Plot Railroading: How much?

[Darth Ultron]

What do you feel qualifies as 'plot railroading', and do you think it's good/neccessary, or evil/abusable? Provide your opinions!

Personally, I generally railroad my plots. I feel that's a good thing, and not, uh, bad.

Beware of the difference between railroading (only to ever be used to get the players to the first adventure) and Neting.

A hook is a plot event that you may respond to (ie the town starts to sink).

A net is a plot event that you have to respond to (ie town falls down a big hole into the underdark).

A railroad is a plot event that you have to respond to in a certain way (ie town falls down a hole and you are captured by drow slavers and fitted with collars that can't be tricked and kill you if you don't follow orders and are sent on missions.)

Nets are fine and are interesting, what do you do if the city you are running a guild in goes to war?



But I don't imagine that's everyone's experience with plot railroading. So, share.

[Cluedrew]

Oh boy, I am terrified of what this thread might become. But to try to prevent it from becoming that, I will take it seriously.

Railroading: One player, usually the GM, trying to force the plot along a particular pre-planned plot.

Note "force", creating a good story that the players want to follow or similar is not railroading, nor are (by this definition) many other softer methods of getting the players to follow a particular path, because they can turn those down. By my definition railroading is almost exclusively negative, but that is because a created it to diagnose a particular issue that came up in bad gaming stories.

[Cosi]

Aren't we already doing this? I don't understand how this is different from the "Railroading and Expectations" thread that you are already arguing in, except I guess maybe this is framed to make you more easily somehow? That seems like dirty pool to me.

[Anonymouswizard]

Aren't we already doing this? I don't understand how this is different from the "Railroading and Expectations" thread that you are already arguing in, except I guess maybe this is framed to make you more easily somehow? That seems like dirty pool to me.

Maybe he expects having his own thread will give him special exceptions from people disagreeing with him. If so he doesn't know this forum that well.

Anyway, to respond to the thread title, some. The exact amount will depend on the group, some are fine with staying on the choo choo train for the entire game, others want to get off as soon as they've got used to the world, some want to take the train apart in the first session to build a railgun. It depends on the group.

[Darth Ultron]

Aren't we already doing this? I don't understand how this is different from the "Railroading and Expectations" thread that you are already arguing in, except I guess maybe this is framed to make you more easily somehow? That seems like dirty pool to me.

Well, my own thread stops people from saying things like ''that is not what this thread is about'' or saying I ''ruined or hijacked someones thread.'' And the poster of that thread did say he got his answer, so thee is no point dragging out their thread.

Railroading: One player, usually the GM, trying to force the plot along a particular pre-planned plot.

Note "force", creating a good story that the players want to follow or similar is not railroading, nor are (by this definition) many other softer methods of getting the players to follow a particular path, because they can turn those down. By my definition railroading is almost exclusively negative, but that is because a created it to diagnose a particular issue that came up in bad gaming stories.

I have a problem with the idea that it is wrong to use ''force''. As if the players must agree with everything the DM does before the DM can do it.

Like in 2017 you can find out the details of any show and know what happened....but it is much more fun to not read the spoilers and just watch the show.

And asking what someone likes is the sunny day problem: If you can control the weather and ask someone ''what weather would you like today'', chances are they will say ''mild, sunny weather''. Every day. But: you will never see a rainbow, unless you have a little rain. And people are not the best to judge how well they ''like'' something based on a whim. Every do or watch something you ''thought'' you would not like...and then afterwards liked it? Well, it turns out your first thought was wrong. And if you never ''took the chance'' you'd never know.

Plot Railroading: noun -- the GM technique of leaving only one or a few possible ways to overcome a given obstacle in the narrative of a story despite the ability of other options to accomplish the same goal.

The idea that there are all ways dozens of ways to do something is just silly. Like saying ''well if the c's had a Ring of Wishing they could make a wish for X''. And that is great...if the PC's have a ring of wishing, so otherwise skip.

And a lot of the ''other'' ways just won't work. Like any idea of ''well we will talk people into doing what we want''. The Pc's can go as far as charm every peasant in town, but their ''army'' will last a whole two rounds vs the dragon.

And there are often time constraints where ''option b'' would take too long and things where the characters can't do an act for role playing reasons(granted they ''could'', but they don't want too).

