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

[S'mon]

Fair enough, I think.

Basically, the PCs don't always know the full consequences of their actions. Sometimes its ok if every course of action they're likely to choose will lead to the same outcome, because they don't know that, and because getting to the outcome in a different way is a different experience, and makes the decisions that caused the differences "significant."

A simple example might be: the evil necromancer is trying to raise an army of zombies to attack the town. He's already raised some zombies, he wants to raise a lot more. If the PCs don't stop him from raising more zombies, he takes his army and attacks the town. If the PCs DO stop him from raising more zombies, he takes his remaining zombie hordes and attacks the town. Either way he attacks the town. Either way he brings the same number of zombies, because you as DM want to make sure the climactic fight scene is a tough one.

The difference is that one way the "plot" is one of the PCs making a last ditch stand after failing to thwart the necromancer's plans, and the other way the "plot" is one of the PCs heroically wiping out the last of the necromancer's threat.

The roleplaying is different. The experience is different. The only way anyone could possibly know that the outcome was going to be the same either way is if you told them, which you really shouldn't do.

I wouldn't count this as railroading. I might count it as railroading if the players figured out that no matter what they did they would have to engage in the same fight, but that's not the case if you DM well.

Technically this is what Ron Edwards calls 'Illusionism' rather than railroading - creating the illusion that PC choice matters. It's less irritating to players than railroading, but if players find out about it they'll likely not be happy. Personally I would not do this - the number of zombies the Necromancer has should be determined by PC success/failure; if he doesn't have enough he'll go do something else, maybe go looking for a necromantic artifact and come back later. Alternatively, if the town does get attacked, there may be more or less zombies, making a harder or easier fight, and more or less dead townsfolk.

 

[Tigerbunny]

Actually, the whole "zombies/necromancer" example provides a good jump-off for what I was talking about.

In most campaigns, yeah, the situation as described by Cadfan is - at best - participationist: the goal for the players is to have a challenging fight at every point in the game, so the DM manipulates events (including negating player choices) in order that player choices do not prevent the final fight from being challenging. Everybody knows and expects that the DM will do this, and they would feel disappointed if the final fight was a cakewalk. The DM's job in this situation is to provide a reasonable excuse for the final fight to be difficulty X, no matter what happened beforehand.

However, I can envision campaigns in which Cadfan's situation is not just participationism (players & DM cooperating to negate un-fun choices) but full-blown choice-enhancing.

Consider a game in which the necromancer has some sort of strong personal relationship to one or more PCs. The point of interest for the players is whether they can redeem the necromancer - convince him that he can step back from his evil before it's too late.

The zombie invasion of the town has to be a credible threat - the necromancer can't give up because he's obviously beaten and "reform" in order to escape punishment. That wouldn't answer the question the players are interested in. He has to be able to win, and choose not to because of the PCs' actions.

In this case, the outcome of the "thwarting the raising of more zombies" adventure isn't "change the ability of the necromancer to win in the final battle", it's "show the necromancer that the PCs are strong/weak". Depending on the outcome, the final confrontation will take a different form.

If the PCs defeated the zombie-raising, the necromancer is full of doubts. His hellish patrons have threatened him with dire consequences for failure, and he is terrified of losing. The PCs must convince him that they can protect him from the dark powers in order to win. He still CAN win, but he might not really want to if it means killing his friends.

If the PCs failed to stop the zombie-raising, the necromancer is drunk with power, eager to visit revenge on the weaklings who were once his friends and neighbors. The PCs must reach out to whatever conscience remains within him before he damns himself irrevocably. If they merely defeat his army, their friend is still lost.

The zombie army is still the same, what changes is what kind of personal appeals and RP might work to redeem the villain.

 

[Cadfan]

The situation you describe essentially not only makes PC choice irrelevant but also makes success or failure of thier efforts meaningless.

It really hasn't, actually, but I can understand why you might see things that way.

I have a lengthy article I sometimes post at times like this about DM perspective and Player perspective, and how I think that what you're doing is looking at DM decisions from a Player perspective, but meh, I don't feel like writing a book today.

Technically this is what Ron Edwards calls 'Illusionism' rather than railroading - creating the illusion that PC choice matters. It's less irritating to players than railroading, but if players find out about it they'll likely not be happy.

This is definitely true.

Personally I would not do this - the number of zombies the Necromancer has should be determined by PC success/failure; if he doesn't have enough he'll go do something else, maybe go looking for a necromantic artifact and come back later. Alternatively, if the town does get attacked, there may be more or less zombies, making a harder or easier fight, and more or less dead townsfolk.

But the very real danger of the approach that you've chosen is that your campaign might suck. You're going to be trying to balance three concerns- that the "natural" level of zombies if the PCs fail is high enough to be scary but not kill off the party, that the modified level of zombies if the PCs succeed is still high enough to make the fight a valid climax to your adventure, and that the difference between the "natural" level and the modified level is large enough to make sure that the PCs feel that their efforts in sabotaging the necromancer were worthwhile.

Good luck with all of that.

Far better, in my opinion, to handle the matter through roleplaying. Now, in reading the following, keep in mind that this ONLY matters from the perspective of the players in the actual game, NOT the perspective of a hypothetical third person omniscient character who knows what would have happened if things were different.

The PCs attempt to sabotage a necromancer who is trying to raise zombies to attack a town:

Option 1: The PCs succeed. Had they not, there would have been so many zombies that the town would have been overrun with or without their presence. Fortunately, since they sabotaged the necromancer successfully, there are fewer zombies. The fight is roleplayed as an attack by a desparate necromancer who knows that unless he kills the PCs immediately and recovers what they stole from him (or whatever), all will be lost. Therefore, he's throwing everything he has into this climactic battle, and even risking his own life. His dialogue, and the banter between the villain and the PCs, is affected by this, with the necromancer swearing vengeance and crowing about how, once he's killed the PCs, he'll use their bones to construct the throne on which he'll reign over his necromantic empire. The overall encounter level is that of the PCs +3, and victory will most likely result in the necromancer's death.

