The Nature of Railroading

[Talakeal]

Last night in my campaign the adventure was to explore a chasm, a site based semi-dungeon crawl.

There is a giant at the top of the chasm whose tactic is to throw his enemies over the edge. The likely result of this encounter was that the players would end up at the bottom of the chasm and have to find their way out.

This is exactly what happened.

At no point did we go into DM fiat or anything, everything was rolled out normally following the rules and at no point did I ever veto a player's action either OOC or with deus ex machina.

Still, after the encounter, one of the players started whining about railroading, saying that by structuring the adventure the way I did, with the likely outcome being thrown into a chasm, that I was railroading.

Now, in my mind setting up a scenario isn't railroading, that's just being a DM in a not totally sandbox game. Railroading is when you actively come up with reasons to force the players to go along with your plot and do your best to shoot down player wishes.

What do you think?

[Wuzza]

at no point did I ever veto a player's action either OOC or with deus ex machina.

Still, after the encounter, one of the players started whining about railroading, saying that by structuring the adventure the way I did, with the likely outcome being thrown into a chasm, that I was railroading.

I would point out that the outcome was completely dependant on the actions of the party. Did you make them fluff the rolls? No? Did you stop them doing what they wanted? Doesn't sound like it...

It may have been a likely outcome, but if you have Donkey Kong sat upon a pile of girders, you have to be pretty skilled not to be knocked off by on of his barrels.

My party actually like being railroaded (not that they know it). If I give them too many options the adventure tends to grind to a halt..

[Malifice]

Still, after the encounter, one of the players started whining about railroading, saying that by structuring the adventure the way I did, with the likely outcome being thrown into a chasm, that I was railroading.

What do you think?

Mate, your players whine a lot.

Tell him it wasn't railroading, ask him if he had fun with the session, and get on with DMing. If he complains further, ask him politely to stop. If he continues, tell him to stop or he'll be booted from the game. If he continues from there, uninvite him from the group, and find a replacement player that complains less.

Eventually (one way or another) your problems will stop.

[Wuzza]

Mate, your players whine a lot.

I didn't want to go there. Tell him/her to stop watching YouTube vids and actually start playing the game.

[Yora]

Railroading is when the GM has decided where the campaign will be going and every time the players decide to do something else, the GMs planned outcome happens anyway. If the players didn't want to roll dice against a giant with poor chances of winning, then they should not have been rolling dice against the giant. Running away is always an option.

[Quertus]

Railroading is when the GM has decided where the campaign will be going and every time the players decide to do something else, the GMs planned outcome happens anyway.

Pretty much this.

That having been said...

the adventure was to explore a chasm, a site based semi-dungeon crawl.

There is a giant at the top of the chasm whose tactic is to throw his enemies over the edge. The likely result of this encounter was that the players would end up at the bottom of the chasm and have to find their way out.

This is exactly what happened.

What do you think?

Suppose I had rolled up at your house to play. Suppose the character I brought just happened to have some ability (Feather Fall, and a cohort with a lasso?) that completely negated the giant's tactic.

Or suppose the party used flying mounts and ranged attacks to ignore the giant m

Or suppose the party had said, "**** this, we go <somewhere else>.”.

How would you have reacted?

Rails first form in the GM's mind, when the GM wants something to happen.

This giant encounter certainly feels like you wanted "party go down the hole" to happen. So I can understand where your players are coming from, I suppose. But - just from what you've said - they're no evidence to support claims of railroading.

Of course, if the rails existed in your mind, then your expression or tone may have been damning.

Shrug.

What do you want from us? We weren't there.

But... How else could they have explored the site?

[Talakeal]

Pretty much this.

That having been said...



Suppose I had rolled up at your house to play. Suppose the character I brought just happened to have some ability (Feather Fall, and a cohort with a lasso?) that completely negated the giant's tactic.

Suppose the party had said, "**** this, we go <somewhere else>.”.

How would you have reacted?

Rails first form in the GM's mind, when the GM wants something to happen.

