I recently read an interesting discussion on r/rpg, and I wanted to address it here. The topic is one I feel pretty strongly about, and I have already briefly touched on part of the point I want to make in a previous post. But I think it bears more than a brief mention. And this also will have bearing on both DMs and players. I'm talking about the Plot Train.
You don't know about the Plot Train? Sure you do. We talk about it all the time, just discuss it in different ways. As players, we accuse the DM of "railroading" us. As a DM, we get upset when a player "derails" a session. But both are aspects of the same thing, and I think it's no surprise we use the train analogy for both.
Let's take Railroading first. The general player consensus is "railroading is bad". I once had a discussion with a prospective player for my campaign who argued that in all circumstances, bar none, railroading is bad. And I think that there are plenty of circumstances under which is can be bad, not to mention plenty of DMs who do it poorly. But as a rule, railroading is not only good, it is often necessary. The important thing that DMs must do is make it feel seamless.
Oh sure, we hear about making it "invisible" and giving the illusion of choice when really both paths lead to the same destination. But a group of players can know full well they're being swept down the tracks of a railroad and still be perfectly fine with it, if the story is interesting. That's the key. It's easier taking a train ride if the scenery is pretty. I have very often done "cutscenes" or just straight up given no options, and as long as the party was interested in the story, they don't mind at all. The only time they've ever fought against an intended railroading was if I hadn't given enough incentive or a good enough story.
For instance, I recently ran a session that basically was one big ride along a set of rails. The party was following the footsteps of another adventuring party who had gone missing. They even found all puzzles in their path completely solved and the aftermath of a battle already fought and won. At the end, there was a cutscene in which they caught sight of a new adversary, and were dropped into the heart of a mountain. They literally had nothing to do but follow the tracks of the missing party, and were even on the mission because they were ordered to go by their benefactor. But not once did they complain, but rather excitedly tried to piece together what had happened. After the session was over, I asked for feedback and everyone said it was one of our better sessions, and they were really happy with it. The whole session had been nothing but a guided tour without even so much as a single puzzle to solve, and yet they had a great time, because the story was intriguing to them.
In fact, I have been in a campaign as a player with a DM who almost NEVER railroaded. He was truly as open-world as could be, and we had total autonomy. It was one of the most boring campaigns I've ever played in. Since he was so against railroading, he barely even gave us clues. Oh, he insisted they were there, but we just didn't know where to look to find them, so we wandered aimlessly. Entire sessions were devoted to randomly searching spots on the map, hoping somewhere we'd find these elusive clues to help us move the plot forward. But since the DM didn't "railroad" us, the campaign probably took about 150% longer than it should have and it was both boring and frustrating.
From the other side, equally aggravating are the deliberate derailers. Now yes, I know that any given player in any given session could potentially do something unexpected and derail the plot, but some people have a reputation as perpetual derailers. They get a clue and essentially say "Hmmm, the DM wants us to go here and do this, so I will go over THERE and do THAT!" And woe to any DM who tries to keep them in line. They claim they're after freedom and autonomy and full choice of action, but what you usually end up with are disrupted sessions, aggravated and marginalized characters from the REST of the party, and a stressed-out DM.
Seriously, when was the last time you read a fantasy book about a group of adventurers who hear about a quest and all decide to go their separate ways and don't form a cohesive team (even if at first they don't, by the end they usually have)? If such books exist, they are probably few and far between.
So the overall point I'm trying to make is that a D&D campaign should operate like a contract between the DM and the players. The DM should offer a compelling enough story that the players actually want to see it through. If the DM presents a great story, the players shouldn't mind if the action moves forward in a direction the DM specifies. And in return, they don't intentionally disrupt the main plot. There's still plenty of room in this agreement for the DM to present multiple courses of action for the players to choose from, and there will inevitably be times when the players do unexpected things and the DM's plot goes out the window. But as long as the overall story keeps going and the DM offers enough clues and doesn't act like a dick (see many previous posts), your average player won't mind moving along the tracks (within reason).
And yes, there are DMs who misuse railroading (or don't use it at all, which as I've explained, is just as bad), and there are players who derail for the sake of derailing. If you're one of these two groups, that's fine for you, but keep an eye out for signs that the rest of your group is not enjoying themselves. After all, as I've said before, D&D is a game and should be enjoyed. If you're causing the rest of your group to hate coming to session, perhaps you need a different group. Some of us would rather give up a small fraction of "free will" for the sake of a good story.
