CharlesRyan
Adventurer
Fair enough. I feel vindicated, then, since my first post basically said "plot does not equal railroading."
Confession: I like Plot
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough. I feel vindicated, then, since my first post basically said "plot does not equal railroading."
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
But is that really so different from collaborative storytelling? I don't know what my "partners" in story-telling come up with.
This element of unknown can come from random luck or the reactions of other people. There is an element you do not have perfect control about. Game rules are a way to do that, and system mastery (mastery of the rules) is you learning to reduce the unknown - but once you are capable of eliminating the unknown all-together, it will probably stop being fun...
Doug McCrae
Legend
I believe there are some GMs who regard finding the adventure as part of the challenge. The players are supposed to start with information gathering. Kind of like the first computer games where getting it to run was much more of a challenge than the game itself. But some people seemed to like that.
I can see how this works so long as the players understand that this is what is expected of them.
I've played in games where finding the adventure took ages, the GM really making us work for it. Not sure if this was by accident or design. I think these GMs regard useful information as a reward to be won. The players have to work for every scrap.
Last edited:
Therein lies the problem. You're describing "plotting" or pacing. Whatever the word is, it ain't plot.
The plot of DL7 is "an army of dragons is forming, and a secret weapon is hidden on an island"
the module expectation is the PCs will go for the hook and try to stop the army by going to the island. I sure wouldn't run it if I didn't think the PCs would go for it. I'd be darned sure the party had clues to lead them there.
And I agree with CharlesRyan, as usual. Every game I've played the party bites the hook. We came here to game. The GM probably only wrote one adventure. Let's get to work. For the people I play with, the adventure is almost always about us and is a continuation of the story thus far. We seldom start a game with nothing pending or brewing from the last game. Except for the first session, the session doesn't start with "some unrelated plot hook has just been revealed to you." The hook is always something tied to what we've done before (or places/people we've interacted with that tie back to us).
Thunderfoot
Hero
And, see, I think this is the problem. Railroading isn't plot, it's bad...very bad. Having a generalized outline (sandboxing??) is more centralized to plot than anything else. I hate where there is no (ie zero) choices. However, I like to have an eventual goal, whenever they get there, and if something is missed, it may (or may not) come to bite them in the butt, Frankly I think the entire DL series of modules sucked, because there wasn't ANY wiggle room.
For me, I can't stand, simple hack n slay, that is the absence of plot. There is a hobgoblin lair, wipe it out....why? Is there any other motivation other than genocide? If not, that isn't plot, that's just lazy. But if there is an option to take it out (because the party is set on killing things) OR if the find that in the scouting mission they arranged that the hobgoblins are actually good aligned creatures polymorphed by the evil overlord that higher them in the guise of the kindly leader, then .... either way the party (and the players) are going to have fun.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
But you're not using "plot" in the common English usage of the the word.
You're using it the same way one would use scenario, set-up, or premise.
The premise or set-up of Lord of the Rings is that the Dark Lord is on the rise and one little hobbit has the means of destroying him.
The plot is what happens in getting from the start of that premise (the Birthday party) to the resolution (sailing away from the Gray Havens). "The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama," is what my dictionary says.
Obviously every rpg session has a series of events that occurs during them. So, I would have to assume when someone says, "I like plot in my rpgs," he means something more than, "I like stuff to happen when I play rpgs." Who could argue with that?
What I took the OP to mean, and what I have taken others to mean, when they say something like, "I like plot," is, "I like to have a pre-set order of events planned to occur in my rpgs, and during play, I take steps to ensure that these pre-planned events actually do occur." If that's what's meant by it, that's not a game I'd like to be involved in. If that's not what's meant, then I don't have any argument with it.
awesomeocalypse
First Post
A pure sandbox, that is, one in which there is a setting but no story beyond what springs directly from player initiative in interacting with the setting, is pretty much my nightmare game, and I'd never play one. I want there to be a beginning, middle and end, rather than just a bunch of stuff that happened until we got tired of playing. I'd like novelistic tools, like foreshadowing, flashbacks, and well set up plot twists, which are extremely difficult to do without at least some degree of preplanning. I'd like the characters to feel like protagonists in a story, rather than merely like people in a world.
