"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Janx]

Well, hold on a second.

There's "reasonable" as in, "it is reasonable physically - pockets can be picked". Then there's reasonable as in, "this is a reasonable plan that a sane person would consider a good idea". It is reasonable in the first sense, and not so much in the second sense.

Now, great adventures are often built on unreasonable plans, but you generally ought to have the agreement of others at the table before you impose the results upon them. It is all well and good to say that folks understand consequences - but a player need to know that his actions have consequences for the other players, as well as their characters. This is a cooperative game, and keeping that in mind is the kind of metagaming that isn't so bad.

"Sure, this is cool fun for me, personally, but are the other players going to enjoy the consequences of my trashing their relationship with the King?"

I concur. It is POSSIBLE to attempt to do anything in a D&D game. It is not always REASONABLE to attempt to do those things.

Some peopel cite RPGs as letting them unwind and do stuff they can't do in the real world.

I contend that in a "serious" campaign, the same social limitations apply. Yes, you can physically attempt to rob the king. However, you can do the same thing for the mayor of your real world town. But in both worlds, there are reasons we don't generally attempt to do these things.

As a GM, I try not to hard-code specific endings for the campaign (and the PCs throw the ring into mt Doom, the end.).

But when the players say they want to remove the goblin threat so they can extend their mining operations, I write material to present challenges to them as them pursue that goal. When so dork decides to do some stupid random activity that gets them all in trouble and completely throws out their goal, is that time wasted?

Some would say no. I think there's plenty who would say the dork acted stupidly and just cratered the campaign. I'd say its cratered if the campaign with those characters doesn't continue in as regular a fashion after that point (as in it peters out).

I'm all for the campaign changing directions through game play. I'm not for this happening through stupid game play, especially if its ends a campaign (thus contaminating my investment in my PC who's now locked in a dead campaign because of your actions).

I think there's some number of players who play their character as if they live there. They try not to act stupid, other than the occasional pun or joke, because they despise watching shows where the the protagonists do the stupidest things to make matters worse for the sake of plot (like not communicating which is the root of all comic book drama). Now take a party of those players and sub one out for a 13 year-old nephew. Who sees he has a 16 CHA and is a Rogue so he spends the rest of the game looking up girls skirts and trying to steal from every body.

That's the kind of player who causes trouble, in the stupid game play kind.

One way to describe it, is the player is breaking verisimilitude of the campaign. There's plenty of places for doing crazy, unpredictable things. Then there's times to not do stupid stuff for the sake of doing stupid stuff.

Kind of like how I hate in anime when they flip a character to a goofily drawn, large-mouthed, spazz. What the smurf is up with that? People like that should be the first to die before 1st level due to some orc attack or falling down a well.

 

[nedjer]

Did someone mention metagaming. Better parachute out of here, as it always locks me into a loop. Mainly because not metagaming is such an extreme form of metagaming

 

[Janx]

Contriving a reason to brush past the king? Offer him a wine goblet, stumble during a dance, offer to hold his cloak - I mean, as long as the thief isn't wearing his Thieves' Guild t-shirt and is reasonably competent, getting a couple of fingers in the king's doublet doesn't require prohibitively-extensive planning.

I think there's several ways this "pick-pocket the king" can be looked at.

In the hands of a serious player and a high enough level PC, he might be using this as a means to demonstrate to the king that he has skill and need of the party's protection services in the next scene (where he reveals the ring he took from the king's hand).

In the hands of a dork, this is more of a lark. There's no thought involved. He's trying to do as much "wrong" as he can, to see how far he can get. The problem is, that's not the kind of game the rest of the party wants to play.

I think the theory here, is that the former kind of behavior and intent can contaminate the campaign. It can get ruin the reputation of the other PCs (they may even be lumped in with him, since they were all together). Does Shaman want that in his game?

Part of the problem, that I've touched in a variety of threads is that the party gets stuck with PCs joining them, that they wouldn't accept as NPCs. Pehaps if the players had been told they had the authority to approve any member (thus kicking out the problem PC BEFORE he brings them down) it would solve the problem. While technically, the PCs have always had this power, there is a peer pressure to let everyone at the table join the group. Thus, the feeling that they're stuck with the idiot.

If the GM opened the campaign with something like: I'd like you alll to make PCs that can work together and would realistically do so. If any of you makes an undesirable, I remind the party that you do not have to accept him into your group, and can deal with him in character as you all see fit.

I don't like deliberate and antagonistic PvP in my RPGs. But I also don't like players being equally unrealistic in accepting undesirables into their party. Just as the dork who wants to pick-pocket the king may be out of character or verisimilitude, so is the party who accepts him.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Is this a cop-out? I personally think that the PCs should be given all the freedom in the world to rund own blind alleys and chase red herrings; indeed, interesting roleplaying situations can pop up when this happens and it can end up leading to more interesting RPG experiences than the GM had originally intended.

On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?

I hate to say this, but it is true: it depends entirely upon the group and their level of involvement. I've never been a tabletop RPG DM, but I have been a GM for an online roleplaying simulation, and have done so for 10 years. The "crew" has changed considerably over time, and during certain years, I've had little choice BUT to railroad the players into actually DOING something, since the times when I gave them free rein or asked them to be creative in solving a problem, absolutely nothing happened. Either literally (no one spoke for minutes on end) or figuratively (people all did meaningless things that didn't develop their characters or drive any sort of plot forward).

Railroading was NOT that great in those instances, but it led to a good story being told, and somehow, the people being told what to do enjoyed themselves. Eventually I got tired of it and made it clear it wouldn't happen this way anymore.

