Avoiding Railroading - Forked Thread: Do you play more for the story or the combat?

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I have a suspicion that many of you have these whole *illusionism* and *Plot* problems because you pre-script your campaign far too much, and thus set yourself up for these kinds of entangling problems.

Worried about the party *not* going somewhere? Don't OVER SCRIPT everything so much. Better investment of time and energy into a free-floating, flexible style, where you can construct encounters and such on the fly, based where the PC's have chosen to go.

WING IT MY FRIENDS!

A good DM simply *must* learn to improvise, and improvise quickly--otherwise, he may spend a huge amount of effort and time designing things and places that the PC's may never go to.

I design things specifically when I know the party is in someplace, or certainly going to go somplace in particular. THEN I design a bunch of stuff. Otherwise, I improvise and freeform like crazy, and the players would never know otherwise. Whether the players actually *know* I spent time drawing whatever up, or just made something up on the spur of the moment, is irrelevant. The only IMPORTANT thing is--that I, as the DM, stay three steps ahead of them, and do it with some style and flair, swift attention to creative detail, that provides them with the fun they want, and any necessary information/clues/lore they need for their characters to advance in whatever story lines they are following.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Hella_Tellah]

WING IT MY FRIENDS!

WORD. No preparation means no emotional attachment to stuff you've already written up, which means no temptation to railroad.

 

[LostSoul]

It also runs afoul of my two rules for when illusory choices are bad- the players can tell you're doing it, and there's a fair chance that they won't be happy about it.

I think that if you are lying about something to someone, and that person wouldn't be happy if he knew the truth, there's a problem.

1. You've drafted up an NPC blacksmith that lives in Hereshire in anticipation of the PCs going there. He's a plot relevant NPC, who the PCs will have the option of assisting with an important task. But the PCs don't go to Hereshire. They go to Thereford. You decide to use the NPC in Thereford instead, and offer the PCs the sub plot in Thereford. Is this bad, and if so, why?

The players aren't making a choice so it's no big deal. Build your world how you want. (Not "you" as in Cadfan, you as in DMs out there.)

2. You could make an important clue to the plot available to the PCs by means of a puzzle that is easily solved with teleportation. But, your wizard, the only party member who can teleport, just retrained his only teleportation spell into something else. So you instead decide to make a different puzzle. Alternately, your player just learned teleportation, so you immediately make a puzzle based on it. Had he not, you would have made a puzzle based on a different set of skills possessed by a different character. Alternately, you've already made a puzzle based on teleportation, but your player retrains his teleportation spell into something else, and you choose to rewrite the puzzle. Is this bad, and if so, why? Are the examples different in any way? Why?

Making or not making the puzzle based on teleportation after the player chooses (or doesn't choose) the teleportation spell is fine. The DM is the one reacting to the player's choice, providing what he feels is the appropriate level of adversity.

Changing the puzzle that you've already made kind of takes away the meaning of the player's choice to give up the teleportation spell. If that's not a meaningful choice for the player, it doesn't matter. If it is, then I wouldn't change the puzzle.

3. The PCs are about to have an encounter of level appropriate difficulty. They come up with a sweet plan to beat the encounter. You realize this plan will really work, so you increase the encounter difficulty to compensate. Is this bad? Is it bad if the party actually receives experience based on the new encounter level? Is it bad if they don't, and if so why? What if your game doesn't use experience points, and all they get are "cool points" for trashing a really tough encounter? Alternately, you were going to have the PCs ambushed that evening by assassins, but they take a bigger beating during an encounter than you expect. You're worried that your old plan of 5 assassins might kill them. You either delay the assassins until tomorrow, or you reduce the number of assassins to three. Is this bad, and if so, why?

Leaving the encounter difficulty the same no matter what the players do makes the choices the players make unimportant. If those choices are important to the players, it's bad. It might not be bad in some game systems because different games are played for different reasons - and the sweet plan having an impact might not be a choice the players care about.

If you change your plan to reduce the difficulty of the next encounter because of choices they made in the first one, and the choices the players make in combat are important to them, then by reducing the difficulty you're taking away the meaning of the player's choices in the first combat. In other words, if success in combat is important to the players, they need to be able to fail.

