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

[pemerton]

Off on a tangent here, but is this what is called narrative games in The Forge's Narrative-Storytelling-Gamist theory? I must admit I never quite grasped the concept of narrative as they use it, but this seems pretty close.

I think you're running together two different things.

Narrativism is, in the Forge's lexicon, a species of motivation/aspiration for RPGing. Roughly, it is RPGing with the goal of having an aesthetically pleasing and significant experience by participating in the creation of a story. A contrast is intended with White Wolf or AD&D 2nd ed or AP-style "storytelling", in which the story has already been authored, and so the players don't get to write it but only to get to learn what has been written.

Narrativist play depends upon techniques that avoid the GM having already written the story and deciding what is significant and what isn't. One technique that is popular for this is "scene-framing": rather than the GM preauthoring a setting which the players then explore via their PCs, the GM frames the players (via their PCs) into circumstances of dramatic conflict/challenge - using, as cues for this, information provided to the GM in various formal and informal ways by the players. The resolution of each scene provides the material (new shared fiction, changes in PCs' dramatic needs, emotional/thematic elements, etc) out of which new scenes are framed.

In both the sandbox and the adventure path you have tons of 'myth'. That is to say, on the slice of possibilities we are discussing the notion that that there is a concrete setting preexisting the players is largely assumed. The idea is do away with the setting, which in theory allows you to produce stories with lots of play buy in, but without fixed goals or events because the setting itself isn't fixed and is generated in response to player proactivity. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it has a lot of huge traps. One of them is that when you do away with a concrete setting, you remove the one security that the players have that they characters actually have agency. Theoretically, if the players are being allowed to create the myth based on their metagame desires, then the players have agency. But if the GM is not being constrained by his prior agreed upon myth, the problem is the GM is not being constrained at all. The myth that a GM creates for himself and his commitment to stay true to that myth is the one real limit on GM power. How can you say you overturning the GM's 'will' for the game, if the GM is completely free to create any contingency that they want?

In fact, what 'no myth' games seem to do is get players to accept buying a ticket on a railroad, and then letting the GM railroad however he likes. They even openly promote railroading techniques as ways to improve the story, with the GM empowered to create whatever he wants at any moment to have the story move in the direction the GM at that moment thinks will be best. If the GM wants the bad guy to escape because it's good for the story - a classic sign of railroading - in these games that's what he's supposed to do.

I'm wondering which no-myth/scene-framing systems you have in mind.

The systems of this sort that I'm familiar with use a range of techniques to constrain GM power - mostly tight action resolution mechanics, but also mechanics that allow the players to engage in various forms of director-stance-ish fictional content introduction. And sometime also constraints around GM fictional content introduction (eg the Doom Pool in MHRP).

Your example of having the villain escape, for instance, involves the GM suspending the action resolution rules. I'm not sure what Forge-y system you have in mind that advocates this. I typically associate it with the WW "golden rule", which is exactly the sort of GM pre-authorship that Forge-y narrativism is trying to avoid.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Hinging the plot on something like meeting the wizard is perfectly fine, so long as you don't force the players to enter the wizard's tower. If they see the tower and the plot calls for them to enter and foil the wizard who is trying to create a particularly nasty monster, and they ignore the tower and continue on, so be it. The plot continues on without them and the monster is created and ravishes the countryside, possibly killing people that the PCs know and love or possibly not, depending on where the tower is. If the PCs go far enough, they may not hear about what is happening. If they are close enough, stories of the monster will reach them via rumor.

The key is to never force a plot, ANY plot on the PCs. Do that and you are not railroading. Don't do that and you are.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Railroading happens whenever choice is removed, pleasant constraint or not. Railroading only becomes bad when it's unpleasant.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

That's railroading. You denied the players the ability to ignore your plot and forced it on them anyway.

 

[cavesalamander]

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.

If the players make an uninformed choice, then I see no difference as to whether the DM placed the tower there before the game began, during game play because they thought it was cool, or rolled it randomly on a wildnerness encounter table.

If the players make their choice because they intentionally did not want to go to the wizard's tower, then placing it in front of them like that is both railroading and a dick move.

