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

[Zak S]

How? How would they notice?

They keep making choices where the outcomes don't seem to depend on what they did. for example: a mission seems time sensitive, then somebody makes a mistake which causes the players to have to spend 4 hours doing something. Then when they arrive at the town its (what a coincidence) just in the nick of time. Again. And the GM has some elaaaaaborate explanation for why they just happened to arrive in the nick of time despite dawdling for 4 hours. Can't show them any notes to that effect, but says so.

Smart players can ALWAYS tell when a GM is illusioning them.

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.

Sure but you can't show them what would've happened had they made a different choice. Because nothing.

You can make the story make sense, but you can't restore the players' faith that they made decisions that had consequences.

That's why it's best to tell players there's a plot up front.

 

[Imaculata]

They keep making choices where the outcomes don't seem to depend on what they did.

I don't see why dropping things in their path would automatically lead to this conclusion of yours. I would argue that the majority of player choice flows from the players reacting to what happens in your campaign, not where parts of the plot are located on the map. It doesn't matter, it could be anywhere. What matters is what the players choose to do, and how this affects the story.

Sure but you can't show them what would've happened had they made a different choice. Because nothing.

The desert or the bridge isn't the choice. The choice is whether they enter the wizards tower or not. And how they handle the encounter. Does the wizard become their ally, or does he turn them into a toad?

Why are the players going to the desert? Why do they make that choice? Are they looking for something in particular? Then maybe that is what they find, or maybe they find someone who may be able to give them directions. That is what really matters, and not where <locationofchoice> is located on the map.

You can make the story make sense, but you can't restore the players' faith that they made decisions that had consequences.

Bridge or desert isn't really a choice. But seeking a long lost temple, or seeking a legendary wizards tower, that is a choice. The intent of the players is the real choice here. Does it really matter if the players encounter a traveling circus when they turn left at the next intersection? Does it matter that they would also have encountered the circus if they had turned right instead? Have I really lost the faith of my players by having them encounter points of interest regardless of where they choose to go? I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. No, what matters is the story, not where things are located.

The fact that some DM's get so hung up on where important plot points are located, is exactly what leads to the kind of railroading that so many seem to despise. I don't care if the players travel east or west. I can pick up the plot anywhere I want.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yes, I certainly agree with that. "You are doing this dungeon no matter what" often leads to railroading.
However "They're going west - unplaced Dungeon X would be appropriate to place there, then" is not railroading IMO. If the PCs had gone in a direction where Dungeon X was inappropriate and then they'd not encounter it, not railroading. If the PCs decide to avoid Dungeon X and go around it, and the GM allows that, then it's not railroading IMO.
Same goes for placement of NPCs and any other feature in front of the PCs.

 

[Zak S]

The desert or the bridge isn't the choice.

Then why even present them with that choice?

Bridge or desert isn't really a choice. But seeking a long lost temple, or seeking a legendary wizards tower, that is a choice.

All the choices are choices.

If a choice doesn't matter, leave it out.

Have I really lost the faith of my players by having them encounter points of interest regardless of where they choose to go? I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. No, what matters is the story, not where things are located.

Hey, maybe your players don't notice this stuff.

I do and mine do. That's our experience.

 

[Zak S]

Yes, I certainly agree with that. "You are doing this dungeon no matter what" often leads to railroading.
However "They're going west - unplaced Dungeon X would be appropriate to place there, then" is not railroading IMO. If the PCs had gone in a direction where Dungeon X was inappropriate and then they'd not encounter it, not railroading. If the PCs decide to avoid Dungeon X and go around it, and the GM allows that, then it's not railroading IMO.
Same goes for placement of NPCs and any other feature in front of the PCs.

A thing is only railroading once players begin to experience it as an unpleasant constraint.

 

[Imaculata]

Then why even present them with that choice?
All the choices are choices.
If a choice doesn't matter, leave it out.

I didn't say that it didn't matter entirely what direction they choose. I said that it doesn't matter in regards to where I want the plot to be. If they want to go on a wild adventure, and explore a mysterious island to the west, instead of the country to the east, then certainly that is an important choice. But if I intended for them to run into a notorious cruel pirate, then I can drop him in their path regardless of their choice. Does this make their choice completely useless? Obviously not.

Hey, maybe your players don't notice this stuff.
I do and mine do. That's our experience.

I don't think neither you or your players would be able to notice the sort of plot juggling I generally do in a campaign. That is because whenever I place the plot anywhere, I then immediately adapt it on the spot, and connect it to other plot lines, as if it had always been there.

For example:

My players decided to ignore the plot at some point, and explore an island. I rolled some random encounters, and updated the map accordingly with what they encountered on their travels. They met some important npc's, and uncovered a mysterious ancient city built into the side of a cliff. With great caution they lowered themselves into the structure, and started exploring it. Since they reached this important location at the end of our session, this left enough time for me to design a dungeon for the next session.

They eventually reached the end of the dungeon, and had a boss battle with some giant spiders. The spiders were guarding a special room, with a coffin that was sealed shut with a spell. The players broke the spell, and opened the coffin, to find a young girl inside. She was meant as a vessel for one of the evil deities in the plot of my campaign, but now the players had disrupted this plan, and added the girl to their pirate crew. And there you go, the plot is picked up again. Its that simple.

The players wanted to go off on an adventure, and do some dungeon crawling, and I delivered. Their reward was an important ally, and story progression. The story is in service of their adventures, and not the other way around.

But there are far more ways in which this little field trip of theirs ties into the plot. They uncovered murals that revealed hints at future plot points, they foiled the plans of an evil deity that up till now had been in the background, and their new ally would become deeply involved in the plot later on.

