D&D 5E An adventure start for new PCs isn't railroading...

[Agamon]

I don't care.

Fair enough. One should care more about what one's players think over some dude on a message board. If they're having fun, then it's all good.

If I were a player in that game, though, I'd wish the GM good luck in his novel writing career and find a new game, but that's just me.

 

[Celtavian]

Fair enough. One should care more about what one's players think over some dude on a message board. If they're having fun, then it's all good.

If I were a player in that game, though, I'd wish the GM good luck in his novel writing career and find a new game, but that's just me.

I'd bet against you leaving my game if you had played in one of my campaigns. I run an awesome game. That's why I've had the same players for 20 plus years.

The reason I respond to these constant attacks on my methods is because I get tired of hearing them. I do write. It's part of the reason I run a great game. Writing makes you think about how to do things to make adventures fun like incorporate PC backgrounds into the narrative of an adventure path. If you're a good DM, you read your players. So you know not to push them too far, but to give them enough to invest in their character in a manner that is enjoyable to them and makes the experience seem real. You don't try to force people that don't like talking into extensive role-playing when they are quite satisfied with a few vicious line exchanges with an enemy.

Writing teaches you the value of incorporating items in a meaningful fashion as well as creating items with a history that provide the player with something unique. If you write, you learn to create amazing and memorable NPCs as well as differentiated dialogue to give your NPCs flavor. You learn to craft excellent imagery that conveys to the players a scene they are in or an NPC they meet. This often makes it more fun for players. Writing is great training for RPG games. Why some feel it is a negative, I do not know. All the best DMs I know of love to write and create including at times crafting stories. The creator of the game and the vast majority of module designers love to tell stories and incorporate story elements as well. So you taking a shot at writers and how they do their campaigns shows how little you seem to know about the people that create the game. It should be little wonder that this game is very attractive to creative types because it was created by creative types for creative people such as writers, artists, and from what I've seen of miniature and terrain design, some sculptors.

I'll thank you for wishing me luck in my novel writing career, that's about it. I don't consider being a writer of novels some kind of negative. It has always helped me as a DM.

 

[Agamon]

I'll thank you for wishing me luck in my novel writing career, that's about it. I don't consider being a writer of novels some kind of negative. It has always helped me as a DM.

It wasn't an attack, it's just not the type of game I'd play in. I don't write a whole lot, but I do read a ton. If I want to be told what happens to the protagonist of the story, I'll read a book rather than play a game. For me, the game is about what the players do, the story always takes a back seat to that.

But that's certainly not the only way to play. I wasn't being facetious (the interwebs make it tough to tell, I know), if you and your players enjoy your game, it's a good game. No one can tell you otherwise, that's crazy.

 

[77IM]

To bring this conversation back from the brink of abstract theorycraft, the adventure in question, Out of the Abyss, a) encourages the PLAYERS to describe how they got captured and B) details exactly how they can recover their starting gear, even giving the DM multiple options for where to place it to give the PCs a better chance of finding it. The adventure also has a cool scavenging table players can roll on to see what improvised gear they've scavenged while in prison. Multiple options for escape are given.

In short, it is in no way any more railroady than any other adventure start I've seen. Some people may not like the "start as prisoners" trope, but that doesn't make it a railroad.

 

[Leif]

I see it as a good thing. It starts the game running, without the usual session of farting around with character intros and getting the inevitable one PC who drags his feet to go along with the hook so we can just friggin START already! At this stage in my life, I dont have time for a throwaway session of gear shopping and barmaid flirting before we get to the real plot.

I completely agree.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But this [the idea of any railroading of PCs being a bad thing] seems silly to me, beacause it unresonably limits a DM's options. Extending the logic of "not doing anything to the characters that they don't wish to happen" can lead to an entire campaign of nothing but monsters troooping into the town to seek out the adventurers and lay their treasure at the PCs feet just before throwing themselves on the PCs swords. That hardly qualifies as a game.

