At what point does it becoming railroading?

Okay, I'm going to go through a list, and you tell me at what point in the list the GM is considered to be railroading.

1: GM starts a campaign in a mish mash world where anything goes and lets you do whatever you want.

2: GM starts a world with a defined setting (Fantasy, scifi, historical) and lets you do what you want within the parameters of that setting.

3: GM starts a campaign with a defined setting and gives your characters some overarching goal (like slaying the lich), but you can get there however you want

4: GM starts a campaign with a defined setting and gives your characters some overarching goal, you can get there however you want, but your characters are limited in that they must be part of some specific organisation, or have some specific motives for wanting to achieve the goal

5: GM starts a campaign in defined setting with overarching goal, your characters must come from some specific organisation or have a specific motive, and there is a fixed sequence of events that will deliver you to your final goal, deviation is limited to sidequests

6: As above, but no side quests

7: As above, but you are ferried from combat encounter to combat encounter, social situations are essentially played out in cutscenes

8: As above, but you can't even choose how to approach combat, you are frequently ambushed or are ambushers completely at the GMs discretion

9: As above, but you now have limited control even in combat, you are told outright what actions are acceptable and what aren't, dice are fudged constantly, and the big boss can't even be defeated legitimately until he has his cool cutscene moment

10: The GM reads you a book about adventurers slaying a lich

#5 because that marks the point where players are no longer crafting the story with the dm and are instead operating within it.

#5 desu. Railroading means literally that you cannot go off the rails. Creative solutions beyond what has been preconceived by the scenario author is not allowed.

>5: GM starts a campaign in defined setting with overarching goal, your characters must come from some specific organisation or have a specific motive, and there is a fixed sequence of events that will deliver you to your final goal, deviation is limited to sidequests
This is soft railroading.

>6: As above, but no side quests
This is soft railroading, just about.

>7: As above, but you are ferried from combat encounter to combat encounter, social situations are essentially played out in cutscenes
This is hard railroading.

I'd say probably 5.

I'll add a
#4b: GM starts a campaign in defined setting with overarching goal, your characters must come from some specific organisation or have a specific motive, and there is a fixed sequence of events that will deliver you to your final goal, any deviation is heavily discouraged by threats of death, equipment loss, incarceration, etc.

Aka, you only have the nominal freedom to go cross-country. De facto, you have been railroaded.

5 is where the railroading starts. 3 or 4 is what a good DM with a plan will aim for. 1 and 2 are just "sandbox" DMs who don't know how to plan a game.

>Creative solutions beyond what has been preconceived by the scenario author is not allowed.
Technically, there are no statements about how the combat encounters and scenarios end. You may be able to do novel solutions like make friends with each and every enemy, as long as you fulfil the goal along the way.

5 is a railroad, 4 if it's advertised as "adventures go on a quest" but then becomes "you are all now members of the lich slaying guild" rather than "members of the lich slaying guild go slay a lich."

The answer is pretty obviously 5 because that's when options are severly cut down.


Whenever I give my players any semblance of True Freedom they don't know what the fuck to do. It feels like they need big fucking flashing neon signs saying GOLD HERE.

I honestly believe part of the reason they fare so badly is that we're simply not used to not knowing where to go - as in having no directions at all, both in games and IRL. And when was the last time you stopped a bystander for directions?

Soft railroading. IE, if you don't do something you'll get shit thrown at you.

So is 5 and 6.

7 where you are ferried from encounter to encounter is hard railroading, where the DM says "no, you don't do anything except what I say. I control your actions here, it's a cutscene".
That is hard railroading. Soft railroading is when you control your player actions but if you do anything but what the GM says you'll end up facing character death or heavy penalty and having to do the thing anyway.

At the point where players are left with no choice and all other routes and approaches are locked away from them. Aka the moment they are forced to continue in the way the GM evisioned it.

Your list is utterly retarded redundancy and you should feel bad about being so fucking stupid and/or autistic.

The question was obviously created to spark conversation about railroading user. Some of us like to better our craft by talking to each other about it.

>Mfw people are really this stupid.
By your logic, Twilight 2000 and just about ANY fucking game where you have a pre-defined starting point is equal with railroading. Apparently playing thematic game, where characters by default are X, be that soldiers, supers, explorers, intrepid merchants or whatever the fuck else means the game is railroaded.
Bravo, you are too dense to even approach the hobby.

