DM Issues: Railroading

[S'mon]

One extreme is "I don't want to explore the evil dungeon, I want to explore the obsidian glacier - write an new adventure for me now, bitch!" The skill of the DM lies in accomodating player freedom to choose with what is, essentially, a workload.

If the DM wants the PCs to explore the evil dungeon, he should make it attractive to the PCs - eg rumours of treasure! It's a good idea IMO not to drop the same amount of treasure on the PCs wherever they go; traditional D&D depends on motivated PCs seeking out the loot-rich environment. Or maybe there are prisoners who urgently need rescuing.

If my players decide the evil dungeon is unattractive - eg they think it's too tough for them, or too loot-poor, or they hate the quest-giver NPC - and they are being at all reasonable, then well fair enough, ideally give me some notice & I'll happily prep the obsidian glacier for them. No notice and in extremis they'll be fighting no-loot random glacier encounters for the rest of the session!

Edit: And IMO there are BIG advantages to the Evil Dungeon being left unexplored & uncleared. The players have just given you a long-term plot hook and potential source of woe. The bad guys in the Evil Dungeon get to work their plans undisturbed; monsters ravage the countryside, evil rituals are completed, maidens sacrificed, et al. Or maybe some NPCs clear the dungeon and become The Great Heroes of the Realm...

 

[S'mon]

Perhaps that does work for the top echelon of elite DMs, but it's too hard for me. And while I don't for a second think I'm a great DM, I don't think I'm a terrible one, either.

I think it's more about DMing style than how good we are in an absolute sense - you may do best with a more linear story approach, I like a fair amount of improvisation and winging it, so I like a sandboxy environment. I also get a thrill out of not knowing which way the PCs will go, so I'll often give 2 valid options and let them choose - which some players, again, don't like.

You don't have to be a Piratecat-level DM to run a good sandbox, indeed AFAIK Piratecat is more of a 'story' DM. It just has to be a style you like.

 

[S'mon]

I ran a fantastic sandbox city a long time ago. But I was younger; I had more time on my hands. These days, in my mid-30s, married, and continually trying to not make my friends feel like I'm neglecting them (and I fail at that, too), I find that sort of campaign much harder to run. It's not just prep-time, but the time you have available to idly think about it - and I just don't have that any more.

I'd hate to think of what it'd be like if I had kids. I imagine that I'd be running WotC adventures only, exactly as-written.

I find that trying to grok some huge WotC adventure takes me far more time than a short-term sandboxy thing.

 

[S'mon]

See, this is where definitions start getting tricky. If you have a timeline for Keep on the Borderlands, and the players not engaging in that timeline results in strong, negative consequences for the characters, there's not so much difference with an outright railroad.

Do X or get beaten with the punishment stick, or Just Do X amounts to largely the same thing.

I disagree very strongly, but then you knew that already.

You can run a sandbox in an setting where the bad guy armies are conquering the world. If the PCs don't stop them, the world gets conquered. As long as the DM is ready to have the PCs do whatever they want, it's a sandbox.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Getting the players to do exactly what you want, without them feeling they've been railroaded, is good GMing.

 

[pemerton]

Getting the players to do exactly what you want, without them feeling they've been railroaded, is good GMing.

I don't think I agree with this - but I guess it depends on how abstract the description is of "exactly what I want".

I definitely want my players to engage the gameworld, and they do that. I don't think this is railroading, either overt or covert - it's playing the game.

I populate the gameworld with elements that I've got reason to think will grab them. But what their PCs do when they are grabbed by those elements, and engage the gameworld is, up to them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't think I agree with this - but I guess it depends on how abstract the description is of "exactly what I want".

I'm thinking of 'low level' player decision making, like Bite on plot hook A, Distrust NPC B, Keep sinister-seeming item C, rather than broader player behaviour. Though really I should have said that it's one kind of good GMing. It's the skill of manipulation, just as improvisation, writing a compelling plot, or creating a rich sandbox are all skills too, and useful ones.

