Is railroading bad? Discussion

[Lord Tataraus]

There are times on this forum when someone makes the statement along the lines of: "Railroading is a poor GM tool that should not be used". However, I, and a few others on this board, think otherwise. Personally, railroading is an essential tool to a good campaign (there are always a few exceptions), but the problem is that some GMs do not implement it correctly.

Railroading should be subtle, and nearly unnoticeable to the players as what it is. The GM should run events in such a way that compels, not forces, a character to take a certain specific or general action/direction. I railroad a lot in my games, but my players rarely realize it. They feel that they take certain quests and actions of their own accord, but it is my manipulation of information that causes them to act in that way.

If you want your players to run go and fight a wizard in his tower, you must manipulate the information the players recieve to cause them to want to go fight the wizard. So you have the characters hear rumors of a terrible wizard that lives to the north, though they may ignore this, you keep giving this information along with other tantalizing bits. Maybe they hear that a powerful object was stolen by the wizard, or the artifact they are looking for is held by the wizard. Maybe the characters are passing by a village that has recently be attacked by said wizard and a small child says his father was taken, pleading that the adventurers rescue him. All this, of course, does not have to be true. Maybe it was a dragon that attacked, maybe the evil king feels threatened by a good wizard living near his lands and spreads rumors against the wizard. In the end, the players feel compelled to go and find this wizard.

So, discuss. Is railroading really that bad? I realize this might come down to the definition of "railroading", but I feel my examples of compelling a party to do something qualifies as railroading (I also realize that my examples may not be that good).

[Skjaldbakka]

Railroading should be subtle, and nearly unnoticeable to the players as what it is.

In that case you are DMing, not railroading. The term 'railroading' implies a certain lack of subtlety.

[Eldritch_Ent]

In short, "Railroading" is the act of putting players on a certain path and FORCING them to ride it to the end. To be specific, the players WANT to get off, but they can't because the DM makes them.

If they want to get off and CAN, that's not railroading- that's just having one poorly designed adventure. And if the DM lets them go on to something they DO like, no harm no foul.

And if they like it, wether or not they can get off is a moot point since they'll want to stay on anyway.

[....]

I think 'railroading' is the idea that you have certain outcomes planned for the PCs and no matter what they do you make sure they happen.

But everyone who plays D&D realizes that there's a plot that needs to happen. Some of these people refuse to follow said plot and instead start killing villagers, raising them as zombies, stabbing other PCs, ect... These people are called 'bastards' and should be avoided.

Same goes for a DM who cannot let an encounter run any way but the way he planned it, regardless of how innovative or unexpected his players are.

Good DMs and good PCs know to move the story along, but to also let it evolve natually and see where it takes them.

[Josh the Aspie]

This isn't railroading. This is making the path you want the most attractive path for players to eventually take. You said that you keep giving it to them after they ignore it.

If they weren't interested in the quest at first, or they decided to do something else, would you force them to follow the exact path you wanted, from spot a to spot b to spot c, to spot d, or would you keep droping hints until they decided "okay, this is finally worth going"?

Railroading involves... oh... say... forcing you all to join a single guild to start the game, and if something smells like a scam, you can't continue the game until you join.
"Will you join the guild?"
Yes
No <

"Oh but you must!"
"Will you join the guild?"
Yes
No <

"Oh but you must!"
"Will you join the guild?"
Yes <
No

Diding!

"Here is your first quest"

And then, when you encounter some orcs, and by rights would have slain them all, it turns out that the DM needs one to survive, so he Bends every rule in the book to make it escape and have you know about it.

And then later, he throws waves of Kython after you, and the only results of your actions are whether the dwarves that swoop in to save your but turn out to be impressed with your skill, or disgusted by your incompetence.

And then later, you get sent to talk to a druid by a ranger, then jerked away 6 ways to sunday by the guy and his group who insist you do everything short of stand on your head while doing the hokey pokey before you can see the all powerful oz *cough* excuse me. Druid.

And then if you decide to walk off, suddenly you're being horrible.

And you're told to talk to the druid because somehow he's the only one that can tell you how to avert total destruction of the region. Ooohhhh.

