Venting about Metagaming and Railroading

[prabe]

This is why Word of Recall is a great tool for when you want the BBEG to escape. It lets him bail out of a fight that happens outside of his temple/shrine/etc., but it won't let him escape for a second time when the PCs chase him there.

World of Recall has many advantages, to be sure. It's limited, and it's in the book so it's plausibly available to the PCs (unlike a custom Magic McGuffin). OTOH, if your idea for the BBEG isn't a cleric, you need to look at other possibilities.

[EggKookoo]

Far better to instead think of new ways to advance the plot even when the NPC is unexpectedly killed. Adapt your plot before you run the game by fiat

So looking at it in the abstract and (hopefully) bypassing any emotional issues with an unkillable NPC. As a DM, you have a plot of some sort in mind. How do you keep your players on-plot without violating their agency? An age-old question to be sure.

A more common example might be that you set up your scenario so that one particular NPC has the bit of info the PCs need in order to proceed. The players manage to routinely avoid interacting with that PC. Behind the scenes, as the DM, do you switch things around so another NPC has that bit of info? Is that violating player agency because, looking back on it, they were ultimately forced to encounter that information? Or, as long as you never tell the players you made the switch and they have no reason to think you did, is their agency intact because they believe it to be intact?

Same issue if your players steer you off course entirely, so you "recycle" the content they avoided into the content they encountered. I had a great haunted dungeon set up in the south. The players head north, completely oblivious to the existence of the dungeon. I move the dungeon to the north. Railroad?

[JNAProductions]

So looking at it in the abstract and (hopefully) bypassing any emotional issues with an unkillable NPC. As a DM, you have a plot of some sort in mind. How do you keep your players on-plot without violating their agency? An age-old question to be sure.

A more common example might be that you set up your scenario so that one particular NPC has the bit of info the PCs need in order to proceed. The players manage to routinely avoid interacting with that PC. Behind the scenes, as the DM, do you switch things around so another NPC has that bit of info? Is that violating player agency because, looking back on it, they were ultimately forced to encounter that information? Or, as long as you never tell the players you made the switch and they have no reason to think you did, is their agency intact because they believe it to be intact?

Same issue if your players steer you off course entirely, so you "recycle" the content they avoided into the content they encountered. I had a great haunted dungeon set up in the south. The players head north, completely oblivious to the existence of the dungeon. I move the dungeon to the north. Railroad?

It depends. Giving PCs info I would not consider railroading, assuming they are free to act on it or not as they please.

For the second example, it depends WHY they went north. If they knew the dragon was south, then encountering the dragon is railroading. If they knew that the dwarves at war are north, then the dragon is also railroading. But if they just randomly went north because north is cool, with no expectations of what to encounter, then I would not consider it railroading, just good allocation of resources.

[NigelWalmsley]

A more common example might be that you set up your scenario so that one particular NPC has the bit of info the PCs need in order to proceed. The players manage to routinely avoid interacting with that PC. Behind the scenes, as the DM, do you switch things around so another NPC has that bit of info?

I think that's a different problem. If there's something the PCs need to do to advance the plot, and they keep not doing it, that suggests to me that the players either don't understand what they need to do, or don't care about whatever you think the plot is. In either case, I think that reflects a deeper problem with what you've been doing as a DM. Why aren't the players looking for the information the NPC has? Even if they're avoiding him, there must be some other way to find out what they need. Sticking something else in their path is a stopgap at best.

Same issue if your players steer you off course entirely, so you "recycle" the content they avoided into the content they encountered. I had a great haunted dungeon set up in the south. The players head north, completely oblivious to the existence of the dungeon. I move the dungeon to the north. Railroad?

It depends why they headed north. If they headed north because they heard there was political intrigue up north, and you hit them with the haunted dungeon instead, that's railroading (or at least some sort of bad DMing, I'm not overtly concerned with precise terminology here). If they headed north because they have friends up north, or because they like the snow, or because they flipped a coin, the haunted dungeon probably isn't a problem. At its core, railroading is about not making a good faith effort to respect the player's decisions. If they avoid a plot thread, bludgeoning them over the head with it won't help.

[Jay R]

Feels like this convo is headed towards JNAProduction's DM Guidelines (I'll be paraphrasing)

"It must be acceptable for the players to mess up your plot as long as they aren't messing up the game."

