How Do You Get Your Players To Stay On An Adventure Path?

[Starfox]

An additional note here. My usual game style is protagonism, essentially a railroad with player bye-in. But if the players decide to pursue a particular path or topic, I can nearly always accommodate that. This may turn a sidetrek into a subplot, a subplot into a main plot, or even elevate a main plot to the campaign topic.

Spoiler

My current main game is based on Curse of the Crimson Throne, but with a LOT of additional material thrown in. We have finished the plot of the six books and defeated the evil queen. But the players are not satisfied; they want to explore what actually happened to the runelord of lust, Sorchen. Well, their wish is my command - using elements of the Emerald Spire Superdungeon and the Moonscar advenure, I am going to grant their wish. Thus a sideplot there mostly for color (The city is built on the site of Sorchen's old capital) became a main plot (find and deal with Sorchen).

 

[Imaculata]

I hate railroading. My personal philosophy is: The story goes, where the players go.

What this means, is that my story is not dependent on the players going to a specific location. The players are free to go where they like, and I write the story around that. I already know where I roughly want the story to go, and the story proceeds regardless of where the players are in the world.

I also write location based stories, or side quests, if that's how you want to call them. But I refrain from having an obvious billboard at an inn with quests waiting to be completed. Instead, I present my players with situations, and propositions from characters, and its up to them if they want to get involved. Not getting involved, also has consequences. But I never force them to do a quest. This means that I sometimes prepare things, that end up not being used. The players even skipped an entire dungeon once, because they chose not to go into the catacombs (they didn't trust the motives of the npc, and rightly so).

Because my story does not rely on the players too much, it is easier to append the actions of the players to the story, and make them a whole. Its surprising how this loose way of storytelling, ends up feeling a lot more like a cohesive story than a railroaded adventure would.

 

[Celebrim]

I hate railroading...I already know where I roughly want the story to go, and the story proceeds regardless of where the players are in the world.

I think perhaps you should define your terms. As I understand it, if the story proceeds regardless of the player's choices, it's a railroad.

Because my story does not rely on the players too much...

Yeah, this sounds problematic. I think I know where you are going with this and you probably have a fairly typical broad-narrow-broad-narrow style with branching paths off of a main 'trunk' plot, but it sounds to me like you are using a lot more railroading than you realize.

 

[Imaculata]

I think perhaps you should define your terms. As I understand it, if the story proceeds regardless of the player's choices, it's a railroad.

I think you misunderstand. The plot is just not bound to a specific location. It can happen wherever the players choose to go. That does not mean that the players don't affect the plot.

Yeah, this sounds problematic. I think I know where you are going with this and you probably have a fairly typical broad-narrow-broad-narrow style with branching paths off of a main 'trunk' plot, but it sounds to me like you are using a lot more railroading than you realize.

Not really. All that is set in stone in my campaign, is that it slowly moves towards a massive naval battle between two armies. But how they get there, is entirely up to them.

See, the plot is like little chess pieces. They move with or without their involvement. And depending on where they are, they come into contact with different parts of the plot, or sometimes I simply move the plot to where the players are. This does not mean they are being railroaded. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

I don't need for them to go any specific place, or do any specific quest, and yet they still affect the story dramatically. That is because I'm willing to let go of things. I'm not too concerned about which characters live and die, or which quests are completed and which aren't. Instead I try to think what the logical response of the other key players in this story would be, to the actions of the players.

 

[Celebrim]

This does not mean they are being railroaded. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Some people would probably define the exact opposite of a railroad as being having no destination and nothing set in stone. I think what you actually have isn't the opposite of a railroad, but something complicated in the middle. And that's ok.

I think you misunderstand. The plot is just not bound to a specific location. It can happen wherever the players choose to go. That does not mean that the players don't affect the plot.

I don't think I misunderstand at all. Schrodinger's Map isn't bound to a specific location either. Where ever you go, there the plot is. As you say, "sometimes I simply move the plot to where the players are". That's classic railroading technique.

What it sounds like is you are doing 'Broad-Narrow' structure, where you have setting that the players can explore in any order that they want but in which certain specific things eventually will happen or happen to the players. These key events eventually set in motion a narrow doorway through which the player's must pass so that the story chapter transitions to the next phase. The players have a great deal of freedom to determine how and when they find the door, and a great deal of freedom to determine how they go through the door, but if the story is to advance it must go through the door. Sure, they can effect the story dramatically - just not so much that you don't know it is moving toward a massive naval battle.

