I know that railroading my players as a dm is not good and may make my campaign boring.
I always try to not to do that but my players always go the way that I was expecting. And I don't want that. I feel like I'm directing a movie but what I want is a world that my players could do anything they want in it.
Probably the easiest way to have your players go off rails is to have no rails! One thing you could try is not planning anything, sit down at the table, and ask your group what their characters want to do. Without being presented any options, they'll have to come up with things that they feel their characters would pursue during downtime, which could lead you on some pretty interesting adventures. Some groups just want to play, and will do anything they're presented with, but if you turn the presentation of information back on them, you might be surprised what they come up with!
I ran a game a few years back which started with a simple goal for my players: Go from your village and give a letter to the king. As a DM who's been at it for close to 25 years I fully expected that my players would go and wander off in some other random direction the moment they left the village gates. As such I created about 6 different encounters along the road that would give my players a chance to stretch their legs, bowstrings and earn some loot and xp. Much to my complete and utter amazement, the group successfully navigated the entire course, from village to king, without ever once initiating any form of conflict. Finding ways to circumvent and avoid any conflict.
What did I do wrong?
The answer is simple: We put players at the table and gave them a choice. All the best plans go out the window when we add players to the mix. That's what makes this so fun and frustrating.
If you want to give them a hint that the world is larger than the current quest they are on, give them an NPC who joins the group and derails the entire session. If your players are on a mission to vanquish a kobold den, have one of the village kids follow them, and half way to the den the kid runs off to investigate a ruined tower he could see from his bedroom window. In the tower have a unique reward or side quest for the players, you've now shown them that exploration has rewards, you've shown that there is something interesting that doesn't involve the story arc, and you've introduce the idea that NPCs can be hazardous to your heath at times!
On one hand, if your players are happy, then you're doing nothing bad or wrong. If the story you're telling is good and they're enjoying working through it, then that's perfectly fine. Not every game needs to be a totally open experience all the time, a somewhat linear storyline can still be exciting and if the players have some meaningful impact on its development at key points then they can still feel like they're fully involved.
However, you can always just flip the question on them, and instead of describing the next 'planned' event or locale, give them a totally open-ended 'what would you like to do?' at the start of a session. Describe several points of interest that they can see or have heard about, have a plan in place for each (doesn't need to be too specific at this stage) and let them choose, rather than having them react to events you set up.
For example, the party crests a hill on their travels, and several points of interest catch their eye. To the west, a crumbling fortress stands against the sunset, and a keen-eyed character might notice baleful lights glowing among the ruins, perhaps some sorcery or the vestiges of ancient magic. Someone with local knowledge (and a History check) might know of this fort, at which point you can relay to them the local legend of treasure hidden within.
To the north, a series of watchtowers and palisade walls mark a military encampment of some sort, and soldiers can be seen entering and leaving in large amounts. The party have no knowledge of a war at present, so the presence of this army may be worth investigating.
As the party pause, a merchant passes them on the road, warning them of a band of ruthless mercenaries that have been attacking caravans coming from the east. He offers them a reward if they can recover his lost goods, and will await them in the next town over.
There, you have 3 small storylines seeded. They can pick one, they can work through them all (in which case great, you know where your next half a dozen sessions are going which makes planning easier), they can ignore them entirely and move on, at which point you can set up another series of events or plot hooks. In any case, the players are being given direct control over what they are doing, so it's by definition avoiding the issue of railroading.
I don't think railroading is good or bad, it just depends on what your group needs in order to have fun. In my experience players need to be told what to do overall (a main quest) but then they latch onto random details you mention off hand to set themselves off on side quests that you didn't even intend... sometimes.
Usually I make a dungeon, and just tell them whatever story it takes to get them there. I made this cave dungeon one time with frog monsters that spit acid or something, but they ended up wanted to go to a random castle, so I just pretended the dungeon I made was the castle basement. Then I made up a story on the spot about how the guards got infected by evil spores and it mutated them, and I just used the same monster stat block. Also I reuse dungeons I made from a long time ago whenever the party goes somewhere I don't expect.
You might also just tell them that you would have more fun if they took more of a role in deciding the narrative. A lot of times people don't realize they have 'permission' to do whatever they want.
