An Acceptable Amount of Railroading?

[BrokenChord]

Hey, guys! I hope you're all having merry days in whatever part of the world you live in.

I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

For me, personally, I think there are exactly two situations where DM railroading is okay.

The first (to be used in situations such as introducing the BBEG and having him burn down the town or something early in the campaign) is when the DM talks it over with the players beforehand that he's going to try to do it that way and it's up to said players what they do, but that they will in fact die horrible deaths for attempting to oppose this part of the plot. Or, alternatively, he might say that an NPC will save you; not a problem as long as said NPC doesn't keep doing it for the rest of the campaign, I reckon. I mean, usually an NPC sacrificing their lives to save the player characters is highly frowned upon, but if it's how the main plot of the campaign kicks off and the players know it should happen (and don't oppose it, because the DM SHOULD change it if the group says it will be un-fun) then it isn't too bad of a thing.

The second is not exactly railroading in the specific sense, but I'm including it here. Combat railroading. Now, no enemy should ever only have one way to be killed; that's just... Bad. But I think it's permissible if, say, as one of my DMs did pretty recently, the BBEG is at the top of their evil tower, with all the encounters made for on the way up, with lots of potential plot resolution, awesome combats, and other such stuff on the way up the tower... And the players' responses are to try every method they have at their disposal to try to completely bypass everything except the BBEG. I mean, the DM didn't say something like "no, you can't do that" but it WAS kind of close to; there were a lot of powerful magical defenses preventing most of our tactics for bypassing, such as just flying straight up and blasting through or teleporting in, and the DM admitted after the campaign had ended that she had made most of them up on the spot. I mean, it wasn't much of a plot railroad; we didn't technically have to do the fight at all, we wouldn't have been adversely affected much by the BBEG succeeding, and we wouldn't have lost our Good alignments or anything like that if we decided we didn't stand a chance and could only do the good guy thing if we retreated and tried again later. However, and I agree with this mindset, the DM had pretty much poured everything into making that tower and giving us the opportunity (as we chose to) to fight through the strong minions and last remaining lieutenants and go toe-to-toe with the BBEG in a climactic battle, all of which I must say she set up beautifully. I forgive her for not wanting us to skip to the BBEG bit without going through the gauntlet, and I think most DMs are okay for doing something like this.

What do you guys all think? Are those acceptable ways to railroad, and are there any other times where you guys think railroading is okay? And when it is, how MUCH of it is okay? Hoping to spark some good discussion here. Have at it, guys!

[Rhynn]

Both of your examples are, IMO, unnecessary at best, unacceptable at worst, and are mostly an attempt to make up for poor GMing.

They exemplify the style of GMing where the GM has pre-planned how things will play out, and then during play tries to adjust the PCs' actions (reducing player agency) to his story instead of adjusting his story to the PCs' actions, which is IMO always a bad way to run a game.

The game should be about the PCs' actions against the background the GM has set up.

I think both approaches are inferior to creating good set-ups and environments and scenarios that the PCs can approach in their own ways, and must approach with some thought.

[The Oni]

For the final boss? Yeah, I get that. No one wants you to skip their Very Definitely Final Dungeon.

I dunno, if it'd been me, I'd have planned for the players to do exactly that; if they tried to crash an airship into the top floor, I'd block them with a big flying something and then have the lieutenants fight the PCs in midair.

[nedz]

I rail road shamelessly at the very beginning in order to get the party together, but play hasn't really started at that point. After that I avoid it.

BBEGs aren't compulsory BTW, there are other campaign styles.

[valadil]

How much you railroad depends on the group and the game.

Some players want to be dragged around on a leash and won't take action until you tell them where to go. Other players can take their character and run with it with no guidance from a GM. What Nedz said rings true too - you may need to railroad to get the game started, but once the momentum is there the players can carry the game on their own.

There is no fixed dial for how much you should be railroading. Instead you need to learn to read your audience.