I agree. And some of the most fun games I've played have come out of at least some "railroading". I don't know exactly where to draw the line, but the only game I heard about that I thought "Yeah, I don't think I'd want to do that" is when a friend of mine was telling me about his D&D game where he captured all the PCs with no saving throws or rolls then forcibly changed them all into kobolds, then put collars around their necks that would explode if they disobeyed the evil villain and forced them to be lackeys of the villain for months. Which was all part of his plan to eventually allow them to escape so they could form a resistance and eventually defeat the villain at the end of the campaign. He already knew the layout of the room they'd fight the villain in when they got to level 20. He gave them a sword whose powers change when you went up levels and he knew what powers it would gain at each level from 1 to 20. It just seemed way too planned out.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm going to allow my players to work in drow characters that don't start as prisoners.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'd bet against you leaving my game if you had played in one of my campaigns. I run an awesome game. That's why I've had the same players for 20 plus years.

Not every player is going to like your game. That's all there is to it. No matter how good it is. Especially if you've had the same players for 20 plus years. I've found the thing that has had the most effect on making my DMing better has been running games in Organized Play. Travelling from city to city DMing and playing with completely random strangers has helped me to understand the different playstyles out there and has given me some insight on what techniques are better for certain types of players than others. It has also let me know things that can make certain players very angry while still making everyone else at the table happy.

Some people will say that my DMing is a bit "bland" because of this. I've learned the correct way to word things to keep the game moving with the least number of objections. Which isn't always the most exciting way to play.

The creator of the game and the vast majority of module designers love to tell stories and incorporate story elements as well. So you taking a shot at writers and how they do their campaigns shows how little you seem to know about the people that create the game. It should be little wonder that this game is very attractive to creative types because it was created by creative types for creative people such as writers, artists, and from what I've seen of miniature and terrain design, some sculptors.

Here's the problem though. I love games with story. As long as it isn't TOO much story. The players are still playing a game and they want input. Sometimes very creative people can take their vision too far. I'm not saying you do, but it is a concern for many players. I played, briefly, in a campaign with one of those creative types. He spent most of the session talking, stopping very little to ask the players what they were doing. When they said what they were doing, he'd take the general gist of what the player said and narrate the next 20 minutes of what happens, including the player's dialog.

He asked me once "There is a caravan you see on the road. What do you do?" and I said "I sneak up on it" and was treated with a flowery description of every rock I needed to hide behind in order to creep closer to the caravan, the waterfall I passed along the way, the smell and color of the grass, the tree I eventually hid behind. Then I was told the description of every last person in the caravan. When he got to the description of one of the NPCs, he told me that the NPC was my mentor from years ago(which I never wrote into my background or wanted in my background, but he felt he was the DM and he could assign backgrounds). Then he told the tale of a conversation my mentor and I had years ago, before be betrayed me and ran off. Then he described how I left the caravan and went back to the party to inform them of what I had seen...all of which without asking me if I wanted to.

Another DM ran the adventure in my post above this. He really liked to write out 150 page "Campaign Books" before his games even started, filled with the names of every important NPC, city, and country in his world along with detailed maps and histories. This made them detailed. But often stepped on the toes of the players in his games.

Writing and DMing are two different skills. You can take cues from one to help with the other but, especially in a game, the story goes in a different direction than you want it to or is dramatically appropriate. DMing is partially learning to understand that sometimes that's ok.

 

[kalil]

I completely agree.

+9001.

The "absolutely nothing happens, soooo do you guys wanna go shopping? or start a mercenary company? or flirt with barmaids" campaign opening is incredibly overrated and I would much much rather start as prisoners. Then at least we have a common problem to solve.

The best opening is (and will always be) ofc: "ROLL INITIATIVE!"

 

[Celtavian]

Not every player is going to like your game. That's all there is to it. No matter how good it is. Especially if you've had the same players for 20 plus years. I've found the thing that has had the most effect on making my DMing better has been running games in Organized Play. Travelling from city to city DMing and playing with completely random strangers has helped me to understand the different playstyles out there and has given me some insight on what techniques are better for certain types of players than others. It has also let me know things that can make certain players very angry while still making everyone else at the table happy.