 

[N'raac]

A DM under no circumstance is allowed to improvise. They are not playing the game, they are running it. It is the players who choose where to go and what to do by telling the DM how to move their pieces around the hidden game board. And just as in any game anywhere a player cannot "ruin the plot", aka act against someone else's wishes, when playing a game. They are expressing their own desires sure, but really they are attempting to score points in a game.

This is an example of a DM improvising.

This was the "you are supposed to fight the bandits, not surrender your money or flee" example. The GM clearly expected the players to fight the bandits. Having the bandits take the wizard's money and leave, or shake their fists and curse the fleeing PC's cowardice, would be improvising. Having the bandits attack the wizard anyway, and suddenly have the means to catch the fellow on horseback, is not improvising - it is failing to improvise by forcing the battle to happen as planned.

whatever this conversation is about improvisation and storytelling and editions in general is, I don't see it leading to interesting answers to the OP.

Drift happens. Your "players" are venturing off the "adventure path" into a side quest, or perhaps are abandoning your plot, never to return. Why are you trying to railroad them back onto your pre-planned discussion topic?

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.

I'd call that a form of railroading - no matter where you go, there's that temple. It could not be avoided.

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 is just a matter of degree. I could say "fine, they walk away from the temple". And there will be another temple wherever they go in a few days (and this one now retroactively has the encounters I wanted to run). I could say "NOOOOOO!!!!! You have to explore the temple - that is the game today!!!!!" I could have them encounter a steady series of "clues" that they should go back and explore the temple. Or I could just refuse to dangle any more adventure hooks until they either go back to explore that temple, or die of boredom. All of these are forms of railroading - I am forcing the temple upon 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.

In a true sandbox, that key sits in the temple. Maybe that means the plot that hinged on it ends and the PC's go do something else. Perhaps it means that the PC's all die because they needed that key to succeed. Too bad. They made their choices, and nothing in the game can change to alter the consequences of those choices. "Bad sandbox"? Sure. But it's still the sandbox.

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.

CHOO CHOO!!!

To not railroad this, well, since they did not find the clue, then I guess they will not follow up the plot thread. Put all 15 levels of that plot aside, since the players have chosen, albeit unknowingly, not to pursue it. They choose not to go to the Dragon's cave? Then they do not encounter he Dragon - that was their choice. Putting the Dragon back in their path? Railroad.

That railroad is neither good nor bad, intrinsically, but it denies the players the ability to avoid (deliberately or accidentally) the plot the GM wants them to pursue.

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?

CHOO CHOO - if they choose not to go after the dragon (whether for now, or for ever), then they do not go after the Dragon. Move on to a different plot - the players have rejected this one.

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.

Why does anything in the forest need to be related to the plot you wish to railroad the players into? Perhaps the forest is filled with giant spiders, who are bred there by Drow, and the players can find their secret entrance to the Underdark and spend the rest of the campaign exploring it, leaving the dragon in peace. THAT is a sandbox.

Railroading happens whenever choice is removed, pleasant constraint or not. Railroading only becomes bad when it's unpleasant.

That's railroading. You denied the players the ability to ignore your plot and forced it on them anyway.

Agreed absolutely.

 

[billd91]

I'd call that a form of railroading - no matter where you go, there's that temple. It could not be avoided.

Meh. Hard to get worked up with that as significant railroading. Might as well call the campaign world a railroad since they can't avoid it.

CHOO CHOO!!!

To not railroad this, well, since they did not find the clue, then I guess they will not follow up the plot thread. Put all 15 levels of that plot aside, since the players have chosen, albeit unknowingly, not to pursue it. They choose not to go to the Dragon's cave? Then they do not encounter he Dragon - that was their choice. Putting the Dragon back in their path? Railroad.

That railroad is neither good nor bad, intrinsically, but it denies the players the ability to avoid (deliberately or accidentally) the plot the GM wants them to pursue.

I really can't say that putting information in front of the PCs, whether it's from the initial planned source or another, improvised source, is really railroading. You're still giving them the choice of how they use the information. In fact, it'll be the only way they can make an informed choice - by knowing about the potential adventures out there and then pursuing one or more of them.

