D&D 5E Players railroading dungeonmasters

Lanefan said:

The railroading issue only arises if-when players expect - or worse, demand - that those elaborate backstories become or be made central to play at the table, thus potentially putting the DM in a bind.

Click to expand...

That would or could be a problem, but it's relatively straightforward to navigate around in Session Zero (or whatever nearish equivalent you have at your table).

Lanefan said:

And this is just it: some backgrounds or past-professions are simply better and-or come with more benefits than others, which is why in my game if you want a shot at being nobility or something else exotic you have to roll for it on a table of professions/backgrounds and accept whatever the dice give you (which mi-ight be nobility but far more likely will be something mundane and could even be something less-than-mundane e.g. beggar or slave).

Or, you can choose from about 30 relatively basic professions e.g. cook, sailor, farmer, miner, etc.

Click to expand...

You can have a noble but you're the 3rd son, you've been disowned, the family has some influence but not much, it's a tradition in your family that you have to "prove" your worth, you're far from home, the family is on the "wrong" side ... there's any number of things you can do.

In some areas having a noble background will be a benefit in others a hindrance, in many cases it simply won't matter. As long as they don't expect a piggy bank or a "get out of jail free" card (above and beyond what anyone else gets) I don't see a problem.

That, and reinforce that the retainers are just the butler and the maid; non-combatants that will either flee at the first sign or danger or die quickly if they get caught in the crossfire.

Lanefan said:

As for the 'railroading' issue: the problem isn't that the players are coming up with convoluted and extensive backstories. In and of itself, a player coming up with a long elaborate backstory shows me there's an appreciable degree of commitment to the game, and I'm cool with that.

The railroading issue only arises if-when players expect - or worse, demand - that those elaborate backstories become or be made central to play at the table, thus potentially putting the DM in a bind.

Click to expand...

I just cover this in session 0. Backgrounds are great. Love 'em and I'll try to integrate them into the story. But different people will share the spotlight. If it's ever an issue, it will be an issue whether or not the player has a detailed background in my experience.

I haven't watched the video, which seems like clickbait, but for my current game I moved away from long backstories in the sense that I told my players, they could create whatever kind of backstory they wanted, but to keep in the mind the game itself will begin far from their homelands and it is highly unlikely they would every go back in-game, so the backstory should be their motivation for adventures and travel, not necessarily the source of their specific goal.

So I ended up with

• a tiefling ranger, escaping the evil legacy of her family
• a half-orc barbarian, last of his people, who is interested in becoming "civilized" but knows he can't do that among the imperialistic bigots who wiped out his people.
• a gnome bard who left his secluded forest community because of an obsessive curiosity
• a human druid and former shady barrister who after years hiding out from organized crime in the woods is seeking his estranged husband who fled to the lands where the campaign will take place.

I'd say there are also two different facets to backstories that we should consider. There's the backstories that inform who the character currently is... theoretically giving the player inspiration for how they choose to play the character, and little nuggets of information they can drop in as they play the character (like vocal quirks, fears, things that trigger various emotions etc.) These things just help the player roleplay and inspire the player with who the character is meant to be. They don't really impact the DM at all.

The second type of backstory of course though is the one that is pushing the character forward and has not yet been fulfilled. The character has unanswered questions they need answered, or important events that have not yet finished, or people they have conflict with that haven't been resolved. These are the ones that I imagine would be considered the potential "railroading" scenarios the video talks about (please note I haven't watch the video yet.) These are background stories that are meant to pop up during play and be interacted with, potentially being solved, but not always. So in that regard, the "railroading" aspect is the players are putting stories in front of the DM and expecting the DM to move the game in such a way so as to have these scenarios and events come up (and thus allowing the players to interact with and/or resolve them.) And depending on the number of these potential stories... you might have a game that has so many backstories to deal with, it might seem like the DM has no ability to present their own.

I will say though that I myself actually like that as a DM. It fits my personal style really well. Because I am not a DM who creates his own stories... I'm very much a DM that takes published adventures and modules and then runs them through various blenders to fill out an adventure / area / world for the players to play and for me to improvise around. So for me... these backstories are just more material that gets thrown into the blender. And as we are hitting story blocks A, B, & C... there might be a call in some module that I'm using for a particular person, and I realize that the person from the module could easily be replaced by X person from a player's backstory. And now suddenly that player has a more personal connection to what is going on because their histories and being brought to the fore. I find these moments when I can drop in bits and pieces of who these PCs are into the narrative to be fulfilling for me, and hopefully fulfilling for them too.

I will say though that D&D as a game does not go out of its way to assist you in running this type of backstory driven gaming. For that kind of thing... my go-to is always 7th Sea (especially 1st edition). In that game-- a game built and designed as a romantic swashbuckling adventure type of experience-- the players would specifically BUY background events during character creation in order to have those events show up during play and help influence the story of the game. They are specifically chosen to emphasize the theme-- a Vow a PC has taken, a Lost Love the character is trying to win back, a Nemesis that destroyed their family and for whom the character is seeking revenge-- and have these backgrounds crop up during the adventures. And when they do so, they give the players additional XP as part of the session. And quite frankly... you oftentimes get MORE XP for the session from your background events popping up and driving a session's narrative than you do for just the normal XP given every session for playing. That is a game whose focus is to marry a character's trials and tribulations into the narrative, and for whom the DM definitely has to keep one eye looking forward, while also keeping one eye looking back on all the backstories the PCs have in order to incorporate them.