This giant encounter certainly feels like you wanted "party go down the hole" to happen. So I can understand where your players are coming from, I suppose. But - just from what you've said - they're no evidence to support claims of railroading.

Of course, if the rails existed in your mind, then your expression or tone may have been damning.

Shrug.

What do you want from us? We weren't there.

But... How else could they have explored the site?

If they had some ability to avoid the situation then they would have avoided the situation.

Not so much asking about the specific instance as to what the consensus on railroading is; is it the DM designing a scenario with a planned outcome or is it actively negating a players decisions?

[DeTess]

Last night in my campaign the adventure was to explore a chasm, a site based semi-dungeon crawl.

There is a giant at the top of the chasm whose tactic is to throw his enemies over the edge. The likely result of this encounter was that the players would end up at the bottom of the chasm and have to find their way out.

This is exactly what happened.

At no point did we go into DM fiat or anything, everything was rolled out normally following the rules and at no point did I ever veto a player's action either OOC or with deus ex machina.

Still, after the encounter, one of the players started whining about railroading, saying that by structuring the adventure the way I did, with the likely outcome being thrown into a chasm, that I was railroading.

Now, in my mind setting up a scenario isn't railroading, that's just being a DM in a not totally sandbox game. Railroading is when you actively come up with reasons to force the players to go along with your plot and do your best to shoot down player wishes.

What do you think?

As I wasn't there, I can't tell how railroady it'd have appeared, but a scenario like this can be pretty rail-roady, even if that wasn't your intention Just because the rails are represented by the giants 'ledge-throwing'ability, rather than the DM saying 'no', doesn't mean the rails aren't there.

A potential similar, but clearer example: A low-level party arrives at the city. That city is attacked by an ancient dragon/deamonlord+army/host of wrathful angles/A great old one, and despite the DM not doing anything to inhibit the players from taking any action they'd desire to take, the players still end up dead as a natural consequence of this scenario, and the adventure continues as the PC's attempt to escape the realm of the dead. Would you say the DM railroaded the players into dying?

That having been said, I don't think this type of railroading is necessarily bad, as long as you weren't marketing your game as a wide-open sandbox, and it occurs as a way to channel the players towards adventure (such as exploring the chasm, or adventuring to return to the world of the living), rather than punish solutions the DM doesn't like.

[Talakeal]

A potential similar, but clearer example: A low-level party arrives at the city. That city is attacked by an ancient dragon/deamonlord+army/host of wrathful angles/A great old one, and despite the DM not doing anything to inhibit the players from taking any action they'd desire to take, the players still end up dead as a natural consequence of this scenario, and the adventure continues as the PC's attempt to escape the realm of the dead. Would you say the DM railroaded the players into dying?

That was indeed my question.

I personally would say no, that is just setting up the scenario.

[zlefin]

it doesn't sound like railroading to me in this instance; though I do wonder what this chasm is like that they can be tossed in and not die, but still be weak enough to not take down a giant.

one thing that might help is mentioning several possibilities to the party that could've caused things to turn out differently, and giving a short synopsis of how it would've played out.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No that's not railroading. Also, get better players.

[Talakeal]

it doesn't sound like railroading to me in this instance; though I do wonder what this chasm is like that they can be tossed in and not die, but still be weak enough to not take down a giant.

one thing that might help is mentioning several possibilities to the party that could've caused things to turn out differently, and giving a short synopsis of how it would've played out.

If they had managed to avoid being thrown over the edge either by killing the giant or simply evading it then they would have had a slightly more relaxed mission as they could have come at it from the top down.

If they could all fly, or teleport, or climb really well then they could have explored the area totally at their own pace and skipped what they didn't want to encounter.

If they had just decided to ignore the situation and go home I would have said "Come on guys, we all showed up to play, and I spent a lot of time preparing this adventure, could we please at least be good and fake an interest?"

[zlefin]

If they had managed to avoid being thrown over the edge either by killing the giant or simply evading it then they would have had a slightly more relaxed mission as they could have come at it from the top down.