One method I use is to start with as little railroad as possible, and turn it up slowly when the game stagnates. I feel like this way I end up using the least railroad necessary to get the game moving.

[Rakaydos]

When I railroad my players, I hang a lampshade on it. Usually with references to videogame logic, like cinimatic cut scenes.

[Silus]

The trick I think (Have yet to actually implement it yet) is to railroad but give it he illusion of choice.

Example: The plan for the story's beginning is this big bad MFer raids the PCs hometown (in a sort of Fallout setting). They raze it to the ground and kill like 90% of the people in search of some MacGuffin. The objective is that the players come to hate this guy for wrecking their stuff and their home and want some revenge on him. Tracking him down and killing him leads them to clues that he was working under orders of some higher power and that...well, in Fallout, it would be like finding out the Raider boss was working for the Enclave and said Enclave wants the MacGuffin to rule a sizable chunk of the wasteland and do bad things to not so good people.

The way you go about it is to do your damnedest to make the players HATE the NPC. Like they're at the top of the 'ol ****-list. Get the players to want to kill the guy not because the story says so, but because the NPC is such a pain in their side and has caused them so much grief that they, on some level of their being, HAVE to kill them to make things right again in their little world.

The problem is getting the players invested enough.

"Ok, so the guy destroyed the town and killed everyone in it except us. Well, off to someplace new."
"Um, guys, he just murdered and did unspeakable acts to your friends and family and burned down the only place you've ever called home..."
"So?"
"So...no thoughts of revenge or justice?"
"Nope. In fact, we want to work for him now!"

[Red Fel]

Gonna agree with Silus.

Frankly, I prefer a situation where railroading is irrelevant. My favorite DMs (and the kind to which I aspire) are the ones who can adapt to anything the players do. In an ideal world, the players can do whatever they can do, at least mechanically speaking. Want to travel the world rather than fight the ultimate evil? Go ahead. Bail on the villagers before the invading army arrives? Fine. Find a way to destroy everything in the dungeon before you actually step foot inside? Good job.

Is it frustrating? Absolutely. But there are two points.

1. I am extremely, extremely reluctant to punish creativity. If you managed to out-think me, I may be annoyed, but that's no excuse for me to punish you. Maybe I won't give you the reward I had planned, but if you managed to accomplish the goal in a way I didn't anticipate, I have only myself to blame.

2. I find the idea of robbing players of agency abhorrent. I don't want my players to feel that their PCs' actions are futile; that's one of the quickest ways for the players to lose interest in the game. The suspension of disbelief requires that once the rules of the game are established, they should be adhered to; if I drop sudden vetos on previously acceptable actions, I'm changing the rules in the middle of the game. Nobody should have to deal with that.

All that aside, if I honestly have to force the players into a situation, as Silus said, a great way is simply to give them motivation to take the actions I wanted them to take in the first place. I'm not actually forcing them, but I'm incentivizing action - which, in my mind, is fine, because they're still technically free to ignore the incentive.

[jindra34]

Somewhere between putting a signpost up saying 'PLOT this way' and putting down the first rails. Really once the players stop following along of their own accord its going to far to keep them following anyway.

[AMFV]

Hey, guys! I hope you're all having merry days in whatever part of the world you live in.

I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

For me, personally, I think there are exactly two situations where DM railroading is okay.

The first (to be used in situations such as introducing the BBEG and having him burn down the town or something early in the campaign) is when the DM talks it over with the players beforehand that he's going to try to do it that way and it's up to said players what they do, but that they will in fact die horrible deaths for attempting to oppose this part of the plot. Or, alternatively, he might say that an NPC will save you; not a problem as long as said NPC doesn't keep doing it for the rest of the campaign, I reckon. I mean, usually an NPC sacrificing their lives to save the player characters is highly frowned upon, but if it's how the main plot of the campaign kicks off and the players know it should happen (and don't oppose it, because the DM SHOULD change it if the group says it will be un-fun) then it isn't too bad of a thing.

