Choo-Choo yes? Is railroading REALLY that bad?

[Spo]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

[Witty Username]

It is definitely a playgroup thing. The primary complaint is player agency, some people prefer to choose the adventure, others prefer to choose their actions in the adventure. But as long as you are aware of what kind of choices the group wants to make, and they have the amount of agency they want you are doing it right.

I don't mind rails as much when I am playing, but prefer to run my games sandboxy. with NPC directions if the party locks up.

[animorte]

This is one thing that PCs having a backstory really helps out with. This is made much easier since most characters tend to have a tragic history.

I bring in some events and NPCs that they care about. A lot of times I don't mind riding the tracks as long as there's a lot to do on the train. Overall I think railroads are designed more for newer players, obviously with some assistance from a trusted NPC or two. It can sometimes take a long while for players to come online and take initiative.

[Catullus64]

Railroading is not the same thing as a linear adventure. An adventure can have a clear A to B structure from which the players are discouraged from deviating, while still presenting them with meaningful choices and fun, engaging challenges. I tend to use the term 'railroading' more narrowly to mean when a DM overrules and pushes against player choices to make the story and gameplay conform to his pre-selected outcomes. People instead tend to use the term to refer to any time the DM tries to impose structure or pacing constraints on the game.

[False God]

Depends on how good the story is.

If the story is engaging, you'll barely notice the rails. You'll WANT to ride the train.

But it's very dependent on the quality story.

It's the same issue AAA gaming suffers from. An open world offers far more content, but most of it is shallow and over quickly. It makes the story seem longer because you get distracted from it every 10 paces. But often in open-world games the core story is also short and shallow.

[animorte]

Railroading is not the same thing as a linear adventure. An adventure can have a clear A to B structure from which the players are discouraged from deviating, while still presenting them with meaningful choices and fun, engaging challenges. I tend to use the term 'railroading' more narrowly to mean when a DM overrules and pushes against player choices to make the story and gameplay conform to his pre-selected outcomes. People instead tend to use the term to refer to any time the DM tries to impose structure or pacing constraints on the game.

That's a very good point actually. I really haven't played with that environment enough to have thought of it from personal experience. Lucky me, I guess.

It's the same issue AAA gaming suffers from. An open world offers far more content, but most of it is shallow and over quickly. It makes the story seem longer because you get distracted from it every 10 paces. But often in open-world games the core story is also short and shallow.

Yeah, I figured that out a long time ago. I had too much fun on my forever playthrough the first go (and this is with many games). I decided to run the straight story and not get distracted on the second playthrough just to rapidly find myself debating how to approach the third take, if at all.

[Sigreid]

It depends on your party really. I chafe under railroading because I don't like feeling like there's no choices to be made in my escapism. But then I'll set goals for my character talk with the DM and other players about what they are and start taking action based on what goals I and my party have, adjusting how I approach my goals based on feedback from the DM/world. I do this without straight refusing to go on an adventure though. Part of pursuing my goals is keeping allies tight enough that they'll bleed with me when needed. Part of that is also helping them with what they want.

Other people don't have a clue what they should do without a script. They'll be quite happy to be railroaded. Heck, sometimes when I DM I'll tell the group I have a particular adventure I want to run and ask them to kindly get on the train. As long as it isn't all the time, I'll get on the train myself from time to time. I just don't feel like I'm not the master of my own destiny.

[DarknessEternal]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

[Greywander]

I think this is a false dichotomy, the result of misunderstanding what's actually going on. It's this misunderstanding that leads to DMs railroading their players and thinking they're doing a good thing.

What's really going on is that the DM needs to provide direction to the players. "You wake up in an open field. There are no trees or animals or any landmarks nearby. You can see for miles around you, just more empty, open field. What do you do?" What can they do in such a scenario? There's nothing to engage with. That's the real problem.

I always found Terraria to be more engaging than Minecraft, for the simple reason that Terraria does provide clear goals that Minecraft mostly lacks. Minecraft promises the freedom to do anything, but after building a house and finding diamonds, you find that there isn't really anything left to do. Terraria, on the other hand, has a clear progression for both bosses and equipment, so you're always searching for the things you need to defeat the next boss, and there are quite a few bosses. Terraria doesn't force you to acquire equipment or fight bosses in a particular order, though; you can often skip entire equipment tiers, and only a few bosses are actually mandatory to beat the game.

So the DM needs to provide the players with direction so that they have something to engage with. That's not the same as railroading. Railroading is you force the players to follow a preset story path. Some players are less bothered by railroading, as it does provide direction, but you don't need to railroad. If the players decide to strike off on their own to achieve some goal they set for themselves (PC backstories can be a good source for this), or if they fixate on a minor detail you didn't intend to be important, you can choose to change your focus and provide them with new direction for these new goals. But if you're railroading, then you would instead try to redirect the players away from those goals and back toward your railroad.