>At the point where players are left with no choice and all other routes and approaches are locked away from them
So, if the GM says "you can go any direction, but if you go in any direction but north your character will instantly die" - that isn't railroading because the players can choose to instantly die instead of going along the route of the GM?

What if they face a truly formidable challenge each time they do it?

What if they face a mediocre challenge each time they stray from the path?

Are all these not railroading?

>Let me intentionally miss the point and add a retarded reinterpretation of what was said, so I can pretend there is something not to understand in simple statement.
At this point, this is just a bait thread then.

And to answer your stupidity:
It's not about "you are going to die", but "you can't".

user... 5 is the one where you have a fixed sequence of events that lead to your end goal... Not the one where you have a pre defined starting point

It's the fixed sequence of events that really makes it railroading. Had that part not been in there, it might still be railroading, but not necessarily. Actions should have logical consequences, but if you set up the entire world such that there is effectively only one correct course of action then you are being a prick.

>Apparently playing thematic game, where characters by default are X, be that soldiers, supers, explorers, intrepid merchants or whatever the fuck else means the game is railroaded.
what the fuck
No,
>there is a fixed sequence of events that will deliver you to your final goal, deviation is limited to sidequests
means the game is railroaded. Where the fuck did you get "playing a thematic game" is railroading, you ass-worshipping shipfucker?

>4: GM starts a campaign with a defined setting and gives your characters some overarching goal, you can get there however you want, but your characters are limited in that they must be part of some specific organisation, or have some specific motives for wanting to achieve the goal

I'd say this is where it becomes railroading.

Autism/10

And you're clearly misinterpreting his obvious exaggeration when you know damn well the point he was trying to make.

So, where would you say your definition lies on the list?
If you can't act during cutscenes but can act during combat does that count as railroading?

If you can't act during surprise rounds but can act during all other times is that railroading?

>It's not about "you are going to die", but "you can't".
So, you'd be happy to say that a game where you can do what the GM says or your character dies instantly isn't a railroaded game. Yes?

I'm legitimately curious user, obviously the extreme ones on either end are just jokes, but I have seen people claim that anywhere from 3 to 8 is where railroading begins, I really want to know what you think.

>3: GM starts a campaign with a defined setting and gives your characters some overarching goal (like slaying the lich), but you can get there however you want
Is number three here a goal that the GM comes up with while talking with the players about their expectations and character's goals and driving motivations?

>Railroading
Most of you have no clue what that term even means.
Railroading occurs if, and only if the players have no other choice but do what the GM wants them to do. So if they want to go south, they find the mountain pass covered with rocks. East? And impossible to defeat dragon and even if they do kill it, right after that they enter territory of another such dragon, only twice as strong. West? Hell no, that's where the Impassable Jungle is and you literally can't pass through it, because the magic will just throw you out week later at your starting point. But north? Oh, there is a cobbled highway going north, please continue toward the Town Of Adventure at the end of the road.
That's what railroading is. Any other situation that doesn't follow similar pattern has nothing to do with railroading.

Let's say no, the GM just came up with the end goal by himself.

I think a thead died for this bullshit.
I think this entire list makes no sense.
I think most of you don't even play tabletops to begin with.
I think it will all end up with a shitstorm with 250+ replies.

But without me.

It would have ended without you if you didn't post that.

>Railroading occurs if, and only if the players have no other choice but do what the GM wants them to do. So if they want to go south, they find the mountain pass covered with rocks. East? And impossible to defeat dragon and even if they do kill it, right after that they enter territory of another such dragon, only twice as strong. West? Hell no, that's where the Impassable Jungle is and you literally can't pass through it, because the magic will just throw you out week later at your starting point. But north? Oh, there is a cobbled highway going north, please continue toward the Town Of Adventure at the end of the road.
>That's what railroading is. Any other situation that doesn't follow similar pattern has nothing to do with railroading.
Except... there itself is a dichotomy. You have just laid out a scenario where there's four directions to go, and infinite scenarios, for players wanting to troll the GM. You can for example have the players choose to camp out in the jungle, for example, for the entire campaign, trying to survive on nuts and berries and dodging ever increasingly deadly creatures trying to eat them. The players can CHOOSE to attempt this. Even if the GM makes doing so nearly impossible.