As a GM, I'm no good at that kind of manipulation. I'm very uncomfortable with it, and I don't do it. I couldn't even if I wanted to. As a player, I'm not sure if I like it or not. I have experienced railroading, in the sense of an encounter being pushed very strongly towards a particular outcome by the GM, that worked and I've experienced railroading that, for me, didn't work (though the other players didn't seem to mind).

In fact, as a player, I've experienced a very wide range of GMing styles that all worked - improvised sandbox; stupidly detailed sandbox with some plotted story elements and PC death avoided; this is tonight's adventure and I don't have anything else prepped; prepped adventure becoming improvised sandbox in the latter half of the evening when the GM runs out of material; minimally prepped adventure with railroading to follow a planned campaign arc; somewhat pre-plotted adventures and campaigns with strong storytelling elements that managed to incorporate big changes as a result of unexpected player decisions.

 

[Jhaelen]

Getting the players to do exactly what you want, without them feeling they've been railroaded, is good GMing.

I'm not sure it's good DMing, but it sure leads to getting good results with little preparation.

Basically, if you know your players and their characters well (and they behave somewhat consistently), you can present choices in a way that the outcome is almost guaranteed. Still, from time to time they will surprise you!

For me the key to good DMing is to know _what_ to prepare: Early in my 'career' I used to over-prepare. These days I prepare less, but more effectively. I prepare things that I can use in different ways and situations, altering them with a minimum of effort.

I still end up preparing a lot of stuff that doesn't see play, but if it's based on a cool idea, I'll pick it up at some later point, modifying it slightly to fit the changed circumstances.

 

[Herschel]

While this is true for me too, I have discovered that some people actually prefer a game with clear direction and a strong plot, even if it does cut your options down to "stay on the train". And that's okay- it's all about preference of playstyle.

Yep. Most of my groups are in this mode too.

I also find some players enjoy trying to take control of a game and "de-rail" it just because they can, decreasing teh fun for others. There really are a huge number of players, styles and motivations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is a difficult issue to address because some GMs can take offense, and there may be a misunderstanding about expectations.

A certain amount of railroading isn't a problem in my view. Sometimes it helps get things started. Most adventures are a pretty good mix of linear and non linear. Personally I run a lot of investigation-like campaigns, so often times the hook is a little railroady, but the remainder of the adventure is pretty open (within the scope the hook has established).

However, I also run a lot of open-style mafia campaigns, with pretty much no railroading. These are much harder to prepare for, because it all boils down to the individual characters and their motivations. So I don't even really prepare events, I prepare NPCs and power groups, then let them react with what the PCs are doing.

In the later case, player initiative is very important. If my players didn't set goals for their characters and pursue them, I'd probably have to resort to some railroading. This may be helpful in your case. I don't know the specifics, but consider things from your GM's point of view: have you indicated an interested in or out of game of persuing your own goals and taking initiative? Sometimes when the players start doing interesting things, it makes ad-libbing easier for the GM and it lightens his load a little.

It sounds like things have changed somehow in your game. Like the GM used to have a more open style but has shifted to a more linear one. This could be because he has more personal responsibilities, or it could even be because he was following a thread like this and was persuaded to change his approach (I've definitely seen this happen).

It definitely doesn't hurt to ask him. You could be diplomatic by asking him general questions about how he prepares for adventures (just as an exchange of ideas), and work it in. Or you could be more direct and politely explain you think his adventures are great but you want to have more choices.

It would probably be helpful if you explain the kinds of choices you would like to see in game. As a GM I love it when players give me feedback, but general feedback that isn't specific can be counter productive. If someone says "Less railroading", that gives me an idea, but that could mean anything from "I want 10 adventures to choose from at the beginning of each session" to "I want more interesting pathways to choose from during the adventure." If you are going to give him feedback, the more detailed you are about your own expectations the better.