Basically, the "railroad" is only needed when the players aren't engaged and don't know what to do. If the players are "derailing" the "railroad", it's no longer needed, and continuing to enforce it creates an actual railroad. Build a new railroad that aligns with what the players want to do, and give them direction to keep them focused on their goals. The players, not the DM, are the protagonists, and as such they are primary determiners of where the story goes. The DM's role is mostly one of facilitation, providing interesting content for the players to engage with and fulfill the adventure that they seek. The players aren't there to play the DM's adventure, the DM is there to facilitate the player's adventure. Now, the DM is a player, too, so they participate in the adventure through NPCs, including important ones like the BBEG, but the PCs are the primary drivers of the story.

[Tawmis]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.
To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.
What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I will say, this is why - as a DM, I prefer to homebrew adventures. Despite having... (counts on fingers several times)... Uh, let's just say many years of being a DM...
When I ran a group of good friends (all family members, and pretty much family to me) through Horde of the Dragon Queen - there's a portion with a flying castle (won't spoil too much), but it's pretty important to be stealthy. The party wasn't. They were murdering cultists every time they lured them away. They were being creative, so I didn't want to punish them. But realistically, at some point someone would have been like, "Hey, has anyone seen Larry, Moe and Curly lately?"

So I had the castle go down, and chaos ensue - and the party escapes. And just left the rest of the adventure and homebrewed from there on for that session. Because modules expect you to do certain things, hit certain beats, and don't allow for veering off - essentially eventually forcing the DM to "railroad." Now you can still "railroad" but do it in a manner that seems like it was their choice, but you're still taking the choice away from the party because the module calls for them to do XYZ.

This is one thing that PCs having a backstory really helps out with. This is made much easier since most characters tend to have a tragic history.

Agreed, on all accounts. And if ye need a good backstory written... well, just check my signature! I'll write backgrounds for your characters, if ye want. :)

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

And this is where I will disagree. Other than my one attempt at HotDQ, I homebrew - and so many times, I don't even "plan" my adventures anymore. I will jot down some ideas. But my players (and I count myself so fortunate) will spend time just RPing and creating really fun and silly things, despite them being on a haunted island where there's clearly a horror theme - but we still have fun and laugh, because of how things turn out. I've improvised so much now, that planning isn't something I do.

First session for notes I had - "goblin, beach, haunted house."

I knew I wanted the adventure to take place on an island. Thought, maybe they encounter some goblins on the beach? They talk about a haunted house?
The haunted house turned out to be a manor, now.
In that manor, a murdered female ghost who is trying to find out who killed her.
Her love, was murdered upstairs - his heart ripped out and his body turned to stone.
No idea, what I am doing with this - just creating things as I go and the players are reacting and having a blast.

[OldTrees1]

Are the rails contrary to the players' playstyle preferences?
Is the GM tricking the players into playing a game they don't want to play?

Railroading has a generally negative connotation because it usually only comes up in conversation if it fails the 1st test (the players wanted to try XYZ and the GM wanted to prevent that despite of the players' preferences). When the conversation deepens you get some individuals that argue tricking people into playing a game they don't want to play is okay (thus failing the 2nd test).

However when you are that deep into the conversation, you will also have heard that A) There is a sandbox - linear game continuum and B) player preference matters and sometimes a sandbox is too much freedom for those preferences. As long as there is player buy in, then any amount of freedom or linearity is okay for that group.



Personally I prefer things towards the sandbox and high verisimilitude side of the sandbox-linear continuum. I am okay with the party relying on their character's goals, and encountering whatever conflict arises from that, rather than needing the party to be gifted a goal. On the other hand I am also okay with the party being given a goal. If the party is given a goal, I prefer enough guidance to see some possible routes to avoid feeling like the assigned task is impossible. However even then I want there to be many possible routes and the freedom to carve our own path.

In the end these are my preferences, I know of players that prefer much more linear games than this. I know of players that prefer the party to be given a goal rather than rely on their character's goals. I know of players that dislike "wasted time" and thus like the GM railroading if the party finds a red herring. I have heard of players that care about narrative beats enough that they wanted them preserved with railroading retcons rather than risk accidentally messing them up.

Even as, or especially as, the GM, you should acknowledge and accept the players' preferences on how much linearity / agency they want. If you do that, then you have no need to be concerned.

[Cheesegear]

Terraria, on the other hand, has a clear progression for both bosses and equipment, so you're always searching for the things you need to defeat the next boss, and there are quite a few bosses.

DM: A group of Evil NPCs assaulted the town, stole a McGuffin, and killed several Good NPCs.
Players: We should go punish the NPCs after they did the bad thing.
DM: Excellent. Here's all these notes I prepared.
Players: ...Wait. I feel like this is a railroad.
DM: Well, it's not. You made a choice to do what I wanted you to do. Is that a problem?

Railroading is you force the players to follow a preset story path. Some players are less bothered by railroading, as it does provide direction, but you don't need to railroad. If the players decide to strike off on their own to achieve some goal they set for themselves (PC backstories can be a good source for this), or if they fixate on a minor detail you didn't intend to be important, you can choose to change your focus and provide them with new direction for these new goals.

Players: OMG. We did Bandits last adventure. Alright. This Town has just been sacked and looted and is in a bad place. Let's go to the next Town that isn't ruined and see if we can find something good, there.
DM: ...Umm...You can't. You have to do the Bandits.
Players: FFS.

