3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[pemerton]

The pragmatic reality of the trip mechanic is very offensive.

Well, the same is true of Hold Person. Nevertheless, it's a non-lethal attack.

It's not the player's fault that the game rules are a bit wonky.

Were I to put a toll booth on a bridge, and their response was to turn back citing insufferable government interference with roadway conditions... Have I railroaded, or has the party member decided to be unreasonable?

It depends. If they have no money for the toll, and the reason they have no money is because they spent it all housing the orphans they rescued in the previous situation that the GM set up for them, and unless they pass the toll they can't get to the castle of the evil overlord who orphaned all those children, then maybe it is a railroad, yes.

I feel jilted that the lust for unfettered player freedom allows players to react this way to social situations and I get accused of being the unreasonable one.

Well, what do you see as the point of introducing the social dynamics into the game if not to have the players to play out the response to them?

 

[Az005]

I presented no roadblocks.

But if you go up to the NPC you are supposed to talk to, in order to get a plot hook, and you respond with insults and demands... Or if the first act they ever do to an NPC is attack it...

They construct these roadblocks themselves!

Then what am I to do? I feel trapped too! Now the only options left are ones with negative consequences. I'm nothing but a source of negativity at this point.

 

[Nagol]

But this is already in a context where the PCs have sneaked into the city because the city officialdom seems hostile to them (and not only seems but is, because being manipulated by their spider-foe).

And the object snatched was not taken for its value, but as part of an investigation (because it was a document).

Not that I'm meaning to disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing! But I do feel a bit sorry for the players here, for the reasons in your other post - twice they try to respond to the GM's roadblock and get squashed both times.

So far as I noted, the PCs didn't sneak into the city. The city wasn't allowing the refugees in and the players learned a prior enemy was involved, but they decided not to oppose her. The city itself seems neutral to them.

The rationale around the table and the instigators of action can certainly adjust how I view the robbery. If the Rogue simply took advantage of the situation and the team decided to bolt rather than support the monk/paladin I'd certainly ignore the incident. If the monk/paladin said "quick grab the scroill while he's down and let's go!" I wouldn't.

I don't want to project motives onto the group. It didn't sound like the group was using the scroll as a point of investigation. The group wanted to destroy it, but checked via Augury for short term effects. They stopped the destruction when they got woe. There was no mention of anything of the sort that would imply investigation (Knowledge checks, attempts to Dechipher Script, taking the scroll to a specialist, whatever is withing their capabilities).

Railroad frustration can have a group lash out, certainly. but, the group should be capable of acknowledging it OOC after the session as opposed to saying the assault, robbery, and mass destruction were entirely justified because they're PCs.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Uhh. I... guess. But isn't there room there for them to be unreasonable?

Were I to put a toll booth on a bridge, and their response was to turn back citing insufferable government interference with roadway conditions... Have I railroaded, or has the party member decided to be unreasonable? If their next best response was to fireball the toll booth, is my reaction to question their wisdom really that off?

I feel jilted that the lust for unfettered player freedom allows players to react this way to social situations and I get accused of being the unreasonable one.

Of course PCs can be unreasonable, but they should be allowed to be in my mind.

The players refusing to pass an obstacle in the game world is not railroading (at least in my definition). Railroading is the DM preventing actions that the PCs can naturally carry out using implausible in-game logic, narrative control, and/or out-of-game refusal. Typically it's done to force a particular result from the current situation. Players tend to notice when they don't want to particiapte in that result.

The actions inside the city don't appear to form a railroad, but the act of entering the city to seek an non-violent solution to the refugee access does appear to be a railroad.

The refugees were delivered safely to a situation that wasn't as welcome as hoped. The PCs should be allowed to turn around and leave if they decide not to engage on the refugees' behalf. It's a perfectly natural and plausible line of action for them. It may not be the most exalted line of action, but who's to say they don't come up with another solution as the situation evolves?

 

[Az005]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]

The module outlined that an army was on the way to sack the city. Given that context, the plot itself was railroading them. To remain good, by any plausible definition, they could not abandon them.

I don't think I could bend my definition of good far enough to accommodate an alternative.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I presented no roadblocks.

But if you go up to the NPC you are supposed to talk to, in order to get a plot hook, and you respond with insults and demands... Or if the first act they ever do to an NPC is attack it...

They construct these roadblocks themselves!

