02-06-2026, 01:26 PM
Dusting this old baby off, and I feel it is necessary to do so.
Section 16 - On Improvision, Agency, and Railroading
GMing is a difficult thing. I struggle with it myself. However, recent experiences on this forum has led me to writing this down. Thanks to a variety of r/rpghorrorstories videos from Den of the Drake, CritCrab, Crispy's Tavern (back when he did those), DnD Doge, and Tales To Morrow, I am more aware of the ills of roleplaying, including my past habits as a problem player Polyedit2000 and Cynderias had to deal with. However, problems CAN occur on both sides of the table.
What is a Railroad?
The term "railroad" is a metaphor based on real-life railroads where trains typically move along a singular track. In roleplaying terms, railroading occurs when a GM forces players into a set path without options. Generally, a GM has many responsibilities, including but not limited to worldbuilding/lore, communication, game balance, and more. However, the most important responsibility for both the players and the GM is to understand that you, together, are both playing a game and writing a story together. The GM should not think of themselves as the sole storyteller (which is why DMPCs are often seen as a problem), and likewise, players should not see themselves as the main character. There should be a balance in the collaborative aspect of roleplaying.
When players fail to collaborate, a game collapses due to the uncontrolled chaos; HOWEVER, when the GM refuses to collaborate with the players, that's when railroading occurs. Now, a little railroading is necessary in certain aspects of one-shots as they are designed to be played out from start to finish in a single session. It can also be necessary when there is realistically nowhere else to go. These are the only situations I know for sure where railroading are necessary.
How to Avoid a Railroad
As pointed out in Section 10, there are good endings and bad endings. The concept of Ability Checks exist as a basic tool for teaching the GM encounter balance and how to consider success and failure conditions while also teaching players that you win sometimes and lose sometimes.
Good planning is usually, but not always, a silver bullet against railroading. In the case you should weigh in the win conditions and lose conditions and the appropriate consequences for certain situations. There are 1s and 20s on a d20; as such, a situation that may be seen as an easy win can turn into a TPK, and a situation that may be seen as a TPK may wind up being survivable. Some player characters are expected to do better than others in a certain aspects. For example, if one were playing as Lindsay (Total Drama), you'd expect her dump stat to be intelligence, so ideally an intelligence task is best handled by a more intelligent character like Momo Yaoyorozu.
Races can further boost this. For example, Marcille Donato would qualify as a Half Elf in DnD 5e, which would give her +2 Charisma (the social stat), and +1 in two other stats. Assuming Marcille has a intelligence stat of 15 without racial bonuses, a +1 to that would effectively make Marcille's intelligence a 16 (which is a +3 modifier on a wisdom roll). Assuming a Level 3 Wizard (+2 proficiency bonus) and a proficiency in the Quarterstaff, this should give one of Marcille's spells a saving throw of 13. Likewise, given her study of ancient magic, Marcille should have a proficiency in Arcana checks (+2 at Level 3), meaning a 3rd Level Marcille should, with a d20, make Arcana checks ranging from 6 (Nat 1) to 25 (Nat 20). This would mean if I were to put in a task that requires a roll of 15 or higher in Arcana to succeed, then Marcille would only need to roll a 10 or higher.
You should not force a win condition or a lose condition onto the party as it wouldn't be a game if you do. Players will always think about different solutions to a problem at hand, and often times there are multiple logical solutions to a problem. If one were to solve an issue, it should be met with a positive consequence. Likewise, if an issue were to be left unsolved or get worse, it should be met with a negative consequence. As an example of what NOT to do, here's an instance where a character I played paid for the entire party (after asking for the price of the only things the party was served) and it was met with the absolute wrong way to respond to the action: https://bastianfanworks.dreamchaos.net/f...13#pid6213
Any business or market worth their salt would accept payment for something they intend to sell. To treat a paying customer like they just committed a crime or treating them like they're a Karen complaining over utter nonsense despite having no history of either is terrible business. In a restaurant setting, logically if at least one person at the table stays behind to pay and they paid, the entire party should be gucci. Save negative consequences like being put on a "Do Not Sell" list for robbers and murderhobos.
Player Agency and Limitations to Such
When it comes to roleplaying games, player agency is the act of allowing players to have their characters make independent decisions. Now, it should go without saying that player characters will interact with the world in their own little way. That is how improv works. However, when "It's what my character would do!" gets brought into the table, then said player is going to have to explain why that is the case, as otherwise it would just come off as an empty excuse. As such, while you should allow for most character interactions, there are limitations to such.
The one thing you should NEVER allow a player to do as a GM is the act of not joining the party. The first thing a GM would do is set the introductory stage (ex. a tavern) where the party would meet. Splitting off the party is fine provided it is done with the mindset that the party would get together, like having two party members do some shopping and two others look at a quest board. However, if one were to not join the party period, it should be assumed that the player isn't willing to play the game. If you're the player who does this, you better be prepared to make a new character that would actually travel with the party on the adventure.
Anything very egregious, like sexual assault for instance, should not be allowed. Consent is key, and I'm not going to let a bunch of tentacles attack Zelda just because she's there. That's not how any of this works.
Other actions where player agency needs to be limited include acts that clearly indicate that a player is forcing a win (ex. overly detailed definitive actions w/o rolls) or forcing a loss (ex. inaction in combat), as the party and/or the GM is likely to be upset at you for these bouts of main character syndrome. Wins and losses should come naturally in the game through dice rolls. If you miss the giant rat, that's perfectly fine; you can always make another attack.
"Rule of Cool" is fine, provided that it is being used to add flavor to roleplaying or combat. It however, shouldn't be the end-all be-all in how actions work. That's the point.