There are lots of ways to achieve that, and you discuss several of them in explaining your play style. Things like "If the player's won't go to the plot, the plot will come to them." and "Where ever you go, you find the plot." are railroading techniques that ensure the players find engaging content related to your desired story line. What you have isn't a pure railroad, but it's not a pure sandbox either.

What you are really describing in my opinion is how to run a functional linear story in an RPG. I'd give a DM basically the same sort of advice for how to run Chronicles of the Dragonlance or any other Adventure Path in a functional cohesive manner. Granted, it doesn't sound like your story is as linear as all that, but the techniques you are employing to keep it 'linear enough' are still applicable.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you are plotting a game for the players to follow certain courses of action, you are removing their ability to play the situation as a game.

Don't ever write a plot for the players. Treat the game as players playing a maze and the "rules" as rules for the referee in generating that maze.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you misunderstand. The plot is just not bound to a specific location. It can happen wherever the players choose to go. That does not mean that the players don't affect the plot.

If you mean that the plot follows them wherever they go, then you are railroading. If you meant that the plot does not follow them, but instead continues on without them while they do whatever they want to do, you are not railroading.

Which do you mean?

 

[Imaculata]

If you mean that the plot follows them wherever they go, then you are railroading. If you meant that the plot does not follow them, but instead continues on without them while they do whatever they want to do, you are not railroading.

Which do you mean?

Actually, it does both. Certain events continue even if the players are not there. For example, I have a villain that is trying to establish a hold on the region. And depending on how much trouble the players cause "it", it may or may not be successful. And if they ignore it entirely, then it will continue its merry work, and they may find some powerful opposition in the future. I do not force them to engage their enemy, and in fact, they are free to ignore the villain entirely. But it does have consequences for the story.

But other aspects of the plot may come to the players, regardless of where they are in the world. I have an undead pirate captain who was accidentally allowed to be resurrected, due to a mistake by the players, and now he came to seek his vengeance. The players do not have to look for him, he'll come to where ever they are. I also have a bunch of cultists, who struck a powerful blow against the city where the players are currently at. It could have happened anywhere really, but this was one of those cases where something dramatic had to happen to pick up the plot again. I try to find a good balance between plot and freedom. Too much freedom, and it ends up feeling like there is no plot, and everything is just random. But too much plot, and it feels like the players are just watching a movie. I prefer something in between, where you have good storytelling, and a sandbox as well.

The campaign world is basically a confined sandbox. It has a plot line running through it, which is free to branch out in any direction, and it has some mini plots that happen where ever the players happen to be.

There's never just one plot. There are multiple plots, along with an overarching story. And depending on where the players go, I can pick up a different plot line. Eventually all these plot lines lead to one big conclusion, but since every plot line can be affected by the players, the outcome can change.

So this is not what I would call a railroad. The players do not have to do anything, and they don't have to go anywhere. They are free to explore the world as they want. The only thing set in stone, is the sort of ending that the story is heading towards. But that ending may take many shapes, depending on what allies the players form during their adventures (which may span a whole year of playing sessions). There are some large decisions that may have a great effect on the plot, and the ending is always in motion, changing with each unpredictable thing that the players do. Yes, there will be a big naval battle at the end, and I know what enemy they will be fighting.

But how many others will be dragged into this conflict? What will happen to the rest of the region? These are things that I have deliberately not written in stone. It's sort of like having a rough idea of the ending to a book, but writing the rest as you go.

If you are plotting a game for the players to follow certain courses of action, you are removing their ability to play the situation as a game.

Only if you write both the outcome, and their decisions for them. That is railroading. If you allow choice, and players can affect the plot, then that is not railroading. Having a plot is not the same as railroading. You can have a plot, and also not railroad.

Don't ever write a plot for the players. Treat the game as players playing a maze and the "rules" as rules for the referee in generating that maze.

That is a terrible advice in my opinion. Don't ever write a plot? Why not? I think most players enjoy a sense that there's an actual story, rather than the DM just throwing stuff at them.

I think a better advice would be for the DM to not restrict himself too much, by writing too much of the plot in advance. Come up with a conflict, and the people/creatures that are part of that conflict, and don't write a resolution. Next, throw the players into this situation, and let them sort it out. Then pick up the plot from there.