Railroading has a bad rap. It doesn't always mean the DM won't let the players choose what to do, it's been made to seem that way due to turn of phrase. Everyone campaign ever is on a spectrum, with sand-box on one end and railroad on the other. A game doesn't become better or worse based on where it lands on that spectrum, all that matters is if the players enjoy it.
Just tell them before you start the next session, "ay, I appreciate you guys letting my flex everything I made for you, but don't forget that you guys can do what you want. Make a new path or follow a side quest of your own choosing, just don't feel like my story is the only one that's important. It's yours too."
There's a big difference between railroading, and having a story.
I'm currently playing in two irl campaigns on top of the one I DM for. Of these two, one is on tracks, and one is where we as players are following the story.
The latter presents us with the things that are happening, and gives our characters drive to want to solve those problems or investigate those happenings, etc. So we do, and we learn interesting things, and as players we want to know what happens in the story. When we come upon some powerful, deadly looking members of the cult we're hunting killing people, we can choose what to do. If we fight them, we fight them and possibly get badly hurt, or die. If we sit and watch, things keep happening, and don't wait for us to start fighting. If we decide to slink away, they succeed in killing those people, and move on. There are consequences to each action and inaction we take, which means that the story is dependent on what we do. There's only one story, we can't just go off in a random direction and find a new one, but WE as players choose what happens. The story reacts to us. That's not railroading, that's just a focused campaign. It's just as good as a sandbox, for different reasons.
The former is very clearly on rails. The story waits for us to make the decision that the story needs us to make. The story provides solutions to problems we can't solve, or combats we can't win. When we try to deviate from the story because our characters have a vested interest in a flavourful bread crumb, that bread crumb leads to a wall. We are passengers of the story, interacting only insofar as to use our powers to kill stuff, and our dice rolls to see how long it takes for things to happen. Our failures aren't failures, they just make things longer. Our successes aren't successes, they're inevitabilities. That is a railroad.
If your players have agency, if they do something unexpected and you provide them with a result - consequence, reward, plot movement - you're not railroading them. If they do something unexpected and you just humour them until you can push them back onto the story, it's a railroad.
Lack of consequence, and the proof that the world doesn't move without the players are the two things I think that define railroads.
If you believe you're railroading, but your players have no issue with it, haven't voiced any concerns, then you're not doing anything wrong, nor are you a bad DM by any means. Everyone's enjoyment is the number one priority, with players overtaking DM in that regard. So if your players are happy, even if they're railroaded. Then there's no issue. If you don't want to railroad, then don't plan anything. Show up to the table and improvise EVERYTHING. That is a surefire way to keep 100% no railroads.
Sometimes a bit of railroad is OK. If your players trust that you've got a good story going and are invested in their characters then riding the choochoo isn't always bad. If its more about limiting their options because you didn't think of it then that's another different issues. It can be like watching a film, sure logically we shouldn't go into the evil castle, we should nuke it from orbit, but there's loots and adventure to be had!!
If it is a case of they decide to go to said castle and want to climb in via a back window or something and the DM says 'no there's guards and the windows are barred, in fact they are all barred except THIS ONE' then to me that's railroading.
The first type of railroading is more like funnelling / directing, the second type is more akin to dictating/railroading as we know it.
I think the fact this thread exists is a problem with how we, as a community, have discussed the game over the last few years and thist is actually a disservice to new DMs ( and player's). "Railroading" has become a boogyman in discussions that mostly require a strawman of the worst type of railroading imagineable.
Honestly, it depends on DM and player style. And fun can be held on all points of the spectrum. "Story" had been used on many good posts on this thread. Most real good stories require some planned and sequential adventures. Mercer "railroaded" Vox Machana with both Chroma conclave and the Vecna story arcs. The player's had some choices, but the underlying theme was they had to do certain things (gather vestiges, for example) in a certain time to stop the enemy.
Sand-box is usually the opposite. Sometimes they are fun. But some player's and parties do not enjoy them. You see this when you ask what they want to do next and get blank stares.
I think the best campaigns I have DM'ed or played in my nearly 40 years have a healthy mix of both.
But, as said well above, you find the mix that lets your player's have fun rather than worry about a false dilemma that is really a spectrum to use and enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
One way I avoid this as a DM is that I never create solutions to problems I create within the story. Create the villains, create their plot, figure out how their organization works and what the impact of their actions are... and thats it. Don't create anything at all about how the players are expected to stop them or any events that would lead them to any sort of conclusion about what to do. You don't know, so you can't lead them to an answer.
