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

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

Understood. I wasn't trying to insinuate you did any of these things, just trying to explain why some people might get a little wary of games like that. Some people really like a lot less story in their games. Some people see any type of intervention by the DM at all as railroading.

It should also be noted that I know at least one guy(see my thread about dealing with a problem player) who absolutely HATES unwinnable battles. He'd rather be told "You are surrounded by an overwhelming force. You realize it is impossible to win. You surrender because you have no other choice" than roll for initiative and run a combat where he'll lose.

 

[Leif]

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.

Yeah, I think I agree with your assessment of that game.

+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!"

Absolutely!

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.

I tailor the game to the players I'm running. I keep them entertained.

I have skills.

YAWWWWWN!! Monopoly, anyone?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally, I'd only do this if the party winning the fight was a possibility to start the campaign. Otherwise, what's the point? A fight the party can't win or escape from is an actual railroad, unlike letting the players know they will begin the game captured.

Yup.

Starting the campaign as captives- not a railroad.

Starting the campaign with an impossible fight that will essentially start the campaign with the PCs as captives- railroad.

 

[cmad1977]

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

Ermagerd!! Rairoadz!!

 

[Warbringer]

Yup.

Starting the campaign as captives- not a railroad.

Starting the campaign with an impossible fight that will essentially start the campaign with the PCs as captives- railroad.

I get where you are coming from, but if the outcone is the same without player "permission" it's the same thing.

That said, having run a campaign that started with the party waking up in chains, tied to a lichs level draining machine, I'm not against.

Now the campaign started: "guys roll up your characters at 1st then progress them to 11th and give me both character sheets"... Campaign used a lot of flashbacks (mainly in the vein I 72 hrs earlier)

 

[KarinsDad]

I've always hated "captured" scenarios. Yes, they do feel a lot more like railroading than taverns.

They feel like "you were a punk and got captured" instead of "you are a starting hero starting an adventure". It just seems like a darker starting point and kind of DM heavy handed.

 

[Eric V]

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.

A fight that the PCs can't avoid and only has one outcome? Yeah, it's more honest to just start them in chains...nothing worse as a player than knowing your actions don't matter.

Having said that, one could have the players roll up higher level toons, have the drow party attack them, and say it was part of the group that took the now present PCs hostage. Same thing, but at least it wasn't their real characters, and maybe they get to try a class they had an eye on.

Or, the fight is never in question, but whomever gets the most hits (or whatever) starts the campaign with a small bonus, to keep them engaged in what is otherwise a useless scenario.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yep. Probably the most problematic encounter in all gaming: "The monsters try to capture the PCs". Especially if preceded by the ultimatum of "surrender or die!"

Cheers!

Agree - ime players almost never surrender (they will agree to a truce, etc, but not a full "take all my gear and put me in chains" surrender). They will do everything to escape or if forced fight to the death instead. So, if there's to be a capture scenario, using it for the start of a campaign is probably the best way to go!

As a player, if I were starting OotA, knowing it is a capture start, I would choose a class partly based on that. Probably not a wizard or heavy armour guy. Instead maybe a monk, or sorcerer, or warlock, or other class which doesn't rely on gear too much.

I think that's the only drawback to this kind of capture start. Still I'm sure it'll be fun enough and does get you straight into the action.

 

[Leif]

What in Gehenna is an "oota"? Maybe, "Out of the A$$??" Or is it some kind of magic, but cursed, xylophone?

 

[dd.stevenson]

Here's the thing: the initial set-up for new PCs isn't a railroad. It's a starting point. What happens next may create the railroad. !

Yeah; there's a big difference between a campaign premise and a railroad.

For me, it was Paizo's APs that really drove this lesson home:
Handing us a premise at the beginning of the AP? Easy sell.
Handing us a premise at the beginning of the third module? Players feel railroaded, in a bad way.