If they could all fly, or teleport, or climb really well then they could have explored the area totally at their own pace and skipped what they didn't want to encounter.

If they had just decided to ignore the situation and go home I would have said "Come on guys, we all showed up to play, and I spent a lot of time preparing this adventure, could we please at least be good and fake an interest?"

sounds reasonable. so tell THEM about those things. that may make them feel better.

[MoiMagnus]

Last night in my campaign the adventure was to explore a chasm, a site based semi-dungeon crawl.

There is a giant at the top of the chasm whose tactic is to throw his enemies over the edge. The likely result of this encounter was that the players would end up at the bottom of the chasm and have to find their way out.

This is exactly what happened.

At no point did we go into DM fiat or anything, everything was rolled out normally following the rules and at no point did I ever veto a player's action either OOC or with deus ex machina.

Still, after the encounter, one of the players started whining about railroading, saying that by structuring the adventure the way I did, with the likely outcome being thrown into a chasm, that I was railroading.

Now, in my mind setting up a scenario isn't railroading, that's just being a DM in a not totally sandbox game. Railroading is when you actively come up with reasons to force the players to go along with your plot and do your best to shoot down player wishes.

What do you think?

Are you players the kind of player that actually try to go outside the rails whenever they can?
Or are there more players that will instinctly follow rails and then complain about their restricted freedom?

Because the way I see it, they may have followed some "imaginary" rails thinking you would enforce them if they tried to get out of them, while you didn't intent to do so. (And then winning about you railroading them)

Alternatively, they just had the feeling that "everything was going as planed" for you, and when they say "we don't want railroading", they mean "we like chaos, we like seing you improvising to take care of the weird situation we put ourself in, and this didn't happen here, so this session wasn't as fun as it could have been"

[Quertus]

Not so much asking about the specific instance as to what the consensus on railroading is; is it the DM designing a scenario with a planned outcome or is it actively negating a players decisions?

If they had just decided to ignore the situation and go home I would have said "Come on guys, we all showed up to play, and I spent a lot of time preparing this adventure, could we please at least be good and fake an interest?"

Well, I think "general consensus" defines "railroading" more as actively negating player decisions. But I think it's subtler and more insidious than that. Rails first form inside the GM's head, when the GM wants something without getting explicit player buy-in.

Participationism is a thing. Many people just expect "but that's the adventure" level of rails to be acceptable. That doesn't make them any less rails.

Now, to avoid the feeling of rails, I'll second a reply I lost, and say that you should tell the players what their other options were. In fact, that's how I teach new players how to play.

This gets your players on the same page regarding required levels of Participationism, how you think (knowledge: GM is a very important player skill), and what you'll accept.

Communication usually seems to be an issue with your (and most) groups. Try increasing it, in specific, chosen vectors - like this one.

[Mutazoia]

Ask that player if they like Roller Coasters.
Then ask that player if, while they were riding one, would they still like it, if the Roller Coaster jumped the rails, and went flying through the air in a random direction. How much fun would that be?

Sometimes, just because you are on a rail, doesn't mean you can't have fun.

The Giant had a battle plan. That plan didn't instantly change, just because the players didn't want to be thrown down a hole. If they didn't want to be there, they should have left the Giant well enough alone.

But they didn't. They fought a Giant. And got thrown down a hole.

Sometimes, a DM has to use a little bit of railroading. We spend hours, even days, preparing material for an adventure, and we're suppose to just chuck it all out the window because "Let's suddenly go shopping on the other side of the planet! Lulz" Nope.

You have 3 options.

1. Run the adventure I have prepared for you, like good little adventurers. Even if I have to nudge you a bit to get you there.
2. I stop/cancel the entire session for the week while I scramble to make up new material based on your random whims.
3. I ad-lib EVERYTHING with no consistancy, nobody has fun, game dies.

