Avoiding Railroading - Forked Thread: Do you play more for the story or the combat?

[SKyOdin]

Here is how I would structure the Necromancer scenario in order to avoid the problems of railroading and illusionism (which I do consider to be a problem):

The basic scenario is that a Necromancer is raising an army of undead in order to attack a town. There are opportunities for the PCs to prevent the necromancer from raising undead for his army, but the PCs can easily miss these opportunities or ignore them in favor of other choices, such as bolstering the town's defenses in preparation for the attack.

Now then, if the PCs have the opportunity to weaken the Necromancer's forces beforehand, then I want their actions to have real meaning. Let's say that there are three opportunities for the PCs to weaken the Necro's forces: preventing his minions from raising grunts in a graveyard, preventing him from creating a powerful undead monster, and a chance to prevent some thieves from stealing bones from an underground crypt.

Now then, in the second case, I would create a specific monster, probably a strong elite or solo type monster. If the party doesn't stop it from being created, it will be there in the final battle. If the party does destroy it early, then it will probably be replaced by weaker minion or regular type monsters.

In the third case, if the Necromancer's minion's succeed, then the Necromancer's forces later on will be bolstered by relatively strong skeleton type undead. If the first case, the Necromancer's forces will be bolstered by relatively strong zombies. If either of these fail, the Necromancer's overall army later in the campaign will be much smaller.

Now then, if the PCs successfully prevent two or three of the Necromancer's plans, the Necromancer may actually abandon his plot and flee the area. The PCs will then have the choice of pursuing him or leaving the area themselves in order to follow up other story threads. The Necromancer may or may not resurface in the campaign, depending on other events.

If the PC's do not prevent the Necromancer's plans, the Necromancer will lead an attack on the community. How the battle goes specifically depends heavily on which forces the Necromancer has and what kind of preparations the PC's made for the town's defense. In any event, the attack will probably be a big multi-encounter sequence where the PCs have to decide between trying to hold the city gates against an undead behemoth and trying to stop a force of skeletons from scaling the city walls elsewhere (as examples). Conceivably, the enemy might overwhelm the PCs and destroy the city, forcing the PCs to retreat. Alternatively, the Necromancer's weakened forces may be devastated by the PC's carefully planned defenses, leaving the Necromancer himself vulnerable to a vicious counter-attack.

I think it relatively simple to fill a scenario like this with meaningful choices as long as you don't lock your thinking in to any particular outcome. Who says that the PCs will ever fight the Necromancer head on? While it is certainly a possibility that can be achieved in a number of ways, there are so many other ways the battle can play out.

Now then, a scenario like this is not sandbox play in the least. It is following a plot-line of sorts, and will eventually come to one conclusion or another. At the same time, it is not really railroading, as long as the DM lets the PC's decisions shape the scenario's course and outcome.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

In this case the choice doesn't matter but if the players are happy playing out the events of a pre-determined occurance and having a good time doing so then that works. Different playstyles for different folks.

Well, the core premise of Illusionism is that the difference is indecipherable from the players' side of the screen. If the players don't know that the pre-determined occurrence was pre-determined, then it can't affect their enjoyment of the game, can it?

 

[apoptosis]

Well, the core premise of Illusionism is that the difference is indecipherable from the players' side of the screen. If the players don't know that the pre-determined occurrence was pre-determined, then it can't affect their enjoyment of the game, can it?

While this is true...i have played in enough of these type games to realize that inevitably my players/groups will see through the illusion. What is worse is that (having seen this happen before) once they realize it is an illusion they never trust the GM again, and this is shown in what they say at the table and away from it and their attitudes to the GM.

I think you are better off just letting the players in on it. If the players really want a big fight at the end then remove the illusion and just say, there will be a big fight at the end regardless of your previous actions.

I have no problem with players suggesting scenes that they wish to play in. Nor do i really have an issue changing the reality of the world, i prefer to do it, though, with the players buy in.

Sometimes they will suggest that the old woman at the end of the road is really a witch. If they want this old woman to be a witch in the story (assuming she is already not determined to be something else important to the story) then i would just make her a witch.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

While this is true...i have played in enough of these type games to realize that inevitably my players/groups will see through the illusion. What is worse is that (having seen this happen before) once they realize it is an illusion they never trust the GM again, and this is shown in what they say at the table and away from it and their attitudes to the GM.

I haven't really tried to pull off Illusionism myself, so I can't really say. Maybe the DMs who tried it on you were bad at it, or maybe it's nigh-impossible to do.

Fund the research project! Grad students all over America are very hungry.

I think you are better off just letting the players in on it. If the players really want a big fight at the end then remove the illusion and just say, there will be a big fight at the end regardless of your previous actions.

