GM railroading - how do you handle it?

[Calthropstu]

I have dealt with my fair share of plot railroads. And was wondering how other people handle the issue.


I recently played in a game where the gm was kind of a jerk. It was Shadowrun, but the system was irrelevant to this issue.

The plot setup:

His corporation had us by the balls. If we left, worked for anyone else, attempted to rebel, failed an assignment, or any myriad of other circumstances, we were simply killed and had to roll up a new character. His corporation was comprised of all his old characters he had played before (as well as his gf's characters.) He had a running gag where he would have people's phones hacked and set their ringtone to "Go suck a ****" and would not let you fix it.

I can handle a lot. But when we could not do anything but what the GM wanted and I had to suffer indignity after indignity, enough was enough. I had my character attack his gf's character and left.

Another example:

This was Pathfinder.

Our party had been given a pair of very useful artifacts. While communing with my god (I was playing an oracle who worshipped a lawful good deity and had a neutral good alignment) I was told those artifacts were dangerous and needed to be destroyed. One of them was a special custom deck of many things tied to an ancient civilization that had long been lost. One of the cards drawn had released one of these people who had designs on enslaving the gods. A second card drawn allowed us to undo it. The other artifact held a huge portion of the knowledge compiled from that ancient civilization.

One of our party wizards, an elf, wanted to keep the orb and decided my character could no longer be trusted with it. So he decided he was going to keep it. I decided to cast shatter on it, destroying it and turning it into a sphere of annihilation. I then took the cards, and plane shifted to the home plane of my deity in order to have them destroyed there because the cards could allow something so irrevocably bad and my character had no means with which to dispose of the cards.

Because I went against the will of the group, my gm decided my character, when he met with the deity on his home plane, was kept for 500 years and I had to make a new character.

edit: In both instances I left the group, unable to deal with the pure vindictiveness of the GMs in question.

[shuyung]

In the first scenario, it was just a toxic environment and you were well served to bail out.

The second scenario could have been handled in a way that made it a positive experience. I'm not sure whether to chalk that up to DM inexperience, not knowing all the particulars. It may have been fine if you'd stuck with that game and group, especially if you'd had a deep heart to heart with the DM about the situation and the circumstances.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think either as described is Railroading.

#1 So your character worked for an evil company? And you see it as railroading as you can't leave the company? You don't say if tat was the game plot ''all players will be working for the evil company'' or if it just ''happened'' in the game play.

#2 Well, you did betray your group....so you have to pay for that. Did you try to talk to the other characters? Or did you just go all ''I must do whatever I want?"

Though you might have just been in the wrong groups too.

[Mordar]

In the first scenario, it was just a toxic environment and you were well served to bail out.

The second scenario could have been handled in a way that made it a positive experience. I'm not sure whether to chalk that up to DM inexperience, not knowing all the particulars. It may have been fine if you'd stuck with that game and group, especially if you'd had a deep heart to heart with the DM about the situation and the circumstances.

I mostly agree with both of these points...the Shadowrun game had some railroad elements, but also a big dose of jerkface.

The second doesn't sound railroady at all to me...sequestering you and requesting a new character could very well have been an effort to forestall any in-character intraparty problems. I think it a bad decision and it might miss out on a lot of good story development...but not knowing the players involved it could have been a very good decision (if, for instance, the characters would be expected to be vindictive and if the players could be expected to not be vindictive, a new character is the perfect resolution).

- M

[Narmoth]

I'm seeing both examples as indication of not really being great friends with those who you play with. Now, friends can be jerks to each other, however, if my GM was railroading me, I'd just tell him. He'd probably try to explain he had a good reason for it, and we'd probably agree. And then he would have to be mindful to give us more choices.

As for your stories. I think in the first, I have to agree with Shuyung: it sounds quite petty and toxic. Now, many GMs have their favourite NPCs (on the top of my head, I had 3 just in one campaign). However, the GM needs to be extremely mindful of them not stealing the spotlight. Their way to shine is for the players to feel that the encounter with them was cool and rewarding, and moved the story further. (I can give examples if you're interested)

The second sounds like everyone were playing against each other rather than with each other. How could either choice: the other playing confiscating the artefact from you or you destroying it be fun for the whole group to play?

[Freed]

I mean occasionally, I will railroad, but only if I'm trying to prevent a character from either 1. Just trying to kill and/or steal from another character for no good reason or 2. The players will die for sure without a fair chance if they continue in which case I try to steer them the right direction a bit.
Otherwise, If railroading occurs, as a player, I make sure to ask why I have to or why I can't do something to make sure there's a reason. If there isn't one, I try to rally my fellow players to my cause and kinda just try see if we can defeat the railroading together.