You've stated soft railroading, where the players have a choice, but doing the thing the GM doesn't want will end up with impossible odds to beat.

Hard railroading is where the GM simply says "no, you don't go to the jungle, you go to the Town of Adventure."

And there's a distinct difference between the two. Both are railroading, but they're different levels of railroading.

Railroading is when your GM organises Fallout-esque "quests", where you can't do anything else than the quest itself wants from you to do. So you can't say "no", you can't deviate from a pre-definied path, you can't do anything out of sequence and once you are done, you are instantly thrown out at the quest-giver location to be rewarded.
I unfortunately met recently a "GM" ("idiot" would be a better term) that followed video game principles when running TTRPG, thus having flexibility of a concrete block. By the half of the game everyone decided to just end this nonsense, thank the guy and ask if he wants to stay playing Spy Hunt board game. He didn't, so we managed to salvage the rest of the evening by doing something fun instead.

Not him, but more reddit spacing, armarite. This thread isn't baitable enough yet

In fact..........
>So if they want to go south, they find the mountain pass covered with rocks. East? And impossible to defeat dragon and even if they do kill it, right after that they enter territory of another such dragon, only twice as strong. West? Hell no, that's where the Impassable Jungle is and you literally can't pass through it, because the magic will just throw you out week later at your starting point. But north? Oh, there is a cobbled highway going north, please continue toward the Town Of Adventure at the end of the road.
Motherfucker let's get this campaign started.

Ok, Wizard and rogue, you're on mining duty to the south. Your job is to start mining useful minerals. If you can't find any, you're going to start building houses.

Slayer and barbarian, you're on dragon spotting duty. So many dragons are dangerous to the world. Keep eyes on them! Make sure to record their habits and if you are feeling gutsy, see if you can't harvest fallen scales from them, or even bait them against each other.

Ranger: You've got a jungle. Go nuts.

We're going to fucking own this region.

The question to be asked, then, is whether or not railroading is bad. Especially in the case of soft railroading as you have described it. Different actions, after all, should have different levels of difficulty.

Fucking rangers man

Why not just go to the Tower of Adventure? Your GM obviously put most of his effort into that planned encounter. Do you think messing around in these areas that were meant for scenery is a better use of time than the actual adventure he prepped? Was it worth negating his time and effort just to say you didn't do what he wanted you to do?

>Why not just go to the Tower of Adventure? Your GM obviously put most of his effort into that planned encounter. Do you think messing around in these areas that were meant for scenery is a better use of time than the actual adventure he prepped? Was it worth negating his time and effort just to say you didn't do what he wanted you to do?

If he wanted us to go to the Town (tower?) of adventure, he should say "guys, can you go to the tower of adventure, it's where I planned the adventure to be"

Or start the game saying "ok, all your characters have business in the Town of Adventure, and you're on a caravan on its way there."

If you put us on a crossroads and don't tell us which way to go, and throw dragons, impassable mountains and impassable jungles at us, motherfucker we're going to lead dragons into the impassable jungles and get them to burn the jungles down or have the dragons starve in the jungle. We're not fucking mind readers that knows magically to go to the Town of Adventure unless he tells us.

Then it's railroading.

But the player can choose not to play. Doesn't that make it not railroading?

Even if they agreed, it is railroading.

Just because a dictator is benevolent toward his people, doesn't mean he isn't a dictator.

If your players choose to camp for a month there, then you should be prepared for that eventuality.
The best example of GM adaptation that I can recall is the "PC steal a boat" example. If your campaign takes place on land with towns in order to defeat the lich king, but that your PCs steal a boat in order to become pirates in your first session, then a good GM will adapt the entire campaign to take place on the sea. Your towns and kingdoms ? They're now islands ! The evil servants of the lich king ? Rival skeleton pirates ! The lich king himself ? A cursed pirate, hundreds of years old !
Your setting shouldn't be set in stone, but rather held by concepts that you can drop on your players when you see a good opportunity

Agreed. Every single one of the autists I play with would look at this crossroads as a challenge and probably not figure out that the DM was trying to signal them to go in a particular direction.