I would say that how workable this is, depends on your group. If you have a group that's good with this sort of narrative involvement, then it works, if you have a group that doesn't enjoy that, it doesn't.

The second is not exactly railroading in the specific sense, but I'm including it here. Combat railroading. Now, no enemy should ever only have one way to be killed; that's just... Bad. But I think it's permissible if, say, as one of my DMs did pretty recently, the BBEG is at the top of their evil tower, with all the encounters made for on the way up, with lots of potential plot resolution, awesome combats, and other such stuff on the way up the tower... And the players' responses are to try every method they have at their disposal to try to completely bypass everything except the BBEG. I mean, the DM didn't say something like "no, you can't do that" but it WAS kind of close to; there were a lot of powerful magical defenses preventing most of our tactics for bypassing, such as just flying straight up and blasting through or teleporting in, and the DM admitted after the campaign had ended that she had made most of them up on the spot. I mean, it wasn't much of a plot railroad; we didn't technically have to do the fight at all, we wouldn't have been adversely affected much by the BBEG succeeding, and we wouldn't have lost our Good alignments or anything like that if we decided we didn't stand a chance and could only do the good guy thing if we retreated and tried again later. However, and I agree with this mindset, the DM had pretty much poured everything into making that tower and giving us the opportunity (as we chose to) to fight through the strong minions and last remaining lieutenants and go toe-to-toe with the BBEG in a climactic battle, all of which I must say she set up beautifully. I forgive her for not wanting us to skip to the BBEG bit without going through the gauntlet, and I think most DMs are okay for doing something like this.

What do you guys all think? Are those acceptable ways to railroad, and are there any other times where you guys think railroading is okay? And when it is, how MUCH of it is okay? Hoping to spark some good discussion here. Have at it, guys!

I think the acceptable way to railroad is for nobody to be aware that any railroading has occurred at all, otherwise it's generally a pejorative because of how it's perceived. Character agency is important.

[Silus]

Another way to generate incentive (outside of pre-made campaigns) is to make it more lucrative and rewarding to follow the plot you've laid out.

Sure, you can go out and raid random tombs instead of following the plot the DM had planned, and sure, you'll make some money. But if you follow the plot, you can bet the DM likely has some nice rewards already planned out instead of rolling on random loot tables. Power, station and prestige sometimes trumps the 5k gold you'd get from raiding some randomly generated tomb while actively avoiding the plot.

[squiggit]

I think the acceptable way to railroad is for nobody to be aware that any railroading has occurred at all, otherwise it's generally a pejorative because of how it's perceived. Character agency is important.

I think this is the biggest thing. As a player the DMs who have irked me the most aren't DMs that railroad me, but the DMs who railroad me in such a way that I keep bumping into invisible walls.

I even have an example here: I ran into almost the same situation in two games (although one was DnD and the other was vampire).

In both situations I was playing a fairly trigger happy character confronted with the BBEG murdering some semi-important NPC to prove to us how evil he was. Naturally my character decides to take a potshot at him while he's distracted.

In the first game I find out the BBEG has a big nasty shield around him and my attack fails and he teleports away. Shenanigans happen and we move on. In the second game the DM simply says "You can't attack him. This isn't the boss fight it's like a cutscene. Even if you could he'd just instantly kill you". The latter went over much more terribly both with myself and other players in the ground even though the end result was exactly the same in both instances.

The reality of it is is that railroading is going to happen in most games. It's rare that a group left up to their own devices will just happen to follow the exact path the DM wants them to. And frankly a well executed themepark style game isn't a bad thing.

The problems arise either when you railroad things too heavily in a game that isn't built for it or when the railroading is too blatant.

[AMFV]

I think this is the biggest thing. As a player the DMs who have irked me the most aren't DMs that railroad me, but the DMs who railroad me in such a way that I keep bumping into invisible walls.