And somehow, if you deride him and his followers for being pretentious jerks (which they were) rather than kow-towing because of his position alone... which is nothing other than 'powerful druid man'... well, he casts a quickened, silenced, silence spell that somehow doesn't allow any save to be centered on you.

And any time you do something the GM doesn't like or expect, rather than rewarding innovation, quashes it.



In other words, if the DM writes a stories then assumes the PCs will follow it step by step, no matter what their inclinations are, it's a scenic railroad tour.

If the DM puts together a set of circumstances, the desire of the opposition, the general situation (say, the general layout of the badguy organization), and the like, then it's known as putting together a plot and a potential adventure.

[Kyeudo]

What you discribe isn't railroading. You are using proper plot hooking techniques. Railroading is where there is one, and only one, proper thing to do in a situation. If your supposed to go slay the dragon, you can't go and decide slaying dragons isn't your thing and go leave the area, because all the roads out exploded, the forest becomes impenatrable, and the only clear path leads straigh to the dragon's door.

[DraPrime]

How is this even a discussion? Railroading is renowned as being a terrible way to DM. It's not even subtle. You just force your players to do whatever you want them to do. It's like asking "Should the classes be balanced?" YES! And railroading is bad.

[Arbitrarity]

I must learn these techniques of "plot writing" and "enticement to action".

Practice, read, think, and work...:smallsigh:

[psychoticbarber]

But everyone who plays D&D realizes that there's a plot that needs to happen. Some of these people refuse to follow said plot and instead start killing villagers, raising them as zombies, stabbing other PCs, ect... These people are called 'bastards' and should be avoided.

Mind if I sig this?

[ArmorArmadillo]

Railroading is kind of a bad term, because it implies that keeping your players on a defined path is a negative.

That's just something you have to do.

Railroading has been well described by people on this thread already.

Good DMing is kind of like railroading, it's just a matter of keeping the tracks invisible.

[Josh the Aspie]

It's having a network of paths players can switch off on at any cross roads, and letting your players build their own if they need too.

[Raum]

There are times on this forum when someone makes the statement along the lines of: "Railroading is a poor GM tool that should not be used". However, I, and a few others on this board, think otherwise. Personally, railroading is an essential tool to a good campaign (there are always a few exceptions), but the problem is that some GMs do not implement it correctly.It may be best if you defined railroading.


Railroading should be subtle, and nearly unnoticeable to the players as what it is. The GM should run events in such a way that compels, not forces, a character to take a certain specific or general action/direction.Err, you know that "compel" is defined as "to force" right? I'm not certain what you're trying to point out as the difference here.


<snip>
So, discuss. Is railroading really that bad? I realize this might come down to the definition of "railroading", but I feel my examples of compelling a party to do something qualifies as railroading (I also realize that my examples may not be that good).Railroading is bad to the extent it compels players (not characters) to become an audience instead of playing a game. In other words, if the players are happy as an audience already, you're not compelling them and everyone is happy. However, if they expected to play a game, part of that expectation is making meaningful decisions. If players are passive or unable to make a decision which might affect the outcome, it's not a game it's a story. May well be an entertaining story, but it is a story.

[Kyeudo]

Err, you know that "compel" is defined as "to force" right? I'm not certain what you're trying to point out as the difference here.


I think he meant emotional compulsion i.e. getting the players to want to attack the wizard, rather than forcing them to fight the wizard by teleporting them straight to the wizards tower with a geas laid on their heads.

[Lord Tataraus]

It may be best if you defined railroading.

True, a definition would be helpful:
Railroad - To force the characters to take a certain course of action that is predetermined by the GM.
I think that can be a simple and well accepted definition, and is how I see it.


Err, you know that "compel" is defined as "to force" right? I'm not certain what you're trying to point out as the difference here.

I was using compels in the context that the characters feel compelled to take a certain course of action because of their background, personality, etc.


