Dr. Awkward said:
Well, isn't that just railroading again? Sure, the player's background is being used, but no matter what, they're going into those damn sewers. It's just that now, the DM has to contrive ways to get them in there, regardless of what they had in mind.
Interesting question. Is it railroading? What is railroading? I think it's the inability to make meaningful choices. I'm going to look at the example based on that reading.
The player in the example has defined his own goal as it relates to the plot. (Maybe not his goal as it relates to play; maybe he wants to test himself in combat, or deal with issues of trust and loss, or whatever, and none of that is addressed explicitly in the example.)
Anyway. He's got his own goal. He's saying, "This is what is important to me." He's making a meaningful choice, because he's choosing to do something that matters to him (instead of following the DM's plot willy-nilly).
The specifics of the adventure are open, but I doubt many players would want to dictate all of that in the beginning. What they want is to make a meaningful choice. Does going into the sewers - because that's what the DM has planned - mean that his choice to go after his wife is not meaningful? I don't think so.
What would make it more meaningful? If he had a choice between going after his wife and something else. That "something else" would have to have enough allure so that it's not a simple choice. "My wife was taken by orcs! I have to hunt for her in the sewers. But that hag from the forest has been taking a lot of interest in my kid. If I go after my wife, I can't watch over my kid. If I go after my kid, what happens to my wife?"
The DM would have to make that choice have impact. If he goes after his wife, his kid is going to be in a bad way, maybe possessed by a demon or whatever. If he takes care of his kid, facing off against the hag, his wife gets the stockholm syndrome and when he does finally meet up with her she wants nothing to do with him. "If you really cared about me you would have come to save me!"
Okay, that's a lot of speculation that goes beyond the example I posted. To look at just the example, he's making the choice - do what is important to me. He's going to have to go through the DM's adventure, no matter what that is, since that's what happens in D&D. (Maybe in some other game system it'd be different, who knows.) But because he's saying, "This is why I'm adventuring, this is what it's all about for me," I think that there isn't railroading in the example.
Well, that's my opinion. What do you think? I'm really interested to hear from someone who disagrees.
Dr. Awkward said:
Wouldn't it be better if the players and DM came together to work out a way to get them involved in his plot instead of the DM having to shoehorn the characters into it? That's why a player's guide to getting involved in the story could be a good addition to a book on "how to play".
Yes! It would be much better. Then the DM can take the input from the PCs and give them what they're looking for. He could have the orc hunt for the one guy, a lot of undead for the cleric who took Improved Turning, and an imp for the guy who's interested in planar creatures.
I agree with the advice "Get involved with the story". But I'd say that the story has to be
your own. (Unless you like being a cog in the great wheel of the DM's story; that's cool too. I don't think many people enjoy that though - especially me!
) Framing it as "following the DM's plot" is bad advice, in my opinion. Saying that "If you like to tell stories, you should put a lot of work into your character so that, through him/her, you can tell your own story" I would totally dig.
Re: White Wolf: I have no idea, never having played nor read through a WW book.
A bit overwrought, but funny.