I have no problem with players suggesting scenes that they wish to play in. Nor do i really have an issue changing the reality of the world, i prefer to do it, though, with the players buy in.

Sometimes they will suggest that the old woman at the end of the road is really a witch. If they want this old woman to be a witch in the story (assuming she is already not determined to be something else important to the story) then i would just make her a witch.

Yeah, this is exactly how I run games. Well, that and I can't railroad, because I don't plan that far ahead.

Winging it: the truest solution to stopping up railroading.

 

[pemerton]

In this case the choice doesn't matter

Why do you say that?

Suppose I am told that I have to listen to a given melody, but can listen to it played by musician X or musician Y. Does this mean I have no meaningful choice? Well, it depends on whether I care about the difference in performance that X and Y will deliver. Some will, some won't.

For some RPGers, the flavour and theme of a climactic encounter are very important, and the capacity ingame to determine that flavour/theme therefore matters a great deal.

 

[pemerton]

Here is how I would structure the Necromancer scenario in order to avoid the problems of railroading and illusionism (which I do consider to be a problem):

<snip>

if the PCs have the opportunity to weaken the Necromancer's forces beforehand, then I want their actions to have real meaning.

So does Cadfan (if I'm understanding him right). The point is that the meaningfulness of this stuff for the players is different to what it is for the PCs. The PCs are trying to weaken the forces. The players are trying to achieve a certain sort of flavour/thematic outcome. Depending on what the PCs achieve in terms of winning at zombie encounters in the lead up to the climax, the players may or may not get their goal. The choice is therefore meaningful for the players.

The question of whether or not it is meaningful for the PCs is not itself a very meaningful question - the PCs are fictions! If we ask the ingame counterfactual, "But for the PCs' victories against the zombies in the lead-up encounters, would the climactic battle have been even more difficult?" the answer is yes - Cadfan already told us that above.

Asked at the metagame level, the answer of course is no - but then it was not a metagame priority for the players to make the final encounter less challenging, so this doesn't stop them getting the meaning they were after.

I think you are better off just letting the players in on it. If the players really want a big fight at the end then remove the illusion and just say, there will be a big fight at the end regardless of your previous actions.

I think this is right, and that Cadfan is over-emphasising the need for GM secrecy.

 

[SKyOdin]

The point is that the meaningfulness of this stuff for the players is different to what it is for the PCs. The PCs are trying to weaken the forces. The players are trying to achieve a certain sort of flavour/thematic outcome.

In Cadfan's version of the events, the only difference between the two paths is the location of the final boss battle. It is pretty much the same situation that someone else described earlier: the party encountering the same caravan whether they went to the desert or the forest. It limits player control over the game to merely surface flavor. As a player, I find that level of control over the game to be pretty unsatisfying.

Now then, a game where the players have that little control over the ultimate course of the game can be fun (I have played in one such campaign and enjoyed it), but only when the players and the DM share a very deep understanding of where they want the game to go. However, it is really difficult for five or six people to perfectly agree on details like this all the time, and it can cause complications when a player decides to do something completely unexpected.

As a player, I draw a lot of enjoyment from the game by coming up with goals for my PCs and then pursuing those goals. It is satisfying to have my character achieve a long-standing goal. However, if I as a player have no real control over the flow of the campaign, then whether or not I achieve my goals is completely dependent on the whims of the DM. In that situation, I can beg the DM out of game for something, but that is not a very satisfying solution.

 

[S'mon]

If the players' goal is to have a game of exciting combats, then they want the necromancer's legion of zombies to pose a real challenge.

I'd much much rather play (or GM) in a world where the PCs' actions can help determine whether the necromancer's attacking legions are anything from Overwhelming to Trivial - although in the latter case the Nec should probably not be attacking anyway. If I wanted balanced combats I'd be playing Warhammer Battle.

 

[S'mon]

Well, the core premise of Illusionism is that the difference is indecipherable from the players' side of the screen. If the players don't know that the pre-determined occurrence was pre-determined, then it can't affect their enjoyment of the game, can it?

IME in practice the players know fine well what's going on, but are willing to suspend disbelief. If not - if they try to break out of the script and the GM forces them back on - then it's Railroading.

 

[Ydars]

The "illusion of freedom" works fine, if you have players who don't DM. The moment one of them starts reading things on "how to be a dungeon master" then you have serious problems.

Speaking for myself as a player, because I DM, I hate the illusion of freedom and want my actions to have real impact. I dislike games where it is all scripted and I can't really affect things.

The problem is the way modern modules are written. Many of them are seriously verging on railroads simply because of how they are presented. Then newer DMs reading this stuff think that this is how they should also create adventures.