The best stories, of course, will be tailored to the characters perfectly, such that the arc aligns perfectly with the characters' personal direction and in-character self-direction leads the characters seamlessly through the story. As I laid out in a prior post, this is very doable if the dm and players collaborate from the beginning and building the story and characters around each other, e.g. if the pc has a vengeance-driven hero with tragedy in his background, then the guy they want vengeance on might make a great longterm villain.
But if it doesn't quite click, or if you're running a premade adventure, I would still far, far prefer to have to slightly bend my character to follow the story than to just abandon story and turn the game into a collection of player-driven events.
The best stories, of course, will be tailored to the characters perfectly, such that the arc aligns perfectly with the characters' personal direction and in-character self-direction leads the characters seamlessly through the story. As I laid out in a prior post, this is very doable if the dm and players collaborate from the beginning and building the story and characters around each other, e.g. if the pc has a vengeance-driven hero with tragedy in his background, then the guy they want vengeance on might make a great longterm villain.
But if it doesn't quite click, or if you're running a premade adventure, I would still far, far prefer to have to slightly bend my character to follow the story than to just abandon story and turn the game into a collection of player-driven events.
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
Well
I'm a sandboxer at heart but I've been running the Dungeon Adventure Paths for the last few years, because
1) They're really excellent and
2) I don't have the time to write my own stuff lately.
That said, I think adventure paths provide a very good example of the real differences that exist between a sandbox and a plot-heavy game.
SPOILERS
(Note: if anyone can tell me how to make one of those spoiler buttons I see you guys using, I'd be appreciative! I don't want to spoil the STAP, especially for my own player!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For example, in the Savage Tide Adventure Path, there are sandboxy areas (like Sasserine and it's Thieve's Guild), but every now and then the narrative constricts with a railroad.
The most glaring example is the wreck of the Sea Wyvern. Most players, I would imagine, think that their shiphandling skills -- Profession: Sailor and Knowledge: Geography -- matter. They do not. No matter what, the Sea Wyvern ends up wrecked, the PCs end up in the water, then unconscious on the beach , waking up next to a Tyrranosaur. This is a classic railroad, albeit a very well executed one.
As well, the initial encounter with Vanthus is quite railroady -- the part where he locks them in the tunnels with the pirate zombies. That encounter, at least, can have a different outcome without negating the next issue of Dungeon Magazine.
Now, a real sandbox doesn't preordain that the PCs wreck their ship. If the STAP were written in true sandbox fashion, the Isle of Dread would be a really big hex map populated with lairs and ancient ruins that the PCs had heard about, and they would decide what to do. In fairness, the STAP does have an arc that is much like this, later in the Adventure Path.
Ken
I'm a sandboxer at heart but I've been running the Dungeon Adventure Paths for the last few years, because
1) They're really excellent and
2) I don't have the time to write my own stuff lately.
That said, I think adventure paths provide a very good example of the real differences that exist between a sandbox and a plot-heavy game.
SPOILERS
(Note: if anyone can tell me how to make one of those spoiler buttons I see you guys using, I'd be appreciative! I don't want to spoil the STAP, especially for my own player!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For example, in the Savage Tide Adventure Path, there are sandboxy areas (like Sasserine and it's Thieve's Guild), but every now and then the narrative constricts with a railroad.
The most glaring example is the wreck of the Sea Wyvern. Most players, I would imagine, think that their shiphandling skills -- Profession: Sailor and Knowledge: Geography -- matter. They do not. No matter what, the Sea Wyvern ends up wrecked, the PCs end up in the water, then unconscious on the beach , waking up next to a Tyrranosaur. This is a classic railroad, albeit a very well executed one.
As well, the initial encounter with Vanthus is quite railroady -- the part where he locks them in the tunnels with the pirate zombies. That encounter, at least, can have a different outcome without negating the next issue of Dungeon Magazine.
Now, a real sandbox doesn't preordain that the PCs wreck their ship. If the STAP were written in true sandbox fashion, the Isle of Dread would be a really big hex map populated with lairs and ancient ruins that the PCs had heard about, and they would decide what to do. In fairness, the STAP does have an arc that is much like this, later in the Adventure Path.