This is very solid advice, and something I think new GMs might have trouble with (I certainly did when I started, it took a while to let go of the mentality) especially if they are coming to TTRPGs from a video game background; even in video games that offer multiple solutions to a problem, there are still set paths to each solution so it's tempting to create the same planned chains of events to resolve a situation in D&D. You find yourself creating NPCs or rooms or events with very specific outcomes that might advance one of these sequences, and have a resolution in mind. Inevitably, your players are going to come up with solutions you never even thought of, and you go into 'panic mode' trying to get them back on track...
Once you let go of this idea and present a problem with no 'ideal' solution, it's easier to improvise as there's nothing to deviate from in the first place and the players will get used to solving things on their own, rather than looking for the specific triggers you've been leaving that will lead to a predestined outcome.
Honestly, it depends on DM and player style. And fun can be held on all points of the spectrum. "Story" had been used on many good posts on this thread. Most real good stories require some planned and sequential adventures. Mercer "railroaded" Vox Machana with both Chroma conclave and the Vecna story arcs. The player's had some choices, but the underlying theme was they had to do certain things (gather vestiges, for example) in a certain time to stop the enemy.
Sand-box is usually the opposite. Sometimes they are fun. But some player's and parties do not enjoy them. You see this when you ask what they want to do next and get blank stares.
This is also a very good point, as much as the DMs are there to cater to their players, it's hard to drops twists and surprises into a game that don't also put the game 'on rails' (as in, has a story in mind that the players are expected to follow). Taking the Conclave arc for instance, and without spoilers, that came about seemingly out of nowhere, an external force slamming into Vox Machina's story that shocked and surprised them, and set the narrative arc for the next 40 or so sessions. The players had no choice in whether or not that happened, and being realistic, they were essentially put on rails (they could have walked away, of course, but then the campaign is basically dead) but I don't think anyone would say the resulting storyline was a bad thing, or that it was bad DMing.
I'd also suggest that while a degree of sandboxing is good (especially at lower levels, let your players get out and explore the world on their own terms before you start dropping dragon attacks and demigods on them!), extreme sandboxing is as bad as extreme railroading; it can be totally unsatisfying for the players if everything is on their own terms, and they have total control over what happens, how and when. You get the Skyrim problem, where exploring and investigating for the first few dozen hours is great, but eventually, nothing can surprise you everything you do is unfulfilling.
There's a balance to be found, certainly. I think Matt Colville does a good job explaining it here with a rather amusing example of the merits of both kind of play:
One way I avoid this as a DM is that I never create solutions to problems I create within the story. Create the villains, create their plot, figure out how their organization works and what the impact of their actions are... and thats it. Don't create anything at all about how the players are expected to stop them or any events that would lead them to any sort of conclusion about what to do. You don't know, so you can't lead them to an answer.
This. I can't like this enough. DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, BigKahuna, I would like to be the devil's advocate here and toss a wrench in your idea seeing as it's steadily gaining traction.
Before that, however, I want to say plainly: I use your "no expectations" approach in my games most of the time.
Railroading = creating a something which the player(s) cannot avoid, removing agency from the player(s), and in general making it so the player(s) have no course of action beyond doing what it is that the DM planned. These seem like rather common themes when a person brings up the railroading conversation.
Now according to the BigKahuna theory all that is needed to make a non-railroad situation
Create the villain(s): Generic Evil Cult
Create their plot: Obtain the McGuffin of Power
Figure out the impact of the villains actions: Trope End of the World Event
What I have done here is to use a classic story: an evil cult is bent on ruling the world by using an ancient artifact, however it will in turn cause the destruction of the world because of its power. I have not assumed how the players are going to intervene, whether they'll join the cult, if the players will do anything about it at all. I'm leaving the how open ended, this is as non-railroady as it gets, right?
Well, no...This is, by definition, a railroad. The players must stop the Generic Evil Cult or the Trope End of the World Event will happen and the game is over. It's a simple binary situation, do or don't, and there in lies the biggest problem, sometimes you cannot avoid railroading.
"Don't create anything at all about how the players are expected to stop them or any events that would lead them to any sort of conclusion about what to do."
