D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[Umbran]

The point about the original wandering monster checks was that they were a pacing tool to prevent turtling. The DM would roll a wandering monster check once every IIRC ten minutes of in character time. Which meant that if you turtled up, moved slowly, and checked every five foot square of the dungeon for traps you'd face far more wandering monster checks than if you moved swiftly and confidently, trying not to give the enemy time to group up.

In practice, this always seemed an example of the GM fixing a problem they created themselves - we insist on "skilled play" for the players to avoid traps and not get smashed by encounters that are at the edge of their power, and whatnot, so they turtle up. We then put in wandering monsters, to punish them so they don't do the thing that we'd been training them to do.

Hey, there's another thread around here about the Kobyashi Maru scenario...

Sure it is, it discourages the players from making those metagame driven assumptions. And it's not like anything really bad happens to the players as a consequence.

So, this is perhaps a bit of a tangent from the thread's main thrust, but may turn out to be relevant.

There's a potential problem with that - tropes exist for reasons. They are rather like rules of language - you can break them selectively for effect, but if you break them haphazardly or toss them out the window, you reduce the audience's ability to understand what's going on. "Don't have preconceptions," can very easily reduce to, "don't have a way to know how to reasonably engage."

"I need to talk to someone to move forward," is not a metagame assumption at all - it is an in-character point of having a goal but insufficient information to act. "Talk to the mysterious stranger," isn't so much a metagame thing, as it is a genre assumption. Take that away, and the player may be left knowing they have to talk to someone, but having no idea who that's supposed to be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There's a potential problem with that - tropes exist for reasons. They are rather like rules of language - you can break them selectively for effect, but if you break them haphazardly or toss them out the window, you reduce the audience's ability to understand what's going on. "Don't have preconceptions," can very easily reduce to, "don't have a way to know how to reasonably engage."

I never suggested you should always break tropes.

"I need to talk to someone to move forward," is not a metagame assumption at all

But "the person I need to talk to is the hooded figure sitting in the shadowy corner" is.

 

[prabe]

There's a potential problem with that - tropes exist for reasons. They are rather like rules of language - you can break them selectively for effect, but if you break them haphazardly or toss them out the window, you reduce the audience's ability to understand what's going on. "Don't have preconceptions," can very easily reduce to, "don't have a way to know how to reasonably engage."

Nicely put. If you're going to break the rules, it is better that you know the rules and why you're breaking them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nicely put. If you're going to break the rules, it is better that you know the rules and why you're breaking them.

And, and Granny Weatherwax would put it "Break 'em good and hard".

 

[prabe]

And, and Granny Weatherwax would put it "Break 'em good and hard".

Yeah. Pratchett had more clues on an average day than most people do in a lifetime.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Really? So you don't think about both the bugbear's combat strategies in case of a fight, and political motivations in case of a negotiation? You have absolutely no idea how the bugbears will respond to the players' actions?

Political motivations and combat strategy - no. They take slaves because they are lazy scum bags who do not sow.

Knowing my players, thought, they would be more likely to buy a bunch of cheep copper rings before heading to the village. Then exclaim to the villagers the rings are magical talismans that ward away bugbears, jacking up the prices and making a huge prophet. Once they PCs leave, the bugbears attack. The rings have no effect, and then the PCs have to deal with a mob of angry villagers out for revenge. Chaos ensues.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Political motivations and combat strategy - no. They take slaves because they are lazy scum bags who do not sow.

So, you have their motivation mapped (better not tell my players, one is a bugbear). What do they do if the PC's attack? Just stand around?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Maybe the problem is you are adding facts that weren’t there in the original example. Nothin you originally posted showed it was a rumor as opposed to the pcs sitting in the village when the event transpired.

Nothing was said anything about the PCs being in the village, either. Regardless, the bugbear raid was simply a short example that spiraled into a longer discussion than I originally envisioned. So, of course, it didn't hold up to much scrutiny. It was never designed to.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So, you have their motivation mapped (better not tell my players, one is a bugbear). What do they do if the PC's attack? Just stand around?

They respond like bugbears - whatever that means in the situation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They respond like bugbears - whatever that means in the situation.

What does it mean in the situation?