Build a new railroad that aligns with what the players want to do, and give them direction to keep them focused on their goals.

This really only works if the DM is very quick on their feet and the players don't change their minds constantly. Not all DMs can improvise well. I understand that for some DMs, having a pre-planned, pre-written adventure is basically the only way they can play - WotC wouldn't keep publishing modules if people didn't buy them. I understand that for some players - especially the indecisive, ones - they need pre-determined goals otherwise they don't know what to do; 'You wake up in a field with amnesia with no discernible landmarks...Aaand go.'

The problem is that a lot of DMs not only pre-determine the destination, they pre-determine the journey, as well, and I think that's where the bigger problem comes in.

'No matter what a player rolls, they can't perform an impossible task.'
Sweet. That means that the DM can make anything that isn't their pre-written solution, impossible. It's in the rules.

DM: You are travelling down the road and see a couple of Ogres sitting around eating and pooping. They haven't noticed you.
Players: Can we stealth?
DM: No, you have to fight.
Players: One of us is a Goliath and speaks Giant. Can we try diplomacy?
DM: No, you have you to fight.
Players: If we let them eat our horses, will they let us past?
DM: No, you have to fight.
Players: **** it. We we take a 90-degree turn and simply disengage and walk off.
DM: ...The Ogres notice you and run to catch you. Roll Initiative.
Players: So even when we actively disengage from the scenario, you make us do it anyway?

[Unoriginal]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

Yes, it is REALLY that bad.

There is no "proper" railroading.

Railroading isn't "the choices are limited between A, B, or C". Nor is it "the adventurers have to go on the adventure for anything to happen".

Railroading is "no matter if A, B or C is chosen, the same thing happens" (known as the "Quantum Ogre" school of railroading) or "the DM decides what happens for the players".

And that is bad. Always.

We're here to play a game, not to be unpaid actors in the theatrical adaptation of the DM's novel.

[Sigreid]

I think it should also be noted that it is not railroading if the players make a series of choices that narrow their options down further and further as a consequence of their decisions.

[Pildion]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

To me, being "railroaded" isn't the DM having a linear story, its when the DM doesn't allow the players to make their own choices and just tells them nope, going to do this now. To bad if you wanted to do anything else or go anywhere else...

[Cheesegear]

Railroading is "no matter if A, B or C is chosen, the same thing happens" (known as the "Quantum Ogre" school of railroading) or "the DM decides what happens for the players".

I mean...Theoretically the DM is always deciding what happens to the players.

Railroading is two things.

1. The DM wants to run an adventure, and telegraphs such to the players, and the players don't want to do it.
As per my previous post:
- If the DM can set things up in such a way that the players want to kill Bandits, there's no problem. Players often wont see the rails, if they actually want to ride them in the first place.
- If the players don't want to kill Bandits, there's a problem.

2. The DM presents two - or more - choices, but regardless of what the players pick, the result is the same ("Quantum Ogre").
- The players take the right path; They face an Ogre.
- The players take the left path; They face an Ogre.

IMO, Quantum Ogre'ing is acceptable most of the time...Unless for some ****ing reason you're giving your players your notes and telegraphing to them that you didn't plan for anything else. There are often many solutions to the same outcome, and I find it weird that there's such a...Stigma...Towards Quantum Ogre'ing.

I think I have a pretty cool scenario, I want my players to play it. I want my players to meet a particular NPC. I'm not going to waste my time writing scenarios that my players wont play. If they don't go to where I put it...I'll put it somewhere else. Unless I tell them 'Here is [X]', and they actively avoid going to [X]. But again, unless my players are doing something really specific, I'm not going to tell them about things they haven't encountered yet. If they haven't encountered them yet, I can put them anywhere I want. There shouldn't be a problem with Quantum Ogre'ing unless you straight up tell your players you're doing it...And why would you ever do that?

3. Sandbags and Roadblocks.
This is the most obvious form of railroading, and therefore usually the most egregious. Sometimes players want to be on the rails. Sometimes the players wont notice teleporting monsters (again, why should they notice?). But they will notice sandbags and roadblocks.

Sandbags. No matter what the players suggest, the DM will find a way to cancel them out. Antimagic Fields where there logically shouldn't be any is a great sandbag. Hostiles that are straight up immune to several players' gimmicks when they shouldn't be is another red flag. Whatever you want to try that isn't the DM's approved solution will have an excuse for why it doesn't work. If the DM is dropping 'You can't roll to perform impossible tasks.' on you, you might be being sandbagged. Similar with Quantum Ogre'ing, a good DM can make sandbags work if they're actually justified:
'No...You can't just Divine Sense for a Shapechanging Fiend, because the Fiend has been around a long time, has fought Paladins before, and is smarter than you and has a permanent Nystul's Magic Aura, which yes, really is something the spell can do. You can check the rules.' Is a great example of a hard-counter sandbag that makes total sense, both mechanically and narratively.

Roadblocks. Roadblocks are straight up when the DM just says 'No.' No rules lawyering. No in-narrative excuse. Just no. At least with Sandbags the DM is trying to justify why you can't do something - even if it doesn't make sense.