 

[Imaculata]

That's railroading. You denied the players the ability to ignore your plot and forced it on them anyway.

Its really not. The players weren't actively trying to ignore the plot. They just wanted to go on an adventure, and hoped that they would find a cool plot along the way. I don't like putting signposts everywhere with "Please go here! No not that way! This way!".

If I present a problem to my players, like for example a dragon, then I don't force them to fight that dragon. But if the dragon is part of the plot, then I will make sure that they at least learn about the dragon. And I don't expect them to go looking for something that they do not yet know exists. So to some degree, you've got to bring the plot to them. You can't expect them to already know where your adventure hooks will be. And they're not actively trying to avoid adventure hooks. They are role playing, and doing what they think their characters would do in that situation. It is up to me, as a DM, to make the journey exciting. Be it in the form of quests, plot hooks, npc's or random encounters.

This is just a matter of degree. I could say "fine, they walk away from the temple". And there will be another temple wherever they go in a few days

THEN it would be railroading.

In a true sandbox, that key sits in the temple. Maybe that means the plot that hinged on it ends and the PC's go do something else. Perhaps it means that the PC's all die because they needed that key to succeed. Too bad. They made their choices, and nothing in the game can change to alter the consequences of those choices. "Bad sandbox"? Sure. But it's still the sandbox.

But it's a bad sandbox,and a terrible way to tell a story. We're trying to run a good campaign here I would assume?

To not railroad this, well, since they did not find the clue, then I guess they will not follow up the plot thread. Put all 15 levels of that plot aside, since the players have chosen, albeit unknowingly, not to pursue it.

That is a terrible way to handle it. So you're going to shove all of your story into the garbage bin when ever the players unknowingly walk away from the plot? Then you'll never have a plot. The players aren't psychic, and they probably do want to experience the plot. They just don't know what is, and what isn't plot related. That is why I sprinkle bits of plot everywhere, and many plot threads are not tied to any specific location.

That railroad is neither good nor bad, intrinsically, but it denies the players the ability to avoid (deliberately or accidentally) the plot the GM wants them to pursue.

I don't really care what plot line my players do or do not follow up on. But I do care about them at least having a plot. I think there should at least be some sort of a story. And that story can be a side quest, which may or may not be related to the overarching story. It could just be lore that isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. But my players are on an adventure, and I'll make sure that ride is filled with plot lines.

CHOO CHOO - if they choose not to go after the dragon (whether for now, or for ever), then they do not go after the Dragon. Move on to a different plot - the players have rejected this one.

Do the players know that the forest is not related to the dragon? No they don't. Do you know for certain that the players have no intention to fight the dragon? No, you don't know that either. Maybe the players want to gather more information on the beast first. Maybe they want to make sure they are better equipped. As a storyteller, you should provide those things for them. Have them meet victims of the dragon on their journey. Give them the opportunity to learn more about the beast, and to properly equip themselves. So what if they don't go to the dragon in a straight line?

Why does anything in the forest need to be related to the plot you wish to railroad the players into? Perhaps the forest is filled with giant spiders, who are bred there by Drow, and the players can find their secret entrance to the Underdark and spend the rest of the campaign exploring it, leaving the dragon in peace. THAT is a sandbox.

I think a better question is, how long do you think your campaign will entertain your players, if you constantly throw plot-less stuff at them? Why would a DM be so hooked up on where the plot is supposed to be located?

For example:

My players are currently trying to clear an island of a tribe of cannibals. Problem is, they don't know where their village is. The cannibal plot is a minor plot, that is loosely related to the main plot line. I'm not forcing them to go clear that island, that is all their idea. But I made sure there is a story related to these cannibals, and some plot twists along the way. Its their adventure, and I just facilitate the ride.

Now I don't know where the cannibal village is located. And I'm not going to force them to randomly scout the entire island until they stumble upon it by accident. I suppose I could randomly roll for the percentage of chance that they find it, but that is no way to tell a story. It doesn't matter for the story where the village is located. Its somewhere in the jungle, and they'll discover it when I think the story calls for it.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Alright.