 

[Lacyon]

So, they're questioning Lord Schmoe. Unfortunately, the PCs bomb their skill checks.

Everyone agrees that the adventure shouldn't end here. That would be lame.

It would be nice if, once in a while, the players could fail to solve a mystery without the entire adventure grinding to a halt.

Or, at the very least, adventures would be designed such that the PCs could solve the mystery without discovering every clue.

The question is, what should be done?

A whole lot of non-railroading options are available.

If a railroad is absolutely invisible, intangible, silent, odorless, and impossible to detect or interact with in any way, is there really a railroad?

Good luck convincing me that any mystery game isn't on rails these days. It may be a railroad to awesome town, and I still play these kinds of games, but they're definitely not impossible to detect.

And the fact that they're impossible to interact with makes them worse, not better (at least, when your goal as a player is to interact with things).

 

[Cadfan]

And the fact that they're impossible to interact with makes them worse, not better (at least, when your goal as a player is to interact with things).

That's a fancy thing to say, but it doesn't make sense in this context.

 

[Cadfan]

I think that if you are lying about something to someone, and that person wouldn't be happy if he knew the truth, there's a problem.

Are you serious? This is D&D, not Relationship Hotline. Keeping secrets from the players for their own good is part of the game.

Players want the DM to make decisions on what to do based on things like what would make the best story. But they also want the DM to create the impression that the game world is a living, breathing, realistic place. And living, breathing, realistic places do not operate based on laws of drama. Walking this line is a dungeon master's job. And its a job that absolutely falls apart if you tell the other person what you're doing. Its the same as if you were at a movie, and the whole time a gruesome alien was eating lost astronauts, the director was next to you saying, "the reason that the monster has those weird eyes is because we did a focus group and those eyes were rated the most scary." You might kind of be interested in knowing, but not at the exact moment you are trying to suspend your disbelief in the story.

Edit to add an example: Recently, I had a bad guy surrender when he was bloodied, instead of fight to the death. I did this because the encounter was turning into a drag, and to keep the table's energy up, we needed to move on. The players enjoyment was increased by this decision. Had I been a complete fool and TOLD them why this happened, they wouldn't have thought it was as cool. They'd probably have found it pretty lame. Because right now, while they're in the dark, they believe that the reason the enemy surrendered was because the whipping the PCs handed out was so terrifying that he lost his courage to oppose him. If I told them the true reason, they'd stop thinking about the game in the terms of the game, and start thinking about it like people in this thread. Then they'd get upset because of MY reasons, instead of focusing on the BAD GUY'S reasons.

Making or not making the puzzle based on teleportation after the player chooses (or doesn't choose) the teleportation spell is fine. The DM is the one reacting to the player's choice, providing what he feels is the appropriate level of adversity.

Changing the puzzle that you've already made kind of takes away the meaning of the player's choice to give up the teleportation spell. If that's not a meaningful choice for the player, it doesn't matter. If it is, then I wouldn't change the puzzle.

I have a real hard time with the idea that the quality of my dungeon mastering decisions stems from what time I make them chronologically. You are literally arguing that I would be a better DM if, instead of planning ahead and then adapting my plans, I simply didn't plan ahead at all.

This entire line of reasoning has a sort of ad hominem quality to it. Not that you're insulting me, you're not. But, you're judging the quality of an encounter in a game of dungeons and dragons based not on the encounter itself, not on the experience regarding the encounter at the table, but rather on the motivations you infer went into designing the encounter. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Leaving the encounter difficulty the same no matter what the players do makes the choices the players make unimportant. If those choices are important to the players, it's bad. It might not be bad in some game systems because different games are played for different reasons - and the sweet plan having an impact might not be a choice the players care about.

Your fundamental problem is that you apparently cannot tell the difference between "having an effect on the gameworld" and "having an effect on the dungeon master's written plans for a specific encounter."

If you change your plan to reduce the difficulty of the next encounter because of choices they made in the first one, and the choices the players make in combat are important to them, then by reducing the difficulty you're taking away the meaning of the player's choices in the first combat. In other words, if success in combat is important to the players, they need to be able to fail.