This is almost impossible in practice. Let's go back to the previous example and make a few assumptions: 1) the players have traveled to the location where the Generic Evil Cult is. 2) The Trope End of the World Event hasn't happened yet. 3) You, as GM, have not given them any hints about the McGuffin of Power other than the plot introduction.
DM: You've entered the location where the Generic Evil Cult is supposed to be performing the Trope End of the World Event.
Player 1: I hide in the near by shadows and watch them, what do I see around me?
At this moment you're required to give the player(s) information, and in that moment you create a paradox. By giving the player information you allow them to make conclusions. You are influencing their decision making process by the amount, type, and depth of information given.
DM: You see a dozen robed figures drawing shapes in the air with their fingers. in the center of the area is a large ornate box that the robed figures are surrounding. There is a dark blue-purple glow emanating from the box which is growing stronger as the robed figures continue to chant and draw the shapes in the air.
Player 2: I cast Fireball in the center of the circle of robed figures.
At this point in time you have to make a decision as to whether or not the spell will affect the ornate box, which will in turn influence their decision making process. Any and all information will influence the players. You force them toward a conclusion every time you answer a question, you give them the tools necessary to win/fail every time you give them information.
Conclusion:
Don't worry about it so much! Make a story, put a leash on your players when they stray too far from the path, give them every tool under the sun(s) to win, tell them no, tell them that you have no idea what to do because you didn't plan for this. Just play the darned game and if someone has a problem, starts screaming "You're railroading us!" then stop the game, step away from the table, with that person, and discuss the issue. I guarantee you, because I've been that guy before, that once you talk to them and give them perspective, they'll calm down. No, it won't always make them happy, it won't always smooth the ruffled feathers, but it will allow discourse, which is going to lead to better games.
Well, no...This is, by definition, a railroad. The players must stop the Generic Evil Cult or the Trope End of the World Event will happen and the game is over. It's a simple binary situation, do or don't, and there in lies the biggest problem, sometimes you cannot avoid railroading.
I 100% understand what you're saying and your thoughts on this. I think in a way the DM HAS to create the problem for the players. That's just how D&D works. An option, is to create several of these options evil cult if the go here, dragon attack if they go here, slave traders if they go here, etc. This is how the world is, so I think this is the way to MINIMIZE railroading as much as possible. The only way I see to create 0% railroad is the following DM style:
DM: Okay players, what do you do?
Players: We go *some location*.
DM: *Exposition about travel*. You're here, what do you see?
Player 1: I don't know guys, what do we see?
Player 2: Maybe some guys are in a bar fight in *building/outside*.
Player 3: Yeah I like that. We get involved in the bar fight!
DM: Roll initiative.
Combat Ensues:
Player 1: After I kill this guys a note falls out of his pocket talking about *Insert quest hook*
Basically my point is that unless you let the players dictate where the story goes, and you as the DM are there mainly to referee, lay down the rules, control the monsters and the npcs that your players create, there are going to be at least the slightest hint of railroads.
I know your ending point said not to worry about it so much, so I'm not arguing your point or anything like that lol, I'm just adding my thought process on the only way that I can think to truely be as close to 0% railroad as possible.
Nothing, you are doing nothing wrong so ignore all advice! It is most likely that you are telling a good story and your players WANT to find out what is going to happen next so they are going along with your adventure plans. As long as your players are happy just keep doing what you are doing. If you players start to get bored or unhappy with what you are presenting they will let you know. And as far as railroading is concerned, that is a useless term without a useful definition so you should worry about it just a little bit less than you worry about the sun exploding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Nothing, you are doing nothing wrong so ignore all advice! It is most likely that you are telling a good story and your players WANT to find out what is going to happen next so they are going along with your adventure plans. As long as your players are happy just keep doing what you are doing. If you players start to get bored or unhappy with what you are presenting they will let you know. And as far as railroading is concerned, that is a useless term without a useful definition so you should worry about it just a little bit less than you worry about the sun exploding.
Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about railroading means and whether it’s right or wrong or when it’s useful or what, technically, it is and how it happens. And don’t worry about you accidentally railroading your players and ruining your game. Because you won’t. Actual railroading is pretty rare. And it’s the response to the railroading – the resulting power struggle – that ruins the game. Well-intentioned GMs might occasionally diminish their players’ agency in an attempt to set up a good story or game element. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that; no more than there is anything wrong with planning a boss fight at the end of a dungeon. Sometimes, though, the players might veer away from that setup. Either accidentally or because they have briefly seen through the smoke and mirrors and are asserting their agency. Which is also not inherently wrong. But, in cases like that, the well-intentioned GM – precisely because they are well-intentioned – will generally veer away from an extreme power struggle. And now, you’re smart enough to recognize the power struggle and address it.