Railroading is bad to the extent it compels players (not characters) to become an audience instead of playing a game. In other words, if the players are happy as an audience already, you're not compelling them and everyone is happy. However, if they expected to play a game, part of that expectation is making meaningful decisions. If players are passive or unable to make a decision which might affect the outcome, it's not a game it's a story. May well be an entertaining story, but it is a story.

That is very true, but I think ArmorArmadillo says what I'm trying to say very simply:


Good DMing is kind of like railroading, it's just a matter of keeping the tracks invisible.

By setting events up so that because of a characters backstory, personality, etc, you as a DM have created a circumstance where the character has one course of action to take, but it doesn't really feel that way. But you did force that player to take that action, he just doesn't realize it.

I know I'm really bad at giving examples, I guess those I gave in the OP are just plot hooks. Oh well.

Edit: Kyeudo - that's exactly what I mean.

[Kyeudo]

I was using compels in the context that the characters feel compelled to take a certain course of action because of their background, personality, etc.

By setting events up so that because of a characters backstory, personality, etc, you as a DM have created a circumstance where the character has one course of action to take, but it doesn't really feel that way. But you did force that player to take that action, he just doesn't realize it.

I know I'm really bad at giving examples, I guess those I gave in the OP are just plot hooks. Oh well.


That isn't railroading. Thats good use of plot hooks. The CHARACTER makes the decision, and could decide to not follow through if he wanted. You may have given them a plot hook tailored to their background and tastes so that they would never not follow through, but you didn't force the character's actions in any form. You have yet to put up an example of actual railroading used in a positive way, which I doubt you can, as players like meaningful choices.

[JadedDM]

Yeah, the problem with any railroading discussion is people have different definitions of it. To some, railroading means taking over the PCs and making them do things without their consent. For instance:

DM: "You walk into the tavern and wink at the cute barmaiden before approaching the bar and ordering a pint. As you enjoy it, an old man comes up to you and tells you the local mines are infested with goblins. He offers a payment of 10 gp if you kill them all. After agreeing, you head down to the mines..."

And yet, other people will go the opposite extreme, and claim that a game with ANY storyline whatsoever is guilty of railroading. And thus all campaigns should be nothing but random, disconnected sidequests.

To me, the difference between railroading and telling a story is easy enough to define. If the story is more important than the PCs actions, then its railroading. If the princess HAS to survive...if at least one orc MUST escape, if the villain CANNOT die just yet... Whereas a good DM will allow these things to happen (even if they muck up his plans), but learn to roll with it, play out the consequences, and work it into the storyline.

[BizzaroStormy]

As onr of his regular player I can say that if not for some degree of railroading our party would most likely end up screwing around with the whole "I ask around for work" thing.

[Raum]

True, a definition would be helpful:
Railroad - To force the characters to take a certain course of action that is predetermined by the GM.To the extent you can force the character to take a specific action without removing or forcing a player's choice it's fine. But once decision making abilities are taken from the player you may as well be telling a story.


I was using compels in the context that the characters feel compelled to take a certain course of action because of their background, personality, etc.I'd probably term that manipulation or blackmail.


That is very true, but I think ArmorArmadillo says what I'm trying to say very simply:
Good DMing is kind of like railroading, it's just a matter of keeping the tracks invisible.
By setting events up so that because of a characters backstory, personality, etc, you as a DM have created a circumstance where the character has one course of action to take, but it doesn't really feel that way. But you did force that player to take that action, he just doesn't realize it.Manipulating the character through other characters (whether player or not) is an expected part of the game. It's no different from threatening an opponent's queen to force him to move it in a game of chess. However, the chess player still has a choice...he can lose the queen. Similarly there should aways be a choice for the players in a game - and it should be a meaningful choice, not "do this or rocks fall on your character." Too many GMs get in a habit of thinking linearly and not allowing more than one method to potentially accomplish a goal. They've removed any meaningful choice from the player. That changes a game to a presentation.

[hamstard4ever]

Except you're not forcing anybody to do anything, until you come out and say "YOUR CHARACTER DOES THIS" or "SUCH AND SUCH HAPPENS TO YOUR CHARACTER, PERIOD" (at which point you are railroading and being a bad DM.) Choice always exists. You can tailor the game such that there is only one obvious in-character course of action, but what if they come up with an alternate plan of action?