This, for me, best sums up the balance of how far player and DM agency goes. Important NPCs are always an element of plot, not the game. DMs tread close to invalidating their agency and even derailing the game experience when they overrule the game mechanics to protect an important NPC.

Far better to instead think of new ways to advance the plot even when the NPC is unexpectedly killed. Adapt your plot before you run the game by fiat

That's not JNAProduction. You're quoting from my Rules for DMs.

"14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game."

If anybody is interested, you can find the full set here.

[Pleh]

That's not JNAProduction. You're quoting from my Rules for DMs.

"14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game."

If anybody is interested, you can find the full set here.

Oh, man. I'm so sorry about that. That's what I get for posting on my work break when I don't have time to do my research. I get my J's confused. Many apologies.

[Jay R]

Oh, man. I'm so sorry about that. That's what I get for posting on my work break when I don't have time to do my research. I get my J's confused. Many apologies.

No problem. I'm glad my rules have made a good impression. If I'm a good enough writer, then what you will remember most are my ideas, not my name.

[Galithar]

No problem. I'm glad my rules have made a good impression. If I'm a good enough writer, then what you will remember most are my ideas, not my name.

Word. That's a fantastic list by the way! I first read it a while ago and it's definitely been a positive impact on my DMing experience.

[kyoryu]

How do you think a stage magician works?

Well, that's the meat of it, right? Here's a little word for you - consent.

When I go to see a stage musician, I know he's going to deceive me and trick me. That's what I'm signing up for! I know it's not "real" magic, and I want to see how he can cleverly deceive me. And since real magic doesn't exist, I interpret all statements to the contrary as puffery.

When I sign up for a game? That may or may not be the case.

Since games without railroading can and do exist, then I should be able to trust that if you saying you're running a game without railroading that you will in fact do so. (And I would argue that, implicitly, offering me choices in a game implies that they are meaningful choices).

If you tell me up front that you're running Adventure Path X, and we're gonna have to stay on it, then I can accept that and choose to join it or not.

It's that simple. If a game is good, and some railroading is okay, then the GM should be able to be open about that. I mean, I'm horrendously anti-railroading and I'm in an Adventure Path-based game right now becuase I want to play with the people involved.

To use an analogy, if you offer me Dragon's Blood as a drink, I know there are no dragons. So if you bring me a mixture of juices and stuff I won't be upset.

But, if you offer me apple juice and give me orange juice instead, I will not be happy. Especially if you insist that it's still really really apple juice.

[EggKookoo]

But, if you offer me apple juice and give me orange juice instead, I will not be happy. Especially if you insist that it's still really really apple juice.

So my original point was that it's not the fudging that's the crime. It's letting the players become aware that you fudged. What if you couldn't tell it wasn't really apple juice?

[JNAProductions]

Not being caught doesn’t mean it’s fine.

[EggKookoo]

Not being caught doesn’t mean it’s fine.

It's 100% absolutely fine with me (as a player). If you're my DM, cheat the hell out of things. Just don't let me know you're doing it.

[JNAProductions]

It's 100% absolutely fine with me (as a player). If you're my DM, cheat the hell out of things. Just don't let me know you're doing it.

But, at the same time, you should be able to recognize that not everyone feels the same.

[EggKookoo]

But, at the same time, you should be able to recognize that not everyone feels the same.

Of course I do. But very few players have a zero-tolerance policy for any form of DM fudging whatsoever. And having an unkillable NPC is fundamentally no different than, say, having a gazer specifically target one PC with a particular eye beam (the gazer stat block says it's random). It's just a difference in severity. Most players wouldn't get too upset about the gazer thing, probably because most wouldn't even realize the DM "cheated" by deliberately selecting. The unkillable NPC raises flags because it's so obvious what's going on.

Switching analogies for a minute. Most people don't mind watching a movie and getting excited or worried for the hero, or loathing the villain, or being scared by the monster. You're being completely, utterly manipulated into feeling that through unmitigated contrivance by the writer (and actors, etc.). You only mind when the manipulation is clumsy enough for you to notice it. I think that's why people of similar aptitude and intelligence can have such differing opinions about the same story. One happened to notice the contrivances while the other didn't. I don't know about you, but the more I've learned about how storytelling works, the less I like stories. I mean the actual stories I read or watch or whatever, not stories as a concept. That's because I've become more aware of the various tricks writers use to manipulate. It's rare that a movie or show or book really surprises. Maybe I'm just getting old. Pretty soon I'll start rambling pointlessly...