 

[Zak S]

I didn't say that it didn't matter entirely what direction they choose. I said that it doesn't matter in regards to where I want the plot to be. If they want to go on a wild adventure, and explore a mysterious island to the west, instead of the country to the east, then certainly that is an important choice. But if I intended for them to run into a notorious cruel pirate, then I can drop him in their path regardless of their choice. Does this make their choice completely useless? Obviously not.



I don't think neither you or your players would be able to notice the sort of plot juggling I generally do in a campaign. That is because whenever I place the plot anywhere, I then immediately adapt it on the spot, and connect it to other plot lines, as if it had always been there.

For example:

My players decided to ignore the plot at some point, and explore an island. I rolled some random encounters, and updated the map accordingly with what they encountered on their travels. They met some important npc's, and uncovered a mysterious ancient city built into the side of a cliff. With great caution they lowered themselves into the structure, and started exploring it. Since they reached this important location at the end of our session, this left enough time for me to design a dungeon for the next session.

They eventually reached the end of the dungeon, and had a boss battle with some giant spiders. The spiders were guarding a special room, with a coffin that was sealed shut with a spell. The players broke the spell, and opened the coffin, to find a young girl inside. She was meant as a vessel for one of the evil deities in the plot of my campaign, but now the players had disrupted this plan, and added the girl to their pirate crew. And there you go, the plot is picked up again. Its that simple.

The players wanted to go off on an adventure, and do some dungeon crawling, and I delivered. Their reward was an important ally, and story progression. The story is in service of their adventures, and not the other way around.

These examples are quite different from what I was attempting to describe originally then:

A situation where there is a choice presented and it has zero consequences.

 

[Imaculata]

These examples are quite different from what I was attempting to describe originally then:

A situation where there is a choice presented and it has zero consequences.

I think that goes without saying. My point is, is that bad DM's often panic if the players go left, when the important plot point is to the right. But does it really matter for the story where the plot is located?

On the WocT forums, someone recalled a story of a DM who was running a campaign module. The players chose not to go fight the dragon, and instead wanted to travel into the forest. The DM disallowed this and he literally said that the forest wasn't part of the module. Now that's railroading.

You could move the lair of the dragon elsewhere, but that is problematic if you've already told them that the lair of the dragon is to the east. That would be bad. But you could move the dragon, or you could place plot points in their path that are related to the dragon. The DM wants the players to fight the dragon, -but the players feel that they do not have a good reason to do so.

I don't run campaign modules for this very reason, because I can't stand being confined to such a narrow plot. But as a storyteller, you should then ask yourself what could motivate them, if the goal is to still get them to fight the dragon. You can't force them to do so. But maybe they can encounter a village that has been burned to the ground, or a village that gets attacked while the players are there? Or maybe the players find a clue to a weapon that could slay the dragon? Maybe the players meet npc's that help them in their quest, or tell them more about what they are facing?

The plot could be anywhere.

It doesn't seem to me like a small detour through the forest should completely derail their epic quest to slay the dragon. Its not like these players were actively resisting the primary quest of the module. They just decided to head into the forest. So what is in the forest that is related to the plot? Maybe part of the forest is on fire? This sort of stuff almost writes itself.

 

[Zak S]

On the WocT forums, someone recalled a story of a DM who was running a campaign module. The players chose not to go fight the dragon, and instead wanted to travel into the forest. The DM disallowed this and he literally said that the forest wasn't part of the module. Now that's railroading.

I see a virtue in this (though I'd never do it) in that it's honest.

If a gm is inexperienced or just really wants to run a module and the players have agreed to run that module, I think it's ok to go "Yeah that's not in the module". It's not ideal, but in a Participationistic situation (players are agreeing to a constricted scneario) then I can see all the players going "Ok, no problem"

A constricted situation becomes a railroad NOT when the players experience the constraint, but when they experience the constraint AS A PROBLEM.

Now your solution is also viable, but it's a solution for a more experienced GM or for a group less invested in what content is in the module.

 

[Imaculata]

Oh definitely. I admire the honesty. If you are a beginner DM, then its good to be up front about it. It prevents an awkward situation where the DM feels the need to force his hand, which is arguably worse. Forcing them to go to the dragon by artificial means is bad, but simply telling the players what the limits of the module are, is perfectly fair.

I think the worst type of scenario, is one where for example the players must be captured by the villains. What if they do a really good job to avoid capture? What if they don't surrender, but fight to the death? These are the sort of choices that I think most players want to have the freedom to make. You don't want to be told by your DM "This is what happens, because my script says so".

This doesn't mean that all railroading is bad. In my campaign, the ruler of a local city was assassinated, and he was always going to die in that attack. There was no way to avoid it really. What mattered more, was the after math of this plot point. I wrote it in such a way, that it really caught them by surprise, and there for it was unavoidable. Yes, it is a railroad, but a minor one. It was a plot point that I felt had to happen, in order for the story to progress. Because it created a lot of interesting conflict for the players to resolve. Who would be the new ruler? Would the daughter of the ruler (now one of their npc crew members) take his place, and abandon their crew? Would they organize a retaliation, to bring the perpetrators to justice? How would they convince all of the important nobles whom the new ruler should be? What would this do the security of the region? Would the privateer contract, under which the players operated, still be valid under a new ruler?

I don't railroad often. But sometimes you can't let a great Game of Thrones moment go to waste. If I feel the players are getting a bit to comfy, then I'll hit them with an unexpected turn of events. The plot needs to stay exciting and unpredictable.