[Jack Mann]

It's like asking "Should the classes be balanced?" YES!

And yet there was a multi-page thread addressing this very point. Not whether classes were balanced but whether or not they should be. Honestly, Dragon, you've been a nerd how long? And you still think we need a good reason to argue?

[TheOOB]

My view on things, to use the railroad analogy is this, a players needs to eventually get to the town across the world, to get there he has to go a the next station, but how he gets to that station, what track he takes is up to him, and what station is his next goal after he reaches this one is also up to him, as long as it takes him closer to his destination.

You should have an eventually destination planed for the players, but let them choose how they get there, just make sure every once and awhile you push them on track so they don't get lost.

One thing I've found is fulling planning any more then one or two sessions in advanced it futile, you can have an idea of whats happening in the future, but theres no guareentee there are goign to enter that ancient dungeon 10 sessions from now.

[Saph]

Railroading can work fine. Out of the two most recent long campaigns I DMed, the first was a totally open game where the PCs could go wherever they wanted and do whatever they felt like. The second was an entirely scripted game - the basic plotline of all eight sessions was determined by me from the start. I think both were about equally popular. The players had more freedom in the first, but more purpose in the second.

However, for the railroaded campaign, I:

a) Told the players from the start what they were going to be playing, and what they needed ("You can make any character you want, as long as they've got a motivation to risk their lives on this adventure and work with the party.")

b) Made most of the rails plot-necessary: There was only one effective way to stop the BBEG. It was quite difficult to find out what that one way was, and in fact finding-out was most of the adventure. I wasn't telling the PCs to follow the rails, they were searching for the rails themselves.

c) Did give them a choice . . . technically. "Okay, you've learned the BBEG's plan. You can work to stop him, or you can let him continue, in which case the climate control systems for the planet will fail and everyone in the world will die, including you. So, what do you feel like doing?"

I'm not sure if that really counts as a choice, to be honest, but hey. :) In any case, by this point the BBEG had screwed them over so many times that once they finally had a way to kill him they really really wanted him dead.

- Saph

[Blanks]

Perhaps we should first establish a consensus about what railroading is?
I propose Mojotechs definition:


In short, "Railroading" is the act of putting players on a certain path and FORCING them to ride it to the end. To be specific, the players WANT to get off, but they can't because the DM makes them.
Its short, its clear and it matches my ideas ;)

An example of clear railroading:
I join a group who are being blackmailed by the leader of a thieves guild. As soon as im in the group im told that i owe him money as well now. He was plot central in that he supplied the quest. So far, funny but no sweat.

This leader is essentially immune to everything and monitors us more or less 24/7 so we can never break free. Tough luck but still, those may be the rules of the game.

My character decided just to skip town. We had nothing to stick around for so leaving seemed smart. Unfortunately the town was located in what must have been the north pole. I was told that my character could not carry enough food to make it to the nearest town (ie leave = die). I then asked how the town got its food. It seemed there were caravans that brought food there. Yet this town of at least 20.000 people didn't get a single shipment of food from the time where i started looking for caravans untill 14 days later the guild leader told me to perform a service for him or die.

my character had a lot of options:
leave town = die
attack guild leader = die
hide from him = die
perform his quest = live

thats not options! I wanted of the train but couldn't. In the words of (damn, forgot reference :( ) someone else:
Its much easier to keep the players on the rail road tracks when you place landmines beside them.

[Saph]

thats not options! I wanted of the train but couldn't. In the words of (damn, forgot reference :( ) someone else:
Its much easier to keep the players on the rail road tracks when you place landmines beside them.

DM of the Rings. :)

Constant landmines are a bad way to do it - occasionally is fine, but not constantly. A better way is just to have whatever the PCs want be at the far end of the tracks. Then it's up to them to follow the rails. Or find a shortcut - whatever works.

- Saph

[Blanks]

DM of the Rings. :)
Thats what i thought but i couldn't find it on his site. But you are surely right, thanks :)

[boomwolf]

If you DM well, and you have good players, you won't ever need to railroad.