[MrSandman]

Leaving the ethical aspects out of it, the problem with fudging, hidden railroading and such is that often the players notice a lot more than the game master gives them credit for. They just, for some reason, accept it without saying a thing.

[kyoryu]

Not being caught doesn’t mean it’s fine.

Yeah. Breaking agreements isn't okay "if you don't get caught".

It's 100% absolutely fine with me (as a player). If you're my DM, cheat the hell out of things. Just don't let me know you're doing it.

My preference is that if the GM is going to do that, they tell me. Doesn't mean they have to say on each occasion it happens, just "yeah, I will do this as part of the game on occasion."

I see literally no downside to this.

Leaving the ethical aspects out of it, the problem with fudging, hidden railroading and such is that often the players notice a lot more than the game master gives them credit for. They just, for some reason, accept it without saying a thing.

100%. There's a semi-dysfunctional game style where the GM pretends they're not railroading, and the players pretend not to notice while they're fully aware of what's going on.

I've literally had people in games tell me "come on, let's just start the fight, it's obvious that's what the GM has prepped".

[Jay R]

But, at the same time, you should be able to recognize that not everyone feels the same.

Yes. And some people don't want games with elves. Some people don't want to travel to other planes, or to go dungeon diving. I had one player who really didn't want to face giant spiders. There was a time when I only wanted to face traditional European monsters, not made-up D&D creatures like owlbears and beholders. People have lots of different preferences, and that's fine.

If people don't want a game with elves, or spiders, or whatever, that's fine. They just need to realize that these elements are in the actual rules of the game, and therefore the default assumption is that they will (or at least might) exist. If you don't want to play a game with elves (dungeons, planes, spiders, etc.), then it is your responsibility to tell the DM you want him or her to leave out certain parts of the game.

The DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

And if the DM's scenario requires them, then maybe that isn't the game for you. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

My preference is that if the GM is going to do that, they tell me.

The DM's power to overrule the rulebooks is written in the rulebooks, in every version of D&D I've played. It is therefore the default assumption. If you want the DM to leave out this part of the rules, then it is your responsibility to bring it up to the DM. It isn't the DM's responsibility to say, "Oh, by the way, I'm warning you that I play all by the rules."

Again, the DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

[Tvtyrant]

Leaving the ethical aspects out of it, the problem with fudging, hidden railroading and such is that often the players notice a lot more than the game master gives them credit for. They just, for some reason, accept it without saying a thing.

Because RPGs are built around a series of contradictory and absurd conceits that only function with direct rule intervention?

Why does the Demon Arshablabble only appear to destroy the world by eating the sun when the party either is high enough level to beat it or find a way around it? Why are monsters still in existence if herds of archers one shot them and they are supposed to be rare? How is it that the party meets each other when they are all at the same level, and are conveniently only racist enough for comedic purposes and not actual night murders? How come scry and die is okay for the party to use and not enemies? Or Disjunction? How come in a world with so many monsters that have mind control you almost never hear "And then it sat nearby using Greater Invisibility and took control of you all permanently, the end?"

People let it go because the game needs it to function, its why there is a Dungeon Master at all.

[NigelWalmsley]

Again, the DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

But he can ask. And a good DM does. And it's not like these things are subtle. "I don't like it when you make my choices meaningless by fudging results you don't like" is not some super weird thing that no DM could possibly anticipate. It's kind of fundamental to the whole notion of a game where players make choices that advance the story. If you can't figure out that people who signed up for that don't like it when their choices instead don't advance the story, that's a you problem to some non-trivial degree.

Why does the Demon Arshablabble only appear to destroy the world by eating the sun when the party either is high enough level to beat it or find a way around it?

Because the other times someone else dealt with it? This is like asking "why did JFK only have to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis when he was president, and not when he was a student at Harvard". Not every single thing that happens in the world happens to the players.

Why are monsters still in existence if herds of archers one shot them and they are supposed to be rare?