Their ability to fail is irrelevant to this discussion. Of course the PCs can fail. Its just that sometimes they can get back up and approach the problem from a different angle, and when they do, I can reuse some of my old material instead of burning it sacrificially so that I do not commit DM thoughtcrime.

 

[Cadfan]

Argh. I don't know why I'm having such a hard time getting this across.

If the game experience changes due to a player decision, it was a meaningful decision.

Suppose a player can either choose Ability X, or Ability Y. If they choose the first, I will design an encounter so that they can use Ability X to obtain something of value. If they choose the second, I will design an encounter so they can use Ability Y to obtain that same thing.

I say this is a meaningful choice on their part. With Ability X, they got an Ability X based experience. With Ability Y, they got an Ability Y based experience. These are two different experiences, and the type of experience the player wishes to have matters.

Apparently some people disagree, and feel that the only way for the choice between Ability X and Ability Y to matter is if the choice between Ability X and Ability Y will mean the difference between success or failure in at least one encounter.

That doesn't even make sense at its most basic level. The game is about more than binary win/loss possibilities across a series of trials. Its about the manner in which those wins and losses come about.

 

[pemerton]

Changing the puzzle that you've already made kind of takes away the meaning of the player's choice to give up the teleportation spell. If that's not a meaningful choice for the player, it doesn't matter.

<snip>

Leaving the encounter difficulty the same no matter what the players do makes the choices the players make unimportant. If those choices are important to the players, it's bad. It might not be bad in some game systems because different games are played for different reasons - and the sweet plan having an impact might not be a choice the players care about.

If you change your plan to reduce the difficulty of the next encounter because of choices they made in the first one, and the choices the players make in combat are important to them, then by reducing the difficulty you're taking away the meaning of the player's choices in the first combat. In other words, if success in combat is important to the players, they need to be able to fail.

Now, some people say that this makes it so that success or failure "doesn't matter," because you get the clue either way. To these people I would respond: You are insane. Its like saying that a football game where one side sets an early lead and maintains it the whole game is somehow "the same" as a game that is neck and neck, with each team pulling ahead momentarily only to fall behind again, with one team finally squeaking out a victory. It doesn't matter if both games end with the same team winning. The way it happened is important. Roleplaying games are similar. No one would say that it "doesn't matter" whether you fight zombies in a crypt or battle pirates on the high seas, even though both routes might lead your character to advance a level. The journey inherently matters.

These two passages are not necessarily in contradiction. Lost Soul is saying that meaningfulness is, in part, relative to player desires/expectations. Cadfan is suggesting that, for many players at least, the context in which encounters unfold is something the players care about, so that player choices that affect that are meaningful choices. I think Cadfan is right.

If the game experience changes due to a player decision, it was a meaningful decision.

Suppose a player can either choose Ability X, or Ability Y. If they choose the first, I will design an encounter so that they can use Ability X to obtain something of value. If they choose the second, I will design an encounter so they can use Ability Y to obtain that same thing.

I say this is a meaningful choice on their part. With Ability X, they got an Ability X based experience. With Ability Y, they got an Ability Y based experience. These are two different experiences, and the type of experience the player wishes to have matters.

This is bascially the same as what Lost Soul said in respect of the teleportation puzzle. I agree with you both.

I have a real hard time with the idea that the quality of my dungeon mastering decisions stems from what time I make them chronologically. You are literally arguing that I would be a better DM if, instead of planning ahead and then adapting my plans, I simply didn't plan ahead at all.

<snip>

Their ability to fail is irrelevant to this discussion. Of course the PCs can fail. Its just that sometimes they can get back up and approach the problem from a different angle, and when they do, I can reuse some of my old material instead of burning it sacrificially so that I do not commit DM thoughtcrime.

This I pretty much agree with.

