DM Issues: Railroading

[JamesonCourage]

Let me disect this further.

I'm talking about the feeling of being railroaded, and not having any choice, rather than the actuality of not having any other choice.

Aberzanzorax made a great post that I can't XP right now. He brought up the reward-stick. I mean, if I have a duke announce that he is going to reward the players for defending the town from demons in two days during a festival in their honor, is that railroading? I mean, that choice is obviously better than their other choices. They have no pressing matters to attend to. They know the duke is wealthy and that they're in his favor.

The PCs won't feel railroaded. However, it seems like (and I say seems because I don't know what you think for sure, so I leave room to be corrected) to you that if it were a negative consequence, it'd be railroading. That's what I take issue with.

If the demons threaten the PCs family in retaliation for their defeat, it's a consequence, not a railroad (even if I don't use the "threaten family" thing often). If the duke rewards them for helping defeat the demons, it's a consequence, not a railroad.

How the players feel in terms of railroad is important, but as long as everything is on the up-and-up, and they aren't being herded by the GM, then it's not a railroad.

A Threat is lopsided. If you don't deal with it, YOUR interests will be hurt. If a threat to the kingdom isn't a big deal to the PCs, it isn't a Threat to the PCs.

From a player's perspective, once a Threat is on the board, they have no other choice but to solve it.

Yep. And as long as it follows the same rough guidelines I posted, then it's not a railroad:

However, when running a sandbox game, there's one simple thing to keep in mind: everyone has motivations for everything they do. Period. Even crazy hermits have motivations, even if they aren't logical. So, if you did something that caused this attack, then it's just the consequences of actions you performed in a sandbox world. If it's someone doing this to get you out of the way while the BBEG does his evil plan (ie, Superman has to stop a missile or save Lois Lane), then it's just another action taking place in the sandbox world.

If any threat is legitimately motivated, and not twisted motivation or prodding by the GM, then it's still in a sandbox setting. If you aren't actually on rails, then there's no railroad.

This may actually be at the heart of the matter for the OP. They want to go spelunking. The DM brought out a Threat. Now the players don't really feel like they have any choice but to deal with it. In reality, sure, they could ignore Elminster. Just like you could ignore the flat tire on your car and keep driving it.

I differentiate a Threat from an Opportunity. Opportunities are the kind of things where a PC could pursue it, or another, and while there can be consequences, there's no extra pressure on a PC for one choice or another. A Threat pretty much locks in a PC, failure means what the PC cares about is lost.

There's definitely a difference between the two. Opportunities are often more common, but they're basically actions the party can take when no consequences from past actions are affecting them.

I see it as totally valid for a DM to use a Threat, hopefully sparingly. But in no way should a DM delude himself into thinking that the PCs have a choice in tackling the Threat. Because the players don't think they do.

the point with the extreme robbery example, is to illustrate that in real life and in game, a Threat can manifest that you MUST resolve or die. And generally sitting there and dying is the only way you lose D&D.

The players might feel railroaded in a scenario, but if they do have a choice, and a legitimate one at that, then it's not a railroad, especially in situations where past choices led to the current scenario. Sure, you can assassinate three or four kings in high level 3.X, but when you become a victim of a "scry and fry" while you're sleeping to the united forces of the remaining royalty for revenge (or to protect their own hide), don't complain about it.

If you stand up to the same demonic army for years on end, helping hand them defeat after defeat wherever you are, don't expect them to not retaliate eventually. If that means simply distracting you by threatening your family, then it's part of the consequences for your past actions.

What if a GM allows the players to try any or all of these things but makes them extremely difficult and/or unrewarding for the PCs? So the GM's preferred path thru the campaign is easy street, the path of least resistance. Everything else is, not impossible, but much, much more difficult. For example if the PCs join the draconian army they get given all the terrible jobs, are constantly insulted and occasionally attacked by their own side (friendly fire!) and their new allies steal any nice treasure they acquire. Railroad? Heavy-handed? Passive-aggressive GMing? "You guys are free to go anywhere and try anything you want! (It's just that if you don't do what I want you'll always fail.)"