Because herds of archers don't one-shot high level monsters? In 3e, Dragons have high AC and DR/magic greater than the amount of damage a bow does. Throw all the archers you want at them, it won't kill them. Now, sure, there are games where the numbers don't work out like that. I would submit that the designers of those games have failed, and we should instead play games where the rules and the world are not in tension, because that makes the game better.

How is it that the party meets each other when they are all at the same level, and are conveniently only racist enough for comedic purposes and not actual night murders?

I'll grant you that the level thing is implausible, but it's a fairly small sacrifice in the grand scheme (and even that can be explained if you really cared to). The reason the characters aren't super racist is that the players aren't super racist. Fantasy settings make moral assumptions closer to the real world than the parts of history they nominally ape because they are being written by people who find the actual values of those times uncomfortable, incomprehensible, or both.

How come scry and die is okay for the party to use and not enemies?

It's not? People hate scry and die no matter who's doing it, and you could fairly easily prevent it by changing the rules. This is not a fundamental problem with the genre, it's just a thing the designers put in there that (most) people don't like. You could get rid of it if you wanted to by just ... writing rules that prevent it.

Or Disjunction?

Similar to scry and die, Disjunction is a problem because of more fundamental rules problems. Specifically, problems with the magic items rules. If those rules were better, enemies using Disjunction would be fine. And here, there's even an in-world justification. Hitting your enemies with Disjunction destroys magic items you'd otherwise get after killing them, meaning that people will avoid doing it unless there's no other path to victory.

How come in a world with so many monsters that have mind control you almost never hear "And then it sat nearby using Greater Invisibility and took control of you all permanently, the end?"

Because there are defenses against mind control? Also, that does sometimes happen. "Mind control monster took over the government" is one of the more iconic D&D plots. And, as with any adventure, there is some risk that the players could get TPKed during that adventure.

It's actually not that hard to make a TTRPG where the mechanics of the game have good in-world explanations. Earthdawn did it when Clinton was president. It's certainly not the only virtue a system can have, but if you think it's impossible to explain why there are monsters or heroes or dungeons or adventures without having to directly appeal to "that's how it has to be for the game to work", that's a sign of the limits of your horizons, not any fundamental constraint of the medium.

[MrSandman]

Snip

First of all, everything you said is highly dependent on the game you're playing. There are plenty of games out there that don't run into this sort of issue.

Second, that's okay. As long as you don't pretend that only a bad GM would let their players realise that's what's going on, I have no problem with anything you've said.

[kyoryu]

The DM's power to overrule the rulebooks is written in the rulebooks, in every version of D&D I've played. It is therefore the default assumption. If you want the DM to leave out this part of the rules, then it is your responsibility to bring it up to the DM. It isn't the DM's responsibility to say, "Oh, by the way, I'm warning you that I play all by the rules."

Again, the DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

Modifying the rules is not the same as railroading. Modifying the rules can be used to railroad, but they're not inherently the same thing. You can also railroad without modifying the rules.

[EggKookoo]

Ok, so I've been watching Critical Role lately. I know people have various opinions about it but I find it entertaining. Anyway, in the most recent episode (campaign 2, episode 13) Mercer pulls something.

Spoiler: Just in case anyone's watching...

Show

During an escape through the sewers, the Nein come across a drow carrying an object of obvious power. Mercer has the drow attack fairly aggressively, but the party prevails and manages to subdue him. Caleb casts identify on the object (a softly glowing orb) but it's largely beyond his comprehension. While the drow is subdued, Mercer gives Liam an opportunity to re-examine the orb and implies he could maybe learn something if he pushed himself, but Liam declines. It's pretty clear Mercer's future plans hinge on the party obtaining the orb possibly using it in some way.

The Nein actually negotiate with the drow due to some nice rolls, and even let him go, taking the orb with him. A few moments later, the crownsguard intercept and kill the drow, and the party was basically ushered out into the street where they see the guards heading off with it. The Nein decide they want the orb now (flabbergasting Beau who didn't know why they didn't just take it when they had it) and go through another series of solid rolls to use illusions and persuasion to get it away from the crownsguard.

My impression during watching it was that Mercer really wanted them to take the orb, and would have likely kept putting it into their path until they did. I wouldn't be surprised that had they kept avoiding it, Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on how that kind of thing affects player agency.

[huttj509]

Ok, so I've been watching Critical Role lately. I know people have various opinions about it but I find it entertaining. Anyway, in the most recent episode (campaign 2, episode 13) Mercer pulls something.

