If you don't think your other options are interesting, why present them?
As I already posted, it's not railroading to set up the game. And the premise of a RPG session doesn't have to be choose from this list of X things.
D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
As I already posted, it's not railroading to set up the game. And the premise of a RPG session doesn't have to be choose from this list of X things.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Huh - an instance that I would consider railroading where you do not. We are living in strange times.
To me, just plopping them down at the dungeon entrance, while perhaps convenient, denies them the agency to do a whole bunch of other things (not least of which is introduce themselves to each other in character, hardly a conversation they'll want to have in potentially dangerous territory!) including scouting the surrounding terrain, gathering info about the place, and so forth.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Because oftentimes what might be interesting to me isn't interesting to the players, and vice-versa. That, and even my own interests change from week to week and month to month; I can only assume those of the players do as well.
On numerous occasions in the past I've written up some homebrew adventure or other, thinking all the while "Hell, this is gonna be cool to run!"; yet by the time I finally get to run it a few months (or, sometimes, years) later I'm bored of it, probably because I've already spent so much time thinking about it while writing it that I've oversaturated myself on whatever it was that I originally thought was cool.
It doesn't have to be "choose from a list" but in sandbox-style play that's very often what it comes down to.
Faolyn
(she/her)
To get to the encounter, they would have had to leave the relative safety of the path and go into the woods. They chose not to.
I honestly don't understand what the problem is. Do you think that I should have forced my players to engage in something they didn't want to do? Is that what you believe non-BW GMs do?
Ah, here's the problem. You think I care about what Gygax had to say!
The sentence, "Thus, the party has only one place to go" is by definition railroading, so I wouldn't do it. If I wanted to PCs to be traveling to this particular location, I would do one of the following:
(a) start off with a plot hook that makes them want to or need to be there.
(b) start off with multiple plot hooks, tailored to each character's interests and backstory.
(c) get the players to tell me a reason why they would want to be going to the location.
(d) start the players off at that location, and then have a plot hook occur.
(e) some combination of the above.
Having them go on a trek and go on into an abandoned place just because there's no other place for them to go? Nah. Gygax may have co-created D&D, but many of his ideas belong to the 70s and 80s.
I did (e) for my Level Up game. The starting location was The Cloisters, an indoor shopping area built into a decrepit temple in the slums. I told the players that's where the game was starting. I worked with them each to find out why they would be there. Two of the characters were bandits who had recently escaped from prison and were lying low. One character was a noble, looking for his missing sister, who had information that suggested that there was someone with information here. One character was a smuggler who frequently had dealings with the sellers there. One character was a gambler and crook with a heart of gold who likewise had dealings there.
Then I had house guards come in[1], demand the surrender of the NPC several of them had a connection to, and start making threatening gestures at the shoppers, who were, for the most part, harmless commoners (D). Since the players wanted this game to be about class warfare and social unrest, I knew that this would get the attention of everyone but the bandits, and that the bandits wanted to be where the guards weren't.
---
[1] guards who are in the employ of one of the noble houses and only answer to the nobility, but are only supposed to engage in activities directly connected to their house. So this was weird and made the noble want to investigate.
Ah, and here's the other problem. You seem to think that the encounter I mentioned was the hook to get the PCs into the game. No. As I said, it was something that they could have dealt with while on the road from Point A to Point B.
I don't force my players to engage in encounters they don't want, so they can trust that I'm not going be a jerk to them in other ways.
robertsconley
Hero
The way I account for this is something I’ve observed in how people go about their day: there’s always a lot going on around them, but they only focus on a handful of things at a time.
I start by developing the Initial Context before the campaign begins. I work with each player individually to make sure they have the information they want to know. Then, we do one more pass as a group to establish shared knowledge and priorities. Once the campaign starts and events unfold, I continue this process informally, updating my notes as the players’ priorities, interests, and goals change.
It doesn't get overwhelming because, as you noted, most people naturally focus on only a few things at a time—just like in real life.
Behind the screen, I’m continuously updating my notes on what’s happening in the larger world, including events outside the players’ immediate focus, in case they become relevant. I also prepare for unexpected shifts in player interest with what I call my “Bag of Stuff”: a set of semi-prepared generic elements—characters, buildings, etc.—that I can quickly flesh out. I consult my general notes, make a few rolls for details, and carry on with whatever the players are pursuing.
As a result, the “Tyranny of Choices” rarely comes up in my campaigns. When it does, I help by laying out their options (not choosing for them) and guiding them toward a decision. It doesn’t take long, and the players appreciate it.