And then there's the melted ice-cream soft railroading where the DM is just a good planner, and knows his group well, and knows what they're going to do in any situation. For example, I usually plan on my group(s) solving an encounter one of four ways. I will have something prepped if they choose one of the four options that I know they normally choose (Talk, Fight, Stealth, Disengage). Only if they choose something else (e.g; Start a fire for no reason) do I actually have to improvise.

Is planning for your group railroading? ...Maybe. But then using your player's backstories to plan an adventure is also railroading. We don't want to go down that (rail)road. If DMs can't plan anything, ever, we're in for a bad time.

[Unoriginal]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice.

Whoa.

{Scrubbed}

I mean...Theoretically the DM is always deciding what happens to the players.

Yes, the DM is always deciding what happens TO the players. But they should not decide what happens FOR the players, which is what I was talking about.

The DM control the world. They should NOT control the players' choices.

1. The DM wants to run an adventure, and telegraphs such to the players, and the players don't want to do it.

That is not railroading, this is players who don't follow their part of the "we're playing a game together" implicit contract.

If the DM has explained what the adventure is about, the players agreed to play, and when it's time for the game session the players go "no, thanks, we're going to do something else", then the players are the ones at fault.

Railroading is when the DM acts as if they're opening a choice (ex: you can go hunt bandits or you can help this old gnome inventor with their work for the upcomig contest) and then does not respect the choice the players went for.

IMO, Quantum Ogre'ing is acceptable most of the time...Unless for some ****ing reason you're giving your players your notes and telegraphing to them that you didn't plan for anything else.

[...]

There shouldn't be a problem with Quantum Ogre'ing unless you straight up tell your players you're doing it...And why would you ever do that?

[...]

Sometimes the players wont notice teleporting monsters (again, why should they notice?).

Most players aren't stupid. Despite some DMs thinking that players only want the "illusion of choice" and that they can somehow flawlessly fool them, most players can see what's going on quickly enough, and especially since a DM who believes you can hide that kind of stuff from players is likely to do it repeatedly, letting players see the pattern.

Also, not getting found out for doing X has no incidence if X is bad or not. "There shouldn't be a problem with me cheating at poker unless I straitght up tell the other players I do it... and why would I ever do that" is not a defense for the positive nature of cheating at poker.

I think I have a pretty cool scenario, I want my players to play it. I want my players to meet a particular NPC. I'm not going to waste my time writing scenarios that my players wont play. If they don't go to where I put it...I'll put it somewhere else. Unless I tell them 'Here is [X]', and they actively avoid going to [X]. But again, unless my players are doing something really specific, I'm not going to tell them about things they haven't encountered yet. If they haven't encountered them yet, I can put them anywhere I want.

If the players must meet [particular NPC], then doing give them the choice between A, B or C.

The only reason to give the A, B or C choice is if the consequences of A, the consequences of B and the consequences of C are meaningful. A, B, and C having the same outcome is wasting everyone's time, energy and brainpower.

In other word, if you want to linearly have the "PCs meet this NPC" step be required for the adventure, it's not a bad thing. If you tell the PCs "you could go to X tavern (where the NPC is) or to Y tavern (where nothing plot-relevant happens for the moment)" and if the PCs choose Y you think "yeah, no, they're meeting NPC whether they want it or not", then yeah, it's bad. Respecting your players enough for making their choice matters (be it with positive or negative consequences) WHEN a choice is given is an important part of DMing.

Sandbags. No matter what the players suggest, the DM will find a way to cancel them out. Antimagic Fields where there logically shouldn't be any is a great sandbag. Hostiles that are straight up immune to several players' gimmicks when they shouldn't be is another red flag. Whatever you want to try that isn't the DM's approved solution will have an excuse for why it doesn't work.

Sandbags. No matter what the players suggest, the DM will find a way to cancel them out. Antimagic Fields where there logically shouldn't be any is a great sandbag. Hostiles that are straight up immune to several players' gimmicks when they shouldn't be is another red flag. Whatever you want to try that isn't the DM's approved solution will have an excuse for why it doesn't work.

I recall talking online with a DM, a few years ago, who admitted he gave all of his bad guys teleportation rings so that the PCs would never be able to catch them when they fled, and that if the PCs somehow caught one of them they wouldn't be able to loot the teleportation ring.

Or to use a more televised example: during Critical Role's second season, several bosses and mooks were wrecked by the team's Monk. As a result, Matt Mercer made most of the bosses in the later half of the campaign outright immune to the Stunned condition, most of the time without any possible justification, and quite a few fights had a "whenever you hit X enemy in melee, you take Y damage" effect (which naturally affected the Monk more, as she was the one doing the highest number of melee attacks per combat). That is poor form.

A DM has unlimited power over the monsters and circumstances, that just makes abusing said power to not let a PC shine is just childish at best.

a good DM can make sandbags work if they're actually justified:
'No...You can't just Divine Sense for a Shapechanging Fiend, because the Fiend has been around a long time, has fought Paladins before, and is smarter than you and has a permanent Nystul's Magic Aura, which yes, really is something the spell can do. You can check the rules.' Is a great example of a hard-counter sandbag that makes total sense, both mechanically and narratively.