Frankly, I for one embrace railroading & find that there is nothing wrong with it in every campaign. The real problem lies in bad, obvious railroading, the kind that the players can see (& resent) from a mile away. Railroading should be subtle, & the DM must be able to play events off as if they were naturally/directly flowing from the players' choices.

Sometimes you might get two o three ways, but most of the time there is just one way. But still even with ''one way'', the players all ways have the freedom of ''how'' they do it the one way.

[Quertus]

Well, my own thread stops people from saying things like ''that is not what this thread is about'' or saying I ''ruined or hijacked someones thread.''

Thank you for making your own thread on the topic. Expect that people will still try to correct / normalize your definitions, though, because cat most prostate pastor eh did lashed.

What do you feel qualifies as 'plot railroading', and do you think it's good/neccessary, or evil/abusable? Provide your opinions!

Well, when I first started posting here, I'll admit I believed that all railroading was bad, always. It was quite a culture shock to read about people who actually enjoy being railroaded. So I've adjusted my stance to simply that I personally hate railroading.

But what is railroading? In my current opinion, it's any time the GM forces a particular outcome, often involving changing rules, fudging dice, and ignoring player input in favor of their one predetermined outcome.

Or something like that.

Personally, I generally railroad my plots. I feel that's a good thing, and not, uh, bad.

Beware of the difference between railroading (only to ever be used to get the players to the first adventure) and Neting.

A hook is a plot event that you may respond to (ie the town starts to sink).

A net is a plot event that you have to respond to (ie town falls down a big hole into the underdark).

A railroad is a plot event that you have to respond to in a certain way (ie town falls down a hole and you are captured by drow slavers and fitted with collars that can't be tricked and kill you if you don't follow orders and are sent on missions.)

Nets are fine and are interesting, what do you do if the city you are running a guild in goes to war?

Perhaps I missed something - so the town just sank into the underdark - what distinguishes that from a plot hook? What keeps me from just writing it off as a lost cause, and going to another town?

But I don't imagine that's everyone's experience with plot railroading. So, share.

Reasonable, supported by the rules:

No, you can't just lift the town and toss it back up - your strength isn't even high enough to lift a single building, and the damage the town would take when it lands would be astronomical.

No, you can't attach a Spelljamming Helm to the town and pilot it out - it's way to big to qualify as 100 tons, and you aren't a spellcaster to power a helm in the first place.

Railroading

No, you can't cut the town up into 100 ton pieces, and get the town mage / party bard to pilot them out.

No, 50 years in a fast time plane with Boccob and his library does not let your wizard learn the counter spell to undo the curse that the drow used to get the city down here in the first place.

The only way you're getting this city back to the surface is...

Railroading: One player, usually the GM, trying to force the plot along a particular pre-planned plot.

Note "force", creating a good story that the players want to follow or similar is not railroading, nor are (by this definition) many other softer methods of getting the players to follow a particular path, because they can turn those down. By my definition railroading is almost exclusively negative, but that is because a created it to diagnose a particular issue that came up in bad gaming stories.

Interesting that you believe that players can railroad a game. Can you explain / give an example?

[ImNotTrevor]

Depends on the group. If they want a railroad, ride the train.
If they don't, trying to put them on it is being an ass.

[Metaphor]
It's like if a vegan came to your dinner party and respectfully requested no meat and so you tried to sneak them meat because if they never get to experience meat they can't have a full culinary lifestyle.

Successfully getting them to eat meat without knowing is not being clever or good. It's just getting away with being an ass. [/metaphor]

So if your players are cool with a fixed destination with no departures, awesome! More power to ya. I know people who don't like open games due to choice paralysis, and I know people who hate railroaded games because they often strain verisimilitude. (My friend Jeff is in the former camp, myself in the latter.)

So how much railroading is enough/too much? Exactly as much as the group wants, no more no less.

[Frozen_Feet]

So how much railroading is enough/too much? Exactly as much as the group wants, no more no less.

Disagreed. People can and do want things which are stupid, counter-productive or even harmfull. You are under no obligation to give them such. Even if Hell freezes over and you get a player sincerely asking "how about you run a railroad adventure to us?", you can and probably should run a game with actual choices in it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Disagreed. People can and do want things which are stupid, counter-productive or even harmfull. You are under no obligation to give them such. Even if Hell freezes over and you get a player sincerely asking "how about you run a railroad adventure to us?", you can and probably should run a game with actual choices in it.