As long as everything is handled by the above guidelines (the appropriate motivations), then it's fine. I mean, players sometimes feel railroaded when the only way to deal with the shopkeep is by buying his stuff (working with the draconians). Maybe he won't barter or lower his price, even on a Diplomacy check (draconians won't let outsiders work for them). You might be able to steal from him, but as a high-end magic shop, he's very well prepared (draconian army and heroes prepared for assaults on their leaders). You can threaten his life, and he might be willing to negotiate now (if you can threaten the leaders of the draconian army, you might be willing to get a negotiation process moving forward). You can dominate the shopkeep magically (you can dominate the leaders of the draconian armies magically).

Some are easier than others. When it's the shopkeep, very rarely are there cries of railroading, unless it's very much like your scenario, where "only X works, you just have to figure it out." If the other options are legitimately easy, difficult, or non-existent do to appropriate motivations, then it's not a railroad.

 

[Janx]

Sandbox = low fantasy? Adventure path = high fantasy?

That would match my imaginary impression of a sandbox. I don't know about the reality.

I've heard sandboxes called Status Quo campaigns. That gives the impression that not much changes unless the PCs change it or instigate some consequence that changes things.

I certainly see that "the end is nigh, unless you stop it" kind of problems as being high fantasy, and likely to strongly encourage player participation unless they want to see the campaign end.

As to the OP's problem, here's some hopefully new thoughts.

the game's time table has you rushing. With no game time passing (or able to be passed), there's really no room for side quests or "before we go help him, let's do X."

The PCs are nearly level 20. Nobody should be telling 20th levels what to do. 20th levels should be telling others what to do and making strategy. Elminster should be ASKING the party what their thoughts on the best strategy is and ASKING them to implement the solution the PARTY came up with. In fact, it would be more in character for a wise, powerful NPC to let the party derive the solution that he has already thought of.

The GM, by way of the NPCs seems to be issuing "go here, do this" directives to the party. Even in a "linear" adventure, he should be revealing information about the problem (troop forces, captured plans) that the party is deciding how to solve (let's go there, and do that). I reckon there's a time and place for an NPC to issue an order to a PC, but that should be heavily based on context (a bossy king, whom you expect they'll disobey; a trusted mentor who seldom gives direct orders).

This doesn't change the fact that there's a war on, and the kinds of adventures you have will be about the war. But the approach to how the PCs get the hooks and decide to follow the hooks probably needs to change.

 

[Nagol]

That would match my imaginary impression of a sandbox. I don't know about the reality.

I've heard sandboxes called Status Quo campaigns. That gives the impression that not much changes unless the PCs change it or instigate some consequence that changes things.

<snip>

Status Quo doesn't refer to how the setting evolves over time.

Status Quo refers to those campaigns where the inhabitants of an area have a (generally) stable CR/EL regardless of the level of the PCs when they travel through the area. Areas are generally stable in terms of threat and likely encounters, but that can change over time as the character of the setting changes.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Well, thankya kindly Jamesoncourage!


To somewhat summarize this longer post

<snip>

If it's railroading to get hit with the punishmentstick if you don't do the things that the story or world dictates are "best"...
...is it also railroading to be rewarded if you do the the things that the story or world dictates are "best"?

What if we change "best" to "sensible"?



How are the reward versus punishment paradigms considered in this whole conversation?

 

[Janx]

Status Quo doesn't refer to how the setting evolves over time.

Status Quo refers to those campaigns where the inhabitants of an area have a (generally) stable CR/EL regardless of the level of the PCs when they travel through the area. Areas are generally stable in terms of threat and likely encounters, but that can change over time as the character of the setting changes.

I guess it puzzles me that there needs to be a term for that.

If every NPC/monster leveled when the PCs do, that would be stupid (Elder Scrolls IV, my favorite game does this).

I am disinclined to alter or level up the kobolds who live in the cave next to Newbieville.