I can definitely see a DM being stuck with a group like this. It's not my cup of tea. If I was in a group where the DM railroaded the group EVERY time, I'd find another group. I'm willing to tolerate it once in a while if the plot is especially interesting, but I'm just not the kind of player where this is ever a necessity -- I try my best to keep things going, help the DM shape the story, interact with other PCs, and the like. By the same token, if I was in a group where the players all simply demanded that the DM tell them what to do, and couldn't think of interesting things to do during "down time" in a town or village ... I'd also be looking for a new group, or at least, new players to suggest to the DM.

Bottom line: there are players out there that, if relied upon to "move" the train, will cause the group to never see anything but the inside of the station. Sometimes, there's just 1 or 2 in a group ... sometimes it's the entire group. If you are in a group with 0 such people, I say congratulations and do what you can to keep them all happy. My current 3.5 game has 0 such people, and I love it.

 

[El Mahdi]

...I think there's some number of players who play their character as if they live there. They try not to act stupid, other than the occasional pun or joke, because they despise watching shows where the the protagonists do the stupidest things to make matters worse for the sake of plot (like not communicating which is the root of all comic book drama). Now take a party of those players and sub one out for a 13 year-old nephew. Who sees he has a 16 CHA and is a Rogue so he spends the rest of the game looking up girls skirts and trying to steal from every body.

That's the kind of player who causes trouble, in the stupid game play kind...

I really liked all of your post, especially this part. I like a player to realistically play a character. Even if said character has a 6 for Charisma and Wisdom. I don't like Players with a 6 for Charisma and Wisdom...

 

[The Shaman]

Yes, because they begin to moan about why the party didn't help him. Why the DM didn't make it easier for him, how this shouldn't happen to him. Or they get pissy over why the party(who is now a man short) refuses to rescue him from the nigh-impenetrable fortress of the King's dungeon.

Or the player rolls his eyes, shrugs his shoulders, and says, "Well, that could've gone better. Someone hand me a character sheet, please?"

I can't speak to your experiences, of course, but I tend to run into very few drama queens when I game.

When a player thinks it's their right to do things that will have consequences for the entire game, not just themselves, that's the problem.

Such as the player of the paladin dictating to the player of the thief, using out-of-character knowledge to over the thief character in-game?

Spoken like a true responsibility dodgder. It's always the party's fault, the DM's fault, no, it's never YOUR fault for doing something so incredibly stupid that you knew you wouldn't get backed up on.

Lighten up, Francis.

People who pull such maneuvers clearly don't understand that there are consequences for their actions. They expect that because they are they rogue that entitles them to practice completly lawless behaviour and not get punished for it.

Overgeneralize much?

You're splattering a lot of gamers who don't deserve it with that tarry brush you're waving around. Again, maybe this is't something you've experienced, but there are lots and lots of gamers out there who are not self-absorbed me-monkeys, who recognize that failure may carry consequences for their characters, and are fine with that.

Robbing the King is not "risky but reasonable". It's stupid. The best of crime lords don't try that except on the rarest of occassions and they do so with incredible preparation. They don't just randomly decide to pick-pocket the King as he's walking down the street with a full legion of guards around him.

Because every crime lord in every world thinks exactly the same way? Because a clever thief could never find a way to get past the guards?

Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.

A mild reaction from a King over this sort of thing is immediate execution.

Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.

Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.

Again, your assumptions about the range of possibilities seem terribly limited and limiting.

This is game-destructive behaviour that disregards the game, the players, and the related good nature of things in favor of a "do what I want, everyone else be damned" attitude.

It's one I don't take lightly, as the point of the game is GROUP play, cohesion and working together to achieve amazing new heights. Not individualistic game-destroying self-righteousness. If you have no intention of working with the other players, then why are you here?

My approach to gaming is far less rigid and proscribed than yours. I have no problem with an adventurer showboating once in awhile. I have no problem with adventurers working at cross-purposes with one another. I enjoy a more freewheeling atmosphere, which is why I work to create an environment were the players and their characters drive the action, and my role behind the screen is mostly reactive. I enjoy adventurers who dream big, who scheme relentlessly and take big risks, even for things that may seem trivial to others.

For me gaming requires both give and take, and in my experience demands for group-think work against everyone's enjoyment more than they facilitate it.

 

[Janx]

So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?

That's silly.Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as outstanding roleplaying.

I don't consider using your class skills a determinant factor in roleplaying. But then I differentiate playing a role in the party (rogue) from playing a role as a character. The latter being "roleplaying" in my definition.

Now for the right rogue character, this feat of daring may indeed befit his character.

Or it could just be some dumb-assery.

The act itself isn't outstanding roleplaying. outstanding gaming maybe if he has the skills to do it. But roleplaying could only be judged in the context of the character's prior portrayal.

 

[Janx]

Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.

this is another interesting avenue to consider (which was one of my supporting arguments of why sandboxes aren't really neutral simulations run by a human).

in any action taken by a PC, the DM chooses from a variety of outcomes.

The king COULD laugh it off. The king COULD have him executed. Or stuff in between.

If it is true that a single player's stupid antics could crater a campaign, it also hinges on how a DM reacts to it in game. By not making a big deal of it, the moment is quickly forgotten and moved past. By bringing in the guards, he risks getting a hostile response from the PCs which makes them enemies of the state.

I think whether pickpocketing the king is stupid or clever depends on the context. And the impact of it depends on the DM's reaction to it.

 

[billd91]

Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.

Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.

Silliness? When an execution would be the most likely historical outcome? Sure, the king could laugh it off, but that would be one mighty confident king considering what such behavior would invite from anyone else who hears of it. But silliness to impose a realistic consequence to the action? No.

 

[Umbran]

Lighten up, Francis.

Folks,

This thread has already been around a while, so it may have lived through it's useful span already. But, let's allow for a warning:

Treat each other with respect. Don't be dismissive, and don't get personal.

Thanks.