After digging further, I realized the difference: their players didn’t start the campaign as blank s
lates. Each character had a background, not lengthy, but enough to give the player a basic sense of who they were and what mattered to them at the start. This allowed players to make meaningful choices right away, rather than feeling like they were throwing darts at a board in the dark.
I began calling this the Initial Context and have written about it on my blog over the years, including in this 2011 post:
How to Manage a Fantasy Sandbox:The pre-game
For more recent version
The World Outside of the Dungeon
I start by developing the Initial Context before the campaign begins. I work with each player individually to make sure they have the information they want to know. Then, we do one more pass as a group to establish shared knowledge and priorities. Once the campaign starts and events unfold, I continue this process informally, updating my notes as the players’ priorities, interests, and goals change.
It doesn't get overwhelming because, as you noted, most people naturally focus on only a few things at a time—just like in real life.
Behind the screen, I’m continuously updating my notes on what’s happening in the larger world, including events outside the players’ immediate focus, in case they become relevant. I also prepare for unexpected shifts in player interest with what I call my “Bag of Stuff”: a set of semi-prepared generic elements—characters, buildings, etc.—that I can quickly flesh out. I consult my general notes, make a few rolls for details, and carry on with whatever the players are pursuing.
As a result, the “Tyranny of Choices” rarely comes up in my campaigns. When it does, I help by laying out their options (not choosing for them) and guiding them toward a decision. It doesn’t take long, and the players appreciate it.
When I first started promoting sandbox campaigns in the late 2000s, I noticed a high number of reports about failed campaigns. However, when I asked some of the folks I worked with on the Wilderlands Boxed Set about their experience, they didn't have the same issues.
After digging further, I realized the difference: their players didn’t start the campaign as blank s
lates. Each character had a background, not lengthy, but enough to give the player a basic sense of who they were and what mattered to them at the start. This allowed players to make meaningful choices right away, rather than feeling like they were throwing darts at a board in the dark.
I began calling this the Initial Context and have written about it on my blog over the years, including in this 2011 post:
How to Manage a Fantasy Sandbox:The pre-game
For more recent version
The World Outside of the Dungeon
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
I have an issue with the premise here. Good feedback is still worthy of your time. Hearing out other players is still worthy of your time. Hearing out the DM, is worthy of your time. If you can't sit through listening to others, maybe the 15 minutes isn't the problem.
I view this game differently than a lot of people around here. A healthy table culture doesn't just happen, its earned through cooperation and mutual respect. It's not hierarchical. It's not transactional. Everyone has to have fun for the game to succeed, and that requires constant communication.
I run weekly games for random people off the /r/LFG subreddit. Total strangers make up more than half of my TTRPG experience.
For context; I played with a game designer from Istanbul. To this day I smile when I think about his voice.
There was a guy from Texas who works a manual labor job in construction all day—his big reward at the end of the week was a game of D&D.
A college student from Toronto brought contagious excitement to the table, posting “Game day!” in the Discord every week. You could feel this excitement in his approach to the game.
A player from the Philippines found joy in the game while grieving the loss of his mother to cancer.
Another was struggling with schizophrenia, and he loved how the game helped quiet his thoughts, even if just for a little while.
And there was the Mormon, about to go on his mission overseas, just looking for a bit of peace before the journey ahead.
That’s just in the last year. Every one of them was a joy. And I'm sure there are more who deserve mention.
I've commented in another thread, last year, about how I feel like a fish out of water around here. This is why. My experience is wildly different than the experiences we see posted so often.
In just 7 short years, this hobby has changed my world view, and enriched my life. I've met so many wonderful people, and had so much fun. I can't imagine not wanting to spend that 15 minutes listening to others about an experience we shared. Especially if it leads to playing with them more in the future.
Did you read the quote from Gygax's DMG.Huh - an instance that I would consider railroading where you do not. We are living in strange times.
To me, just plopping them down at the dungeon entrance, while perhaps convenient, denies them the agency to do a whole bunch of other things (not least of which is introduce themselves to each other in character, hardly a conversation they'll want to have in potentially dangerous territory!) including scouting the surrounding terrain, gathering info about the place, and so forth.
I think it's pretty clear that, if the players want to do some in-person PC introduction, they could do that as a type of retrospective/flashback, before now bringing the focus back onto the dungeon that the GM has prepared.
nice very long do it my way or hit the road. My previous statement stands. If the game is going well they'll want to sit and talk about it. If not your just back in High School being forced to talk about something that you weren't into to begin with.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Find out if there's a genuine problem, and don't put speed as such a priority it justifies blowing off anyone who has a problem.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I'm saying your assumption trying to address something when it matters rather than three hours later or never isn't something the other players might want to do on occasion is already biasing the discussion and its a constant refrain.
Similar Threads
- Locked