[Pex]

I've learned that no matter what I say I cannot get the DM to let go of the choo-choo, so instead I consider the game as a whole. If I'm still having fun more than whatever gripe(s) I have, I keep playing. That's the case with one of my 5E games. It's more a case of we have little choice in what our current goal is, but the players can accomplish it how we choose and it's not always aggressive negotiations.

[Ninja-Radish]

I'm not sure these examples count as railroading, they sound more like GMs trolling their players on purpose.

Railroading is when a GM puts so much work into a story that he or she can't bear for the PCs to change it in any way, so he or she forces the PCs to follow along with the established plot. That doesn't apply here, those GMs were just being jerks.

[John Longarrow]

Railroading and DM trolling are both out of character issues. They need to be addressed out of character. The best way to deal with them is to see what the other player's think and then talk to the DM.

If most of the players are happy with a railroad then you can enjoy the ride or get off at the next station. Some players prefer a fixed plot that they are playing through.

As to the DM trolling, talk to the other players and see if this is normal behavior. In the case of the shadowrun game, it could be that some players like this type of environment. For myself, I'd have bailed. If all players don't like something the DM is doing, talk to the DM about it. Also be prepared to step up and run a game if your DM won't change.

[oxybe]

"Dude, the railroading isn't cool. I'd like more freedom."

If he continues, I leave.

~Fin.

[icefractal]

First example - sounds pretty ****ty, I would have left too. It's not wrong per-se to have a campaign premise where the characters are part of an organization and stick with it as opposed to free agents, but from the description the whole thing was a petty power trip.

Second example - not railroading. Railroading would have been if you tried to shatter the orb and it just failed by fiat, then so did your attempt to plane shift away. This seemed like a fairly reasonable response, assuming the 500 years was in a "You are personally hanging out with your deity! No point in returning, this is way better" way, rather than a "Deity inexplicable decides to be a **** and lock you up" way.

But really, how would you expect the characters to keep adventuring together after something like that happened? Clearly, they're not going to trust that PC or vice-versa, so it makes sense to bring in a new character instead. If you mean that they should have been the ones making new characters - "camera" focus in a game usually goes by the majority of PCs, not by who was more 'right'.

[Templarkommando]

Those situations both sound really bad. I'd at least try to talk it out with my GM in those cases.
.
Railroading isn't always freeing or fun for players, but it can really take a load off of a GM if things go more or less according to plan some times. I think there is a little bit of realistic railroading in some games, but that's not really talking about the situations that you were in here. I think if I were in the situation you mentioned for #1, I would try to subvert the corp. If I ever come in contact with someone from a competing corp, I would palm a note to them that outlined what's going on, and let them in on all of my corp's biggest secrets. Even if I die, it's tough luck for the corp that I worked for.

[GungHo]

The first one seems cut and dry. I don't think that person should be a GM. I hope he doesn't manage people IRL, because it seems like behavior that translates outside of the game room.

The second one is a little more nuanced. Both you and the elf wizard pulled antisocial moves to "roleplay" and forgot that you're in an improvisational game that requires partnership rather than gamesmanship. Unfortunately, your move was more polarizing, so you got the short straw. In your GMs place, I'd have had the deity be unhappy about the creation of a sphere of annihilation, because one of my "employees" created a sphere of annihilation on the prime material and then came to my office to tell me how good he was. 500 years of "Hail Marys" sounds about right.

[Stealth Marmot]

#1. This is the sort of actions that you should not only leave the game but advise against anyone ever playing in his game.

#2 Everything was fine up until the DM decided your character was wiped from the campaign for his decisions. Then again, the DM could say that the 500 years is a reward at the deity's side.

You did pretty much EXACTLY what your deity mandated, how could you POSSIBLY be considered a jerk for doing so? As a cleric, it is literally your purpose to do what your deity commands.

[Narmoth]

I'm not sure these examples count as railroading, they sound more like GMs trolling their players on purpose.

Railroading is when a GM puts so much work into a story that he or she can't bear for the PCs to change it in any way, so he or she forces the PCs to follow along with the established plot. That doesn't apply here, those GMs were just being jerks.

I have to agree on that one.

[Knaight]

On #1: That has a lot of signs of being all sorts of dubious as a game, so bailing makes a lot of sense there. As for #2, it looks more like you ran into a PvP rule; I'm not seeing railroading there at all. The character didn't work with the group, phasing them out somehow made sense.

[hifidelity2]

The 1st one does sound more DM jerkery rather than railroad

The 2nd one could have been handled better but I don’t think its railroad – after all
I assume it was the DM that was your god telling you to destroy it
He let you destroyed it

What he should have done as when you got to your gods plane is give you an option – stay with “him” as a reward (surely any believer would want that) or leave. As a DM I would have had the god a bit annoyed if you had chosen to leave as “he” is not used to believers turning him down. This would have given me some more plot hooks (How do you get back in the divine ones favour)

[Quertus]

#1. This is the sort of actions that you should not only leave the game but advise against anyone ever playing in his game.

