3.5e Module Train Wreck / Opinion Thread

[NN]

My thoughts (note, I have no knowledge of the adventure)

youre playing an adventure path: be upfront about it, tell the players, OOC, "The next chapter is in the north, please swallow the plot hook" or whatever

I wonder if the players were confused by the refugee issue. To me it seems really important and heroic to keep these poor souls alive. But you are using them just to advance the plot - to push the party north, and then make Kaal look bad. This seems out of proportion.

 

[DragonLancer]

[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.

Which module is it? Might help if someone here has read or run it.

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.

A perfect explaination of railroading. You should post that in the Railroading discussion. I'd give you XP for it but I can't right now.

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.

I kinda disagree. Players and thus their characters should be playing the scenario and campaign that the DM has bought, read, or written otherwise they are wasting their time and the DM's.

I'm not saying that they should be forced into everything but why bother playing what someone has put effort into just to wander off and do your own thing (unless thats the group assumption including the DM's)?

 

[Zhaleskra]

I agree with your disagreement. Too bad I can't give you more XP just yet.

 

[Mark CMG]

Here are some observations. Avoid meta-game conversations during games with players over PC decisions, just give them the consequences of their actions in-game. Explain prior to a campaign if/that there will be encounters way out of PCs' league and that they shouldn't always assume combat is an option. You can use the sphinx and dungeon crawl portions of RHoD as separate adventures for other games in the future, so those won't be a total loss, and the towns and cities can be repurposed to other campaigns with some alteration. Certainly the NPC stat blocks can be renamed and reused. My group, as well as some others on these boards, switched the fourth and fifth (final) sections of RHoD when we ran it (I DMed). Any added sourcebooks that aren't mentioned as needed for a published adventure have the potential to be majorly problematic. If the player of the monk/paladin is often like that, you might want to cull him from the group. Adding extra plots to a published adventure in which the events are all very time senstive is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Mark CMG]

BTW, Determinism & Disagreement are not the two Ds in . . .

 

[Az005]

[MENTION=11868]DragonLancer[/MENTION]

The module is called Red Hand of Doom.

I think a lot of my problems stem from not asking them to choke down plot waypoints.

For example, the module did not expect them to go to this city until it was empty and only manned by army units. They escorted the refugees the entire way. The module wasn't really too telling on what to do in that situation. So I improvised.

All I learned is that by giving players freedom I receive pain.


Were I railroading, they'd be a week north fighting lizardfolk and razorfiends.
Were I railroading, I would have not let them steal the inevitable's contract off its belt.

In my naivety I decided to expose them to a situation where it wasn't obvious if it was an enemy. They took freedoms, I allowed it, and tried to expose them to the basic principals outlined in the DMs guide. Sometimes there's a bigger fish, your characters don't know everything, not everything is a loot pinnate.

But some players don't think their characters can do any wrong. And you get an experience like mine.

Ask your players early if they concede that they may make a mistake due to not paying attention, ignorance, or zealotry that results in them dun-goofing. Ask for an example.

I know I will be in the future.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I may need an actual example here. I hear the term railroad thrown around a lot...

Nagol did a pretty good job of breaking down one example from your description. There appeared to be a good many other places where you were also attempting to force a predetermined outcome so that the adventure would "work".

Railroading usually leads to trouble in any case. It particularly leads to trouble when you (a) want the PCs to accomplish a specific goal; (b) put an obstacle in their way; and then (c) insist that they deal with that obstacle only in the way you predetermined they "should" deal with it.

For example, re-reading your description of the PCs trying to deliver the refugee caravan makes it clear that you had some sort of predetermined outcome in mind. But even reading your description I honestly couldn't tell you what it was, and can only imagine the frustration of the players sitting at the table being told that they can't do any of the things that look like reasonable options to them.

Check out these essays on adventure design:

Three Clue Rule
Don't Prep Plots
Node-Based Scenario Design

All I learned is that by giving players freedom I receive pain.

Were I railroading, they'd be a week north fighting lizardfolk and razorfiends.
Were I railroading, I would have not let them steal the inevitable's contract off its belt.

"My dog seems to be having some trouble breathing in his collar. The solution must be to tighten it even more!"

I think you're heading in the wrong direction here.

 

[DragonLancer]

The module is called Red Hand of Doom.

Sorry, yes, you had mentioned that. Tiredness makes me forgetful.

I think a lot of my problems stem from not asking them to choke down plot waypoints.

It shouldn't be something you ask them to do. It should be something they are willing to do because as players they should want to tell the story and find out what happens.

For example, the module did not expect them to go to this city until it was empty and only manned by army units. They escorted the refugees the entire way. The module wasn't really too telling on what to do in that situation. So I improvised.

I remember the section now. In this situation the path of least resistence is probably best. Perhaps the refugees could allowed to pass through and some stragglers from the city escort them to the next nearest place. Or perhaps the army would be grateful to have some civilian help to contain fires, supply fresh arrows...etc.

All I learned is that by giving players freedom I receive pain.

I'm going to go all cynical for a moment, but... welcome to roleplaying. Players never do what you want them to. They don't want to caught in the webs you've spun. Players want an easy time of it for the most part. Slay monsters and take their stuff.

As has been mentioned, the best thing to do before you get jaded is sit everyone down away from the game and talk it out. Find out what they want, and explain what they want. Find a compromise. At least you'll all know where each other stands.

In my naivety I decided to expose them to a situation where it wasn't obvious if it was an enemy. They took freedoms, I allowed it, and tried to expose them to the basic principals outlined in the DMs guide. Sometimes there's a bigger fish, your characters don't know everything, not everything is a loot pinnate.

It's not naivety. You are doing what you need to do as a DM to make a fun and interesting game. You can't help it if your players won't help make it fun and interesting.

But some players don't think their characters can do any wrong. And you get an experience like mine.

I think probably everyone on these forums can step up and say that at some point or other they have had players like that. People are competative even on something that should be a co-operative effort.

 

[pemerton]

So far as I noted, the PCs didn't sneak into the city.

The party eventually opted for a sneak entry.

I don't know the module, and so don't know quite what this entails. I took it to mean that the party were being stealthy/secret in the city.

The rationale around the table and the instigators of action can certainly adjust how I view the robbery.

I guess we have different responses to this, which goes back to the question of "what is offensive to a reasonable person's sensibilities?" I tend to assume that my players will have their PCs steal documents without any moral qualms. Especially when the target of the theft is an immortal who has an effectively unlimited access to such documentary resources.

Or have I misunderstood what this scroll is? It sounded like it was some sort of document/record of the contract governing the inevitable's conduct.

 

[pemerton]

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...

This is the bit I don't get - nature didn't put the plothooks with those NPCs, the GM did. And it is also the GM who is determining who the PCs are meant to talk to, and how. This is what makes it sound to me like a case of the GM presenting roadblocks.

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

And this confirms my dislike of alignment as one of the single biggest yet utterly needless causes of player/GM conflict - precisely because it invites the GM to dictate to the players how they are to play, with(as far as I can see) no value at all being added to the game. Hence my view that it should always be downplayed in those games that feature it, if not outright ignored.