I even have an example here: I ran into almost the same situation in two games (although one was DnD and the other was vampire).

In both situations I was playing a fairly trigger happy character confronted with the BBEG murdering some semi-important NPC to prove to us how evil he was. Naturally my character decides to take a potshot at him while he's distracted.

In the first game I find out the BBEG has a big nasty shield around him and my attack fails and he teleports away. Shenanigans happen and we move on. In the second game the DM simply says "You can't attack him. This isn't the boss fight it's like a cutscene. Even if you could he'd just instantly kill you". The latter went over much more terribly both with myself and other players in the ground even though the end result was exactly the same in both instances.

The reality of it is is that railroading is going to happen in most games. It's rare that a group left up to their own devices will just happen to follow the exact path the DM wants them to. And frankly a well executed themepark style game isn't a bad thing.

The problems arise either when you railroad things too heavily in a game that isn't built for it or when the railroading is too blatant.

It is certainly true that different degrees of railroading are involved in different games. Ironically both games at either end of the player agency spectrum tend to be more railroad heavy, those with high player agency tend to involve player contribution to the narrative and so you have player driven railroading, those old school games that have DM power at a premium have lots of railroading, since "The DM says no" is an acceptable response for an attack.

[Slipperychicken]

The only time I can recall being grateful for "railroading" is when it's obvious we're going to a dungeon, but the players are still faffing about in town, and the GM asks something like "Since it looks like that's where you're going, can we just do a time-skip and get to the dungeon?", because the alternative is usually to waste 2-3 OOC hours doing nonsense like haggling over a jar of marbles.

[Razanir]

If it's to set up the plot, I'm more okay with it. Like your example of having an NPC save the day to help introduce a villain. But it has to be almost at the beginning.

Otherwise, I'd prefer an illusion of choice. Maybe they get to choose where they want to go next, but the same plot event might happen wherever they choose to go. I'm actually considering using that in a campaign I'm planning. "You get to choose which plot location to go to. No matter where, though, you're fighting the same villain."

[Airk]

I think the acceptable way to railroad is for nobody to be aware that any railroading has occurred at all, otherwise it's generally a pejorative because of how it's perceived. Character agency is important.

This is getting into weird philosophical stuff though. If the players THINK they have agency, but they actually DON'T, is that bad? Is it bad if they subsequently discover that they didn't?

There was a huuuuuge topic on this stuff over on the Story Games forum a while back, it got messy.

Anyway, my version of "acceptable railroading" is pretty close to what SlipperyChicken mentioned. Basically, scene frame and cutaways. "Okay, so we need to make a plan to infiltrate the Castle and reach the princess's room..." <way too long passes while the players argue back and forth>

"You stand outside the Princess's room. The guards lie unconscious at your feet. Go."

Note: This is only a good idea when you don't want to bother with certain aspects of the game. Don't want to play out long travel? Cut past it. Don't want to drag out a long infiltration scene? Cut. Haggling going on too long for everyone? Cut.

This is basically a "keep the damn game moving" tactic, more than a "make player's decisions for them" tactic, except inasmuch as the fact that there could have been decisions made, but they DON'T MATTER. ("Do we take the river, or cross the plains?" "Irrelevant! Nothing is going to happen until you reach the Capital, stop arguing!")

[AMFV]

This is getting into weird philosophical stuff though. If the players THINK they have agency, but they actually DON'T, is that bad? Is it bad if they subsequently discover that they didn't?

That really depends on your group to be honest, agency is more important to some folks than it is to others. So it really really depends on your group and the style of the game. Certain games include player agency in terms of the story, others don't. The system assumptions are going to be very important here. As I said I find those with with high degree of player agency, and high degree of DM agency tend to have to less character agency, in my experience, although that may not always be the case.

[mephnick]

I try to railroad as little as possible. It's more fun for me as a DM to react to what the players do, it's like playing a whole game to myself.