If you want your party to do a thing then TELL THEM. Don't try to passive-aggressively hint at what they are supposed to do. Most gamers, when shown seemingly impossible tasks, will ASSUME that that obstacle is meant to BE the task they are supposed to do.

Unlikable dragons screams "This is a boss I'm supposed to fight" to a player, it doesn't communicate "You shouldn't go this way."

>Unlikable dragon
I'd like to befriend the dragon. Teach it about social skills and how to interact with others. Maybe some hygiene advice.

I DM the gamut of 1-4, but I would never go as far as 5, and I would always let the party throw everything out if they wanted. eg. If I make the party start as soldiers, but session one they decide the war is unjust and they are going to desert, then I have no reason to stop them.

this.

But what if a DM drops the party in something of a 'starter' area? They've dotted the countryside with five or six town, each contain 1-4 low level story hooks. They've got an area to the north with some higher level plot hooks, but the idea is for the party to outgrow this region first, then move north (and if they don't want to, then you cross that bridge when you get to it.) But instead of any of this, the party marches north to the area where it's been clearly stated that giants are fighting dragons, and so every encounter is basically 10 levels too high for them? Is that still railroading? Should the DM throw out the setting entirely to accommodate a low-level party?

There's also a level called "this is what I prepared and made encounters for. You don't have to do it, but it'll be better than if I just wing it" in between 4 & 5

Yes. The setting exists for them, not the other way around. If they want to fight dragons and giants, then skip the low levels.

My campaign is number 4. Or at least in my opinion it is.

My PCs are all beginners and we're using roll20, so I have a main quest laid out with a bunch of side quests they might find depending on how they explore the rest of the world.
Last session I railroaded them toward their next goal, but the "trail" on the way had 2 possible side quests. They didn't go for either cause I put in a sense of urgency toward their quest, but I'll put them on the same road on the way back and see what happens.

I meant to say, I personally think this is a good way to handle new players, and also a good way to not have to spend hours and hours having maps ready for every possible exploration scenario when you're homebrewing

What is the point of this, OP?
Are you looking for advice?
Are you trying to judge your campaign ideas?
Without a point, this is masturbatory at best.

>The setting exists for them, not the other way around.
Incorrect. The setting exists for the players and the GM. If everything the GM does is strictly to facilitate the whims of the players, it's no longer a game.

If there is a fixed sequence of events and creative solutions are not allowed, it's railroading.

Correct. The GM is a gamer too.

Somewhere between 4 and 5, but learning much more towards 5. Certainly 6 and above are definitely railroading. 4 is the point where the DM starts to invade the character sheet, which is what I use as the definition of a railroad; having said that, some games just don't function otherwise (like, say a game of Spycraft - there's plenty of reasons why a CIA and KGB agent might be working together, but there's no reason for a third character who runs a sandwich shop and ONLY does that to be involved in any meaningful way)

5. It's not even soft railroading either. This is a plain railroad. It might still be enjoyable for some, but it would grate on me.

5 is where railroading begins, 3 or 4 are ideal.

#4
> but your characters are limited in that they must be part of some specific organisation, or have some specific motives for wanting to achieve the goal

If you can't give them freedom to create their own motives for wanting to quest, then it's railroading. For example, if you want them to dethrone the emperor and unite the oppressed people of the empire against him, say they can make any character they want, but turn around and say "you all have to be part of the Organized Resistance Front" to play, you've just laid down the tracks.

Fuck no.

If I want to ignore the DM and fight giants and dragons at level 1 it's BECAUSE I have some crazy scheme and Want to see if I can pull it off at low levels. I want the challenge, not to be handed levels on a silver platter 'Cause the DM has no faith in our ingenuity as a group.

I want to play in your games.

#5. 1-4 is just setting the campaign's premise, 5 actually starts to force the pre-planned linear sequence of events on players.

Honestly the answer is #9, when the DM starts taking away player agency. Any of the lower number examples can at most be considered extremely linear plotlines. The characters still have freedom to do as they please and control over their actions.

It's a
>The GM who puts up all the hard work and cahs should subordinate his desires to a bunch of spoiled brat players episode
Fuck no. This is mental cuckoldery.

>inb4 /pol/
No. If I put in the hard work, I get by far the greatest say in what we play. This is non-negotiable.