And like with anything... some GMs probably love it, and some find them to be a hindrance or a "railroad". But that's true with anything having to do with any RPG.

Okay, I watched the video and I not only get it, but I am 100% down with that approach and agree - the game is better (for me and the people I tend to play with, at least) when the in-game events shape the character, which then shape the game events.

el-remmen said:

Okay, I watched the video and I not only get it, but I am 100% down with that approach and agree - the game is better (for me and the people I tend to play with, at least) when the in-game events shape the character, which then shape the game events.

Click to expand...

Think about it.

The game is better when the exciting elements the players construct with you in game influence the character, and in turn the story ...

So why is it better to start with NONE of that established upon which you can build, when you can start the game with that cycle in full churn?

Additionally, it is hard to develop a storyline focused on one PC when everyone is at the table. Why is that important? Wouldn't it be better to have everyone involved? Well, it is an approach and a tool that can be used to benefit everyone. A PC having information that the others do not, and that is most relevant when considered with information that another PC has, but that neither PC things much about as it just seems like fluff, is a great way to lay groundwork that players can either rediscover later, or happen to assemble on their own. It gives lots of opportunities for the players to have that victorious moment of realization that is hard to set up when you're revealing information to the entire table at once, so everyone has the same access to information.

jgsugden said:

Think about it.

The game is better when the exciting elements the players construct with you in game influence the character, and in turn the story ...

So why is it better to start with NONE of that established upon which you can build, when you can start the game with that cycle in full churn?

Click to expand...

Some people just don't like for someone else to say something is better than something else, even if they include the caveat of "(for me)."

I didn't say none. Look at my previous post and the outcomes of my explanation about backstories to my current players. Also, I may not want to start the game with that cycle in full-turn. It depends on the group, their experience in general, and their experience with me as GM in specific.

Additionally, it is hard to develop a storyline focused on one PC when everyone is at the table. Why is that important? Wouldn't it be better to have everyone involved? Well, it is an approach and a tool that can be used to benefit everyone. A PC having information that the others do not, and that is most relevant when considered with information that another PC has, but that neither PC things much about as it just seems like fluff, is a great way to lay groundwork that players can either rediscover later, or happen to assemble on their own. It gives lots of opportunities for the players to have that victorious moment of realization that is hard to set up when you're revealing information to the entire table at once, so everyone has the same access to information.

Click to expand...

Anyway, why should we spend time coming up with that secret info ahead of time if it may not apply later? It is easy to put secret info available to only one PC in the chat or shoot them an email or send it between sessions, etc. . . when it comes up (or it is about to come up). Front loading work is a lot of work and I prefer giving room to develop as we go along. It allows for flexibility and is just easier to deal with (for me at least).

I do find that "I possess info you need" is a great hook for introducing a new character to an existing game.

I'll give an example of the game influencing the character that I love:

The gnome bard I mentioned before basically started with no much more than friendly and "obsessive curiosity." When the party found a spellbook that no one in the group could use (no wizards), he decided a few levels later that he just had to know what was in it and put it to use. So he took a level of wizard - which has shifted how he approaches combat and what resources he needs and has changed his curiosity into a kind of avarice for power that is leading down a potentially dark path.

None of this was decided before hand.

The video was a bit iffy with all the clip splicing over a more cohesive thing, but I agree whole heartedly with the thrust and really appreciate having it as a tool in my GM quiver. I've had a few players over the years who are very guilty of this to the point I've had to threaten to smite certain people dead if I hear "well in the other roleplay my character..." or similar one more time or felt like some sidestory taking place away from the table was causing problems with the game that the character was actually built to play in.

I've also had players with highly specific detailed backgrounds they make their at the table time all about fulfilling then suddenly more often than not become a broken latch when I hang plot points on it "because I had a different end point in mind"... go write a novel and quit wasting the time of a gm & everyone else at the table if that's the case.

Developing your character over time at the table & creating excuses for why your character fits instead of that sort of railroading talked about in the video rather than railroading a self written novel across the table is a set of topics I wish was discussed more often.

edit: This isn't to say that these players are the norm, but they show up often enough that the warning signs are easy to spot & the fact that nobody ever talks about it makes it look like I'm the bad guy if I try to fix it.

I also want to add that my players are really good at ignoring info their characters are not privy to.

So when the druid finally found his estranged husband and discovered he was still up to no good dealings, the rest of the party left the room to give them privacy, but the players were still "at the table" because it was a cool tense scene to witness! Later, the druid told the other PCS what info he passed on, implicitly suggesting there was info he did not share - and everyone was cool with that. The details of marital disagreements are often not shared even among comrades in arms.

I tell players to think of their characters like movie or TV show creators do - no need for an extensive backstory and you can retcon about anything if you really need to. E.g., Fox Mulder was afraid of fire as shown in an early episode of X-Files and it was never referenced again.

We all know characters in a TV show have parents but it really only matters when they appear on screen.