DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Spatula]

Sorry, I just don't see it that way. His proposed choice of action - flee from town after being accused of a major crime - was going to result in him being out of the adventure for the foreseeable future.

Leaving aside the whole railroad debate...

I think that there could have been a mismatch in your preferred DM style vs the actual game that was being run. You want to present the players with difficult situations, but not give them hints as to how they should respond. That sort of DM style meshes well with sandbox-y type games where there's little to no script, and the players' actions (or reactions) are the driving force. It doesn't so mesh well with prepared adventures, unless the DM is willing to chuck the adventure out the window and go off-script.

If there's only one possible scripted adventure and it's right there and only there, then the players have to be aware of that in some fashion, whether you're giving them hints or you tell them up-front or whatever, so that they can work with the DM to stay within the bounds of the game. If you present them with what appears to be unscripted freedom, it's a bit unfair to complain when they try to exercise it. If you want them to stay within the adventure, then you're probably going to have to lay down some heavy clues to show them the way.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Hey guys!

The railroading isn't the issue...and doesn't help. He made a pretty classic DM blunder...and is asking for help. So lets help him!

1) I think he knows: avoid ultimatums. It is a blunt tool and players tend to feel confined.

2) Say YES. This is so important. Allow events to unfold. They may not be as you planned...or as the players plan. But, you as the DM have a control over the environment, you can always steer them back (or move what you had planned to a different location). Just because you wrote one name on your notes doesn't mean you can scratch it out and put another (assuming no plot holes). Better yet, try to think of what cool things can happen now that the course has changed.

3) Work at cohesion! This whole conflict arrived because of it. It's not because you are a badwrongfun DM. You weren't railroading your players (though it does look like it if not taken in full context) your players just had no reason to stay together! This is so important! How do you do this?

• Build it into the backstory. They are a team, family, war buddies, cultists..ect
• Work at a common goal. They all want one thing and have come together out of common interest.
• They all have a common patron. They have been hired, are pledged to, or enslaved by a common person giving orders.
• They have been branded by a shared event: survived a shipwreck, escaped a fire, endured a bar brawl, woke up in a prison, survived slavery...ect
• Good old in media res! Have the game start in the middle of a pitched battle...they were attacked by marauders...ect

Cohesion is one of the most important factors of having a good group (even an evil campaign with scheming companions should be invested in the same story arc). I think you know this was your biggest misstep. You built this conflict before the PC had any reason to stay...the PC had no invested interest. So if you spend time developing cohesion before your get to the juicy meat of your game they rest will all fall into place.

Come on guys! What other tips can we give to help out with the game!

 

[Hussar]

I have to wonder how a good DM presents a player with a situation in which his options are quite limited without it seeming heavy handed. Or is that just bad form - it's just best not to try to arrest PCs?

The advice in this thread really has been quite good. Honestly, stepping out of game for five minutes and explaining to the player what exactly you are looking for in this scene will likely smooth things over a whole bunch. The player is reacting because he's only got a very limited view of what is going on. From his perspective, you're benching his character even though he didn't do anything wrong, and, there's no carrot at the end of this to entice him to play along.

At this point, it's better just to step out of character for a bit, explain, yes, this is not going to result in your character dying, no, I'm not being a prat doing this, it actually has relevance to the campaign, please, just give me the benefit of the doubt this time and watch what happens.

Most players, when approached this way, will give you the benefit of the doubt. And, for gods sake, make sure it ends well for the PC. At least this first time. If you do the schpiel and then his character gets gang raped in jail and then shivved in the shower, don't expect the player to ever give you the benefit of the doubt again.

After that first time though, you can probably get away with a bit more the next time. Trust from the players is earned, not automatically given. Never expect your players to trust that you are going to run a good game. That's unreasonable because the player has no reason to trust you. Earn the trust first, and then you can start twisting the thumbscrews later.

 

[Elf Witch]

No, you are wrong. That is blatant railroading you just described.

No it is not, every player who join my game knows that I don't allow evil PCs and they agree to that and if they choose to go down that path and become evil then they turn the sheet over to me and the character becomes an NPC.

There are exceptions like the player wants to do a redemption style character and if it is because of a curse or something like that then that is different.

But if you think that the best role playing choice is to have your PC do evil things then you know the consequences of doing it.

That is not railroading you can try and say it is because I am not allowing the character to stay a PC but the player agreed to my rules and so it is not like it is a surprise.

 

[FickleGM]

I was thinking that if you want to portray to the player AND the character that the *optimal* choice is to go with the guards, what you might want to do is have the guards' demeanor reflect that.

They approach all gosh-durn, you're not going to believe this, but we have to bring you in and ask you a few questions. Oh, daddy-protective-pants is all in a rage and well, the daughter gave a feeble story to stay on daddy's good side. Why don't you come with us, we'll ask a few questions, then we can discuss the way you heroically saved our town and you can sign a few autographs.

