I've been doing a lot of video watching, article reading, etc. to try and better understand railroading players during the game. Until I actually learned what it was called, I never really paid attention to what railroading could look like, and how to avoid it. One of the biggest frustrations I've had has been trying to figure out how to avoid it and what exactly that LOOKS like.
For example, let's assume I have a main story set. I have a monster attack a local political figure and kill him. The main storyline focuses on the players going around town, finding information about the death and attack, eventually finding the location of the monster and killing it. However, one of my players decides to leave town. Four scenarios follow:
1. As they approach the town border, guards have set up blockades to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the city. "Until the culprit of the recent murder is caught, no one is going anywhere!"
2. The player leaves the town, finding themselves in a small village that same evening. There, they hear rumors of an attack in the village the player has just come from. They begin asking the player questions.
3. "No, you can't do that. Stay and investigate," says the DM.
4. The player goes on their merry way, doing as they please and getting further and further from the main village and the main story.
I have often heard that, as the DM, your job is to allow the players to "derail" from the story should they choose to do so, and then to guide them back into the main story (the "tracks") naturally. Then, they are satisfied with completing the main quest because they chose to do it themselves; they weren't forced. I suppose my biggest concern would be; are scenarios 1 and 2 still examples of me "railroading" the player? They are, in fact, not interested in the main story, but here I am hinting again and again that something is going on. Does that not eventually make a player fell as though "well, if I do this then they'll finally shut up and stop trying to make me"? How can you attempt to weave the diverging player(s) into a story naturally without at some point having to say "listen; that's where the story is for now"? Are 1 and 2 working examples? Or is there some "optimal way"? Obviously, 3 and 4 are scenarios to avoid; but what do you do with the player (or the character for that matter) who just is not interested and ignores every hook you throw at them? WITHOUT ultimately forcing them into the main quest, of course, is the ultimate goal in the end.
There is a TON of preparation required to run a session, unless the DM is some kind of GOD at improvisation and a walking encyclopedia of everything 5e including monsters, NPC creation and world building.
When players agree to play a game, either homebrew or a module, there has to be a social contract established, usually during a Session 0, explaining what is expected between DM and players, and what kind of game it will be.
If all of the players are not interested in following the existing social contract, then you should end your campaign and restart another that is more in line with what your players want.
If ONE player is not interested in the campaign, then have a chat with that player and make it clear that ignoring the campaign and the will of the other players to go off on their own can't be accommodated and they should willingly leave the group.
With option 1, the players encounter a reasonable hurtle given the situation, and maybe are given other incentives to stay as well. Maybe the guards let them know that there is a reward being offered and maybe they get some clues that point them in the right direction as well.
I do have an opinion on the concept of "railroading" . Most of the players that I have been DM for feel more comfortable with the DM having some direction in mind for the game with a clear sense of purpose over a completely sand box experience. They want to follow the bread crumbs that you put out before them to lead them down the path. BUT They want the freedom to be able to deal with the story in the manner that they desire. They don't want there to be only one solution or path that leads to the same place so that they feel as though their choices matter, and they should.
I'm curious as to what this "social contract" looks like. Obviously it differs from DM to DM, but overarching agreements must still be there.
If I am running an investigative campaign, for example, do I tell the players that they are expected to look for clues to mysteries that arise in order to advance the story? Do I tell players of a more "hack and slash" based adventure not to look too into NPCs because they more often than not are trying to help them not hide information from them? What are some other agreements you would recommend going over and, should you fail to give such info during Session 0, can it be discussed during the first few sessions (as long as you have not proceeded too deeply into the world or stort)?
I think you can convey a lot in terms of 'useful character options' based on outcomes of specific player actions/requests. In regard to the hack and slash scenario you mention, if more than one or two investigation or perception checks - even at very low rolls - reveal everything is as it seems, that might be enough. As for missing clues in an investigative campaign, that's potentially a much tougher nut to crack. Maybe having a character with a high passive perception notice something significantly outside of what the players are expecting to see or have happen.
