How Do You Get Your Players To Stay On An Adventure Path?

It is a game. Players are here to game a game, aka manipulate a pattern to achieve a goal. Whether a game designed by a game designer or found in the world. This is what Game means.

Trying to disprove your negative means demonstrating its absence. I have nothing to quote as your claims are actually absent from D&D. But if you're interested in the roots of the game, here is an Introduction:

Games based on warfare have interested men for centuries, as such games as checkers and chess prove. The latter games are nothing less than the warfare of the period in which they were developed, abstracted and stylized for play on a board. Chess is so abstracted that it is barely recognizable as a wargame. At the other end of the spectrum, and of much more modern invention, are military miniatures. By use of figures scaled down to an inch or two in size the players mare realistically simulate warfare and are not tied to a stylized board. Miniature warfare allows the combatants to hove a never ending variety of battles over varying terrain, even refighting historic actions involving tremendous armies!

In order to play a wargame it is necessary to have rules, miniature figures and accompanying equipment, a playing area, and terrain to place upon it. There can be no doubt that you have fulfilled the first requirement, for you have purchased this set of rules. Your troops con be any scale that you desire. The playing area that the battles ore fought out upon should be a table rather than the floor. It can be from a minimum of 4' to a maximum of 7' wide, and it should be at least 8' in length. These sizes will assure ample room for maneuver There are several methods of depicting the terrain features generally used for wargames, such as hills, woods, rivers, roods, etc.

First, you can utilize odds and ends to simulate terrain, or buy commercial materials from your hobby supplier, and lay them out on a flat surface to form the battleground. Scraps of wood with the edges and corners smoothed are pyramided to form hills of varying size and elevation. Twigs with pieces of green sponge or lichen stuck on and set in clay bases serve as miniature trees. Rivers are drawn with blue chalk or made with strips of blue plastic or felt. Roods are represented in much the same way as rivers, only brown is used. With a little imagination almost any kind of terrain can be constructed in like manner.

A more advanced method is to construct terrain on 2' x 2' pieces of masonite or similar material, sculpting hills, gullies, ridges, rivers, and so on with plaster and/or paper mache. Trees and houses are set into the soft modeling compound, and permanent sections of wargaming terrain are thus made. When a game is to be played, the terrain blocks are simply laid out to form the kind of battlefield desired.

Finally, the most complicated form of wargaming table is the sand table. A sand table is really nothing mare than a flat table with a raised edge to allow the top to be covered with a few inches of sand. Of course, all that sand will weigh very much when wetted down to farm terrain features. so the table must be of very sturdy construction and rest on a basement or garage floor. The sand table's greatest advantage is that it allows full rein to the players' desires for differing landscape, and it provides the most realistic looking battlefields far miniature warfare.

The forces to be pitted against each other can be drown from an historical account, chosen by point value assigned by a third (neutral) party, or worked out from a "campaign" situation where larger ormies are moved on a map until hostile forces come into contact. The balance between the forces is something best determined by experience. however troops armed with missile weapons ore generally much more powerful than like troops that lack such weapons. Armored men ore usually better than troops without protection -- although they move more slowly. Trained pikemen ore more than a match for any but on army that has either equally armed fighters or numerous missile troops. A table of point values appears in these rules, and you will find it helpful in selecting balanced forces. Playing ability and terrain must also be taken into consideration, however. If, for example, the better player is to receive o 300 point army, it might be wise to allow his opponent to select 50 additional points worth of troops in order to balance the game. Similarly, i f one player decides the kind of terrain the battleground is to be composed of -- or the historic terrain favors one side -- the side with such a terrain advantage should probably hove o considerably
weaker army.

As the men ore scaled down in size, so is the field of combat. Therefore, a move of a few inches on the table top will represent a march of ten times as many yards for our small campaigners. They move and they fight in miniature. The players order their formations about, just os medieval military commanders did (and much more efficiently in all likelihood, for a number of rather obvious reasons), but the proof of the opponents' ability only comes in combat situations. Here, each figure will do only as well as its known capabilities foretell, with allowances for chance factors which affect every battle (such as dice throwing in miniature warfare).

The different kinds of troops fight in relation to each other kind. Given normal probabilities, o body of horsemen will always defeat a like number of footmen (excluding pike armed troops), but o small chance that the footmen will somehow triumph remains, and that chance is reflected in the combat tables employed. Note that should the infantry manage to surprise the horsemen by ottacking from the rear or flank, they hove a much improved chance of winning the combat, or melee. Thus, while movement is scaled to size (and a set time period during which scale movement tokes place), combat is based on the historically known capabilities of each particular kind of fighting man and then expressed as a dice rolling probability in relation to like and differing types of soldiers. A close simulation of actual combat is thereby attained. while a pawn can always take a knight in o chess game o similar situation will seldom occur in miniature warfare. But the knight (cavalry) just might fi to take the pawn (infantry) when the bottle is fought in miniature! In addition, the mental and
physical condition of the men (their morale) is taken into consideration in this game.