They will carve themselves a path to the final goal.

A good DM work is where you give them a maze with many splits and joins. you can take multiple paths (in the case of a game i am running now at this site they got hundreds of paths, and maybe more i missed. in fact they took some choices of path by now and i am not sure if they knew it.), but eventurally, all paths will lead you to one of few possible ending ("lose" "win" "alt. win" etc...)

[Indon]

An example of clear railroading:
I join a group who are being blackmailed by the leader of a thieves guild. As soon as im in the group im told that i owe him money as well now. He was plot central in that he supplied the quest. So far, funny but no sweat.

This leader is essentially immune to everything and monitors us more or less 24/7 so we can never break free. Tough luck but still, those may be the rules of the game.


Eeew.

Were I the DM railroading you in that situation, I'd have:

-Added a DMPC to the party to watch you and try to influence your actions, probably without you knowing he's working for the guild master.
-Made sure your characters knew the reach and influence of the thieves' guild leader, and that angering him would lead to far-reaching consequences; i.e. you'd have to more "skip country" than "skip town", at least; essentially, offering you a choice while knowing you wouldn't bother to take it.

It's still railroading, you'd just be less likely to notice it.

[Lord Tataraus]

Perhaps we should first establish a consensus about what railroading is?
I propose Mojotechs definition:


In short, "Railroading" is the act of putting players on a certain path and FORCING them to ride it to the end. To be specific, the players WANT to get off, but they can't because the DM makes them.

Its short, its clear and it matches my ideas ;)

An example of clear railroading:
I join a group who are being blackmailed by the leader of a thieves guild. As soon as im in the group im told that i owe him money as well now. He was plot central in that he supplied the quest. So far, funny but no sweat.

This leader is essentially immune to everything and monitors us more or less 24/7 so we can never break free. Tough luck but still, those may be the rules of the game.

My character decided just to skip town. We had nothing to stick around for so leaving seemed smart. Unfortunately the town was located in what must have been the north pole. I was told that my character could not carry enough food to make it to the nearest town (ie leave = die). I then asked how the town got its food. It seemed there were caravans that brought food there. Yet this town of at least 20.000 people didn't get a single shipment of food from the time where i started looking for caravans untill 14 days later the guild leader told me to perform a service for him or die.

my character had a lot of options:
leave town = die
attack guild leader = die
hide from him = die
perform his quest = live

thats not options! I wanted of the train but couldn't. In the words of (damn, forgot reference :( ) someone else:
Its much easier to keep the players on the rail road tracks when you place landmines beside them.

The problem I have with that definition is it starts out biased. I will agree that that story is one of bad railroading, however, like Saph said, their can be good railroading.

Boomwolf - Yes, that is one style of DMing, and I use that my self for the campaign as a hole, but when the players start going do one path, they usually keep going down it. With that path selected by the players, sometimes their next step is predetermined and thus you can railroad them through it, but it still seems like they are playing the same way.

[Jack Mann]

My feeling on the matter is that if my decisions don't affect the course of the story, then I might as well not be playing. An ultimate goal is all right, but there shouldn't be just one way to get there. If your story is so linear that the players can't make any meaningful decisions, then they're not really playing. They're just standing by as you tell your story. It doesn't matter how well you camouflage the tracks.

[Kurald Galain]

My feeling on the matter is that if my decisions don't affect the course of the story, then I might as well not be playing.

Precisely.

And the point where I realize that is generally the point where I quit a campaign. If I wanted to see a movie, I'd go rent one.

[TheWarBlade]

Sure you can have a railroad plot. The key is have the players think they have free will. For instance the players can go north over the mountains which is safer but takes a longer time. Or they could ride fast up the dwarven road, getting into a lot of fights. Do the players arrive in time? Entirely up to the DM. Does he want the players to find the village in a smoldering heap of ruins and refugees falling back along the road? Or do they arrive just in time to break the siege?

If the players think they have control then they wont feel steered around by the nose.

[Raum]

Eeew.