On the other hand, maybe it's just as well starting the session by telling the players directly, "Hey, there will be a lot of information you have to investigate here. Keep that in mind." That might result in a decreased need to possibly railroad and allow for more player agency and role play.
I think if you let players "go off the rails", you should not have any expectation that they'll "guide themselves" back to your story.
It's good to have a discussion with players up-front about the expectations, otherwise it's easy to end up with disappointed people all around. It's also reasonable as a DM to say "hey, I've only got so much time to prepare, so unless you want me me winging it, you should try not to walk in the opposite direction of the adventure every time". From the options 1-4 that you listed, I'd say definitely never do #3. If you ever feel like you're approaching the need to do that, you need to instead stop the game and have an out-of-game conversation with your players about expectations. Number 1 is getting close to railroading, but it's not railroading unless you by DM fiat completely prevent them from leaving. (I.e., they might opt to sneak over the wall at night, or try the sewers for escape, or bribe a guard, or some other hi jinks.) If you prevent all attempts by fiat, then that's very much railroading. Number 2 sounds like an interesting development! Number 4 is the "complete freedom" approach, which may or may not work for you as DM, and you don't have to necessarily just accept that (but again, if you do let this happen, don't idly hope that they'll wander back into the adventure you planned).
Railroading, despite what people say, is not an inherently bad thing. The first rule is to do your best to run a game everyone is enjoying, and again that can involve some conversations with everyone, so that it's all out on the (metaphorical) table. Some players really don't want a broad open world with lots of options... they want a bright neon flashing light with blinkers that points the main quest. But if your players are resisting or ignoring that, then maybe they want more freedom. Or maybe they want different kinds of adventures than the ones you're setting up for them.
Lack of player agency, however, is a bad thing. When the player attempts to have their characters do things but are constantly stymied because it doesn't fit in with the DM's "plan", when all their decisions are irrelevant, when they go looking for options but cannot find anything but that one neon sign, then things can get problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been doing a lot of video watching, article reading, etc. to try and better understand railroading players during the game. Until I actually learned what it was called, I never really paid attention to what railroading could look like, and how to avoid it. One of the biggest frustrations I've had has been trying to figure out how to avoid it and what exactly that LOOKS like.
For example, let's assume I have a main story set. I have a monster attack a local political figure and kill him. The main storyline focuses on the players going around town, finding information about the death and attack, eventually finding the location of the monster and killing it. However, one of my players decides to leave town. Four scenarios follow:
1. As they approach the town border, guards have set up blockades to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the city. "Until the culprit of the recent murder is caught, no one is going anywhere!"
2. The player leaves the town, finding themselves in a small village that same evening. There, they hear rumors of an attack in the village the player has just come from. They begin asking the player questions.
3. "No, you can't do that. Stay and investigate," says the DM.
4. The player goes on their merry way, doing as they please and getting further and further from the main village and the main story.
I have often heard that, as the DM, your job is to allow the players to "derail" from the story should they choose to do so, and then to guide them back into the main story (the "tracks") naturally. Then, they are satisfied with completing the main quest because they chose to do it themselves; they weren't forced. I suppose my biggest concern would be; are scenarios 1 and 2 still examples of me "railroading" the player? They are, in fact, not interested in the main story, but here I am hinting again and again that something is going on. Does that not eventually make a player fell as though "well, if I do this then they'll finally shut up and stop trying to make me"? How can you attempt to weave the diverging player(s) into a story naturally without at some point having to say "listen; that's where the story is for now"? Are 1 and 2 working examples? Or is there some "optimal way"? Obviously, 3 and 4 are scenarios to avoid; but what do you do with the player (or the character for that matter) who just is not interested and ignores every hook you throw at them? WITHOUT ultimately forcing them into the main quest, of course, is the ultimate goal in the end.
There is a TON of preparation required to run a session, unless the DM is some kind of GOD at improvisation and a walking encyclopedia of everything 5e including monsters, NPC creation and world building.