Morale i s checked before and after combat, basing the determination on historical precedent, just os the fighting ability in actual cases was drawn upon to calculate melee results. A loss of "heart" is at least as serious as a defeat in combat, and perhaps more so, for most bottles ore won without the necessity of decimation of the losing side.

Finally, how is it determined when the battle i s over and one side awarded the laurels of victory? As with all facets of miniature wargaming, it is up to the parties concerned, the game can continue until one side is reduced below a certain percentage of its original strength -- 25%, 50%, 75%, or whatever. The bottle can be continued until one opponent has driven his enemy completely off the battlefield. Or the players can assign set values to certain terrain features and troop types, keeping count of gains and losses for a set number of turns, the winner being the side with the greatest number of accumulated points. If both opponents have an historic bent, they can refight an actual battle (or even an entire campaign in a series of bottles), and adjudicate the end result based on what actually took place in the past. With no other form of wargaming -- or nearly any form of game for that matter -- is the player given the scope of choice and range for imagination that miniature warfare provides. You have carte blanche to create or recreate fictional or historic battles and the following rules will, as closely as possible, simulate what would have happened if the battle had just been fought in reality.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Oh, yeah? Quote me. If you quote me, it's not dishonest slander. Or if it is because you quote out of context, I can at least defend against it by pointing out the framing language you left out. If you can't quote me...

To keep this brief, I never said finding a dungeon was railroading. Indeed, wandering in the jungle and stumbling on an ancient temple is probably not railroading. But having a temple wander in the jungle and make a b-line to the PC's because you the DM want them to find it is railroading (unless of course, the temple has legs and can cast commune with nature). The problem of having a
dungeon move to the PC's was what I called railroading, not merely finding a jungle by accident.

Like I said, you say you consider _placing a dungeon in front of the PCs_ to be railroading. Dungeon is initially unplaced, PCs say they're going west, GM says they see the dungeon in front of them = railroading. As far as I can tell from this statement above, you stand by your opinion.

Edit: Using terms like 'dishonest slander' does you no credit.
For one thing, if it's written, it's libel. :p
 
Last edited:

Like I said, you say you consider _placing a dungeon in front of the PCs_ to be railroading. Dungeon is initially unplaced, PCs say they're going west, GM says they see the dungeon in front of them = railroading. As far as I can tell from this statement above, you stand by your opinion.
A "quantum ogre" (ie: an obstacle or feature that appears no matter which choice the players make) is a choker. That is: it is a technique that, if used a lot or if used in a way that the players start to notice or if used in a way that makes the players start to think their choices don't matter will register to them as unpleasant railroading.

If you say "Do you wanna play D&D?" and the adventure is a dungeon and only a dungeon even though theoretically the players could go anywhere else and the players just head in that's "participationism" (like railroading but the players know what they're into and agree).

If you say "Left is the bridge, right is a desert" and you are going to stick the same dungeon in either path, you've just created a choice that didn't matter that's
"illusionism". Buried in the game, it's no biggie, but if it happens a lot, player may begin to realize many of their choices don't matter and, for some playstyles, this is disastrous because it means the players pay less attention.

So I wouldn't say a quantum dungeon is always automatically railroading in every possible circumstance, but its one of the techniques that can lead to that sinking feeling in players--and that feeling is what defines railroading.
 

To keep this brief, I never said finding a dungeon was railroading. Indeed, wandering in the jungle and stumbling on an ancient temple is probably not railroading. But having a temple wander in the jungle and make a b-line to the PC's because you the DM want them to find it is railroading (unless of course, the temple has legs and can cast commune with nature). The problem of having a dungeon move to the PC's was what I called railroading, not merely finding a jungle by accident.

I think it's only railroading if the players have to visit the temple to progress the plot. And that doesn't become a problem, until the players decide that they don't want to visit the spooky trap-filled temple.

This goes back to the breadcrumb example given earlier. If you want the players to go somewhere, you need to take into account that the players may not do what you expect. Maybe the mystical temple doesn't look very inviting to them? Maybe they have no reason to go there and get themselves killed. Maybe it obviously looks dangerous to them.

I think a smart DM understands that if the plot hinges on the players finding a particular item, then he could move the item anywhere he wants. So the players ignore the creepy temple. Fine. If they need to find that magical key, then it's probably somewhere else now. What they don't know, does not matter.

Taking my bandit scenario from earlier, the DM clearly wanted this bandit problem to be our focus. This was what we were supposed to deal with. Maybe the bandits had an important clue, so we could track down their hide out or leader. But the plot should not depend on us finding that note (or what ever item it was). Why not allow the party to get robbed, and arrive at the next village empty handed? Maybe there's a friendly farmer who feels bad for these unlucky adventurers, and offers them a place to stay in his stables? Maybe he even offers them food, and during dinner, he tells them of the bandit problem. And there you go, there's your clue, and you've just made up an interesting npc on the spot.

