D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[hawkeyefan]

Why would I skip out on good roleplaying? I'm not going to just narrate the group meeting and taking the job. It's going to be roleplayed out to the benefit of everyone at the table. We like roleplaying, so we aren't going to just have a quick narration and end up in front of the hill giant compound.

That applies to prepared adventures every bit as much as improvised ones.

Because it may not change anything. You can’t guarantee that it will enhance the players’ investment in the scenario. You are correct that it may, but it also may not.

For me, I’d rather get to some kind of situation where I have decisions to make as my character. That’s the kind of stuff that gets me to invest. Not just having a GM portray a teary-eyed king.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can't decide it. But it is a difference of people watching a sad scene in film or just being told "now pretend to be sad." The chances are the former will produce far more genuine feeling than the latter. And it does not need to be any specific feeling, but some feeling.

But there’s a more important difference. When I’m watching a film or reading a book, I’m not an active participant with the ability to affect how the story goes. In an RPG, I am.

So, if we’re in a situation where there’s not really meant to be a choice, then I’d prefer to just narrate the situation and then begin at some point where I am free to decide the next steps.

Now, I’m not saying that everyone must agree, or everyone should do it this way. Obviously, if a given group prefers to RP out the interaction with the king, more power to them. I just think table time would be better spent on something else.

Mediocre GM thing was about incapability or unwillingness to portray convincing NPCs in general. Not necessarily in this specific instance.

Your comments have certainly read as you claiming that your way is the correct way. If that’s not what you meant, then fair enough… but it certainly seemed that way.

But how can you think about it consistently if new emotional context is introduced retroactively? Also, this is a RPG, a group activity, so whilst you decide the internal state of your character, it is done as a reaction to the contributions of the other participants.

I don’t find this to be all that problematic, nor something that’s not happening in RPGs all the time.

And my response was an explanation of why some people might not want to do that.

Yes, it of course if even more important in crucial decision points. But it is just that I think a lot of things work better if you spend some time establishing the context. Like if the crucial decision point is whether your character will betray their master in order to save the life of their friend, then that has far more weight and resonance if we have actually spent some time roleplaying the character's relationship with their master and their friend.

Like you do you and all that. I am just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

I never questioned where you were coming from, or your opinion. You challenged my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

Because it may not change anything. You can’t guarantee that it will enhance the players’ investment in the scenario. You are correct that it may, but it also may not.

For me, I’d rather get to some kind of situation where I have decisions to make as my character. That’s the kind of stuff that gets me to invest. Not just having a GM portray a teary-eyed king.

My players like to roleplay, so I know they'd rather have it than not. That's the key, play with people who like the things you like.

 

[bloodtide]

I don’t know what “use it against the DM” means. It’s not a concern I have when I GM.

In some games hostile players try to trip up the DM when they are imrpovising. If the DM says the Black Swamp is clear of monsters at 7pm, but then at 9pm the DM gets confused and says there is a black dragon n that swamp, the player(s) can leap up and say "Nut Uh", you said the swamp was clear. And the submissive DM will hang their head down and say "yes player".

Regarding what players like, I think it varies enough that saying what “most” like is kind of silly.

It's not for generally terms like "action" "adventure" and such things.

Sure, I get that. When I GM D&D, I tend to prep lightly, and mostly between sessions. Like, once the session ends, we have a good idea of what the next one will bring, so I prep accordingly. It likely is pretty brief… some bullet points and ideas for locations and NPCs and so on. Probably having some generic statblocks ready. That’s about it.

But I know that’s not something all or even most GMs may be comfortable with.

I might do...oh, 500% then you do. But I like creating stuff. I'm doing it during the game to, always tinkering and altering.

In my opinion that's an extraordinarily wrong position to hold and I hope to God that nobody who reads that takes it to heart. A great many people enjoy roleplaying and get a lot out of it, even if they aren't(and almost all who enjoy it aren't) actors so skilled that they can regularly evoke strong emotions.

"Real" emotions are what make RPGs great and unique.

I just do not really get the whole "skip the RP and get to the good stuff" attitude. The RP is the good stuff! And yeah, RPGs have other elements too, and it is more interesting if you vary things, but it just felt fundamentally wrong to me to describe such interactions somewhat pointless or inconsequential. They are not, they are the heart and soul of the game. Doesn't mean you could never start with action and have RP to establish the emotional context later, but then I'd definitely prefer it to go in that order in the world too. Like if the PCs arrive at "the adventure site" on purely mercenary reasons, but once there encounter people affected by the situation and then it becomes more personal.

I would never skip RP for other stuff.

For me it is RP ruining the game. Like the example were the players are sort of happy hanging around town for four hours and not doing much exciting. It is bad enough there are players that sneak into action adventure games and do that. The player that makes a character like Slog the Dragonborn Warlock, slayer of monsters...then the player wants to go shopping for two hours and like "roll a d20 if find boots on sale".

Worse are the players that just have their characters sit around town and then complain to the DM that they are a bad DM. When the players were just like "we sit at the tavern, again". And sure if the passive DM does just sit there, they are to blame....but there is plenty on the players too.

Question: If you were in a game where you wanted to RP for hours, and the DM only wanted to "focus on the game". Would you be willing to come over early to do nothing but role play? Like say the game starts at 6pm, would you agree to come over at 4pm for pure RP? Or must RP only take up game time?