[Quertus]

Sometimes, a DM has to use a little bit of railroading. We spend hours, even days, preparing material for an adventure, and we're suppose to just chuck it all out the window because "Let's suddenly go shopping on the other side of the planet! Lulz" Nope.

You have 3 options.

1. Run the adventure I have prepared for you, like good little adventurers. Even if I have to nudge you a bit to get you there.
2. I stop/cancel the entire session for the week while I scramble to make up new material based on your random whims.
3. I ad-lib EVERYTHING with no consistancy, nobody has fun, game dies.

False trichotomy. How about 4) be smarter - find out what they want to do, then build that?

My first campaign, I ended every session asking my players, "what are we doing next session?". And I made any necessary maps, gave NPCs names, etc, in the interim.

I agree, though, that there is a preparation / ad-lib dichotomy. And that pure ad-lib is often not fun - especially for players like me, who care about consistency.

[doctor doughnut]

What do you think?

Far too many player do the: ''If I don't like it" = "Railroading". It's just the sign of our times. If a player feels bad, they will throw up the flag of ''railroading".

Railroading is when the GM has decided where the campaign will be going and every time the players decide to do something else, the GMs planned outcome happens anyway.

Ok, lets keep this defination in mind and understand that Railroading is not just ''something a player does not like". Railroading is only the campagain direction, and NOT every single event in the game.

Rails first form in the GM's mind, when the GM wants something to happen.

See, here is where it goes wrong. Here is where it's ''jumping the rails" to if the DM does ANYTHING it's automatiacly railroading.

Well, I think "general consensus" defines "railroading" more as actively negating player decisions. But I think it's subtler and more insidious than that. Rails first form inside the GM's head, when the GM wants something without getting explicit player buy-in.

This is the worst defination ever. It would mean the DM can never do anything in the game without it being railroading. The player buy in only makes it worse.

If a player says "I want a goblin to attack my character and steal my loot" then it's not railroading as you have the ridiculious ''player buy in".

If the characters encounter some goblins, and you know ''just using the rules" a goblin steals the loot of a character....that that is AUTOMATIACLY railroading.


A DM is neutral on most things. The DM does not ''want" the bandits to kill the player characters, but the DM is not opposed to the idea. And a good DM has monsters/npc with in-game reasons for actions, not just ''get the players". A lot of monsters attack as they are hungry...or evil abonimations that kill all life.

And roughly 100% of things in the game will ''negatate player decisions"....that is what the game is all about. If the player makes the ''decision" to loot a dragons lair, does the Dm just roll over and say ''done, you now have a ton of loot"? Is not having the dragon defend it's lair ''negatating player decision" to loot the lair?

The thing is, bad players will always cry railroading. Really, it's no diffrent then bad players in any other game. You know when you play a game, and a player either losses or just ''feels bad".....and what do they do? They sart blaming something...anything else except themselves. They lost or ''feel bad" because of something else: never anything they personaly did.

[Cliff Sedge]

1. No, that scenario had no railroading quality at all.

You know what would be railroading? If the DM wanted the party to get to the top of the chasm and kill the giant, but all the players' choices and the dice rolls led to them all being down at the bottom, injured - "but, wait!" the DM says, "you find a magic teleport portal that takes you to the top of the chasm, behind the giant, and it healed you all +20hp! Ain't magic great?"

That is what railroading looks like.

Players making poor choices and unlucky dice rolls are just part of the game.

2. I as a player would actually prefer more rails and less sand in any RPG I play. I want to experience the highest-quality storytelling and encounter design my GM can come up with. If my fellow players do whatever it takes to avoid plot hooks and go in any direction that is away from the quests the DM has prepared, then that forces the DM to always ad-lib and make up less-dramatic and less-intricate encounters and story lines. I have less fun and enjoyment, because the best I get is "Oh, um.. okay, I guess this other thing happens instead" (* DM frantically comes up with some lame ad-hoc encounter details and rolls on some random tables . . .*)

It is better to have rails laid down in the sand. The players do get actual choice, but their choices should be limited to pre-planned adventures that the DM has put in effort to create.