Spoiler: Just in case anyone's watching...

Show

During an escape through the sewers, the Nein come across a drow carrying an object of obvious power. Mercer has the drow attack fairly aggressively, but the party prevails and manages to subdue him. Caleb casts identify on the object (a softly glowing orb) but it's largely beyond his comprehension. While the drow is subdued, Mercer gives Liam an opportunity to re-examine the orb and implies he could maybe learn something if he pushed himself, but Liam declines. It's pretty clear Mercer's future plans hinge on the party obtaining the orb possibly using it in some way.

The Nein actually negotiate with the drow due to some nice rolls, and even let him go, taking the orb with him. A few moments later, the crownsguard intercept and kill the drow, and the party was basically ushered out into the street where they see the guards heading off with it. The Nein decide they want the orb now (flabbergasting Beau who didn't know why they didn't just take it when they had it) and go through another series of solid rolls to use illusions and persuasion to get it away from the crownsguard.

My impression during watching it was that Mercer really wanted them to take the orb, and would have likely kept putting it into their path until they did. I wouldn't be surprised that had they kept avoiding it, Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on how that kind of thing affects player agency.

Spoiler: Critical role discussion

Show

I don't see your conclusion that reasonable. They generally ignored the orb as fluff, then Mercer followed up by highlighting "someone thinks this orb is important." At this point the group decides "hey, someone else thinks it's important, we should too."

That's different from "Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it."

If the conclusion you went to was instead "some old archivist approaches the party to tell them about the Orb of Plot Relevance that has come into possession of the Crownsguard, and how it should not remain in their hands," that's something I could see happening.

[EggKookoo]

Spoiler: Critical role discussion

Show

I don't see your conclusion that reasonable. They generally ignored the orb as fluff, then Mercer followed up by highlighting "someone thinks this orb is important." At this point the group decides "hey, someone else thinks it's important, we should too."

That's different from "Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it."

If the conclusion you went to was instead "some old archivist approaches the party to tell them about the Orb of Plot Relevance that has come into possession of the Crownsguard, and how it should not remain in their hands," that's something I could see happening.

Spoiler: More CR

Show

I'm more talking about the approach a DM might take to keep putting a McGuffin in front of the party until they eventually give in and bite. A kind of soft railroading, some might say.

Not really very different from my earlier example of moving the haunted castle. In theory the party might have more say if it's a specific object that keeps getting dangled but if it keeps getting dangled until they take it, how different is it really?

[NigelWalmsley]

Not really very different from my earlier example of moving the haunted castle. In theory the party might have more say if it's a specific object that keeps getting dangled but if it keeps getting dangled until they take it, how different is it really?

Well, the campaign ends at some point. If you can get to that point without ever doing the haunted castle adventure, I don't think you were railroaded. I might consider it a little lazy of the DM to keep recycling a plot hook if the PCs aren't interested, but as long as the players always have a real choice about what to do, I don't think it's railroading to have the same choice show up repeatedly. Depending on the specifics, it may even be a good thing -- if there's no reason for a plot hook to expire, it should still be there if the party comes back in a month or a year.

[Mordaedil]

Ok, so I've been watching Critical Role lately. I know people have various opinions about it but I find it entertaining. Anyway, in the most recent episode (campaign 2, episode 13) Mercer pulls something.

Spoiler: Just in case anyone's watching...

Show

During an escape through the sewers, the Nein come across a drow carrying an object of obvious power. Mercer has the drow attack fairly aggressively, but the party prevails and manages to subdue him. Caleb casts identify on the object (a softly glowing orb) but it's largely beyond his comprehension. While the drow is subdued, Mercer gives Liam an opportunity to re-examine the orb and implies he could maybe learn something if he pushed himself, but Liam declines. It's pretty clear Mercer's future plans hinge on the party obtaining the orb possibly using it in some way.

The Nein actually negotiate with the drow due to some nice rolls, and even let him go, taking the orb with him. A few moments later, the crownsguard intercept and kill the drow, and the party was basically ushered out into the street where they see the guards heading off with it. The Nein decide they want the orb now (flabbergasting Beau who didn't know why they didn't just take it when they had it) and go through another series of solid rolls to use illusions and persuasion to get it away from the crownsguard.

