Station Squatting (Player Railroading)

[Desdichado]

Let me know how that goes Hobo. I'm an avid baker myself, so maybe I could help you out in advocating how well the players bake the bread.

Well, they'll end up being forced into a baker's avenger role or something. A few years ago, the meme that people used to make fun of people who didn't have action-packed D&D sessions was roleplaying the duchess' tea party. I ran a (very successful, I think) Duchess Tea Party one-shot, but of course Orcus burst out of the Duchess' body and started wreaking havoc on the manor.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm personally don't run action-packed, adventuring games. I just don't like the declarative "this is how the game has to be played" statements, because in my opinion, they're patently untrue.

 

[roguerouge]

For the anti-baker crowd:

There's a huge section in DMGII on how to run a business in game. In PHBII, there's a big section on affiliations, which have "Trade" as one of the functions. I believe Enworld sold 3e products on belonging to guilds, including a merchant guild, too. Also, I just bought a pdf on medieval desserts.

In short, there's an awful lot of WotC and 3PP support for all of this "non-DnD" behavior you're decrying.

 

[roguerouge]

I think we here, on this thread, have reached a bit of an impasse on why the players are hunkering down. It could be the DM is not giving them enough reason to move along. It could be the players not actually desiring to be adventurers. Or it could be a combination. Almost a chicken and egg problem.

You're forgetting the third interpretation advanced earlier: that station-squatting can be legitimate character and world-building activities on the part of players that can make a campaign richer and more rewarding for DM and player alike. Sometimes, "station squatting" is a DM's reaction to having to learn how to follow as well as lead.

 

[Krensky]

You're forgetting the third interpretation advanced earlier: that station-squatting can be legitimate character and world-building activities on the part of players that can make a campaign richer and more rewarding for DM and player alike. Sometimes, "station squatting" is a DM's reaction to having to learn how to follow as well as lead.

The PCs run their bakery, become renowned throut the land and develop the perfect desert, becoming 20th level bakers. Then the world ends in fire and ice and undead Elvi because they were messing around with pastry rather then being heroes and stopping the villain.

 

[roguerouge]

Please see the prior post on this being a false dichotomy: baker or adventurer:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...uatting-player-railroading-2.html#post4588043

Basically, you need not choose either/or. Both adventure and world immersion are possible.

And, if you do go the epic baking or pastry chef route, try these for oddball "quest" desserts: http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/t/tabletopAdventures/downloads/other/v5748btpy83un

 

[roguerouge]

Please see the prior post on this being a false dichotomy: baker or adventurer:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...uatting-player-railroading-2.html#post4588043

Basically, you need not choose either/or. Both adventure and world immersion are possible.

And, if you do go the epic baking or pastry chef route, try these for oddball "quest" desserts: paizo.com - Bits of the Banquet: Into the Desserts PDF

 

[Tuft]

In Shadowrun (at least 1ed-3ed), you installed cyberware into your bodies worth millions, and then were to do missions that gave peanuts - while repeatedly being double-crossed by your supposed employer...

One effect noted both in the campaign I played in, and another a friend did, was that "taking care" of all the vehicles left ownerless by the PC:s rampage paid a lot more than the official mission rewards, even at 10% of full value.

The discussion "Why do we do these dangerous things instead of just going out nicking a few cars from some lowlives?" came up quite frequently...

 

[Krensky]

Please see the prior post on this being a false dichotomy: baker or adventurer:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...uatting-player-railroading-2.html#post4588043

Basically, you need not choose either/or. Both adventure and world immersion are possible.

And, if you do go the epic baking or pastry chef route, try these for oddball "quest" desserts: paizo.com - Bits of the Banquet: Into the Desserts PDF

I did, and it's a specious argument. Of course a GM can contort himself to allow both, but he shouldn't have to. If the player repeatedly refuse to follow adventure hooks (and for our hypothetical argument they are good hooks that engage the characters interests) so they can dink around running a non-adventure-friendly profession that will take up all of their time is rude and wasting the GMs time.

"I know you spent time developing a world, and adventures Mr. GM, but I think I'll just sit here and ignore the half dozen things you are implying to me you have prepped - and by extension, are interested in - so I can spend ten to twelve hours a day baking. Oh, and I expect you to give me adventures revolving around baking too, no matter how boring you find it, or how illogical it is."

In the last fantasy game I ran, had the players done this I too would have burned the bakery down, or rather, the evil overlord's troops would have when it sacked the town in six to twelve months.

 

[Campbell]

In the last fantasy game I ran, had the players done this I too would have burned the bakery down, or rather, the evil overlord's troops would have when it sacked the town in six to twelve months.

I largely agree with you up to this point - that's a horrible way to communicate your desires to players. That kind of passive aggressive schadenfreude ruins games. It's best to simply talk to your players. That way you can work out a compromise if there is one to be made, and If they don't want to play in the sort of game you want to run you can part ways amicably.

 

[Krensky]

I largely agree with you up to this point - that's a horrible way to communicate your desires to players. That kind of passive aggressive schadenfreude ruins games. It's best to simply talk to your players. That way you can work out a compromise if there is one to be made, and If they don't want to play in the sort of game you want to run you can part ways amicably.

The game would have been ruined when the players decided to be jerks by ignoring the plot of the main quest. The plot that they received the blurb of when they joined the game. I communicate my desires to my players externally of the play of the game. I make my expectations, requirements, and theory of play clear up front. I also make clear that while my games are narrative, often loaded with genre conventions, with plenty of side quests and distractions, the world exists independently of the players. If they sit still, bad things tend to happen because my villains don't sit around waiting for them to show up and generally have access to a five-year old.

So, again, if my players had decided to start a bakery and make that the focus of their gaming in my last campaign, which was clearly stated on the outset to involve a evil overlord trying to conquer the world, they will find it destroyed when the town gets sacked. If that didn't get them off the pot to go hunt down those responsible, I'll recommend that we play Agripola so the can get their baking on and stop wasting each other's time.

Also, to expound, I would not say, "Eight months later Villageburg is sacked and you bakery burns to the ground and a dragon pisses on the ashes." Rather I'd fast-forward to the first really noticeable and hard to ignore signs of the invading army, give the PCs some extra cash, and let them go from there.