You can have railroads and meaningful player agency. If their actions have consequences then they have some degree of agency. At least as far as I define it railroads have a strong unidirectional plot. Choices they make and events they succeed/fail can have an impact on the trip.

[jayem]

It depends on the group (children might need to be told what to do), the game (in collaborative storytelling any rails are bad, in a computer game the rails are very strong) and the situation/plot (if you're in prison, life pretty much is a railroad).

On the whole, if you've got a powerful element with a plan then many roads will lead to an encounter with it. And it can close some roads off.
If something is abundantly common, then it (or a trivial variation) will be found on many roads.

In practical terms, if the king wants to see you, it's natural that the guards won't let you leave. He's given instructions.
If on the other hand the guards letting you leave is dependent on you seeing the washer-woman, then that's a bit odd (regardless of how well you think you've hidden it).

[RazorChain]

guys....you are making progress!
Now Darth Ultron finally accepts

A plot hook

A net

and railroading.


Instead of Railroading or total chaos/empty world

[Florian]

That depends heavily on the type of campaign and what focus it has. In addition, players often will "feel railroaded" when things happen in the game world for reasons they can´t see or directly control and the "feel" forced to go with the actual flow, losing part of their agency. But that is a problem of perception.

For serious games, I prefer the "sim world" approach. Actions have consequences and things happen in the world that are possibly huge enough so the characters can´t influence them, at least right now.

For example, I once ran a L5R campaign centered on a huge power struggle with the clear goal to raise through the power structure, stop being pawns and actually start having influence.
A core part of that campaign was that, being loyal samurai, you are part of the social structure and forced to do stuff by those higher up in the pecking order, fulfilling that while seeking a way to replace them in said packing order. In that, "force" was a major part of the theme and mood for this campaign.

[Frozen_Feet]

You can have railroads and meaningful player agency. If their actions have consequences then they have some degree of agency. At least as far as I define it railroads have a strong unidirectional plot. Choices they make and events they succeed/fail can have an impact on the trip.

Yeah, no. The whole point of the railroad metaphor is that the game keeps moving along a preplanned path at set pace with or without your input. This very much includes preplanned success and failure and precludes any choice from having meaningfull impact.

Once you start having meaningfull choices and can win or lose by your merit, the game's no longer a railroad. It may still be linear or GM-driven, but those aren't the same as a railroad.

Like I said in the other thread, "railroading" isn't a spectrum. It's one end of the spectrum. The one where player agency isn't a thing. It's bad because it only takes token effort to move away from that category and not doing so is lazy.

[The Extinguisher]

It's just a definition thing right? Some people see railroading as "absolutely no player agency at all, you're characters in a book the gm is writing" and others see it as "anything that isn't a choice made by a player" or somewhere in between, and it's usually one step under the level of control that player wants out of a game.

The answer here is, like always, everyone needs to sit down before the game and talk about what kind of game they want to play. 95% of all disagreements can be solved by doing this before the game starts.

[Frozen_Feet]

... others see [railroading] as "anything that isn't a choice made by a player"...

The only person who has consistently advocated for anything like is Darth Ultron and that's why he only has anything usefull to say about the topic in the "even broken clock is right twice a day" sense.

Overly broad definitions are useless. The usefullness of the term "railroad" is tied to the strong mental image of being on-board a moving train or rollercoaster, as anyone who has experienced such can grok the inability to steer such a thing as a passenger. Once you start using the term to refer to things which don't actually resemble such an experience, you are actively making whatever you say less informative.

[Florian]

The only person who has consistently advocated for anything like is Darth Ultron

Not really. What DU writes is very similar to any basic gm advice on how to run a game for the DSA system, which is the 800 pound gorilla in the german RPG landscape.

[Frozen_Feet]

I can agree that a lot of DU's writings recycle old (and often bad) GMing advice from all across the place, but you'll have to give me a direct page quote if you want me to believe the Dark Eye shares DU's particular conceit of basically calling anything and everything a GM could do "railroading", and then proclaiming railroading is bestest thing ever.

[ImNotTrevor]

Disagreed. People can and do want things which are stupid, counter-productive or even harmfull. You are under no obligation to give them such. Even if Hell freezes over and you get a player sincerely asking "how about you run a railroad adventure to us?", you can and probably should run a game with actual choices in it.

Just like with people deciding to smoke or drink or eat too many cheeseburgers, you have neither the responsibility nor the authority to choose for them.

