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...

[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.