In one campaign I had an enemy character I really liked and was excited to use. His first scene was basically administering a public execution, which the party crashed and they killed the HELL out of him. This led me to change the focus of the campaign to the side enemy character he brought with him, which ended up being a more interesting enemy in the long run.

[Kane0]

When a party of 6+ has been hemming and hawing for 1 or more hours about what to do first/next is also an acceptable time for a railroading NPC to appear and give them some directions already.

[Airk]

That really depends on your group to be honest, agency is more important to some folks than it is to others. So it really really depends on your group and the style of the game. Certain games include player agency in terms of the story, others don't. The system assumptions are going to be very important here. As I said I find those with with high degree of player agency, and high degree of DM agency tend to have to less character agency, in my experience, although that may not always be the case.

Yeah; The story games people describe this as "Illusionism" (Fooling players into thinking they have choices even when they don't - and is generally regarded as bad) and "Participationism" (Everyone understanding that, yeah, the game is basically going to go in a certain direction and being okay with that - generally regarded as perfectly fine, even if it's just tactic consent.)

The problems tend to crop up when someone thinks the game is participationist ("Well of course they're going to follow the plot") and so ends up being an illusionist and people find out later that they've been "cheated' in some way.

Honestly, the whole thing is a little bit weird to me, and I think discussing this stuff like rational adults before you play the game, or maybe using the Same Page Tool pretty much eliminates room for hard feelings here, but clearly this isn't the case everywhere. (Or maybe people just don't DO those things. That's possible too.)

[AMFV]

Yeah; The story games people describe this as "Illusionism" (Fooling players into thinking they have choices even when they don't - and is generally regarded as bad) and "Participationism" (Everyone understanding that, yeah, the game is basically going to go in a certain direction and being okay with that - generally regarded as perfectly fine, even if it's just tactic consent.)

The problems tend to crop up when someone thinks the game is participationist ("Well of course they're going to follow the plot") and so ends up being an illusionist and people find out later that they've been "cheated' in some way.

Honestly, the whole thing is a little bit weird to me, and I think discussing this stuff like rational adults before you play the game, or maybe using the Same Page Tool pretty much eliminates room for hard feelings here, but clearly this isn't the case everywhere. (Or maybe people just don't DO those things. That's possible too.)

Definitely there could be a problem if there are differing expectations in that regard. Some games are more clear on this, nWoD, and AD&D tend to be very very DM heavy and have much less player and character agency. Other systems tend to have more player agency. I'm not familiar with a system where there is a dramatic increase in character agency at the expense of the other two, that would be interesting to say the least.

[Legato Endless]

Both of your examples are, IMO, unnecessary at best, unacceptable at worst, and are mostly an attempt to make up for poor GMing.

Pretty much. If the players manage to bypass your dungeon with a bit of cleverness, you should congratulate them and move on. Creative play is to be encouraged, not shut down. Unless one player is taking the spotlight away from others constantly, this really isn't an issue. I don't understand the mindset behind preventing this.

You don't lose anything. That awesome set piece you worked so hard on that they completely avoided? What is preventing you from utilizing it for something later? You're a DM. Recycling is both practical and encouraged. The plot might be lost as a whole, but those moments you wanted to evoke can always be inserted later. Is this your one shot before the players evict you?

How much you railroad depends on the group and the game.

There is no fixed dial for how much you should be railroading. Instead you need to learn to read your audience.

One method I use is to start with as little railroad as possible, and turn it up slowly when the game stagnates. I feel like this way I end up using the least railroad necessary to get the game moving.

Agreed completely.

1. I am extremely, extremely reluctant to punish creativity. If you managed to out-think me, I may be annoyed, but that's no excuse for me to punish you. Maybe I won't give you the reward I had planned, but if you managed to accomplish the goal in a way I didn't anticipate, I have only myself to blame.