(Though honestly telling people their subjective opinion of how they prefer to have fun is actively harmful to their person is laughable enough that any sane person will dismiss you out of hand)

You don't have to PARTICIPATE, either. But you don't get to infringe on someone else's fun any more than they get to infringe on yours.

[Darth Ultron]

[Metaphor]
It's like if a vegan came to your dinner party and respectfully requested no meat and so you tried to sneak them meat because if they never get to experience meat they can't have a full culinary lifestyle.

I agree that would be a jerk move. I would not do that(but then too I also would not invite a vegan over to my dinner party anyway)

But here is the metaphor question: As the dinner party host do you provide a special vegan part of the meal just for this person(or worst of all, make the whole meal vegan just as that one person will be there) or do you say to them that they should bring their own food?

guys....you are making progress!
Now Darth Ultron finally accepts

A plot hook

A net

and railroading.


Instead of Railroading or total chaos/empty world

I do like ''the net'' and I have not heard this term before. and it has not come up in other threads. I found it on another forum. I cast a lot of nets. I don't really like ''hooks'' as they just get annoying like ''sigh, ok players plot hook 26'',.

Yeah, no. The whole point of the railroad metaphor is that the game keeps moving along a preplanned path at set pace with or without your input. This very much includes preplanned success and failure and precludes any choice from having meaningfull impact.

Once you start having meaningfull choices and can win or lose by your merit, the game's no longer a railroad. It may still be linear or GM-driven, but those aren't the same as a railroad.

I think this is a good point. Somehow people do jump to if there is any railroading it equals the whole game being a railroad. But that is not true for most games.

[Frozen_Feet]

Just like with people deciding to smoke or drink or eat too many cheeseburgers, you have neither the responsibility nor the authority to choose for them.

Factually wrong. If it is my hands making the burger or brewing the drink or holding the cigarette, I virtually always have the authority and in case of the latter two often also the responsibility to tell them to GTFO.

[ImNotTrevor]

I agree that would be a jerk move. I would not do that(but then too I also would not invite a vegan over to my dinner party anyway)

But here is the metaphor question: As the dinner party host do you provide a special vegan part of the meal just for this person(or worst of all, make the whole meal vegan just as that one person will be there) or do you say to them that they should bring their own food?

Neither, because this is nitpicking the metaphor and missing its point.

Sneakily giving someone something they didn't want is not clever or good, just as sneakliy trying to railroad players who don't want to be railroaded is not clever or good. Getting away with it is not praiseworthy.

[ImNotTrevor]

Factually wrong. If it is my hands making the burger or brewing the drink or holding the cigarette, I virtually always have the authority and in case of the latter two often also the responsibility to tell them to GTFO.

This is the choosing not to participate bit I already said, not affecting their capacity to choose.

Come on, now.

(Also missing the point to nitpick the particulars of the metaphor. Also, to bring back another point: Telling people their subjective opinion of how they prefer to have fun is actively harmful to their person is laughable enough that any sane person will dismiss you out of hand)

[Scripten]

I, like DU, have a slightly nonstandard definition of railroading. (I am being slightly generous here.) I consider railroading to be refusing to arbitrate uncertain events. That is, if an action a player or NPC takes is uncertain, then the game mechanics should be used to arbitrate it. In most (all?) cases, this only applies to situations involving players, because the DM will know how events not involving the players will play out, because they are the setting and all NPCs.

So for me, no railroading is acceptable, because it's literally refusing to engage with the system and is not actually roleplaying.

Of course, this leaves open bad scenario design where the players may be put into situations where they have no agency due to mechanically supported rails, but that falls under a totally different category for me.

[The Extinguisher]

The only person who has consistently advocated for anything like is Darth Ultron and that's why he only has anything usefull to say about the topic in the "even broken clock is right twice a day" sense.

Overly broad definitions are useless. The usefullness of the term "railroad" is tied to the strong mental image of being on-board a moving train or rollercoaster, as anyone who has experienced such can grok the inability to steer such a thing as a passenger. Once you start using the term to refer to things which don't actually resemble such an experience, you are actively making whatever you say less informative.

Trust me, he's not the only one. I've heard railroading apply to things like a game being linear, a puzzle solution being a red herring, and the setting advancing while the players stop to play economy, and much more.

Railroading is one of those phrases, much like "deus ex machina" that generally means "I didn't like this so it must be Bad"

Also, if we really want to talk mental image, if railroading evokes a train or rollercoaster it's important to realize that people don't generally get on those to steer it. It's either to get to a particular place, or have an exciting ride.