In other words, recognize your capacity to accidentally railroad, but don’t be afraid of it like some kind of Mr. Hyde waiting to spring out and ruin your game. Just deal with it when and if it comes up. Because ACTUAL railroading is highly subjective. It depends on when the players FEEL it. And the fallout depends on the response to it. And that means that everything about railroading depends on the group and the context.
But if you are afraid of your capacity to railroad, you might paralyze yourself into planning nothing. Or, at least, you might not plan really great things like the mysterious apparent ally who betrays the party to the vampire lord at the climax of the story. It’s a terrible carpenter who throws away his hammer just because he knows it can be used to break skulls as easily as it can be used to pound in nails.
I know that railroading my players as a dm is not good and may make my campaign boring.
I always try to not to do that but my players always go the way that I was expecting. And I don't want that. I feel like I'm directing a movie but what I want is a world that my players could do anything they want in it.
What am I doing wrong?
Probably the easiest way to have your players go off rails is to have no rails! One thing you could try is not planning anything, sit down at the table, and ask your group what their characters want to do. Without being presented any options, they'll have to come up with things that they feel their characters would pursue during downtime, which could lead you on some pretty interesting adventures. Some groups just want to play, and will do anything they're presented with, but if you turn the presentation of information back on them, you might be surprised what they come up with!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersProbably you're doing nothing wrong.
Some groups will play fairly passively and select what to do from the options placed infront of them.
If you said, "You're in the city - now what?" would they look at you with blank faces?
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I ran a game a few years back which started with a simple goal for my players: Go from your village and give a letter to the king. As a DM who's been at it for close to 25 years I fully expected that my players would go and wander off in some other random direction the moment they left the village gates. As such I created about 6 different encounters along the road that would give my players a chance to stretch their legs, bowstrings and earn some loot and xp. Much to my complete and utter amazement, the group successfully navigated the entire course, from village to king, without ever once initiating any form of conflict. Finding ways to circumvent and avoid any conflict.
What did I do wrong?
The answer is simple: We put players at the table and gave them a choice. All the best plans go out the window when we add players to the mix. That's what makes this so fun and frustrating.
If you want to give them a hint that the world is larger than the current quest they are on, give them an NPC who joins the group and derails the entire session. If your players are on a mission to vanquish a kobold den, have one of the village kids follow them, and half way to the den the kid runs off to investigate a ruined tower he could see from his bedroom window. In the tower have a unique reward or side quest for the players, you've now shown them that exploration has rewards, you've shown that there is something interesting that doesn't involve the story arc, and you've introduce the idea that NPCs can be hazardous to your heath at times!
On one hand, if your players are happy, then you're doing nothing bad or wrong. If the story you're telling is good and they're enjoying working through it, then that's perfectly fine. Not every game needs to be a totally open experience all the time, a somewhat linear storyline can still be exciting and if the players have some meaningful impact on its development at key points then they can still feel like they're fully involved.
However, you can always just flip the question on them, and instead of describing the next 'planned' event or locale, give them a totally open-ended 'what would you like to do?' at the start of a session. Describe several points of interest that they can see or have heard about, have a plan in place for each (doesn't need to be too specific at this stage) and let them choose, rather than having them react to events you set up.
For example, the party crests a hill on their travels, and several points of interest catch their eye. To the west, a crumbling fortress stands against the sunset, and a keen-eyed character might notice baleful lights glowing among the ruins, perhaps some sorcery or the vestiges of ancient magic. Someone with local knowledge (and a History check) might know of this fort, at which point you can relay to them the local legend of treasure hidden within.
To the north, a series of watchtowers and palisade walls mark a military encampment of some sort, and soldiers can be seen entering and leaving in large amounts. The party have no knowledge of a war at present, so the presence of this army may be worth investigating.
As the party pause, a merchant passes them on the road, warning them of a band of ruthless mercenaries that have been attacking caravans coming from the east. He offers them a reward if they can recover his lost goods, and will await them in the next town over.