For those of you who remeber a few paperbacks came out (cough) awhile ago, for a DnD type variant called Arduin. The Arduin Grimoire, and all of it's nonsensical and incredible gaming fluff and I have been dear friends for some time now. Over the long years I would pick a nugget here and there from them and integrate said gems into my ongoing campaign/gaming world. A few years ago I decided to go all in and created the world of Arduin itself.

And ever since different powers/beings/Gods - et al - have been trying to take the planet over. One of the unique things about Arduin is it's Plateau of Forever, with portals to every possible where and every possible when. Imagine a single place that could connect a powerul invading force... to anywhere, or even anywhen. The possibilities are quite literally infinite.

The players of the game, all of whom are from different worlds, are of different races initially came together to assist in stopping one of these various powers. Now they are an adventuring crew that simply likes to world hop. They right wrongs for the most part, but they go looking for what they want to do next and in my case I really don't have to do to much to hook them. Now, this is an experienced group of players, who kow me very well. I in turn know then very well. Our play style as a group, as a whole, does not require for me as their DM to do alot of leading. We, the all of us know what we are going to do, wherewe are going et al. And in Arduin, they go everywhere, and at times it seems somewhat haphazard where they will go, and how long they spend on something. They might be off "trying to save a/the world" for several sittings, or they might spend several in game weeks exploring a new city or dungeon.

With a newer group of players, who don't know one another, or their DM that much, this would be an entirely different beast. It would require a more firm, more guiding hand - though not with them being pulled around by their rose ring per say. I have always, and wil always allow a TPK (Total Party Kill) to occur, if it simply makes sense for it to occur. We have the enough Certificates of Death that most of the surface area on the walls of our garage are covered with them. They aren't coddled. This said, I tend to be more heavy handed with a less experienced group than veterans.

And the ones who are more interested in what's trending on facebook than the game at hand are quickly, quietly weeded out.

 

[Celebrim]

You're in the wrong forum. This is "Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming"
It's a forum about playing and running actual games. Not group storytelling.

This probably deserves a 'fork' but I don't see a 'fork this to a new topic' button.

You may can bully the noobs with that sort of claim, but I've been around since the first AD&D 1e hardback was published and the OD&D books were still in TSR's product catalog. Improvisation has been a part of the game since the very beginning. An irrefutable example is the notion of a random encounter, which in the case of 1e AD&D would have included a percentage chance of being in the lair, which means a DM was expected to be able to improvise a reasonable map of some sort (a ruined castle inhabited by a hitherto unknown orc tribe, a dank cave inhabited by some dragon or fell beast, a sealed tomb containing some ancient evil, etc.) on the spot. Indeed, a case could be made that their is an implied fully improvised campaign that can be run entirely out of the 1e AD&D monster manuals. Indeed, there is yet another improvised campaign implied by the random dungeon generator in the 1e AD&D DMG.

So what you are actually offended by isn't 'improvisation' per se. Fundamentally, stuff that is improvised in play by some means is no different that stuff that is improvised before the session by some means. In both cases, the DM has the full power to specify what you call the invisible board. And during a game, PC's will always attempt things or ask questions about the environment that aren't fully specified by the notes regarding the map. That's every bit as much 'going off the map' as actually trying to step into a part of the map not yet drawn.

What you are offended by is the DM improvising in an antagonistic manner, either motivated by his desire to 'win' and keep the players from defeating the scenario, or motivated by some other desire to achieve a particular outcome. You associate this with 'improvisation' and 'story-telling', and therefore declare those things categorically bad. But you are confused. Improvisation can be done in a neutral, unbiased, manner as part of just "running the game". Indeed, every single D&D game I've ever played in featured improvisation, and I'd be willing to bet everyone you play in does as well. Moreover, declaring as a DM that the PC's can't walk off the map is such bad DMing, that I haven't actually done it since 6th grade (and then only once) and even as a 6th grader I recognized that I wasn't artfully or skillfully running the game and I needed to develop better techniques. Those techniques basically are doing in play, under time pressure, what you'd normally do prior to play preparing the session. And likewise 'story-telling' has been a part of the game since the beginning. Granted, those stories were often open ended, and I agree should be open ended. But even something as simple in concept as G1-2-3 is a story and has story elements in it.