When players agree to play a game, either homebrew or a module, there has to be a social contract established, usually during a Session 0, explaining what is expected between DM and players, and what kind of game it will be.
If all of the players are not interested in following the existing social contract, then you should end your campaign and restart another that is more in line with what your players want.
If ONE player is not interested in the campaign, then have a chat with that player and make it clear that ignoring the campaign and the will of the other players to go off on their own can't be accommodated and they should willingly leave the group.
With option 1, the players encounter a reasonable hurtle given the situation, and maybe are given other incentives to stay as well. Maybe the guards let them know that there is a reward being offered and maybe they get some clues that point them in the right direction as well.
I do have an opinion on the concept of "railroading" . Most of the players that I have been DM for feel more comfortable with the DM having some direction in mind for the game with a clear sense of purpose over a completely sand box experience. They want to follow the bread crumbs that you put out before them to lead them down the path. BUT They want the freedom to be able to deal with the story in the manner that they desire. They don't want there to be only one solution or path that leads to the same place so that they feel as though their choices matter, and they should.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm curious as to what this "social contract" looks like. Obviously it differs from DM to DM, but overarching agreements must still be there.
If I am running an investigative campaign, for example, do I tell the players that they are expected to look for clues to mysteries that arise in order to advance the story? Do I tell players of a more "hack and slash" based adventure not to look too into NPCs because they more often than not are trying to help them not hide information from them? What are some other agreements you would recommend going over and, should you fail to give such info during Session 0, can it be discussed during the first few sessions (as long as you have not proceeded too deeply into the world or stort)?
I think you can convey a lot in terms of 'useful character options' based on outcomes of specific player actions/requests. In regard to the hack and slash scenario you mention, if more than one or two investigation or perception checks - even at very low rolls - reveal everything is as it seems, that might be enough. As for missing clues in an investigative campaign, that's potentially a much tougher nut to crack. Maybe having a character with a high passive perception notice something significantly outside of what the players are expecting to see or have happen.
On the other hand, maybe it's just as well starting the session by telling the players directly, "Hey, there will be a lot of information you have to investigate here. Keep that in mind." That might result in a decreased need to possibly railroad and allow for more player agency and role play.
I think if you let players "go off the rails", you should not have any expectation that they'll "guide themselves" back to your story.
It's good to have a discussion with players up-front about the expectations, otherwise it's easy to end up with disappointed people all around. It's also reasonable as a DM to say "hey, I've only got so much time to prepare, so unless you want me me winging it, you should try not to walk in the opposite direction of the adventure every time". From the options 1-4 that you listed, I'd say definitely never do #3. If you ever feel like you're approaching the need to do that, you need to instead stop the game and have an out-of-game conversation with your players about expectations. Number 1 is getting close to railroading, but it's not railroading unless you by DM fiat completely prevent them from leaving. (I.e., they might opt to sneak over the wall at night, or try the sewers for escape, or bribe a guard, or some other hi jinks.) If you prevent all attempts by fiat, then that's very much railroading. Number 2 sounds like an interesting development! Number 4 is the "complete freedom" approach, which may or may not work for you as DM, and you don't have to necessarily just accept that (but again, if you do let this happen, don't idly hope that they'll wander back into the adventure you planned).
Railroading, despite what people say, is not an inherently bad thing. The first rule is to do your best to run a game everyone is enjoying, and again that can involve some conversations with everyone, so that it's all out on the (metaphorical) table. Some players really don't want a broad open world with lots of options... they want a bright neon flashing light with blinkers that points the main quest. But if your players are resisting or ignoring that, then maybe they want more freedom. Or maybe they want different kinds of adventures than the ones you're setting up for them.
Lack of player agency, however, is a bad thing. When the player attempts to have their characters do things but are constantly stymied because it doesn't fit in with the DM's "plan", when all their decisions are irrelevant, when they go looking for options but cannot find anything but that one neon sign, then things can get problematic.