There, you have 3 small storylines seeded. They can pick one, they can work through them all (in which case great, you know where your next half a dozen sessions are going which makes planning easier), they can ignore them entirely and move on, at which point you can set up another series of events or plot hooks. In any case, the players are being given direct control over what they are doing, so it's by definition avoiding the issue of railroading.
I don't think railroading is good or bad, it just depends on what your group needs in order to have fun. In my experience players need to be told what to do overall (a main quest) but then they latch onto random details you mention off hand to set themselves off on side quests that you didn't even intend... sometimes.
Usually I make a dungeon, and just tell them whatever story it takes to get them there. I made this cave dungeon one time with frog monsters that spit acid or something, but they ended up wanted to go to a random castle, so I just pretended the dungeon I made was the castle basement. Then I made up a story on the spot about how the guards got infected by evil spores and it mutated them, and I just used the same monster stat block. Also I reuse dungeons I made from a long time ago whenever the party goes somewhere I don't expect.
You might also just tell them that you would have more fun if they took more of a role in deciding the narrative. A lot of times people don't realize they have 'permission' to do whatever they want.
Join the FriendlyGM Newsletter!
Railroading has a bad rap. It doesn't always mean the DM won't let the players choose what to do, it's been made to seem that way due to turn of phrase. Everyone campaign ever is on a spectrum, with sand-box on one end and railroad on the other. A game doesn't become better or worse based on where it lands on that spectrum, all that matters is if the players enjoy it.
Just tell them before you start the next session, "ay, I appreciate you guys letting my flex everything I made for you, but don't forget that you guys can do what you want. Make a new path or follow a side quest of your own choosing, just don't feel like my story is the only one that's important. It's yours too."
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
There's a big difference between railroading, and having a story.
I'm currently playing in two irl campaigns on top of the one I DM for. Of these two, one is on tracks, and one is where we as players are following the story.
The latter presents us with the things that are happening, and gives our characters drive to want to solve those problems or investigate those happenings, etc. So we do, and we learn interesting things, and as players we want to know what happens in the story. When we come upon some powerful, deadly looking members of the cult we're hunting killing people, we can choose what to do. If we fight them, we fight them and possibly get badly hurt, or die. If we sit and watch, things keep happening, and don't wait for us to start fighting. If we decide to slink away, they succeed in killing those people, and move on. There are consequences to each action and inaction we take, which means that the story is dependent on what we do. There's only one story, we can't just go off in a random direction and find a new one, but WE as players choose what happens. The story reacts to us. That's not railroading, that's just a focused campaign. It's just as good as a sandbox, for different reasons.
The former is very clearly on rails. The story waits for us to make the decision that the story needs us to make. The story provides solutions to problems we can't solve, or combats we can't win. When we try to deviate from the story because our characters have a vested interest in a flavourful bread crumb, that bread crumb leads to a wall. We are passengers of the story, interacting only insofar as to use our powers to kill stuff, and our dice rolls to see how long it takes for things to happen. Our failures aren't failures, they just make things longer. Our successes aren't successes, they're inevitabilities. That is a railroad.
If your players have agency, if they do something unexpected and you provide them with a result - consequence, reward, plot movement - you're not railroading them. If they do something unexpected and you just humour them until you can push them back onto the story, it's a railroad.
Lack of consequence, and the proof that the world doesn't move without the players are the two things I think that define railroads.
If you believe you're railroading, but your players have no issue with it, haven't voiced any concerns, then you're not doing anything wrong, nor are you a bad DM by any means. Everyone's enjoyment is the number one priority, with players overtaking DM in that regard. So if your players are happy, even if they're railroaded. Then there's no issue. If you don't want to railroad, then don't plan anything. Show up to the table and improvise EVERYTHING. That is a surefire way to keep 100% no railroads.
Published Subclasses
Sometimes a bit of railroad is OK. If your players trust that you've got a good story going and are invested in their characters then riding the choochoo isn't always bad. If its more about limiting their options because you didn't think of it then that's another different issues. It can be like watching a film, sure logically we shouldn't go into the evil castle, we should nuke it from orbit, but there's loots and adventure to be had!!
If it is a case of they decide to go to said castle and want to climb in via a back window or something and the DM says 'no there's guards and the windows are barred, in fact they are all barred except THIS ONE' then to me that's railroading.