I am inclined to make the next new Threat or Opportunity be level appropriate under the premise that the PCs have risen in rank socially and as such, the problems they encounter are of a larger nature. 1st level PCs don't get summoned by the 10th level Lord to ask for their help. They are beneath his notice. 8th level PCs have traveled far and earned the animosity of higher level beings. As such, that's the kind of trouble they find.

But if the PCs want to go slumming with the peons, they are probably still there.

 

[Janx]

Well, thankya kindly Jamesoncourage!


To somewhat summarize this longer post (

If it's railroading to get hit with the punishmentstick if you don't do the things that the story dictates are "best"...
...is it also railroading to be rewarded if you do the theings that the story dictates are "best"?



How are the reward versus punishment paradigms considered in this whole conversation?

I wouldn't fully call the punishment stick a railroad. Sure, I argue that when you threaten the empire I founded, my business operations, my personal interests, I have little choice but to respond, that doesn't make it a railroad. it just means that for a while, I have to solve this Threat, so I can get back to the Opportunities I really want to pursue.

If all the PCs get are Threats, than that can be the sign of a railroad.

But a full on railroad? I'm reminded of an example I read here a few years back, where the GM insisted the party use this Tank to attack the enemy, and everytime they failed to do it JUST his way, they restarted back at the Tank. That was a railroad.

 

[Nagol]

I guess it puzzles me that there needs to be a term for that.

If every NPC/monster leveled when the PCs do, that would be stupid (Elder Scrolls IV, my favorite game does this).

I am disinclined to alter or level up the kobolds who live in the cave next to Newbieville.

I am inclined to make the next new Threat or Opportunity be level appropriate under the premise that the PCs have risen in rank socially and as such, the problems they encounter are of a larger nature. 1st level PCs don't get summoned by the 10th level Lord to ask for their help. They are beneath his notice. 8th level PCs have traveled far and earned the animosity of higher level beings. As such, that's the kind of trouble they find.

But if the PCs want to go slumming with the peons, they are probably still there.

The opposite philosophy is termed Tailored where the encounters are speecifically tailored to the PC group. A lot of Bioware games (Mass Effect series, Dragon Age series, Bioshock IIRC) use this approach.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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

Heh, what I want the players to do is surprise me!

Railroading would actually get in the way of that.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ariosto]

Yeah. The term 'pixelbitching' has been put forward for that type of thing, from videogames where you have to click on one particular pixel or nothing will happen. Although the PCs are free to go anywhere, nothing very interesting will happen unless they pick the single correct solution.

What if a GM allows the players to try any or all of these things but makes them extremely difficult and/or unrewarding for the PCs?

That's not anything peculiar to RPGs.

It's old-fashioned game design. A trivially "solved" game is boring.

RPGs came from D&D, and D&D came from wargames. Old time wargamers should be well acquainted with the concept of a game situation with so many possible and strategically viable histories that it is indeed worth replaying several times. The greatest wargames get avidly replayed multiple times.

A D&D campaign should be much richer in possibilities than, say, The Russian Campaign.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

Granted it's all about scale. If ignoring the Mad Hermit means that some NPC's die and this makes for some difficulty for the PC's, then fine and dandy. OTOH, if ignoring the Mad Hermit means he completes his ritual and Cthulu shows up, well, that's a lot closer to a railroad.

And the line between those two points is very blurry.

I'm really coming to the opinion that what people call story or plot based games and what people call sandboxes are nowhere near as far apart as they might appear at first blush.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

----------

To the OP. There isn't a whole lot to add here. Talk to the DM in an open and honest manner. Tell him that you're feeling hemmed in by the campaign and there are some other elements you'd like to have to oportunity to pursue. And, actually HAVE other elements to pursue.

Whether the line is blurry or not depends on the folks running and playing the game - the world doesn't end if the Keep on the Borderlands becomes a bastion of Chaos. The players can flee the area, or retreat, regroup, and return - failing now does not mean being unable to turn things back around later, so, yeah scale is important. Pretty safe to assume that failing to prevent a Chaos incursion in a CR 1-3 area won't end with the world ending, though.

How does Smoking Sulfurous Fumarole on the Borderlands sound?