If the Fiend is a being who would have the power and ressources and means to get such power and the DM gave them that in advance to make the encounter more interesting, it's presenting a situation where an antagonist took measures to avoid something that would foil their scheme, it's not sandbagging or railroading.

If the DM doesn't want their planned encounter to go any way but the way they imagined, needs to retcon things on the spot to go "nu-hu", and it doesn't make sense for the entity to have such power, then yeah it's poor form.

If the DM is dropping 'You can't roll to perform impossible tasks.' on you, you might be being sandbagged.

I'd argue it's more "when the DM starts declaring X task is impossible at some places despite the same task elsewhere is possible, you're probably being sandbagged".

And then there's the melted ice-cream soft railroading where the DM is just a good planner, and knows his group well, and knows what they're going to do in any situation. For example, I usually plan on my group(s) solving an encounter one of four ways. I will have something prepped if they choose one of the four options that I know they normally choose (Talk, Fight, Stealth, Disengage). Only if they choose something else (e.g; Start a fire for no reason) do I actually have to improvise.

Is planning for your group railroading? ...Maybe. But then using your player's backstories to plan an adventure is also railroading. We don't want to go down that (rail)road. If DMs can't plan anything, ever, we're in for a bad time.

That's not railroading, it's DMing.

Railroading would be to make the choices meaningless.

[heavyfuel]

One of the groups I play in is very railroady. When I first started playing with this group, I hated it, but I've learned to not care that much. I make a mechanically complex character and just enjoy the ride. Combat is fun and it's also like half the play time with this group. Since we play in VTT, I just use the play time to do chores around the house

[RedMage125]

Yes, it is REALLY that bad.

There is no "proper" railroading.

Railroading isn't "the choices are limited between A, B, or C". Nor is it "the adventurers have to go on the adventure for anything to happen".

Railroading is "no matter if A, B or C is chosen, the same thing happens" (known as the "Quantum Ogre" school of railroading) or "the DM decides what happens for the players".

And that is bad. Always.

We're here to play a game, not to be unpaid actors in the theatrical adaptation of the DM's novel.

I disagree that it's "always bad". Because some players dislike absolute agency and sandbox style.

I once took over from another DM, because he was going to be transferring to another duty station soon. This DM usually ran pre-published modules that were very linear. For the first few weeks I was DMing, that guy was going to be able to be around and be a player, so we did a short mini-campaign. A Villain game, where the PCs were Evil and accomplishing their Evil plan.

Now, when I do this, I make it clear to my players that villains are proactive, and heroes are reactionary. So they needed to decide what to do, and I would describe how the world reacted to them. This group was often paralyzed by the absolute freedom of choice, often taking 45+ minutes to decide what to do next.

After that storyline wrapped up, and we got ready for the next game, the rest of the players approached me, and told me that they would like a "more structured storyline". I was pretty shocked. I said "are you asking me to give you a railroad plot line?". They confered with each other a moment and said "we would be fine with that".

Maybe that was a niche experience, but I've shared that story a bunch of times and had others chime in with similar experiences. My whole point is that "railroading is always bad" is too much of a blanket statement to possibly be true.

"The only wrong way to play D&D is when the people at the table are not having fun". If railroading is something that frustrates your players, and makes them feel disrespected, angry, or sad...then yes, it is certainly bad.

I'm sorry if this seems pedantic, but having lived experience with people who prefer being railroaded made me realize this caveat is kind of important.

Yes, the DM is always deciding what happens TO the players. But they should not decide what happens FOR the players, which is what I was talking about.

The DM control the world. They should NOT control the players' choices.

100% agree.

That is not railroading, this is players who don't follow their part of the "we're playing a game together" implicit contract.

If the DM has explained what the adventure is about, the players agreed to play, and when it's time for the game session the players go "no, thanks, we're going to do something else", then the players are the ones at fault.

I've been in groups like this. And sometimes, it's hard to say who's at fault. I've had a DM who does a lot of great worldbuilding and details, and a lot of our fellow players keep getting sidetracked by minor details, and the DM caters to that. The DM also seems to be easily distracted, and engages all these "ooh, shiny!" tangents. Which can be frustrating, because the plot we were following was very "we have 3 days to get teh McGuffin, or people die", and no one (not even the DM) wants to stay on course.

Railroading is when the DM acts as if they're opening a choice (ex: you can go hunt bandits or you can help this old gnome inventor with their work for the upcomig contest) and then does not respect the choice the players went for.

Yes, that specific kind of railroading I will agree is "always bad". Don't give the players a choice that has all the appearance of being significant, only to take it away.

Most players aren't stupid. Despite some DMs thinking that players only want the "illusion of choice" and that they can somehow flawlessly fool them, most players can see what's going on quickly enough, and especially since a DM who believes you can hide that kind of stuff from players is likely to do it repeatedly, letting players see the pattern.

Also, not getting found out for doing X has no incidence if X is bad or not. "There shouldn't be a problem with me cheating at poker unless I straitght up tell the other players I do it... and why would I ever do that" is not a defense for the positive nature of cheating at poker.