This is why improvisation is key in D&D. A DM should never panic. Embrace the choices of your players, and run with it. So what if they don't go straight to the dragon cave? Make up a village that they encounter along the way, and have the dragon attack the village, and fly off. That's how the story comes to the players.

If you say "Left is the bridge, right is a desert" and you are going to stick the same dungeon in either path, you've just created a choice that didn't matter that's "illusionism". Buried in the game, it's no biggie, but if it happens a lot, player may begin to realize many of their choices don't matter and, for some playstyles, this is disastrous because it means the players pay less attention.

The dungeon has always been there. It doesn't really matter to the players if its left or right. It is okay to place interesting locations in the path of the players. If I want my players to encounter a wizards tower, does it really matter if its at the bridge or at the desert?

But what if the players turn around at the sight of the wizards tower? A DM should never panic when that happens, and the best way to handle that problem, is to ensure that it never becomes a problem to begin with. Don't make your plot hinge on the players meeting the wizard.
 
Last edited:

The dungeon has always been there. It doesn't really matter to the players if its left or right. It is okay to place interesting locations in the path of the players. If I want my players to encounter a wizards tower, does it really matter if its at the bridge or at the desert? .

It matters in the following manner:

if you are going to negate the choice (ie put the tower in their path no matter which way the go) then it is better to have not offered that choice to begin with.
 

It matters in the following manner:

if you are going to negate the choice (ie put the tower in their path no matter which way the go) then it is better to have not offered that choice to begin with.

They don't know that the DM moved the tower, and so it doesn't matter. You didn't negate their choice, they still went to the desert, and found a wizards tower there.

I also use this narrative trick for sprinkling clues and scenes into locations. When I design a dungeon, I write down some things that the players could discover, and then drop them into a room on the spot where I feel its fitting for the story. The players do not need to know that I did not pin down the locations before hand. If I want them to be scared, or amazed, or puzzled, then I have a bag of tricks that I can drop into the story at any moment.
 
Last edited:

They don't know that the DM moved the tower, and so it doesn't matter. You didn't negate their choice, they still went to the desert, and found a wizards tower there.

It definitely matters because of what I said above:

Do it enough times and the players will begin to get the feeling their choices don't matter. They'll notice how convenient it all is. And they'll stop thinking hard about decisions and so you lose that aspect of play.

When something happens you can't show them "See, you chose this and this and this so this happened..."
 

Do it enough times and the players will begin to get the feeling their choices don't matter. They'll notice.

How? How would they notice? They don't know where the wizards tower is. Only I do. And the truth of the matter is, that as a storyteller it can be anywhere I want it to be.

When something happens you can't show them "See, you chose this and this and this so this happened..."

Sure I can. In fact, I do that all the time. The trick is to make up logical narrative connections. For example:

The players were in a city, and were wandering the streets at random. I figured that something interesting should happen. I rolled a random encounter, and it landed on an angry mob. So I told them how they encountered an angry mob that was blocking their way. According to the main plot that I had written out, the local dwarven pirates had lost one of their ships recently. I reasoned that perhaps they suspected that the royal navy had been responsible, thus explaining the angry mob of dwarves in the street, demanding justice. It totally made sense, and the players were completely immersed. They immediately tried to use diplomacy to get the dwarves to settle down, and the party leader promised the dwarves that he would speak with the local ruler on their behalf.

This then cascaded into a new series of interconnected events. The dwarven pirate captain who was responsible for getting them so riled up, was now in prison, and his ship had been seized. The only way to calm the dwarves down, would be to get their captain out of prison. But in the meantime his ship had been sold to one of the villains in my campaign. Getting the pirate captain out of prison was going to be difficult, because the captain of the guards was a notorious hard-ass. So the players contacted the thieves guild, who knew a contact that may be able to help them. They met with the mysterious contact, and only later they figured out that, plot twist, the contact of the thieves guild WAS the captain of the guards. And this all eventually lead to a massive battle at the old shipyard, to kill the villain, and take back the dwarven ship.

So how much of this was planned? What was dropped in their path, what was scripted, and what was made up on the spot? The players couldn't tell, it all seemed to be part of the intricate plot.

You can drop anything you want in the path of the players, as long as you can find a good narrative reason for it to be there. If you can intertwine it with other plot points, even better. I don't believe for a second that any of my players realized that I was making most of it up on the spot, and was also dropping things in their path. They know that wherever they go, they will encounter things of interest. My campaign tends to be like a theme park. There are things to see everywhere. And a wizards tower in a desert is not going to stand out in the slightest, among all the haunted forests, enchanted swamps and magical gateways to the nether world.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top