Then what am I to do? I feel trapped too! Now the only options left are ones with negative consequences. I'm nothing but a source of negativity at this point.

The Player Characters are never "supposed" to do anything. They may be expected to do a number of things, but they are never supposed to do anything.

 

[Az005]

The Player Characters are never "supposed" to do anything. They may be expected to do a number of things, but they are never supposed to do anything. IMO you should try having multiple ways of dropping the hook, and then sometimes the PCs just dont want or like the hook.

No argument there.

But to proceed to the next hook one has to reject the first hook. And between hooks players can sometimes get mopey, dejected, angry, and downright insufferable. To the point where they do not want to examine other hooks. They just want to wander off into the uncharted wilderness and let the module run its course.

Huff.

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]

The module outlined that an army was on the way to sack the city. Given that context, the plot itself was railroading them. To remain good, by any plausible definition, they could not abandon them.

I don't think I could bend my definition of good far enough to accommodate an alternative.

I don't know the module at all.

So the PCs were escorting the refugees to a city they knew was coming under assault and they still took them there?

If the PCs don't know about the attack then there is no reason for them to expect one.

If the PCs do know about the attack, they could come up with other options (move the refugees, decide to storm the opposing army, whatever). Or they can abandon the refugees in a huff and accept the in-game consequences. That's not a railroad; that's a moral dilemma. It may be a decision that has an obvious strategic choice for the party, but just because it's obvious doesn't mean the party wants to accept it. A railroad happens when they aren't given the option to choose.

 

[steeldragons]

I presented no roadblocks.

But if you go up to the NPC you are supposed to talk to,

THERE! Right there! THAT is a a potential roadblock. THAT, right THERE, THAT'S where railroading begins....Not in this particular case, mind you. I'd say it began prior to this, but this thinking here...THIS is a core/root example of how railroading happens.

The PCs are "supposed to" do...what the PLAYERS decide their characters do.

That's how the game is played. If they don't...find another way to get them the hook...or DON'T...That's the DMs decision/power/job. Throw them a different hook...or don't. Let them wander around the town wondering why nothing's happening...and when the cosmos goes kablooey (or the BBEG gets 2 steps ahead of them before they notice)...they've only themselves to blame.

I don't want to seem unsympathetic. The monk/pally's reactions are unacceptable and, as noted here by others remarkably "immature" and I certainly wouldn't tolerate that behavior or language at my table.

BUT, if he wanted to "have fun stormin' the castle" (a ridiculous and inappropriate response to the situation, I'll grant you) then that's what he should have been able to do. As noted, he'd get himself arrested (if not killed) and possibly the entire party in trouble for his rashness.

That's not YOUR problem or decision to make...that's the party's! YOUR problem is to make sure the mediator and city guard react as makes sense to this "wild holy man gone mad" at the front gate.

Absolutely, the destruction of the cathedral would and should have several consequences...and possibly dire ones.

Or if the first act they ever do to an NPC is attack it...

Then they attack it...and I'll agree that construct should NOT have pulled its punches. Again, if the party runs headlong into a TPK without the wisdom to know when to "run away" or "back off" or "talk first/hit later" then they get what they get. THEY decided...and maybe when they're rolling their next characters...they'll be a bit more careful in the future.

They construct these roadblocks themselves!

Most party's do, my friend. Welcome to DMing.

Then what am I to do? I feel trapped too! Now the only options left are ones with negative consequences. I'm nothing but a source of negativity at this point.

Well, that's not good. And, as many have rightly suggested, clear that air before sitting for another game. Out of game, you need a convo with your players for what they want out of the game. OBviously, what the monk-pally wants is NOT the game you're playing...and vice versa. So, get everyone on the same page (if possilbe) and rally forth...

(...and if he makes another "gay" comment like that, give him a sturdy boot to the curb for me.

Good luck and happy gaming.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Nagol]

No argument there.

But to proceed to the next hook one has to reject the first hook. And between hooks players can sometimes get mopey, dejected, angry, and downright insufferable. To the point where they do not want to examine other hooks. They just want to wander off into the uncharted wilderness and let the module run its course.

Huff.

I do feel that pain. I've had groups deliberately disengage from plot hooks to wander the wilderness for many weeks only to return outraged by the radically changed environment. Working out the changes absent player involvement and following through isn't always fun. Dealing with the player outrage is also often not fun.