Railroading, is when you force your players to follow a certain path, and then also write the outcome. D&D should be an interactive plot, in my opinion, where the players make key decisions that alter the plot. Does the villain always escape, or can the players be clever enough to foil his plans? These are the sort of things that break away from railroading. If you make sure that your story does not hinge on the villain surviving or dying, then there's no need to railroad anything. What ever happens, happens.

 

[Starfox]

A problem with discussing sandboxes and railroading is that sandbox play is generally considered good, and railroading bad. This means that any "accusation" of railroading has to be repulsed, creating a generally defensive discussion.

To me, sandbox <-> railroad is a spectrum. My preferred playstyle is somewhere near the middle (at least what I consider the middle). At either end lies madness and a non-functional game. Sandboxes can be just as nonfunctional as railroaded games.

 

[N'raac]

I think you misunderstand. The plot is just not bound to a specific location. It can happen wherever the players choose to go. That does not mean that the players don't affect the plot.

Actually, I had similar thoughts as Celebrim when I read your initial post. A plot that follows the players around meets many gamers' definition of a railroad. "We do not want to play out the plotline of two nations heading to war which will culminate in a massive naval battle, but whenever we seek to depart from it we hear the whistle. "

WHOO WHOOOOOO - All Aboard the Plot Train"

The fact that the tracks move to intersect with the players does not change the structure from being a railroad. To many players, the fact that they are required to "buy in" to the one central plot is a railroad. To you it is not.

Not really. All that is set in stone in my campaign, is that it slowly moves towards a massive naval battle between two armies. But how they get there, is entirely up to them.

TRANSLATION BY THE RAILROAD HATER: We can take any branch line we want, but all tracks lead to the massive naval battle at the hub of the railroad. For some, this would be even worse than the classic linear railroad, in that it tries to create the illusion of freedom, but whenever the players feel like they have exercised agency and left the plot rain, they find themselves back on the tracks.

Instead I try to think what the logical response of the other key players in this story would be, to the actions of the players.

A "not railroad" would abandon the other key players in this story to move on to another story with which the players have decided (or have the choice of deciding to) interact with, not keep the One True Story of the Campaign going. I would describe your campaign as an adventure path - the path always leads to the giant naval battle at the end, and the players will find that, no matter where they go or what they do, this plot will always appear once again.

To the question of the OP, you get the players to stay on the adventure path by having every path they could take intersect with this adventure.

Actually, it does both. Certain events continue even if the players are not there. For example, I have a villain that is trying to establish a hold on the region. And depending on how much trouble the players cause "it", it may or may not be successful. And if they ignore it entirely, then it will continue its merry work, and they may find some powerful opposition in the future. I do not force them to engage their enemy, and in fact, they are free to ignore the villain entirely. But it does have consequences for the story.

Whereas, in a true sandbox, the players could decide to walk away from this region - just ignore it - and it would never again intersect with their adventures. That story has ceased to be a part of THEIR story, based on their choice not to become involved with it.

But other aspects of the plot may come to the players, regardless of where they are in the world.

Which many would call a railroad - the players are not allowed to escape this plot. It will come to them if they do not come to it.

I have an undead pirate captain who was accidentally allowed to be resurrected, due to a mistake by the players, and now he came to seek his vengeance. The players do not have to look for him, he'll come to where ever they are.

RAILROAD: Wherever you go, the pirate captain follows. SANDBOX: If you choose to walk away from the pirate captain, he is gone from the story and new plotlines develop (unless you later choose to seek out the pirate captain again).

I also have a bunch of cultists, who struck a powerful blow against the city where the players are currently at. It could have happened anywhere really, but this was one of those cases where something dramatic had to happen to pick up the plot again.

SANDBOX: The Cult is targeting City X. If you leave, or never visit City X, they are not your problem. RAILROAD: The Cult targets whatever city you are in. "We cannot escape the railroad - the Cult appears no matter where we go."

I try to find a good balance between plot and freedom. Too much freedom, and it ends up feeling like there is no plot, and everything is just random. But too much plot, and it feels like the players are just watching a movie. I prefer something in between, where you have good storytelling, and a sandbox as well.

Emphasis added. I would rephrase this as a good balance between railroad and sandbox. While not trying to get "too railroady", you also don't want to be "too sandboxy". Neither the feel of watching a movie (furthest Railroad point on the continuum) nor the feel of flailing about aimlessly with no actual plot (furthers Sandbox point at the opposite end). But players may not agree with your balance. Some may well find "no matter where we go, the plot follows us" too railroady, and not the good balance you perceive it as.