I don't see that as a good parallel. Poker is a game where a certain amount of randomness and fairness is required. Cheating at poker actively harms others. You're taking their money.

The "Quantum Ogre", as it is usually presented, is an example of a term I have coined, which is "soft railroading". That is, to say, when the players never actually "see the rails". And I think that, generally, is acceptable. Now, if the players were aware of ogres, and took specific steps to avoid the ogres, and still get ogres no matter what...that's different. That I am not showing support for.

For me, personally, as a DM, there are things I can improvise well. And there are things I cannot. If I were to randomly generate a combat encounter on the fly, for example, there would be almost no interesting terrain. Not a whole lot besides "wide open area with maybe a few trees and monsters". So I prepare even "random" encounters in advance. Given even just a little bit of time to plan, I can have the encounter be more memorable and fun. And I can prepare several in advance. So "if the players go into the mountains, there's an ogre with a group of orcs that has set up spiky barricades on the mountain path that force players through a winding gauntlet to reach them". And "In the swamp, there's a hydra partially submerged in the water, disguised among floating logs". Or "on the main road to the city, there's an overturned merchant wagon, currently being used to hide bandits planning an ambush". But if my players go into the mountains, they will get that encounter, same with the swamp, main road, etc.

I'm not advocating abrogating meaningful choices for the players. But I don't think it's problematic to have some things that can happen irrespective of player choice, because players were never actually making a choice about that thing.

In other word, if you want to linearly have the "PCs meet this NPC" step be required for the adventure, it's not a bad thing. If you tell the PCs "you could go to X tavern (where the NPC is) or to Y tavern (where nothing plot-relevant happens for the moment)" and if the PCs choose Y you think "yeah, no, they're meeting NPC whether they want it or not", then yeah, it's bad. Respecting your players enough for making their choice matters (be it with positive or negative consequences) WHEN a choice is given is an important part of DMing.

Agreed, if "going to meet this NPC" is a choice they actively and knowingly avoided. If the NPC was someone they hadn't heard of or met yet, who is looking for them to tell them "McGuffin", then it doesn't really matter, does it? Because meeting that NPC wasn't something they chose to exercise their agency over.

If the DM doesn't want their planned encounter to go any way but the way they imagined, needs to retcon things on the spot to go "nu-hu", and it doesn't make sense for the entity to have such power, then yeah it's poor form.

Funny story, that group that asked me to railroad them? Over the following year, I occasionally gave them opportunities to exercise agency. Usually in small doses (like 2 options to start with), and then gave them "limited sandboxes" as part of the campaign they were on.

Well...I had this one encounter planned, as a side plot that had been going along the main one. Had a LG paladin of Bahamut as the antagonist. He had morphed from ally, to patron, and finally to antagonist (he had become kind of a "benevolent" tyrant). I had him statted up for combat. I was ready to have there be this big fight when they confronted him. I was kind of going with the idea that he had this "angelic guide" that was actually a disguised fiend, who had been tempting him.

Well, these players shocked the hell out of me. They liked this NPC. And when they went to confront him, they started working on a plan to redeem him. I completely scrapped the "tempting fiend" idea, and threw together a Skill Challenge to be done in concert with the fight (hey, I did stat him up, after all). Once they finished the Skill Challenge and had him bloodied, he yielded. They convinced him that he had strayed off the path too far, and he went to go on a sabbatical to commune with Bahamut and pray.

So I had the "please railroad us" people show a level of agency that shocked the crap out of me. To the point that I scrapped what I had planned to make their agency count for something. I was just so pleased that these players finally realized the power of making decisions for themselves.

[Sigreid]

Railroading is pretty easy to avoid really. At least in groups of friends. All you need to do is ask what motivates their characters/what their goals are, get agreement that they're aid each other with their respective goals (reasonable for friends/allies) and generally shape your adventures/adventure hooks to catch the interests at hand. Personally, I tend to have just a couple of outlines of different things they can pursue and work from there.

[kyoryu]

Depends on how good the story is.

If the story is engaging, you'll barely notice the rails. You'll WANT to ride the train.

But it's very dependent on the quality story.

It's the same issue AAA gaming suffers from. An open world offers far more content, but most of it is shallow and over quickly. It makes the story seem longer because you get distracted from it every 10 paces. But often in open-world games the core story is also short and shallow.

I heavily disagree with this. AAA open world games are shallow because the computer can only do so much. Having an intelligent GM gets rid of that restriction.

But, at any rate, the amount of linearity/openness that a game provides is definitely a table preference. Some people want more, some people want less, some people can be flexible, especially if they know what they're getting into.

The only issue is really when the style of the game is miscommunicated - saying a game is open when it's not, or the other way around.

And, no, it's not really dependent on the quality of the story. I play RPGs primarily for that ability to impact things and make decisions, and taking that away directly impacts my enjoyment. I can deal with that if I know it up front, but don't promise me one thing and give me another.

I disagree that it's "always bad". Because some players dislike absolute agency and sandbox style.

Agreed!