Section 16 - On Improvision, Agency, and Railroading
GMing is a difficult thing. I struggle with it myself. However, recent experiences on this forum has led me to writing this down. Thanks to a variety of r/rpghorrorstories videos from Den of the Drake, CritCrab, Crispy's Tavern (back when he did those), DnD Doge, and Tales To Morrow, I am more aware of the ills of roleplaying, including my past habits as a problem player Polyedit2000 and Cynderias had to deal with. However, problems CAN occur on both sides of the table.
What is a Railroad?
The term "railroad" is a metaphor based on real-life railroads where trains typically move along a singular track. In roleplaying terms, railroading occurs when a GM forces players into a set path without options. Generally, a GM has many responsibilities, including but not limited to worldbuilding/lore, communication, game balance, and more. However, the most important responsibility for both the players and the GM is to understand that you, together, are both playing a game and writing a story together. The GM should not think of themselves as the sole storyteller (which is why DMPCs are often seen as a problem), and likewise, players should not see themselves as the main character. There should be a balance in the collaborative aspect of roleplaying.
When players fail to collaborate, a game collapses due to the uncontrolled chaos; HOWEVER, when the GM refuses to collaborate with the players, that's when railroading occurs. Now, a little railroading is necessary in certain aspects of one-shots as they are designed to be played out from start to finish in a single session. It can also be necessary when there is realistically nowhere else to go. These are the only situations I know for sure where railroading are necessary.
How to Avoid a Railroad
Quote:"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." ~Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
As pointed out in Section 10, there are good endings and bad endings. The concept of Ability Checks exist as a basic tool for teaching the GM encounter balance and how to consider success and failure conditions while also teaching players that you win sometimes and lose sometimes.
Good planning is usually, but not always, a silver bullet against railroading. In the case you should weigh in the win conditions and lose conditions and the appropriate consequences for certain situations. There are 1s and 20s on a d20; as such, a situation that may be seen as an easy win can turn into a TPK, and a situation that may be seen as a TPK may wind up being survivable. Some player characters are expected to do better than others in a certain aspects. For example, if one were playing as Lindsay (Total Drama), you'd expect her dump stat to be intelligence, so ideally an intelligence task is best handled by a more intelligent character like Momo Yaoyorozu.
Races can further boost this. For example, Marcille Donato would qualify as a Half Elf in DnD 5e, which would give her +2 Charisma (the social stat), and +1 in two other stats. Assuming Marcille has a intelligence stat of 15 without racial bonuses, a +1 to that would effectively make Marcille's intelligence a 16 (which is a +3 modifier on a wisdom roll). Assuming a Level 3 Wizard (+2 proficiency bonus) and a proficiency in the Quarterstaff, this should give one of Marcille's spells a saving throw of 13. Likewise, given her study of ancient magic, Marcille should have a proficiency in Arcana checks (+2 at Level 3), meaning a 3rd Level Marcille should, with a d20, make Arcana checks ranging from 6 (Nat 1) to 25 (Nat 20). This would mean if I were to put in a task that requires a roll of 15 or higher in Arcana to succeed, then Marcille would only need to roll a 10 or higher.
You should not force a win condition or a lose condition onto the party as it wouldn't be a game if you do. Players will always think about different solutions to a problem at hand, and often times there are multiple logical solutions to a problem. If one were to solve an issue, it should be met with a positive consequence. Likewise, if an issue were to be left unsolved or get worse, it should be met with a negative consequence. As an example of what NOT to do, here's an instance where a character I played paid for the entire party (after asking for the price of the only things the party was served) and it was met with the absolute wrong way to respond to the action: https://bastianfanworks.dreamchaos.net/f...13#pid6213
Any business or market worth their salt would accept payment for something they intend to sell. To treat a paying customer like they just committed a crime or treating them like they're a Karen complaining over utter nonsense despite having no history of either is terrible business. In a restaurant setting, logically if at least one person at the table stays behind to pay and they paid, the entire party should be gucci. Save negative consequences like being put on a "Do Not Sell" list for robbers and murderhobos.
Player Agency and Limitations to Such
When it comes to roleplaying games, player agency is the act of allowing players to have their characters make independent decisions. Now, it should go without saying that player characters will interact with the world in their own little way. That is how improv works. However, when "It's what my character would do!" gets brought into the table, then said player is going to have to explain why that is the case, as otherwise it would just come off as an empty excuse. As such, while you should allow for most character interactions, there are limitations to such.
The one thing you should NEVER allow a player to do as a GM is the act of not joining the party. The first thing a GM would do is set the introductory stage (ex. a tavern) where the party would meet. Splitting off the party is fine provided it is done with the mindset that the party would get together, like having two party members do some shopping and two others look at a quest board. However, if one were to not join the party period, it should be assumed that the player isn't willing to play the game. If you're the player who does this, you better be prepared to make a new character that would actually travel with the party on the adventure.
Anything very egregious, like sexual assault for instance, should not be allowed. Consent is key, and I'm not going to let a bunch of tentacles attack Zelda just because she's there. That's not how any of this works.
Other actions where player agency needs to be limited include acts that clearly indicate that a player is forcing a win (ex. overly detailed definitive actions w/o rolls) or forcing a loss (ex. inaction in combat), as the party and/or the GM is likely to be upset at you for these bouts of main character syndrome. Wins and losses should come naturally in the game through dice rolls. If you miss the giant rat, that's perfectly fine; you can always make another attack.
"Rule of Cool" is fine, provided that it is being used to add flavor to roleplaying or combat. It however, shouldn't be the end-all be-all in how actions work. That's the point.