The first type of railroading is more like funnelling / directing, the second type is more akin to dictating/railroading as we know it.
Southampton Guild of Roleplayers
My YouTube (C&C Welcome!)
I think the fact this thread exists is a problem with how we, as a community, have discussed the game over the last few years and thist is actually a disservice to new DMs ( and player's). "Railroading" has become a boogyman in discussions that mostly require a strawman of the worst type of railroading imagineable.
Honestly, it depends on DM and player style. And fun can be held on all points of the spectrum. "Story" had been used on many good posts on this thread. Most real good stories require some planned and sequential adventures. Mercer "railroaded" Vox Machana with both Chroma conclave and the Vecna story arcs. The player's had some choices, but the underlying theme was they had to do certain things (gather vestiges, for example) in a certain time to stop the enemy.
Sand-box is usually the opposite. Sometimes they are fun. But some player's and parties do not enjoy them. You see this when you ask what they want to do next and get blank stares.
I think the best campaigns I have DM'ed or played in my nearly 40 years have a healthy mix of both.
But, as said well above, you find the mix that lets your player's have fun rather than worry about a false dilemma that is really a spectrum to use and enjoy.
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!
Published Subclasses
Now, BigKahuna, I would like to be the devil's advocate here and toss a wrench in your idea seeing as it's steadily gaining traction.
Before that, however, I want to say plainly: I use your "no expectations" approach in my games most of the time.
Railroading = creating a something which the player(s) cannot avoid, removing agency from the player(s), and in general making it so the player(s) have no course of action beyond doing what it is that the DM planned. These seem like rather common themes when a person brings up the railroading conversation.
Now according to the BigKahuna theory all that is needed to make a non-railroad situation
What I have done here is to use a classic story: an evil cult is bent on ruling the world by using an ancient artifact, however it will in turn cause the destruction of the world because of its power. I have not assumed how the players are going to intervene, whether they'll join the cult, if the players will do anything about it at all. I'm leaving the how open ended, this is as non-railroady as it gets, right?
Well, no...This is, by definition, a railroad. The players must stop the Generic Evil Cult or the Trope End of the World Event will happen and the game is over. It's a simple binary situation, do or don't, and there in lies the biggest problem, sometimes you cannot avoid railroading.
This is almost impossible in practice. Let's go back to the previous example and make a few assumptions: 1) the players have traveled to the location where the Generic Evil Cult is. 2) The Trope End of the World Event hasn't happened yet. 3) You, as GM, have not given them any hints about the McGuffin of Power other than the plot introduction.
At this moment you're required to give the player(s) information, and in that moment you create a paradox. By giving the player information you allow them to make conclusions. You are influencing their decision making process by the amount, type, and depth of information given.
At this point in time you have to make a decision as to whether or not the spell will affect the ornate box, which will in turn influence their decision making process. Any and all information will influence the players. You force them toward a conclusion every time you answer a question, you give them the tools necessary to win/fail every time you give them information.
Conclusion:
Don't worry about it so much! Make a story, put a leash on your players when they stray too far from the path, give them every tool under the sun(s) to win, tell them no, tell them that you have no idea what to do because you didn't plan for this. Just play the darned game and if someone has a problem, starts screaming "You're railroading us!" then stop the game, step away from the table, with that person, and discuss the issue. I guarantee you, because I've been that guy before, that once you talk to them and give them perspective, they'll calm down. No, it won't always make them happy, it won't always smooth the ruffled feathers, but it will allow discourse, which is going to lead to better games.
Basically my point is that unless you let the players dictate where the story goes, and you as the DM are there mainly to referee, lay down the rules, control the monsters and the npcs that your players create, there are going to be at least the slightest hint of railroads.
I know your ending point said not to worry about it so much, so I'm not arguing your point or anything like that lol, I'm just adding my thought process on the only way that I can think to truely be as close to 0% railroad as possible.
Published Subclasses
Nothing, you are doing nothing wrong so ignore all advice! It is most likely that you are telling a good story and your players WANT to find out what is going to happen next so they are going along with your adventure plans. As long as your players are happy just keep doing what you are doing. If you players start to get bored or unhappy with what you are presenting they will let you know. And as far as railroading is concerned, that is a useless term without a useful definition so you should worry about it just a little bit less than you worry about the sun exploding.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Published Subclasses
Angry DM chimes in (much better than me):
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!