 

[hawkeyefan]

My players like to roleplay, so I know they'd rather have it than not. That's the key, play with people who like the things you like.

I like to roleplay, too! I just prefer to do it in scenes where I actually have a choice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In some games hostile players try to trip up the DM when they are imrpovising. If the DM says the Black Swamp is clear of monsters at 7pm, but then at 9pm the DM gets confused and says there is a black dragon n that swamp, the player(s) can leap up and say "Nut Uh", you said the swamp was clear. And the submissive DM will hang their head down and say "yes player".

I’ve never really seen this or worried about it.

It's not for generally terms like "action" "adventure" and such things.

But we were talking about the structure of play. I’ve GMed so many games that didn’t have THE ADVENTURE as the structure of play. I don’t think players Care as much about this kind of thing as they do if whatever you’re doing as GM results in a fun game.

I might do...oh, 500% then you do. But I like creating stuff. I'm doing it during the game to, always tinkering and altering.

Sure, most of what I do is during play, I’d say. Because so much relies on the players and what they do.

And you likely do 500% more than me. But I expect that you don’t see anything like an equal return on that investment. But, if you enjoy it, then cool, keep on doing it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would never skip RP for other stuff.

For me it is RP ruining the game. Like the example were the players are sort of happy hanging around town for four hours and not doing much exciting. It is bad enough there are players that sneak into action adventure games and do that. The player that makes a character like Slog the Dragonborn Warlock, slayer of monsters...then the player wants to go shopping for two hours and like "roll a d20 if find boots on sale".

Worse are the players that just have their characters sit around town and then complain to the DM that they are a bad DM. When the players were just like "we sit at the tavern, again". And sure if the passive DM does just sit there, they are to blame....but there is plenty on the players too.

Question: If you were in a game where you wanted to RP for hours, and the DM only wanted to "focus on the game". Would you be willing to come over early to do nothing but role play? Like say the game starts at 6pm, would you agree to come over at 4pm for pure RP? Or must RP only take up game time?

Hours of inconsequential freeform RP just is not a thing I see happening. Like sure, there can be sometimes five or ten minutes of talking to a shopkeeper or catching up with old acquaintance that do not really lead to anything, but most of the in-character RP is driving the action. It is either contextualising the situation (both thematically and plot-wise) or it is about dealing with the situation in some way. Like two of the last sessions of my D&D campaign have mostly been just in-character roleplay in form fo talking to NPCs or the characters talking to each other, but what is actually happening plot-wise is the PCs learning about an issue affecting the city, and then trying to resolve the situation by uncovering the conspiracy behind the problem.

Now context free RP for funsies is actually nice too in limited doses, but most of the RP is not actually like that, it is about something. The quest giving RP we talked about here in length obviously is not disconnected, as it is directly related to the quest the PCs will be undertaking.

 

[kermit4karate]

Hours of inconsequential freeform RP just is not a thing I see happening. Like sure, there can be sometimes five or ten minutes of talking to a shopkeeper or catching up with old acquaintance that do not really lead to anything, but most of the in-character RP is driving the action. It is either contextualising the situation (both thematically and plot-wise) or it is about dealing with the situation in some way. Like two of the last sessions of my D&D campaign have mostly been just in-character roleplay in form fo talking to NPCs or the characters talking to each other, but what is actually happening plot-wise is the players learning about an issue affecting the city, and then trying to resolve the situation by uncovering the conspiracy behind the problem.

Now context free RP for funsies is actually nice too in limited doses, but most of the RP is not actually like that, it is about something. The quest giving RP we talked about here in length obviously is not disconnected, as it is directly related to the quest the PCs will be undertaking.

Same. I have never seen this happen before. Sure, players have fun sometimes and the DM lets them -- tavern brawls, shopping for weapons and armor, maybe a side quest, brief things like that -- but I have never seen a game where a table of players all wanted to go off the adventure script to do total nonsense for hours at a time.

Where's the fun in that? Why would they do it to themselves, and why would the other players stand for it?

 

[Maxperson]

I like to roleplay, too! I just prefer to do it in scenes where I actually have a choice.

It's a roleplaying game all the time, not a pick and choose when you roleplay and when you don't game.

That's fine for you and your group if you want to play where you only roleplay sometimes. It doesn't work for me and mine, though.

 

[bloodtide]

Same. I have never seen this happen before. Sure, players have fun sometimes and the DM lets them -- tavern brawls, shopping for weapons and armor, maybe a side quest, brief things like that -- but I have never seen a game where a table of players all wanted to go off the adventure script to do total nonsense for hours at a time.

So putting aside the bad players just disrupting the game and the 'hidden' free from role players... ...

Even with just four players you can quickly run into the trap that each player wants some spotlight time to do "fun stuff in town". Even just 15 minutes each, is a whole hour of game time.

It is also common for players to get confused and form some crazy attachment to nothing. Like the players see a goblin in the sewer, just some random fluff, but they convince themselves there must be some big goblin plot connected to the main adventure somehow. So they "think" they are playing the adventure as they discovered the "secret goblin plot". And with a passive DM, this can go on forever. And the DM can't just say anything, as the players will always think the DM is trying to trick or mislead them.

The other big common one is the players are waiting for the big hook or waiting for something to happen. Even if the DM gave them a dozen hooks, they missed them or did not think they were "big" enough to act on.

Where's the fun in that? Why would they do it to themselves, and why would the other players stand for it?

Sadly, most players will always go along with that one or two most intense players.