Were I the DM railroading you in that situation, I'd have:

-Added a DMPC to the party to watch you and try to influence your actions, probably without you knowing he's working for the guild master.
-Made sure your characters knew the reach and influence of the thieves' guild leader, and that angering him would lead to far-reaching consequences; i.e. you'd have to more "skip country" than "skip town", at least; essentially, offering you a choice while knowing you wouldn't bother to take it.

It's still railroading, you'd just be less likely to notice it.That's not exactly subtle. I suspect anyone who thinks about their character's motivations would notice it immediately. After all, you've forced the entire party to accept a DMPC (that's how you phrased it) and you have this 'uber NPC' guild master who is more important to the story than the PCs. He's so important the PCs must obey him to have a reason for existence. Subtle.

-----
I'm intentionally avoiding the term 'railroading.' I haven't seen a definition everyone is willing to accept. Instead I've framed the question in terms of how much decision making ability the player and character have. To be blunt, removing a player's choice is bad. Playing a game requires the ability to make meaningful decisions. However, using game mechanics to limit a character's choices is an expected consequence of a world which doesn't revolve around the character. Yet, even though the world doesn't revolve around the PCs, the game does. Or at least it should. As long as it does, the characters will have a tactical choice. Strategic choice may well be limited to accomplishing a set goal, but how they do so should be up to the characters.

I suspect many instances of removing player choice stem from stories (it's not a game anymore) in which the NPCs are more important than the PCs. It certainly seems so in the example above.

[Lord Tataraus]

Sure you can have a railroad plot. The key is have the players think they have free will. For instance the players can go north over the mountains which is safer but takes a longer time. Or they could ride fast up the dwarven road, getting into a lot of fights. Do the players arrive in time? Entirely up to the DM. Does he want the players to find the village in a smoldering heap of ruins and refugees falling back along the road? Or do they arrive just in time to break the siege?

If the players think they have control then they wont feel steered around by the nose.

Exactly. The point is to make it seem like the players have control of the story, which they do to some extent. I'm not saying the entire plot is railroaded, just sections of it.

[Raum]

Exactly. The point is to make it seem like the players have control of the story, which they do to some extent. I'm not saying the entire plot is railroaded, just sections of it.It sounds like you're inserting "cut scenes" into the game is that how you'd term it?

Whether it's good or bad largely depends on how your players feel about it. But it is important to realize, it's not a game at that point. If I can't make a meaningful decision, I'm an audience member not a player.

[Swordguy]

Overt railroading is acceptable when it saves the game. Take last weeks party

A 3rd-level party decides in the middle of a currently-running quest that they'd really rather go hunt the tarresque. Bard makes the knowledge check to know where it is, and they say "great, we go there now and poke it with a stick".

As a DM, I felt entitled to say: "No. No you don't. A) You'll die. B) You'll complain at me about killing all of you. C) You'll complain about having to spend an hour making all new characters. D) Your characters, all of whom are reasonably intelligent, and none of whom has a death wish in their background, would realize that you are in fact no match for a near-world-destroying monstrosity, and would certainly not go hunting for it to poke it until it wakes up. E) Therefore, you're making that choice as players, not characters. You're metagaming and I'm within my rights to tell you no."

It's railroading by your definition, but have a hard time calling it a bad thing...

[SilverClawShift]

Whenever I read one of these dicussions, I can't help but feel that people ignore the players responsibility in the matter. Considering that D&D is, no matter how you slice it, a group endeavor, it's the responsibility of everyone at the table to play nice together (note that you can be playing nice together even when trying to kill each other, you're still playing together if your characters are batteling to the death or something).

A DM is there, specifically, to keep track of what's going on, to present the necessary fragments of the world to make the story come alive, and to control basically everything that isn't a player character. It's a big responsibility, and it's a lot to keep track of.
Given that the majority of the 'work' is on the shoulders of the DM, it's understanable that people would assume the DM is solely responsible for things going 'good' or 'bad'.

