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

[justanobody]

Railroading is just the opposite or lack of player choice.

Throw in jail is railroading, while letting the players fight the guards to prevent getting arrested is not.

The players don't need infinite choices, but at least two options to not be railroaded.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But is this sort of sandbox the only alternative to railroading? As I indicated in my post above I don't think so, but I'm curious about what anyone else thinks.

"Railroading," IMXP, occurs when the PC's don't get to do what they want because the DM either (a) forces them to make a choice ("Stupidity/Failure/Success/Capture is the only option!") or (b) makes their choices irrelevant ("Oh. I see you chose to try and ally with the Demon King. He attacks you anyway."). The idea comes from a train hurtling down a track: you can't control where it goes, it just goes where there is already a plan for it to go. You are passive. This is bad, as a player, because it usually means the DM might as well go play with himself rather than have you at the table as his captive audience.

Your description and my thoughts for FFZ are pretty much on the same page, it seems: Big Choices. The PC's can do whatever they want, and the DM gets to react to it. It is relevant to the action. They get to decide what their characters would do, and what their characters would do matters.

Putting in good motivations (desires and fears) helps the DM get a handle on predicting the unpredictable to a certain extent, and helps them set up plots where they can present a handful of options and watch the PC's choose between them.

Making the PC's react at the beginning ("justify my set-up!") helps the players feel empowered, but still limits it to what the DM has prepared.

"Sandbox" is a good option for Exploration/Adventure type gameplay (the kind of stuff I love to do in D&D). But this kind of Points of Conflict design works really well in a strong narrative gameplay (the kind of thing FFZ does fabulously).

 

[ExploderWizard]

I suggest using OD&D and AD&D as they are pretty good systems for getting rid of railroading.

While I think these are both fine systems there is little, if anything, within these systems to prevent or promote railroading.

Railroading is more heavily influenced by poor adventure, rather than rules design IMHO. A badly written module, run off the shelf with any game system can be a catastrophe. Avoiding railroads is strictly the DM's job and he/she will succeed or fail in that regard, no matter what system is being run.

Large railroad plotlines can be spotted from a good distance but its often the little engine that could railroads that end up spoiling otherwise decent adventures.

Any event in an adventure that is triggered by PC action with that action written into the adventure as absolute fact is easily a railroad event.

Its every bit as easy to fall into these traps with OD&D and AD&D as any other system. As a matter of fact it must be so because the concept and practice of railroading existed before there was a 2E.

 

[Jack99]

The question is how do the really great DMs out there manage to keep intricate campaigns with great story elements without making the players feel like they've been railroaded?

By knowing your players and their characters. I can't speak for the great DM's out there, but in the last 10-15 years, I have rarely, if ever, had to cheat or railroad in order to bring my players back on the track intended.

Even if presented with many options, I almost always know which option they will pick. Funny story. Last time I thought I was wrong, and they suddenly seemed to be heading to the wrong dungeon (the one full of monsters around 3-4 levels to high, yet), it turned out that it was an ingame ruse to fool an NPC. Phew.

The downside of trying to avoid railroading is that I have to kill a player (erhm, character) once in a while. I can live with that

 

[ExploderWizard]

The downside of trying to avoid railroading is that I have to kill a player (erhm, character) once in a while. I can live with that

Downside? Hardly. A character death brought on by poor choices by the player isn't a downside.

It sends a clear message that this organization does not tolerate failure. Just make sure the character is actually dead and not just burned........badly.

 

[Shadeydm]

I let the PCs actions matter. Plans of the bad guys get changed, the PCs are free to i9vestigate what they want and do what they want. Of course this also means they can be wrong and fail to stop something along the way.

This minus the 9.

 

[vagabundo]

It is only railroading if the PC's find out about it.

I change plots & characters and throw in 'random', unplot related, side treks to stall for time. My players are so slow at stuff it is never usually a problem. I usually have some stuff pre-prepared in case they go 'off the tracks' anyway.

 

[Chainsaw]

Forked from: Do you play more for the story or the combat?

We've all seen it. I would even venture that most of us have either done it ourselves or been forced to do it because we were running an adventure that required it.

The question is how do the really great DMs out there manage to keep intricate campaigns with great story elements without making the players feel like they've been railroaded?

Well, I certainly don't consider myself a really great DM compared with all the amazing people on this board (seriously), so maybe this thread doesn’t really apply to me, but what the heck, here's what I do.

I guess I should probably admit up front that I’m not sure you can even have an intricate storyline without a little railroading – otherwise you’re constantly rewriting the story arc intra-session and inter-session. Of course, I’m sure there are probably some DM’s who can do this successfully, depending on what ‘intricate’ means, but I can’t, at least not while working a regular job, giving my family the proper attention, etc. So anyway, for anyone not gifted with 25 intelligence or tons of extra time, here’s what I do (probably the same thing you do)…

First, before starting, my players and I try to get a feel for what we want from the campaign by discussing the players' needs and their characters' motivations. Here are a couple examples: a) If the players want to simulate the Dragonlance storyline or just 'go along for the ride' on some story I've written, that's fine - but we get it out there ahead of time so that there aren’t any complaints if something occasionally feels forced; b) If they're all playing Paladins and love fighting undead, I would arrange a very general overarching story with undead themes. If I've got a mix of classes and motivations, then people have to realize up front that every single session isn't necessarily going to be oriented at their particular need, but that I'll try to include something for everyone whenever possible and definitely over time.

Second, I try to plant my/their hooks a session or two ahead of time, so that I have time to prepare for whatever they're interesting in doing. This helps me avoid forcing certain circumstances or results because of what I'd already planned out. If my players decide to 'explore the old ruins' at the end of session #2, then show up in session #3 and say, "Well, we totally changed our minds, we want to fight the pirates instead," then that’s fine – but they have to accept that that session's experience may be less than stellar. They have to accept that I'm only human.

Third, assuming we've agreed on campaign style x and adventure x1 for the next session, I try not to include intra-session plot developments that require PC's to win or lose die rolls.

I realize a lot of this is probably easier said than done, heh.

 

[howandwhy99]

While I think these are both fine systems there is little, if anything, within these systems to prevent or promote railroading.
SNIP

A lot of what you say in your post is true. You can design a module that railroads PCs, but D&D doesn't encourage it IMO. Unlike many games that suggest or even require it for the game to "work". CoC's Murder on the Orient Express typifies a system that really doesn't work without railroading. The point is, if you are writing a plotline for either the Players or the PCs to follow, you are railroading. You are merely choosing to do it openly or not. Another form is a warping of the world around the PCs to ensure whatever plans you have prepared remain intact. You need to let the consequences of the PCs ripple outward or they might as well not be taking actions. You lose the game to DM fiat.

Any event in an adventure that is triggered by PC action with that action written into the adventure as absolute fact is easily a railroad event.

Yes, that would be railroading. A good module will get rid of this kind of bad design and include dice rolling when cause and effect are in doubt.

 

[Obryn]

Is it just my imagination, or have sandbox proponents (usually old-school gamers, but not always) stretched the definition of "Railroad" to mean "Anything that's not Sandbox"?

-O