My impression during watching it was that Mercer really wanted them to take the orb, and would have likely kept putting it into their path until they did. I wouldn't be surprised that had they kept avoiding it, Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on how that kind of thing affects player agency.

Spoiler: Further on CR

Show

I watched an interview Matt gave regarding that, he wanted to give them a few opportunities to get the object, but he admitted he was a bit perplexed that they let the thing go in the first place. But he was ready to just kinda rewrite what he had planned if they decided not get it. Showing the crownsguard grab the orb and walk off with it was intended in his mind as a cut-scene telling the players they had lost it, but he allowed them to basically double back on that part since it allowed him to go through with his plans as originally intended.

There's a bit of a difference between railroading the players somewhere and dropping heavy hints at a preferred route, imo. Allow the players to make their own decisions, but like Matt, leave it open to be grabbed again.

I don't think Matt would have gone as far as make it appear with Caleb or hover outside of his window given what it ends up being, but he certainly would have given them plenty of opportunities to find it again on their journeys, but that'd be stuff as of yet unwritten.

[Pleh]

Not really very different from my earlier example of moving the haunted castle. In theory the party might have more say if it's a specific object that keeps getting dangled but if it keeps getting dangled until they take it, how different is it really?

Fairly different, actually. Going back to the original metaphor of a Railroad, the idea that the original plot hook just hangs around in easy reach until you're ready to pick it up doesn't much feel like you're trapped on rails. It may seem contrived and the players may feel compelled by honor to humor the DM, but that doesn't make it a railroad.

You're in the neighborhood of the railroad vs quantum ogre question, which is an interesting discussion, but one we've already gone into rather large depths about.

[kyoryu]

I'd also like to point out that railroading isn't bad. It's not bad to have a prewritten plot that the players are expected to follow.

It might not be how some people prefer to play, but that's okay, too. Some people juggle geese.

The only issue I have is when a GM does have a prewritten plot, and does expect players to engage in it, but claims that that is not the case.

The interesting thing about these conversations is that not only do they miss that bit, but they also seem to often hyper-focus on the individual action, while ignoring the context. Reusing encounters is fine, and not railroading. It can be overly lazy if done too much, but whatever. Putting a specific encounter wherever the player goes so that they can get the vital next thing to push them along your plot is railroading. And that's okay, or not, depending on the group.

[Friv]

I'd also like to point out that railroading isn't bad. It's not bad to have a prewritten plot that the players are expected to follow.

It might not be how some people prefer to play, but that's okay, too. Some people juggle geese.

The only issue I have is when a GM does have a prewritten plot, and does expect players to engage in it, but claims that that is not the case.

The interesting thing about these conversations is that not only do they miss that bit, but they also seem to often hyper-focus on the individual action, while ignoring the context. Reusing encounters is fine, and not railroading. It can be overly lazy if done too much, but whatever. Putting a specific encounter wherever the player goes so that they can get the vital next thing to push them along your plot is railroading. And that's okay, or not, depending on the group.

Yep, all of this.

With regards to the CR-specific example, I would expect mild railroading in Critical Role, because Critical Role isn't just a roleplaying game. It's a show. It needs to be fun for the players, and it also needs to be entertaining for the audience. All of the players are aware of this, and are taking actions based on both their own desire to have fun and their desire to create a compelling narrative and interesting show for outside viewers.

This is true of most AP podcasts, twitch streams, and the like. The GM is going to be designing a storyline that will be interesting, the players are going to be making choices based on that outside information. That necessarily is likely to involve a bit more planning and creating of railroads, because you aren't going to want to spend an hour messing around with a minor NPC tangent that is only funny to you and your closest friends, or setting up a complicated shopping plan to save 5 GP, or whatever. A lot of things that are fun to do aren't fun to watch, and Critical Role needs to be both.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'd also like to point out that railroading isn't bad. It's not bad to have a prewritten plot that the players are expected to follow.

This is just playing an unhelpful semantic game. When people complain about railroading, they're not saying "it's always bad for any game to ever have a pre-determined plot". They're complaining about the DM forcing players down a pre-determined plot when the players expect to be given meaningful choices. If you want to run people through Red Hand of Doom, Rise of the Runelords, Dawn of the Artifacts, or some pre-defined adventure of your own design, and you get your group to agree to it, more power to you. But that is not what anyone is talking about when they complain about railroading.