2. I find the idea of robbing players of agency abhorrent. I don't want my players to feel that their PCs' actions are futile; that's one of the quickest ways for the players to lose interest in the game. The suspension of disbelief requires that once the rules of the game are established, they should be adhered to; if I drop sudden vetos on previously acceptable actions, I'm changing the rules in the middle of the game. Nobody should have to deal with that.

Pretty much. It should also be noted, these moments aren't all bad. Being completely surprised when the PCs pull something unexpected is part of what makes Tabletop's fun personally. A group that always does what you wanted can grow dull. An unexpected divergence is an opportunity, not damage you need to minimize and patch up.

I think the real question when railroading comes up, excepting the variable players and the stylistic differences* in some games, is this:

Am I doing this to improve the group dynamic and experience, or am I doing this to better my the story? The former is legitimize excuse. The second may imply other things on your end.

*Call of Cthulhu implies quite a bit of railroading at times. You're not doing your job as DM if you aren't railroading in Paranoia. But in heroic fantasy like DnD, it's much more case by case.

[AMFV]

*Call of Cthulhu implies quite a bit of railroading at times. You're not doing your job as DM if you aren't railroading in Paranoia. But in heroic fantasy like DnD, it's much more case by case.

Depending on which edition on D&D, the older editions are much more railroady and in fact say so explicitly in the rules.

[Legato Endless]

Depending on which edition on D&D, the older editions are much more railroady and in fact say so explicitly in the rules.

True, but first edition DnD especially also promoted the mindset of it being players vs. the DM in a type of contest, which seems stylistically out of synch with what the OP is describing.

[souridealist]

In the first situation, I don't think it's exactly how I would run things, but I'd say it also comes under the heading of "It's a game; if everyone is having fun, you're good."

In the second case: would you have known the DM was pulling those shields out of the clear blue sky if she hadn't told you later? If you wouldn't have known, I would say that's probably fine.

And really, there's no particular gold standard for railroading, I think. When the players start getting frustrated, it's too much railroading; if everyone's having a good time, nothing needs to change.

[AMFV]

True, but first edition DnD especially also promoted the mindset of it being players vs. the DM in a type of contest, which seems stylistically out of synch with what the OP is describing.

True, I was more trying to posit that an acceptable degree of railroading varies dramatically by system, since the OP is asking about an acceptable degree of railroading I figured that was a line of thought on the subject.

[Legato Endless]

True, I was more trying to posit that an acceptable degree of railroading varies dramatically by system, since the OP is asking about an acceptable degree of railroading I figured that was a line of thought on the subject.

To which I agree completely. I just tend to come down a bit hard on the anti railroading side because more the frequent problem I see is DMs being blind to such subtleties and being uniformly track happy. The opposite problem is usually much easier to correct.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the right answer is "ask your party what they want." Because honestly the opinions of strangers on the internet is not going to be the best source of advice.

[Mastikator]

Any amount of railroading is acceptable if you're up front about about it, no amount is acceptable if you aren't.

A simple "look guys, just stay on the railroad and bear with me, it will be worth it ok?" is all it should take. If honesty is not good enough then nothing is.

[Rhynn]

As usual, a lot of people seem to have a really loose definition of railroading - interpreting it to be something like "the adventure has a narrow scope of design."

That's not railroading, though. That's a narrow or linear adventure, which can be perfectly fine.

Railroading is when you start blocking players'/PCs' actions because they're "wrong."

"We take the road to the north."
"The bridge is out."
"We make a raft and pole it over the river."
"A dragon turtle shows up, guess you better go back!"
"We fight it."
"It capsizes your raft and you all wash up back on the shore!"

That sort of thing. It's a terrible, horrible awful thing. And it's always active.

Some games work better with or encourage linear play. Nothing wrong with that if everyone enjoys it. Railroading is just horrible and bad GMing. Railroading is not going "hey, here's the path to take to get through the planned adventure." That's just linear. Railroading is "you can't get off these tracks I've laid down for you!"