#2 Everything was fine up until the DM decided your character was wiped from the campaign for his decisions. Then again, the DM could say that the 500 years is a reward at the deity's side.

You did pretty much EXACTLY what your deity mandated, how could you POSSIBLY be considered a jerk for doing so? As a cleric, it is literally your purpose to do what your deity commands.

The 1st one does sound more DM jerkery rather than railroad

The 2nd one could have been handled better but I don’t think its railroad – after all
I assume it was the DM that was your god telling you to destroy it
He let you destroyed it

What he should have done as when you got to your gods plane is give you an option – stay with “him” as a reward (surely any believer would want that) or leave. As a DM I would have had the god a bit annoyed if you had chosen to leave as “he” is not used to believers turning him down. This would have given me some more plot hooks (How do you get back in the divine ones favour)

I agree that #1 sounds terrible, and normally I'd walk... But... Isn't that setup almost appropriate to the themes of shadow run? And, if such a setup is appropriate for the cyberpunk genre, what's wrong with the GM making it more fun and personal by using his own characters?

For #2... Having played characters who ascended to godhood, who were then worshipped by other PC clerics, I don't want to just assume it was the DM who told you to destroy the artifacts. However, if it was, there are several possibilities. Off the top of my head: the DM was a jerk, and wanted to put you in a catch 22 of "betray deity" or "betray party"; the DM was really awesome, and wanted to put you in a catch 22 of "betray deity" or "betray party"; the DM was stupid, and didn't realize he was putting you in a catch 22 of "betray deity" or "betray party"; or, the DM assumed you would obviously side with the party, and railroaded your departure when you jumped the rails.

[SirBellias]

I handle railroading by talking to the DM afterwards. Usually it is due to inexperience or not realizing they are detracting from other people's fun. They change how they run the game a tad, and we're golden.

I haven't had to walk from a game yet, and don't see myself doing so in the near future.

[JNAProductions]

I've heard this story about a DM deciding that a wizard character needed to be killed, so he fiated an assassin with an uber-powerful artifact to kill him. :P

As for your examples...

1) That DM just sounds not fun. That's not even railroading-that's asshattery. Good thing you bailed.

2) I'd talk to that DM in that situation. Because, the thing is, he's sending mixed signals. On the one hand, he had your deity tell you "Destroy these artifacts". But, when you do that, you get punished, seemingly. That's just inconsistent. But it doesn't scream "BAD DM!", it screams inexperience.

[icefractal]

2) I'd talk to that DM in that situation. Because, the thing is, he's sending mixed signals. On the one hand, he had your deity tell you "Destroy these artifacts". But, when you do that, you get punished, seemingly. That's just inconsistent. But it doesn't scream "BAD DM!", it screams inexperience.

Was it really a punishment though? I think it comes down to how it was presented IC, but I think even if the Cleric had immediately been sent back to the material plane with a golden trophy, that PC would be out of the game, as they're no longer allied with the rest of the party.

I think that PCs having mutually exclusive goals is fine, but it is a form of PvP, and as with combat PvP you have to be prepared for PCs leaving the party as a result. Heck, in D&D, a decision about artifacts is a lot more permanent than death would be!

[JNAProductions]

Was it really a punishment though? I think it comes down to how it was presented IC, but I think even if the Cleric had immediately been sent back to the material plane with a golden trophy, that PC would be out of the game, as they're no longer allied with the rest of the party.

I think that PCs having mutually exclusive goals is fine, but it is a form of PvP, and as with combat PvP you have to be prepared for PCs leaving the party as a result. Heck, in D&D, a decision about artifacts is a lot more permanent than death would be!

It's a punishment to the PLAYER, not the CHARACTER.

Overall, I really do think it was just the DM lacking experience. They set up the game in such a way where PCs were gonna end up opposed without factoring in consequences for that.

[Mordaedil]

First example was fine, I think you did right in leaving.

Second example is a bit of a tickler. I'm not sure what your DM expected you to do when he gave you that information. You just basically acted on the information he gave you and he decided that was a game over instead of planning it better. Seems to me like he should have worded the deity response differently.

[bulbaquil]

I stay on the rails, of course.

[vasilidor]

If its a ride i can enjoy, I might stay on the rails. If it is something that looks annoying or some such, I see how fast and how hard I can derail it.

[daniel_ream]

Example one sounds like an immature GM. Solution: don't play with immature GMs.

Example two is a little harder to evaluate. If your GM sets you up with an obvious PvP situation like that and the rest of the players are not onboard with the plot line changing to "party vs. their former comrade", then things should have halted right there while everyone asked the GM what he was playing at. Just because he dangles the bait doesn't mean you have to take it.