5 is okay with me im most circumstances. A game where we are all from the Kings elite guard going into a Mega Dungeon to kill a lich sounds fine (dungeons generally have things you need to do in sequence)

What's 11?

What does Fallout have to do with anything? You're put out into the Wasteland and told to find a water chip, it's up to you to figure out how and you can choose to take side quests or not and how you complete those quests. Fallout is a perfect example of a sandbox done right, you've got a goal you're working towards but when and how you get there is up to you.

I agree with every point made but you should take it easy. It certainly isn't "mental cuckoldry" lmao

DM railroad your life

My first gm I consider to have been very good. At the beginning of the game he gave us some basic background on the setting and major cities in it, and let us know about a few well known landmarks and current events. A few were time sensitive, and some, like a marauding goblin army, were clearly beyond our ability to handle as low level characters. All of these were pretty clearly plot and quest hooks and we could just pick which ones we wanted to pursue. It was quite enjoyable

I think it really depends on circumstance. When I hear about railroading it's usually in a negative way, but it can't really be negative if it's what the players expect or want. If it's known from the start of the game that you're company xyz hoping to accomplish abc, you're not restricting choice so much as setting bounds about what the game will be.

Myself, I tend to start at 2 and slowly inch towards 6 over a campaign. I think it's a good blend of freedom and structure to let the party wander for a while to get a feel for the world and events, set a campaign goal based on what they're most interested in, and then gradually add focus from that point onward.

I generally run between 2 and 3. There is some big bad that you’ll almost certainly run into because their reach is omnipresent and/or you’re directly involved in their plans somehow. However you are still free to go and do as you choose. If you really want to just ignore the Lich who plans on sacrificing you in particular for mysterious reasons then sure I suppose this is now a game about being on the run. Could be fun.

I used to run with a group that basically only did pre-mades.

Ran a free form for them once, lasted 2 sessions before they decided that 'they did not get a sense of achivement' Apparently letting them do what they want within a world on possibility was to hard as there was to many things they could do.

I don't see them much anymore.

I think 3, 4, and 5 are the "sweet spot." I can see groups going for 6 and 7 if time pressure is a severe issue, but you're trading away fun for speed. I think 2 and below and 8 and above are going to really, really struggle to find the fun, although 10 does sound pretty comfy.

As far as which ones count as railroading. I'd say in a macro sense it starts at 5 and at a micro sense it starts at 7.

It makes a big difference whether that's during or after character creation. It's not railroading to say "This game is going to be about defending a kingdom from a lich, so your characters should either be part of or otherwise have strong motivations to kill the lich and/or defend the kingdom".

Depends on how you handle the situation. Okay, the party marches north to an area where there are lots of creatures clearly too dangerous for them to handle in direct combat. What happens next? Clearly there are things OTHER than giants and dragons in the area, right? They could find a nice dungeon that's too small for either giants or dragons to inhabit that would have tough but manageable encounters. Maybe they come across a young giant or dragon. If there's a war going on, maybe there are mercenaries employed by either side that would make more suitable encounters. Dragons often have kobolds serving them, is that the case here?

And of course, not every encounter has to be about combat. Maybe you could give them a nice chase scene where a giant tries to catch them. They could try sneaking past a giant camp. They could try bluffing a dragon. What is it that they're actually in the area FOR? If they just want to see what's over the next hill, they could negotiate a safe passage in exchange for some treasure. And so on. Yes, obviously it SHOULD be dangerous and if the party messes up there's a good chance that they'll end up killed(and you should make it clear to them that doing this thing has a good chance of TPK). But it should not be a case of "Oh, you want to go north? The next fight is CR 15 Red Dragon, say hello to TPK". It's not an MMO, you shouldn't think of things in terms of "This area is for low-level characters, the next one is for mid-levels and this place will get any low-level characters killed in the first random encounter." Yes, some places are more dangerous than others, but if a low-level party somehow ends up in hell, the first encounter there shouldn't be a pit fiend intent on killing them all.

>People like having fun other way than I do
>It means they are wrong
More like it means you are retarded

Also, have it ever occured to you people might simply not like making their own shit up and would rather focus on actual quest, rather than lazily put together "sandbox experience" that usually just means "I didn't prepare, guys, so we are all going to improvise"?