There's never just one plot. There are multiple plots, along with an overarching story. And depending on where the players go, I can pick up a different plot line. Eventually all these plot lines lead to one big conclusion, but since every plot line can be affected by the players, the outcome can change.

Phrased another way (as those who WOULD call it a railroad would perceive it), there's just one big plot, an overarching story, with multiple subplots, threading to and through it. And depending on where the players go, they can engage with a different subplot line. Eventually all these subplot lines will lead to the same overall conclusion to the main plot, but although every subplot line can be affected by the players, the final overall conclusion can never be avoided or changed.

So this is not what I would call a railroad.

Others would call it a railroad. I suggest it has elements of a railroad and elements of a sandbox, and that pretty much every good game also has elements of each. The balance varies, and different people have different preferences for that balance.

The players do not have to do anything, and they don't have to go anywhere. They are free to explore the world as they want. The only thing set in stone, is the sort of ending that the story is heading towards.

Emphasis added. The fact that anything is "set in stone" indicates a railroad element.

But that ending may take many shapes, depending on what allies the players form during their adventures (which may span a whole year of playing sessions). There are some large decisions that may have a great effect on the plot, and the ending is always in motion, changing with each unpredictable thing that the players do. Yes, there will be a big naval battle at the end, and I know what enemy they will be fighting.

The railroad always comes to the terminus of the big naval battle against a specific enemy the PC's will be fighting. In a true sandbox, the naval battle might be ignored by the PC's, or they could choose either side, or they could negotiate peace with the parties so there would never be a battle, or they might avert the naval battle (perhaps moving its location to a great battle of armies on a plain, or perhaps sabotaging one side's naval forces so they cannot battle and lose by default).

But how many others will be dragged into this conflict? What will happen to the rest of the region? These are things that I have deliberately not written in stone. It's sort of like having a rough idea of the ending to a book, but writing the rest as you go.

Having the ending is a railroad element. I could as easily say that the dungeon has nine sequential rooms, but in each the players could negotiate, navigate past by stealth, or engage in combat - and they may win, or they may fail - but the end will still be the climax in the ninth room (unless the players abandon the campaign entirely which would also mean that naval battle never gets played out). They can't walk away from that dungeon entrance, though. Wherever they go, the next encounter will be what was behind that next dungeon door. That's got more railroad and less sandbox, but the principal is the same.

Only if you write both the outcome, and their decisions for them. That is railroading. If you allow choice, and players can affect the plot, then that is not railroading. Having a plot is not the same as railroading. You can have a plot, and also not railroad.

Another viewpoint is that, if all decisions of the PC's will lead to the same outcome, that is also railroading.

That is a terrible advice in my opinion. Don't ever write a plot? Why not? I think most players enjoy a sense that there's an actual story, rather than the DM just throwing stuff at them.

The fact that a game can be fun while being a railroad, or having railroad elements, is inarguable. Adventure paths would not sell if many players did not enjoy games with some element of railroading in them. The fact that it is an enjoyable railroad does not make it any less a railroad, nor will it make the Campaign of the Great Naval Battle any less a railroad, or any more palatable to a player who instead wants to delve deep into the Underdark, or explore the Elemental Planes, or do anything else, and escape surface politics entirely. He is still railroaded to the ultimate end of the naval battle.

I think a better advice would be for the DM to not restrict himself too much, by writing too much of the plot in advance. Come up with a conflict, and the people/creatures that are part of that conflict, and don't write a resolution. Next, throw the players into this situation, and let them sort it out. Then pick up the plot from there.

Good advice? Sure. But this advice is "Find a balance between railroad and sandbox", not "abandon the railroad for the pure sandbox".

Railroading, is when you force your players to follow a certain path, and then also write the outcome. D&D should be an interactive plot, in my opinion, where the players make key decisions that alter the plot. Does the villain always escape, or can the players be clever enough to foil his plans? These are the sort of things that break away from railroading. If you make sure that your story does not hinge on the villain surviving or dying, then there's no need to railroad anything. What ever happens, happens.

You simply have a different definition of a railroad, which I would more call scripting. To pick it apart:

- you have already written the outcome - the naval battle - railroad.

- you refer to the villain always escaping versus the ability of the players to foil his plans - so can the players foil the plans of those seeking the naval battle? If not, then railroad. In other words, your story hinges on the naval battle not being prevented - railroad.