[kyoryu]

I also like Plot Grenades. If you throw a grenade at someone, they'd best move before it explodes (yeah, realism, kill radius, yada yada, I get it. Bear with me.) You don't have to a certain direction, but "standing still" isn't an option.

Similarly with a plot grenade. It's something that occurs that *demands* some type of player response - but the response is not dictated. A "plot hook" typically grabs the player once they "bite", and leads them off in some direction that may or may not be obvious. It's much like a fishing hook - once the fish bites, it's going to end up in the net. And it doesn't try to look like what it actually is.

A plot grenade, on the other hand, is blatant. It's a pressing problem that needs a solution, at least in some level. But the solution is up to the players, and how they deal with the problem is what determines the direction of the game. And the GM doesn't know how they will respond, therefore the end is not known and it's not a "railroad".

Also note that, at least for most people, "railroading" isn't about the GM making choices or the player making choices. I'ts about the GM *restricting player choice*, usually to the point of meaninglessness. At its most basic, it's about the GM stepping into the area that the players are usually considered to have control over - whether that's blatant ("no, you can't do that") or less so (quantum ogre, "all the roads except this one are blocked").

You can have railroads and meaningful player agency. If their actions have consequences then they have some degree of agency. At least as far as I define it railroads have a strong unidirectional plot. Choices they make and events they succeed/fail can have an impact on the trip.

If the destination is known, then the only impact you can have is minor details. You have no real agency over the *central issue* of the game. If the game is about destroying The Evil Warlord, then my decisions won't really impact that one bit, or how his plan unfolds, etc. I might be able to change some other, less central things, but the main line of the game I have little impact on.

Which is fine, if you're into that sort of thing.

I agree that would be a jerk move. I would not do that(but then too I also would not invite a vegan over to my dinner party anyway)

But here is the metaphor question: As the dinner party host do you provide a special vegan part of the meal just for this person(or worst of all, make the whole meal vegan just as that one person will be there) or do you say to them that they should bring their own food?

You talk to them. You explain what you're doing with the meal. You tell them they're welcome. You decide if you're willing to provide vegan options, or not, and then they decide if they're willing to show up and maybe just enjoy company, or eat what's available that they can, or not.

If you tell them there's no vegan food (or minimal, like you put out some carrots or something), then they can choose whether to come or not, and can't be mad about what the situation is if they do show up.

If they tell you they won't come unless there's vegan food, you can choose to provide vegan food, or not. And then you can't be mad if they don't come because of no vegan food, and you can't be mad about making vegan food, because you're making your choice.

What situations work?
A) You don't provide vegan food, and the person comes anyway and enjoys the company
B) You don't provide vegan food, and the person decides not to come because there's no food for them, but nobody's mad
C) You do provide vegan food because you want the person to come

These are all situations where people are honest with each other and respect the choices the other makes, and presume no obligation from the other.

What situations don't work?

A) You tell the person that the food is vegan, but it's not.
B) You tell the person that there will be vegan food, but there's not.
C) The person knows there's not vegan food, but comes anyway and whines
D) You resentfully make vegan food for the person
E) The person doesn't come and is mad because you didn't make them food

Note that all of these involve either lying to the other person, not respecting the choices of the other person, or presuming an obligation that doesn't exist.

(Note that if there's a real obligation of some sort, then that changes things a bit. In most situations, there isn't, and that's the scenario I'm talking about.)

[Tinkerer]

Trust me, he's not the only one. I've heard railroading apply to things like a game being linear, a puzzle solution being a red herring, and the setting advancing while the players stop to play economy, and much more.

Railroading is one of those phrases, much like "deus ex machina" that generally means "I didn't like this so it must be Bad"

Also, if we really want to talk mental image, if railroading evokes a train or rollercoaster it's important to realize that people don't generally get on those to steer it. It's either to get to a particular place, or have an exciting ride.

I've heard of such things but they are usually from people like DU where on the one hand they say "I constantly railroad my players and they never suspect a thing" and on the other hand they say "Players are so annoying, they keep accusing me of railroading". If you are constantly railroading then your players will start to catch on.

I would disagree that it generally means "I didn't like this so it must be Bad" simply because I have never run into it being used in such a manner in person. Now this doesn't mean that it isn't used like that, merely that in my years of gaming I have never run into it. Then again I haven't run into deus ex machina being used incorrectly either... what are people using it for? I'm quite curious on that.