Ken
Last edited:
pawsplay said:
Well, here's how:
linear: A line has one dimension, the only options being to go forward or back or stay put. "Linear" all by itself is commonly synonymous with "rail-road-y" in reference to scenario design.
scripted: A script dictates a particular sequence of events; improvisation is, sensibly enough, "unscripted".
Thus, "linear, scripted" looks to me like "meaningful choices are negated to produce the GM's preferred outcome" -- which we have agreed is "railroading".
Now, perhaps you would be so kind as to share what "linear" and "scripted" mean to you?
Last edited:
There's a particular brilliance in the "dungeon game" that kicked off the popularization of the hobby with the publication of D&D and T&T. (I understand that the Arneson and Gygax campaigns saw a renewed interest in underworld expeditions after the appearance of the Dungeon! board game.) That brilliance lies in its being so aptly a microcosm of the RPG phenomenon, bringing fundamental aspects into sharp relief.
One such aspect is that the game is intrinsically one of limited information. Perhaps THE single most important function of the GM is to convey information to the players, serving as their "eyes and ears" upon the imagined world.
A consequence is the tendency of players to follow whatever they take to be the GM's lead. As a practical matter, they really "cannot see the forest for the trees"; they perceive only what the GM presents.
The negative directive, of not cutting off options, is thus actually the second step. The first is the positive directive of providing plenty of options -- and somehow clearly informing players of them. "Out of sight is out of mind" is vastly more likely than the players haring off on grand schemes one could not have anticipated.
There's a real (and perhaps increasing, with players "trained" to get led by the nose) danger of players just waffling about wondering where the adventure is. That can be just as frustrating and baffling from the other side of the GM screen, from which perspective the options may seem obvious if one does not mentally put oneself in the players' shoes. (This is one reason I think it tends to be unhealthy to GM for long without actually experiencing play from the other side, and problematic to build a big scenario in isolation from active play.)
"Railroad" responses are easily rationalized as "helping" players. They can't miss a "clue" if you rub their faces in it, eh? By the same logic, designing a published scenario that way can be seen as "helping" the GM. There's a real skill in moderating a game, and as with any skill the results while in the early stages of learning are likely to be a bit clumsy. The same, of course, applies to playing characters.
Unfortunately, that mode can get taken as normative; people can get stuck in a rut that does not provide the exercise necessary to developing skills. Not everyone much minds, but many people come to find such a stunted game -- and perhaps by extension the hobby as a whole -- boring. Therein, for example, lies the origin of the "killing things and taking their stuff" characterization so often levied as a put-down of FRP.
One such aspect is that the game is intrinsically one of limited information. Perhaps THE single most important function of the GM is to convey information to the players, serving as their "eyes and ears" upon the imagined world.
A consequence is the tendency of players to follow whatever they take to be the GM's lead. As a practical matter, they really "cannot see the forest for the trees"; they perceive only what the GM presents.
The negative directive, of not cutting off options, is thus actually the second step. The first is the positive directive of providing plenty of options -- and somehow clearly informing players of them. "Out of sight is out of mind" is vastly more likely than the players haring off on grand schemes one could not have anticipated.
There's a real (and perhaps increasing, with players "trained" to get led by the nose) danger of players just waffling about wondering where the adventure is. That can be just as frustrating and baffling from the other side of the GM screen, from which perspective the options may seem obvious if one does not mentally put oneself in the players' shoes. (This is one reason I think it tends to be unhealthy to GM for long without actually experiencing play from the other side, and problematic to build a big scenario in isolation from active play.)
"Railroad" responses are easily rationalized as "helping" players. They can't miss a "clue" if you rub their faces in it, eh? By the same logic, designing a published scenario that way can be seen as "helping" the GM. There's a real skill in moderating a game, and as with any skill the results while in the early stages of learning are likely to be a bit clumsy. The same, of course, applies to playing characters.
Unfortunately, that mode can get taken as normative; people can get stuck in a rut that does not provide the exercise necessary to developing skills. Not everyone much minds, but many people come to find such a stunted game -- and perhaps by extension the hobby as a whole -- boring. Therein, for example, lies the origin of the "killing things and taking their stuff" characterization so often levied as a put-down of FRP.
- Status