Here is a recent railroading experience I had, for contrast:

It was a non-D&D RPG (it was my only time playing it, and I don't remember the name). It started out in a modern-day city environment on the streets at night. I was playing the role of a paranoid, introverted vampire. The other characters were similar outcast types - werewolf, other fairy-tale characters - and we came together naturally enough, the anti-supernatural police were after us; there was an explosion; we ran away and ended up all hiding in a building together.

So far, I'm cool with this. We all made reasonable choices, considering the events, to end up where we were. I have no idea what to expect. It's exciting. I'm curious about what's coming next. Then the GM says, "You see a large glowing stone in the middle of the room. Do you touch it?" We all say, "No! Where did it come from? Why is it here?" GM says, "You touch it and are teleported to another place."

- Uh, what? No, I didn't. -

"You find yourself in a dark dungeon, naked, chained to the wall. All your weapons are gone," ..

I, the player, stood up from the table and went home.

If the GM tells you what your character chooses to do, what your character thinks and does (not under the influence of compelling magic), THAT is extreme railroading and should NEVER happen.

A skilled GM will let the players make their own choices - and suffer from or be rewarded by those choices appropriately - but also still steer the course of the adventure towards pre-planned story plots. The Illusion of Choice is a powerful game-running technique. If you can make the players believe that where they go and what happens in the story is determined spontaneously and directly from player choice, but they still end up hitting the main story features, then you've done it right.

The details between major plot points are absolutely based on player choice and luck-of-the-dice, and those details should influence the DM's future decisions about where to take the story; however, during a single session, if the DM has planned one or two or three possible encounter chains, then it is actually in the players' best interest - to have the most fun - to follow one of that small number of train tracks.

[Blackhawk748]

That event was not railroading, it was a Giant with a plan (a successful one I may add) and thats perfectly fine. Ideal even. Creatures in universe should have plans and goals, and its nice to see those work out.

Well, I think "general consensus" defines "railroading" more as actively negating player decisions. But I think it's subtler and more insidious than that. Rails first form inside the GM's head, when the GM wants something without getting explicit player buy-in.

Participationism is a thing. Many people just expect "but that's the adventure" level of rails to be acceptable. That doesn't make them any less rails.

I'm sorry but the Grand Lich is gonna do what she's gonna do, unless the players specifically do something to stop her. She has a plan and she's carrying out that plan, much like that Giant did. She wants the Glowy Doohicky. The PCs can stand in front of her and try and stop her from getting the Glowy Doohicky, but there is no gurantee that they aren't gonna be able to do so.

Also your definition is ridiculously narrow. By your definition the act of playing DnD is railroading.

Now, to avoid the feeling of rails, I'll second a reply I lost, and say that you should tell the players what their other options were. In fact, that's how I teach new players how to play.

This gets your players on the same page regarding required levels of Participationism, how you think (knowledge: GM is a very important player skill), and what you'll accept.

Communication usually seems to be an issue with your (and most) groups. Try increasing it, in specific, chosen vectors - like this one.

This is a TTRPG not a video game, they can come up with their own plans. Hell, me telling them their options feels more railroady.

[Mutazoia]

False trichotomy. How about 4) be smarter - find out what they want to do, then build that?

My first campaign, I ended every session asking my players, "what are we doing next session?". And I made any necessary maps, gave NPCs names, etc, in the interim.

I agree, though, that there is a preparation / ad-lib dichotomy. And that pure ad-lib is often not fun - especially for players like me, who care about consistency.

Yes, yes, you are SO much smarter. You shift the work of actually creating something for your players, onto your players themselves, thus avoiding any possibility of someone telling you they aren't having fun.

"It's not my fault your not enjoying the campaign! You're the ones who decided everything every week!"

For you, constantly asking your players what they want you to prepare next works. For others, not so much.