That's not really fair to him/her though. While the DM has taken it upon themselves to control the rest of the world, the players have taken on the responsibility of being the main freaking characters. They can easily fight the DM, try to buck the system and look for cracks in the workings holding everything together.
But why? I could shoot every NPC in the face with a flaming crossbow bolt, but what am I accomplishing? The DM certainly isn't controlling me, but is there even a point to me being at the tableIn other words, if you don't want to play the freaking game, why are you sitting there playing the freaking game?

Anyway, a DM has a responsibility to change things based on what the players do, but the players have the responsibility to not purposely try to break a campaign for kicks.

[Jack Mann]

Well, there's a bit of give and take. The DM shouldn't force his players down one path. That said, players have a responsibility to try to advance the story. And, y'know, to not be complete twits. When level three players want to poke the tarrasque with a stick, they're just being obnoxious.

[Raum]

A 3rd-level party decides in the middle of a currently-running quest that they'd really rather go hunt the tarresque. Bard makes the knowledge check to know where it is, and they say "great, we go there now and poke it with a stick".I might have let them die, but that's mostly because it seems your players were being intentionally obtuse. In any case, a party's goal is a strategic decision - which should generally be a matter of negotiation or simply predetermined. After all, if you don't have the same, or at least compatible, goals you're playing different games. In many games the players will know the goals before even creating a character.


It's railroading by your definition, but have a hard time calling it a bad thing...I don't believe I've defined railroading in this thread. I would call the situation a "bad thing" though. There's a communication issue if the DM and players aren't on the same page regarding what type of game they're playing.


Whenever I read one of these dicussions, I can't help but feel that people ignore the players responsibility in the matter. Considering that D&D is, no matter how you slice it, a group endeavor, it's the responsibility of everyone at the table to play nice together (note that you can be playing nice together even when trying to kill each other, you're still playing together if your characters are batteling to the death or something).Exactly, everyone needs to be playing the same game. Hopefully this is decided up front - that way I know not to make a barbarian combat monster when everyone else is playing a political game of intrigue.

-----
In most RPGs, the game isn't about deciding what your goals are - most are about deciding how to overcome challenges and accomplish a common goal. Even the GM's goal is compatible, he should be expecting to "lose gracefully."

[Citizen Joe]

If, as a GM, you need something done for the sake of the story, try to maintain a B-Team. A second group of NPC adventurers that are competing with the PC's. Present the PC's with a certain plot device or hook. Then when they balk at it, have the leader of the B-Team step up and ask to do it.

Later on, make sure the PC's see the B-Team with new shinies and stories of their own greatness. If the PC's continue to balk at your opportunities, eventually start offering them to the B-Team first so the PC's start getting the rejected jobs that are 'beneath' the B-Team.

[SilverClawShift]

Even the GM's goal is compatible, he should be expecting to "lose gracefully."

Unless you're playing call of cthulhu, in which case, the GMs goal is to describe, in deatil, how much it sucks to be everyone who isn't him.

:smallbiggrin:

[Roderick_BR]

The worst case of rail-roading I heard from my friends was this DM that actually told one of the players that an invisible wall came out of nowhere to keep them from leaving the city, except to the following city his plot needed them to go.

I saw once a story on a site, where the group is technically pushed from one side to the other, wondering what the heck is going on, as two lords keep sending wave after wave of warriors against each other. In the end of the script it says "in the end, the players are free to leave, and ponder about the value of friendship". If I were one of the players, I would ask "wait, what? Who's friendship? Why we spent 2 hours fighting people, being pushed through tunnels, and been thrown in jail at least twice?"

I always try to leave the game multi-pathed (new word!) so players have options on how to complete a mission. For the land-mines, I try to make clear, in-game, what'll happen if they refuse to do something.
Once my group had to find info about something happening in the town. One of the players thought that putting an axe against an innocent old man's throat would be the best way to get information (yay for "chaotic neutral"). I changed the whole story, putting the town guard against them ("a warrior attacking citizens with an axe"), and they completely lost all chances of getting the info. If I were rail-roading, the guards would just show up, disarm him, and force the group to go through with the original plan (invading a fest to find out what some nobles were planning"). Before they could sneak in. Now, the whole local guard was warned about them. Bad for them. I just changed the story, and added that without learning those plans, they would have problems to find what they were originally looking for. But I made the player's actions matter.