 

[Elf Witch]

That's merely one and the most severe version of railroading - toward a single destination. But there's also railroading that occurs when specific options that should be in front of the PC are made off limits. It may be less severe and considerably more social acceptable, but I think telling him that making a successful run for it means making up a new character is a form of railroading. You may be railroading him into a set of acceptable options instead of one, but it's still railroading.

How is it railroading to tell a player well if you do this then you will be out of the adventure? To me that is letting the player know all the ramifications of his actions.

The DM already knew that the rest of the party was not going to leave with him so running completely away was going to take him of the action.

I don't think the DM was trying to railroad him but was trying to be helpful. It was heavy handed and it would have been better to let the guy run and then just sit there not playing until he figured out that he needed to go back.

Some times players do better when everything is their decision even if it is a bad one.

 

[Elf Witch]

The only problem I really see here is the old arrest/capture/detain the PC idea. This never works. Players will never allow an NPC to capture them and give up their freedom, even if they know that things will probably work out fine. Players just cannot let go of that control. It's why the capture concept fails and shouldn't be included. If it happens because of in game events (a character is knocked out and awakens in a cell) that's fine, but they won't go willingly.

Why do people say things like this. You do realize that this maybe true in the games you play in with the people you play with but it is far from being a universal truth.

I have seen it used in a lot of games I have played in I use it as a DM.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

To OP: Nice that things went well.

Generally speaking I don't like situations where players are imprisoned/threatened with political stuff/get to court for judgement. They are usually bit boring, and many DM:s I've played with kinda get negative reaction from players. They are not bad plot ideas, but most players like "freedom".

As what some other posters said when to loose your character, I don't think you ever should. It's basicly same as kicked out of game. You can loose your character because of death and sometimes because of some nasty corruption (that equals death as far as game is concerned). And if game allows resurrection so should it allows to "cure corruption" if remaining pc:s are ready to use the money/put up the fight for their lost partner. Especially if situations where unwilling. If player willingly chose to do something "evil" might be party doesn't that traitor back, but if they want why not.

When you say "if you don't play my adventure the way I planned your character is out" can sound very different how you say. When everyone is aware that you are playing "some pre-planned adventure" and "dm is not just making it up we go along" players should respect that. If situation is unclear/unwanted to players, all kinda blaming and crying will occur.

If you made it clear at beginning "going evil" is not allowed, you should not put players to face situation where "evil choice" is actually better one. Especially if you are apprahended by some workers for (not-so-trusted-by-pc) nobility etc. Violence does seem easily more sensible. PC:s are not reading your mind, it's all about impressions. And don't try to corrupt pc:s on purpose if going non-good is end to their character. Not every player likes such an unfair social manipulation.

 

[Elf Witch]

We're getting off topic, but what you call "vanilla" I call "heroic" & "high fantasy". As a general rule, I expect the PCs to not steal from the poor, take advantage of the helpless, or put the well-being of innocents behind their own. I want them to put it on the line, haul out the big guns, and kick ass or die to stop the monstrous horde and save the baby.

I do have my little quirks; I like to use obviously evil NPCs to convey necessary information and leave the characters confused about the NPC's goals & motivations (which seems appropriate when dealing with 700-year old archmages), but I keep the "trusted NPC is an evil stooge" betrayals to a minimum, because a little goes a long way. Burned once, good for me. Burned twice, and they'll never trust an NPC again. I use the fey a lot also, because characters tricked by the fey invariably blame themselves.

I am also completely unable to run city adventures, so certain circumstances just don't come up very often.

I believe you can have high fantasy and heroic style campaign and still not be vanilla.

I consider my current game to be heroic. The players all made and play characters who put the greater good above their own needs and are willing to lay down their lives if necessary to save the world. You don't get more heroic than that. And it is definitely high fantasy.

But it still has children who were turned in ghasts to deal with, false arrests and making hard choices.

The party recently had a hard choice to make members of their order all wear rings if the ring bears life is in danger then the other ring holders get a warning and a direction on which to go.

I have two former PCs who are now NPCs due to their players leaving the area. Several sessions the rings went off but in two different directions. I left it up to the party on which way to go. They choose one way and saved the NPC and a town but felt the holder of the other ring die.

High fantasy/heroic fantasy does not mean that the heroes always wins or is even always given the chance to win completely.

 

[billd91]

How is it railroading to tell a player well if you do this then you will be out of the adventure? To me that is letting the player know all the ramifications of his actions.

The DM already knew that the rest of the party was not going to leave with him so running completely away was going to take him of the action.

I don't think the DM was trying to railroad him but was trying to be helpful. It was heavy handed and it would have been better to let the guy run and then just sit there not playing until he figured out that he needed to go back.

And THAT wouldn't have been a railroad. See the difference? The consequence for the PC might have been to be away from some of the action... But the DM raised the consequence to loss of character, I assume, to intentionally discourage that action. That's a railroad, even if it is an acceptable practice.

Some times players do better when everything is their decision even if it is a bad one.

I agree. I'd even say usually rather than sometimes. They may make mistakes, but they can own them.