After that storyline wrapped up, and we got ready for the next game, the rest of the players approached me, and told me that they would like a "more structured storyline". I was pretty shocked. I said "are you asking me to give you a railroad plot line?". They confered with each other a moment and said "we would be fine with that".

I do think there's a wide range between "railroad" and "complete open world". A common structure is "here's the problem the PCs are expected to deal with, but how you deal with it is up to you". That doesn't require the PCs to come up with their own agendas, but it does give them a much wider level of freedom than a "railroad".

"The only wrong way to play D&D is when the people at the table are not having fun". If railroading is something that frustrates your players, and makes them feel disrespected, angry, or sad...then yes, it is certainly bad.

One. Hundred. Percent.

I'm sorry if this seems pedantic, but having lived experience with people who prefer being railroaded made me realize this caveat is kind of important.

Absolutely. Linear/railroad games are fine if people are into that. The issue is when you tell people that it's one style when it's really another. THat's the only thing I push against.

The "Quantum Ogre", as it is usually presented, is an example of a term I have coined, which is "soft railroading". That is, to say, when the players never actually "see the rails". And I think that, generally, is acceptable. Now, if the players were aware of ogres, and took specific steps to avoid the ogres, and still get ogres no matter what...that's different. That I am not showing support for.

Here I disagree. I think if you're going to run a linear game, you should be honest about it. Why not? If people are down with it, they're down with it. And if not, they should be able to opt in or out.

Now, I think that if people know that they're in a linear game, it makes sense to do so as subtly as possible most of the time. Even if people know there are rails, smacking into them is no fun.

I'm not advocating abrogating meaningful choices for the players. But I don't think it's problematic to have some things that can happen irrespective of player choice, because players were never actually making a choice about that thing.

Ehhhhh..... depends. "The city is going to get invaded" is one thing. "The PCs will meet this particular NPC/etc." is another. Mostly because it implies that it's important that they do, which implies a high degree of linearity. Which is fine if it's a linear game, but if you're promising a non-linear game, bad.

So I had the "please railroad us" people show a level of agency that shocked the crap out of me. To the point that I scrapped what I had planned to make their agency count for something. I was just so pleased that these players finally realized the power of making decisions for themselves.

A lot of times people are expected to make decisions in a vacuum, and that's hard. Context and information can often help.

[Willie the Duck]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I think a large part of this is going to be definitional. You often don't start calling something a subcategory until it notably fits into a category. Thus, whatever larger term railroading fits into (I will use the term 'DM provided direction') doesn't start getting the term 'railroading' affixed to it until it is egregious or problematic, etc. Simply having an adventure idea and making it easy for the players to jump on that plot (if they so desire) is generally just thought of as non-railroad (but also not sandbox) play -- i.e. the messy middle. The question really comes down to--what happens if the PCs don't follow the script (or even 'what happens if events change such that the expected situations for the next coming scene/plot point no longer make sense?') -- if the DM forces things to stick to the plan, that's on rails. Otherwise, it's just a DM provided plot.

Look, obviously you are right that there are people that would enjoy an adventure hook put in front of them -- pre-published adventures exist in the first place, right? It's really when they veer off into forcing (or just falling apart if something doesn't happen) that things start getting badmouthed. Some early AD&D adventures like the original Dragonlance modules and the Time of Trouble Forgotten Realms adventures got this reputation -- certain NPCs had to survive to situation X and do the thing Y, and if they didn't didn't really give any guidance on how to roll it (other than, in some cases, suggesting not to let certain NPCs die even if the dice indicated they should have).

[Unoriginal]

I think a large part of this is going to be definitional.

This.

Even in this thread, a lot of people seem to define "railroading" as "having a non-sandbox adventure".

There is a realm between a linear adventure and railroading.

So obviously there is an issue in communication when some people use Term X to mean [donkey hole behavior] and others use Term X to mean [practice which may maybe become donkey hole behavior if pushed to the extreme].

And then there is the people who do use Term X to mean [donkey hole behavior], but will actively defend acting as a donkey hole toward people who agreed to play a RPG with you.

[JLandan]

In general, I disagree with railroading by the DM.

But sometimes a party can get in a quagmire (metaphorically). Then the DM has to guide them out. If the DM doesn't, the game becomes unfun.

For example: I'm currently playing in a group running an urban adventure that is very sandbox. We rescued a pregnant girl from an attack by cultists. Cool start. Were the cultists after her or the baby for some weird religious reason? No, they were hired. Who by? Cultists don't know or won't tell. We can't torture it out of them, we're not evil. Dead end.

She gets attacked again; this time by assassins. They won't talk either and get killed trying to escape. We find their lair and wipe 'em out except for the leader. He won't say anything but some noble hired them. Turns out the girl has a way expensive necklace given to her by some noble. Is he the father? She won't say. Is the noble's family trying to rub her out? She won't say.

We ask our city contacts, which we generated as part of our character creation, if there may be some clue. Street urchins gang knows nothing, church leader knows nothing, powerful noble family (different one) knows nothing, arcane guild knows nothing, city watch knows nothing.