Some people will say that my DMing is a bit "bland" because of this. I've learned the correct way to word things to keep the game moving with the least number of objections. Which isn't always the most exciting way to play.

I've been playing since I was 10. Been there, done that. I've had tables up to 11 players at a time. I've run games with guys that don't even play D&D other than with me at a party going full bore because of how much the guy that doesn't really play enjoys playing with me. I've played in a tournament game when they used to have them at conventions. I've tried other groups at game stores and in the community. I've played online games. Done about as much as I can.

I can make a game fun for anyone because I work with the player to make it fun whether they've played twenty plus years or are a newbie. If someone started a thread that was an extensive discussion on DMing, I would offer input. Instead I simplify language that I understand that others seem to interpret as not their cup of tea. When I say I tailor a game, they assume I railroad people. What I mean is I tailor it to every aspect of the player. If they like heavy combat, I make heavy combat. If they like romance, I make romance. If they like playing Wolverine, I tailor the game like a Wolverine adventure such as I when I ran Marvel Superheroes. If they like Miami Vice, I tailor it to Miami Vice like I did when running Top Secret. If they like playing an angel, I tailor the game for them to play an angel.

I tailor the game to the players I'm running. If there is a story present, the story will seem as natural to them as walking. Nothing will seemed forced. Story cues will be reactive based on their background or personality and the situation they are in. I will tailor the game to fit the players, both the PC they create and the player's personality and play preferences. This assumption that I'm some vain author doing whatever I want is a false assumption. As a writer, you also have to understand your audience. The players are my audience and I feel it is important I keep them entertained.

Here's the problem though. I love games with story. As long as it isn't TOO much story. The players are still playing a game and they want input. Sometimes very creative people can take their vision too far. I'm not saying you do, but it is a concern for many players. I played, briefly, in a campaign with one of those creative types. He spent most of the session talking, stopping very little to ask the players what they were doing. When they said what they were doing, he'd take the general gist of what the player said and narrate the next 20 minutes of what happens, including the player's dialog.

He asked me once "There is a caravan you see on the road. What do you do?" and I said "I sneak up on it" and was treated with a flowery description of every rock I needed to hide behind in order to creep closer to the caravan, the waterfall I passed along the way, the smell and color of the grass, the tree I eventually hid behind. Then I was told the description of every last person in the caravan. When he got to the description of one of the NPCs, he told me that the NPC was my mentor from years ago(which I never wrote into my background or wanted in my background, but he felt he was the DM and he could assign backgrounds). Then he told the tale of a conversation my mentor and I had years ago, before be betrayed me and ran off. Then he described how I left the caravan and went back to the party to inform them of what I had seen...all of which without asking me if I wanted to.

Another DM ran the adventure in my post above this. He really liked to write out 150 page "Campaign Books" before his games even started, filled with the names of every important NPC, city, and country in his world along with detailed maps and histories. This made them detailed. But often stepped on the toes of the players in his games.

Writing and DMing are two different skills. You can take cues from one to help with the other but, especially in a game, the story goes in a different direction than you want it to or is dramatically appropriate. DMing is partially learning to understand that sometimes that's ok.

I have both skills.

I get it. Some people have had bad experiences with railroading or goofy DMs telling goofy stories only they like. I've had those experiences as well. So I understand some of the reactionary responses based on a bad personal experience.

That's not me. Not that I have never made those types of railroading mistakes. I have. I think every DM screws over a player or two with something they like, but the player doesn't. That's part of the learning process. I don't do that any longer. If I run the drow capture scenario it will be for a purpose. Likely to create a red herring as to what adventure they are in and to give them the experience of fighting back against a drow slave party including role-playing their reactions to being captured. I'll make it fun for the players. The encounter will be a framework for role-playing and character development.

If someone really wants to discuss the finer points of DMing, we can do that. I don't really need any commentary on how I plan to do things. I know what I'm doing as a DM due to having done it a long time.