[Raum]

Once my group had to find info about something happening in the town. One of the players thought that putting an axe against an innocent old man's throat would be the best way to get information (yay for "chaotic neutral"). I changed the whole story, putting the town guard against them ("a warrior attacking citizens with an axe"), and they completely lost all chances of getting the info. If I were rail-roading, the guards would just show up, disarm him, and force the group to go through with the original plan (invading a fest to find out what some nobles were planning"). Before they could sneak in. Now, the whole local guard was warned about them. Bad for them. I just changed the story, and added that without learning those plans, they would have problems to find what they were originally looking for. But I made the player's actions matter.Hehe, I like it. Consequences can be so much fun... :smallcool:

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, I've had my share of railroading DMs...

the worst example was this idiot who, when we traveled west from the city the game began in, had a high wizard teleport in for no reason to teleport us south of that city, which is where he intended us to go.

[Mojo_Rat]

Generally speaking any campaign or plot should be able to handle the players doing something the DM had not intended. There should never be NPC's which are immune to dying or invisible walls which rise up to block the playrs from just leaving.

If the Dm Presents a scenario where he's describing the surroundings of a village mentions some lurking evil to the north hints at monsters etc and has an adventure planned for the area. During his description of the surroundings he mentions the 'gold hills' to the south. One of his players asks 'why are they called the gold hills' and the Dm replies "oh there useto be gold there." The Pc's then all decide their going to go look for gold.

Now Im sure all of you may have seen some variation of this. If the DM is trying to railroad the Pc's may find theres no mining equiptment in town a flash flood breaks out int he south whiping out the only bridge tot he hills or whatnot.

but realy the Dm should just let them go look for gold make up some encounters and in a week or so when they havent found any gold have them come back to find out the goblins in the north had attacked and a bunch of the town militia are dead.

But its the snap urge decisions of the Dm realizing the Pcs are 'not going in the right direction' that results in wierd things happening. Ultimately Railroading is forcing Pc's to do what they dont want to do.

If you present npcs who convince the pcs to do the right thing or make them feel guilty it really is not railroading because the Player of the PC ulimately makes the decision to do the quest or not do the quest. If your plot needs a NPC to be immune from all harm and cant handle the players deciding "You know what i'll take death" and drawing their weapons and attacking when given the option of 'do this or die' then It is not a very good plot.

Although knowing Pc's they should be assumed to take that option :P

[boomwolf]

Actually. not all "you can't touch him" NPC's are wrong.
In some cases, you lack the skills (you cant kill the king at level 5. he has way more guards then you are, and most are higher level then you.)
Its only wrong when there in no POTENTIAL, like "infinite HP" or such, things that are too hard for the PC's are ok, they could come back later for revenge.

[Josh the Aspie]

I think that a large part of all of this boils down to the question...

If the Players believe themselves to be forging their own path. Even if it is in the direction the DM wanted them to go, is it really railroading? If one cannot see the tracks upon which one walks, and does not know that they are there, is it railroading?

I, personally, say no. Railroading is a derogatory term used by players to say that they feel they have no choice in where the plot is going and so forth. It is up to the Players to determine if they are being railroaded or not. Just like it is up to every individual to determine if they have been insulted or not, despite the intent of the speaker of the words.

Thus, if a Player says he's being railroaded, he almost definitely is, and it's a negative thing because the player said that they are being railroaded.

If the player doesn't feel like they are being railroaded, then for all intents and purposes, there are no tracks to keep him down, to make him sad, to make him frown... and thus, he is not being railroaded.

Thus, railroading is a negative thing.

That's just my personal perspective on the matter of course.

If you use a different definition for railroading, then perhaps some of what you consider to be railroading is not negative.

But according to the definition I use, railroading is a bad bad bad bad thing.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually. not all "you can't touch him" NPC's are wrong.

An untouchable NPC is not really problematic. The true staple of railroading is the NPC who is omniscient and omnipotent.

Also, even with plain untouchable, having too many of those is definitely annoying.