At this point (4 sessions in and still 2nd level), my character no longer has interest in this girl's wellbeing and wants to find something else to do. Some of the other PCs won't give up. We have no clue and we cannot obtain a clue. We just keep rescuing this girl. It's boring.

The DM is my best friend, but his sandbox adventure has no structure to continue this adventure and I don't want to play anymore. I would, at this time, prefer a little railroad; just to get somewhere.

[Unoriginal]

In general, I disagree with railroading by the DM.

But sometimes a party can get in a quagmire (metaphorically). Then the DM has to guide them out. If the DM doesn't, the game becomes unfun.

For example: I'm currently playing in a group running an urban adventure that is very sandbox. We rescued a pregnant girl from an attack by cultists. Cool start. Were the cultists after her or the baby for some weird religious reason? No, they were hired. Who by? Cultists don't know or won't tell. We can't torture it out of them, we're not evil. Dead end.

She gets attacked again; this time by assassins. They won't talk either and get killed trying to escape. We find their lair and wipe 'em out except for the leader. He won't say anything but some noble hired them. Turns out the girl has a way expensive necklace given to her by some noble. Is he the father? She won't say. Is the noble's family trying to rub her out? She won't say.

We ask our city contacts, which we generated as part of our character creation, if there may be some clue. Street urchins gang knows nothing, church leader knows nothing, powerful noble family (different one) knows nothing, arcane guild knows nothing, city watch knows nothing.

At this point (4 sessions in and still 2nd level), my character no longer has interest in this girl's wellbeing and wants to find something else to do. Some of the other PCs won't give up. We have no clue and we cannot obtain a clue. We just keep rescuing this girl. It's boring.

The DM is my best friend, but his sandbox adventure has no structure to continue this adventure and I don't want to play anymore. I would, at this time, prefer a little railroad; just to get somewhere.

That's not a sandbox problem, though, and giving you something to do wouldn't be railroading.

Your DM has established a clueless mystery, and you eventually lost interest in it after being told "nope, no clue there either" over and over. Even in a sandbox, or some would say *especially* in a sandbox, it is crucial for the DM to provide enough clues to keep the mystery alive, or at least to have other things happening while the mystery is on hold due to a trail getting cold.

In fact, I would argue that by going "nope, no clue here" and providing no alternative for you to pursue, your DM is railroading you while acting as if you were in a sandbox. As Cheesegear pointed out earlier, that typical of railroading DMs who want the PCs to not succeed no matter what they try, as it keeps them on the railroad the DM has established.

[JLandan]

That's not a sandbox problem, though, and giving you something to do wouldn't be railroading.

Your DM has established a clueless mystery, and you eventually lost interest in it after being told "nope, no clue there either" over and over. Even in a sandbox, or some would say *especially* in a sandbox, it is crucial for the DM to provide enough clues to keep the mystery alive, or at least to have other things happening while the mystery is on hold due to a trail getting cold.

In fact, I would argue that by going "nope, no clue here" and providing no alternative for you to pursue, your DM is railroading you while acting as if you were in a sandbox. As Cheesegear pointed out earlier, that typical of railroading DMs who want the PCs to not succeed no matter what they try, as it keeps them on the railroad the DM has established.

It isn't that he doesn't want us to succeed. It's that he has confused avoiding railroading with providing no structure at all, while at the same time confusing a sandbox setting as being a complete adventure. Rumors abound in the setting, but if the PCs follow one, the DM must kill it early or provide a complete adventure surrounding it. That can be hard to do on the fly.

What this DM has done is instead of providing an adventure with options (sandbox) or an adventure with no options (railroad), he has provided options with no adventure (sandbox or railroad).

[animorte]

What this DM has done is instead of providing an adventure with options (sandbox) or an adventure with no options (railroad), he has provided options with no adventure (sandbox or railroad).

This is a very rare and difficult situation. I experienced this once with a new DM (fairly recently actually) and I talked to him about it later, trying to assist him in focusing the narrative a bit. Is the DM you're experiencing this with new?

[Slipjig]

For DMs who don't feel like they improvise well but still want to be somewhat sandboxy, a pretty solid practice is to ask the players at the end of the session what they want to do next time (with a fair degree of specificity, particularly in WHERE they are going). e.g. "We think the Duke is sus, we're going to investigate his manor" allows the DM to create the manor and populate it with guards and NPCs. If the DM has the space and it's inhabitants already planned pre-session, it's much easier to create a to whatever lunatic scheme the PCs come up with for gaining access.

Even if the players change their mind and decide to investigate his warehouse in the docks instead, it's okay for the DM to tell them to talk amongst themselves for a few minutes while he sketches out a floorplan and converts some of his clues, NPCs, and encounters to the new location.

[JNAProductions]

If you define railroading as "A linear adventure" then it's fine, provided everyone at the table is chill with it.

The definition I see most commonly used, though, is railroading is when the DM forces the players along a certain path. That's a problem.

[Demonslayer666]

It irks me when people refer to a linear adventure as railroading.

The players are not losing any agency when presented with an adventure. How they do it is completely up to them. When the DM shoots down all their ideas and makes them "fight the ogre", that's railroading.

Players making the DM design the adventure ad hoc is railroading the DM.