (they are usually quite dull with random spikes of wth?!).

[MeeposFire]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/5a/5a1377fb332e3cf39d8b84dbb937d8606dcf0ec032c6ca04b5 87112ef23fabc5.jpg

[Thrudd]

Not everyone is good at making up amazing content on the spot. Some of us, when we DM, need to carefully prepare, seek inspiration, and make a mission-type adventure that the players really need to follow. And that's perfectly okay. Play to your strengths.

If they don't take your carefully prepared mission, let them do a randomly rolled adventure from the back of the DMG. And let them see how that goes (they are usually quite dull with random spikes of wth?!).

In this case (for D&D), I'd suggest framing the game as such to the players. Ie
"This will be a 'mission of the week' style game. Your characters will be a party of adventurers seeking 'whatever' or serving 'whatever', and you'll be asked to go on missions or you will be delving into a different dungeon for each story arc."

This actually isn't all that different from how original D&D was often. It was understood that the characters were going to a dungeon. The DM told you at the beginning of the session where you are and what you're doing there, and you start in. Nobody is going to say they don't want to go in the dungeon, because that's the whole premise of the game.

However, framing the game with a properly focused objective is not railroading. It is more than possible to design your adventures in such a way that no fudging or railroading is required (and I think that would be preferable for most players if you asked them).

[CaptainSarathai]

Is railroading(when light) really all that bad? I mean if I have spent x hours to craft an interesting adventure and my players start doing something that keeps them from enjoying a pre crafted story and force me to come up with things on the fly not only does that put pressure on me to come up with something at least remotely fun, it also keeps my players from a better more prepared experience.

So I guess my question is: do you railroad? And if you do how do you do it to not make it feel forced but more like an encouraging nudge?
If the players are truly having fun with your story, they probably won't wander, or won't mind a little nudging. It's when you see the players straining at the leash, or plain not caring, that's when you have a problem.

Part of the trick is not planning too much. Leave things rather open. Another trick, is not leaving too much open.
For example; I have this DM who wanted to build whole worlds for us, with continents and empires and all kinds of detail. The problem was that he wanted us to stay in ONE country, at least for all but the last few levels.
NOPE!
As a party, we latched onto the scale of the world and decided to become sailors. Campaign ruined. He had to railroad us away from doing the exploring we wanted to do, and that made us mad.
In my current campaign, you can walk from one end of the setting to the other, in a matter of a week or two. There are "foreign lands" that sometimes get mentioned in passing, but no map for the players to see beyond the border. That really decreases the desire the players have to wander quite so far.


To me it's railroading because if the party is going to the trouble to tunnel, spending resources to attempt to avoid some of the obstacles, moving those obstacles back in there was is exactly the same effect as telling them the forcefield is preventing the tunneling. It's cheap.

This is considered "The Quantum Ogre Problem." The players will encounter an Ogre whether they go down path A or path B.
Place yourself in the shoes of the players, as the event unfolds, however; unless the players are aware of the Ogre down the path, and choose to go around, then they will just choose a path at random.
Perhaps they chose the path because the other was known to be watched by more of the king's spies. Or because it was easier to bring horses on the chosen route. It's a non Ogre-related choice, the Ogre becomes incidental.
If you, the DM, plan a single Ogre fight, then the players could even say,
"I bet it was a Quantum Ogre, there's one down both paths!"
and if the double back, they have already had their 1 Ogre fight and find the other path clear.

As DMs, we see these tricks. We're familiar with them. We use them ourselves. Normally, other players are less observant.
"Oh, we fought an Ogre. Cool."

It also helps:
More Combat = more room for railroads.
More RP = more chances to go off rails.

Original D&D was just a dungeon crawl. There really wasn't much of a story, characters weren't expected to survive so much as just play through as long as they could. You'd fight Orcs, then a Dragon (that didn't just eat the orcs or whatever) and then a Beholder (also doesn't bother dragon) and the boss would be a Lich. All in one dungeon! And all you'd do is roll combat or solve puzzles.
That's the ultimate railroading - there's maybe only one door out of some of those rooms, and all the hallways loop back into the boss lair. All combat, little story.

[Tanarii]

Perhaps this is semantics, but maybe my ramblings can help with the conversation. Here we go.

There is a difference between railroading, and getting buy in from your players to engage with the adventure.Thats interesting. Because as per my post above, when I think of railroading (which honestly isn't often) I think of it as forcing the PCs to go on a specific adventure, or not wander out of the adventure. Basically avoiding having to have "what if the PCs don't want to do this adventure" situation.

Obviously you're on the money ... the best way to avoid having to worry about the adventure coming off the rails, meaning stay with the adventure/module/adventure path, is to just get PC buy-in. Preferably checking in again periodically if it's a major multi-session arc. (If it's you're entire campaign coming off the rails, you're probably starting a new campaign.)

Btw your other post up-thread talking about different kinds of games is fantastic.

As far as in-adventure railroading goes, I'm a fan of logical* consequences for player choices. I recently had some players hunting down Bandits at level 2. I had three bandit camps lined up an area appropriate for level 2s. Third one was da Boss + minions. The decided to Long Rest after the second one. They found the Boss's empty camp the next morning. End result for the players's decision to Long Rest was the Boss got away, a slightly shorter session, no major treasure from the Boss's Horde, and not hitting level 3 that session.

*using the common internet usage of 'it makes sense to me'

[Sigreid]

So I thought I would pop in and make a clarification. Railroading the party is not hooking the party.

Railroading is forcing the story or path, and lots of players I've played with chafe at that and start actively looking for ways to brake the story or scenario that's been set up.

Hooking the party is drawing them in and making them want to see where things are going, though they will probably do many things in ways that you did not and could not anticipate. And that is beautiful.

Also, what is railroading can become hooking if you simply get the players to buy into the goal you need them to buy into. As an example, if you just run the Tiamat modules they are pretty railroady. However, if you tell your players that you want them to play characters dedicated to stopping an evil dragon cult and they agree, then you've hooked them.