Any way to address the original point

Beware of the difference between railroading (only to ever be used to get the players to the first adventure) and Neting.

I am wondering how you can say this and yet earlier be saying that you are constantly railroading. I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

[Frozen_Feet]

This is the choosing not to participate bit I already said, not affecting their capacity to choose.

Me refusing to participate in whatever wants and desires involving myself rather straightforwardly negatively affect people's capacity to choose to fullfill those things. That you choose to pick that nit suggests to me you didn't actually get what I disagreed with or how.

To recap: you are under no obligation to give people whatever stupid thing they want. This is important because you made an obtuse two-fold claim: "no more, no less"

If you had worded your claim as "enough railroading is at most what a group wants", we wouldn't be here. When someone asks for something with a sideorder of stupid, you can always nix the stupid part. If someone asks for a cheeseburger with extra salt and you know salt is bad for them, you can nix the salt. If someone asks for a railroad game, you can always give them a non-railroad game instead.

Pretending that fullfilling the exact wish is somehow better when the exact wish is stupid is obtuse. Their capacity to choose can be neglected, because when you are the cook or the GM or whatever, the choice is yours. Not theirs.

[Quertus]

I think this is a good point. Somehow people do jump to if there is any railroading it equals the whole game being a railroad. But that is not true for most games.

If your plot requires the king to be poisoned, despite being immune to poison, and despite the permanent Detect Poison aura on the crown, then, yeah, it's already too much railroad for my taste.

I can't say I've seen a GM who would railroad just one section without the risk of such rails throughout. "You can do whatever you want so long as the king is poisoned", where the party could then hire the assassin as their personal trainer, or murder every other successor and take over the country, or build a rocket ship and fly to the moon, just isn't something I can grasp. If the party can then do any of those things, why the **** would it matter that the king absolutely has to be poisoned in the first place?

So, by all means, please explain how small sections of rails makes any tactical sense on the GMs part. Because I'm just not seeing it.

[Frozen_Feet]

Trust me, he's not the only one. [. . .] Railroading is one of those phrases, much like "deus ex machina" that generally means "I didn't like this so it must be Bad."

Yes, DU is not the only person with bad semantics. News at eleven.

Also, if we really want to talk mental image, if railroading evokes a train or rollercoaster it's important to realize that people don't generally get on those to steer it. It's either to get to a particular place, or have an exciting ride.

Maybe, but that's not the part that's relevant to what the metaphor is intended to convey. When such extended metaphor makes appearance, it's usually to remark that you can't get to the place (that is, particular gaming experience) via following the rails, or to remark that even a railroad game can be fun, which is not something I'm denying. I simply consider a fun railroad, or "rollercoaster" if you will, stilö as lazy as form of RPG design as a non-fun one.

[kyoryu]

Me refusing to participate in whatever wants and desires involving myself rather straightforwardly negatively affect people's capacity to choose to fullfill those things. That you choose to pick that nit suggests to me you didn't actually get what I disagreed with or how.

To recap: you are under no obligation to give people whatever stupid thing they want. This is important because you made an obtuse two-fold claim: "no more, no less"

If you had worded your claim as "enough railroading is at most what a group wants", we wouldn't be here. When someone asks for something with a sideorder of stupid, you can always nix the stupid part. If someone asks for a cheeseburger with extra salt and you know salt is bad for them, you can nix the salt. If someone asks for a railroad game, you can always give them a non-railroad game instead.

Pretending that fullfilling the exact wish is somehow better when the exact wish is stupid is obtuse. Their capacity to choose can be neglected, because when you are the cook or the GM or whatever, the choice is yours. Not theirs.

Uh, disagree. Strongly.

I agree you're under no obligation to provide anything, for anyone, at any time. BUT. I do believe that the reasonable default is to give people what they want, or to, at the minimum tell them what you're giving them

If someone really wants a railroaded game, and you give them a freeform game, you're guilty of exactly the same thing that someone promising an open-world but delivering a railroad is.

It's not your job to make other peoples' choices for them (caveat for cases where it is, like your kids).

If it's something that's unhealthy, like the cheeseburger? You're free to say "dude, that's not healthy. I'm not doing that. I can make you a regular cheeseburger, or you can get food somewhere else". But to unilaterally take that choice away from them is.... not something I'd condone.