Players want the DM to make decisions on what to do based on things like what would make the best story. But they also want the DM to create the impression that the game world is a living, breathing, realistic place. And living, breathing, realistic places do not operate based on laws of drama. Walking this line is a dungeon master's job. And its a job that absolutely falls apart if you tell the other person what you're doing. Its the same as if you were at a movie, and the whole time a gruesome alien was eating lost astronauts, the director was next to you saying, "the reason that the monster has those weird eyes is because we did a focus group and those eyes were rated the most scary." You might kind of be interested in knowing, but not at the exact moment you are trying to suspend your disbelief in the story.

Edit to add an example: Recently, I had a bad guy surrender when he was bloodied, instead of fight to the death. I did this because the encounter was turning into a drag, and to keep the table's energy up, we needed to move on. The players enjoyment was increased by this decision. Had I been a complete fool and TOLD them why this happened, they wouldn't have thought it was as cool. They'd probably have found it pretty lame. Because right now, while they're in the dark, they believe that the reason the enemy surrendered was because the whipping the PCs handed out was so terrifying that he lost his courage to oppose him. If I told them the true reason, they'd stop thinking about the game in the terms of the game, and start thinking about it like people in this thread. Then they'd get upset because of MY reasons, instead of focusing on the BAD GUY'S reasons.

This I agree with less. Responsibility for the story lies with the players as much as the GM. It's not the GM's job (in my view) to trick the players into thinking that sandbox play led to dramatically satisfying play. If dramatic satisfaction means abandoning the sandbox, everyone can be up front about this.

And at least in my experience, it doesn't spoil the game if the players are more self-conscious about the metagame aspects of play.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

If dramatic satisfaction means abandoning the sandbox, everyone can be up front about this.

I don't think it does. You can have sandbox play lead to awesome every time, as long as all options lead to awesome. All the GM has to do is to make up his mind that, no matter what the players choose to do, they will enjoy the consequences of that decision, whether they fail or succeed.

 

[LostSoul]

Are you serious? This is D&D, not Relationship Hotline. Keeping secrets from the players for their own good is part of the game.

I'm not talking about keeping aspects of the gameworld secret, I'm talking about keeping secret the fact that the DM is invalidating meaningful player choices. (What's meaningful for some people isn't for other people.)

Edit to add an example: Recently, I had a bad guy surrender when he was bloodied, instead of fight to the death. I did this because the encounter was turning into a drag, and to keep the table's energy up, we needed to move on.

I don't think that has anything to do with Illusionism. You decided the NPC would stop fighting. That's cool. I don't think there's any reason why you should tell them why you made that decision.

But, you're judging the quality of an encounter in a game of dungeons and dragons based not on the encounter itself, not on the experience regarding the encounter at the table, but rather on the motivations you infer went into designing the encounter. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I'm judging the quality of a game of D&D based on the ability of the players to make choices that matter to them.

Argh. I don't know why I'm having such a hard time getting this across.

If the game experience changes due to a player decision, it was a meaningful decision.

Suppose a player can either choose Ability X, or Ability Y. If they choose the first, I will design an encounter so that they can use Ability X to obtain something of value. If they choose the second, I will design an encounter so they can use Ability Y to obtain that same thing.

I say this is a meaningful choice on their part. With Ability X, they got an Ability X based experience. With Ability Y, they got an Ability Y based experience. These are two different experiences, and the type of experience the player wishes to have matters.

Apparently some people disagree, and feel that the only way for the choice between Ability X and Ability Y to matter is if the choice between Ability X and Ability Y will mean the difference between success or failure in at least one encounter.

That doesn't even make sense at its most basic level. The game is about more than binary win/loss possibilities across a series of trials. Its about the manner in which those wins and losses come about.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here.

However...

Let's say that what's meaningful to a group of players is character optimization for success in encounters. They don't really care how they succeed, just that they succeed on their own merits.

In the game, the PCs hear some rumours about undead. They re-spec their PCs in order to be effective against undead. They go and fight the undead. The fights are tough, but because they optimized vs. undead they are successful.

They pat each other on the back for their smart choices. They're happy.

The DM knows that the original encounters only featured a sprinkling of undead. When the players changed their PCs he altered the encounters. The choice to re-spec, which the players were feeling so good about making, was actually meaningless; the encounters would have been just as difficult no matter what they had done.