[Quertus]

I'm sorry but the Grand Lich is gonna do what she's gonna do, unless the players specifically do something to stop her. She has a plan and she's carrying out that plan, much like that Giant did. She wants the Glowy Doohicky. The PCs can stand in front of her and try and stop her from getting the Glowy Doohicky, but there is no gurantee that they aren't gonna be able to do so.

Also your definition is ridiculously narrow. By your definition the act of playing DnD is railroading.

This is a TTRPG not a video game, they can come up with their own plans. Hell, me telling them their options feels more railroady.

I've clearly failed to communicate my idea to you, since I don't think any of what you said disagrees with my stance.

First, the low-hanging fruit: when I first introduce people (often 7-year-olds) to role-playing, I give them a scenario, and ask them what they do. We play it out. And, afterwards, I give them several examples of other things that they could have done in that scenario, so that they get the idea that this is not a story with just one set path.

If you consider that "railroading", then I'm fairly certain that you don't understand the term.

The rest of your examples show an equal level of misunderstanding my position. Would it help for me to spell my position out similarly for them, or, with this context, can you figure it out?

Yes, yes, you are SO much smarter. You shift the work of actually creating something for your players, onto your players themselves, thus avoiding any possibility of someone telling you they aren't having fun.

"It's not my fault your not enjoying the campaign! You're the ones who decided everything every week!"

For you, constantly asking your players what they want you to prepare next works. For others, not so much.

This, I suspect, represents a similar level of failure to communicate my position as to the above poster.

But, to be sure just what you think I've said: why do you think my strategy wouldn't work for others? Because I see absolutely no reason why anyone *couldn't* run a sandbox that way.

[Xuc Xac]

Not so much asking about the specific instance as to what the consensus on railroading is; is it the DM designing a scenario with a planned outcome or is it actively negating a players decisions?

First one, then the other.

[Kaptin Keen]

You set up a fight your players couldn't win, to put them in a place you wanted to put them in. It's clearly railroading. I don't even know what the thread is about.

[zinycor]

You set up a fight your players couldn't win, to put them in a place you wanted to put them in. It's clearly railroading. I don't even know what the thread is about.

What gave you the idea that the players couldn't win that encounter? A giant throwing people doesn't sound like an unbeatable encounter.

[Kaptin Keen]

What gave you the idea that the players couldn't win that encounter? A giant throwing people doesn't sound like an unbeatable encounter.

The likely result of this encounter was that the players would end up at the bottom of the chasm and have to find their way out.

Did you by chance read the OP?

[zinycor]

Did you by chance read the OP?

I did, and still, I don't see why you are equating "Likely" to "Definitely".

[Kaptin Keen]

I did, and still, I don't see why you are equating "Likely" to "Definitely".

Ok - let me stop you there.

Did I say 'definitely'? Please quote me if I did, but otherwise, that's your word, not mine.

You know where I got the idea from, it's in the actual OP. Further, still from the OP, it seems the players have similar views.

Where do you get the idea it isn't railroading?

[zinycor]

Ok - let me stop you there.

Did I say 'definitely'? Please quote me if I did, but otherwise, that's your word, not mine.

You know where I got the idea from, it's in the actual OP. Further, still from the OP, it seems the players have similar views.

Where do you get the idea it isn't railroading?

You said:

You set up a fight your players couldn't win, to put them in a place you wanted to put them in. It's clearly railroading. I don't even know what the thread is about.

Which isn't implied at all by the OP.

And I get the idea that this isn't railroady from reading the OP.

Last night in my campaign the adventure was to explore a chasm, a site based semi-dungeon crawl.

There is a giant at the top of the chasm whose tactic is to throw his enemies over the edge. The likely result of this encounter was that the players would end up at the bottom of the chasm and have to find their way out.

This is exactly what happened.

In my opinion, the OP setted up a challenge that the players failed at.

[Kaptin Keen]

You said:

Which isn't implied at all by the OP.

And I get the idea that this isn't railroady from reading the OP.

In my opinion, the OP setted up a challenge that the players failed at.

Then let's waste no more breath on it.