Option 2: The PCs fail. The necromancer has his full forces at his command. Had the PCs succeeded, there would be fewer, but they did not. Buoyed with overconfidence, the necromancer launches a full scale assault on the town, certain that his enlarged forces will easily crush the PCs. He is so confident in victory that he personally enters battle, so that he can see the faces of his nemeses as they die. His dialogue, and the banter between the villain and the PCs is affected by this, with the necromancer sneering about the inevitability of his victory, and mocking the PCs for their failure. The overall encounter level is that of the PCs +3, but because the necromancer entered the fray personally, victory will most likely result in his death.

There are two reasons this does not, to me, count as railroading.

1. The journey is as important as the destination. The PC's actions had an effect- they changed the roleplaying of the final encounter. ROLEPLAYING IS A REAL PART OF THE GAME. Having your actions affect it counts.

2. From the PCs perspective, their actions DID have an effect. The effect is only an illusion in the same sense that the entire encounter is an illusion. Each possible path includes a way in which the actions of the PCs mattered- either the fight would have been impossible, and is now merely very hard, or, the fight is very hard, but with success, would have been easy. The fact that two possible paths exist doesn't matter, because the PCs only tread one at a time.

Objections which begin with the assumption that there is somehow a "real" necromancer with a "real" number of zombies that is either changed or not changed by the actions of the PCs are, well, not very strong objections. Because none of those assumptions are true. There is no real necromancer. There is no real number of zombies.

 

[Harlekin]

There are two reasons this does not, to me, count as railroading.

1. The journey is as important as the destination. The PC's actions had an effect- they changed the roleplaying of the final encounter. ROLEPLAYING IS A REAL PART OF THE GAME. Having your actions affect it counts.

2. From the PCs perspective, their actions DID have an effect. The effect is only an illusion in the same sense that the entire encounter is an illusion. Each possible path includes a way in which the actions of the PCs mattered- either the fight would have been impossible, and is now merely very hard, or, the fight is very hard, but with success, would have been easy. The fact that two possible paths exist doesn't matter, because the PCs only tread one at a time.

Objections which begin with the assumption that there is somehow a "real" necromancer with a "real" number of zombies that is either changed or not changed by the actions of the PCs are, well, not very strong objections. Because none of those assumptions are true. There is no real necromancer. There is no real number of zombies.

there is a third reason. The PCs action had effect. While under each of the two scenarios the PCs fight an equally strong force, the total size of the force attacking the town is much smaller under story 1. Hence success by the players will affect the number of causalities among NPCs.

 

[S'mon]

But the very real danger of the approach that you've chosen is that your campaign might suck. You're going to be trying to balance three concerns- that the "natural" level of zombies if the PCs fail is high enough to be scary but not kill off the party, that the modified level of zombies if the PCs succeed is still high enough to make the fight a valid climax to your adventure, and that the difference between the "natural" level and the modified level is large enough to make sure that the PCs feel that their efforts in sabotaging the necromancer were worthwhile.

Good luck with all of that.

Umm, this bears no relation to how I run my campaigns.

I would probably create the Necromancer as a strategic threat initially much more powerful than the PCs. I would certainly not pre-plot events in the manner you describe. It might happen IMC that smart and successful PCs ended up with an easy fight stomping the Necromancer's forces, which they would enjoy, or it might happen that the Necromancer attacked the town the PCs were in with overwhelming force, in which case smart PCs would retreat to fight another day - if the PCs chose to make an heroic last stand to protect the doomed town I'd run with that, it could be a lot of fun, in the way '300' is fun. But I wouldn't reduce the Necromancer's army so the PCs could cheat fate and win, though. Edit: Who knows, IME the PCs might actually defeat the 'overwhelming force' - stranger things have happened. Finding out is half the fun!

Look at it this way - in Empire Strikes back, Luke has basically no chance vs Vader, but we enjoy the scene anyway. In Return of the Jedi, Luke actually seriously overmatches Vader, but we enjoy it anyway because other things are at stake. If Lucas had made both fights 'balanced' the movies would have been very different, and probably less interesting.

Edit: Anyway, IMC the Necromancer would be played offscreen as a real guy, who reacts to in-game events. So whether he even attacks the town or not IMC would be determined by prior PC actions. I would never plot out a "climactic battle that must occur no matter what happened previously" - to me that'd be a sucky campaign, and no fun for me.

Edit 2: "Valid climax of the adventure" - hmm. This is not a term I use. I sometimes run modules/adventures that have pre-scripted likely climactic events, but I wouldn't pre-plot in anything like the way you describe. I'll always have branching forks for, at the minimum, 'PCs succeed' and 'PCs fail'. 'PCs fail' may result in much nastiness (undead Wizard-Lord is reanimated), or it may just mean they don't get the gold.

 

[Cadfan]

Eh, it was a simplification, not a suggestion for an actual campaign. Attacking it on the grounds that "necromancer attacks the town, and you fight him!" is kind of cheesy and one dimensional is beside the point.

 

[S'mon]

Eh, it was a simplification, not a suggestion for an actual campaign. Attacking it on the grounds that "necromancer attacks the town, and you fight him!" is kind of cheesy and one dimensional is beside the point.

?? "cheesy and one dimensional"?? I didn't say that at all. It's a perfectly valid either as a premise for an adventure - a jumping-off point - or as a possible event during an adventure. I was objecting to the Illusionist technique of negating player choice in order to ensure a balanced fight/valid climax/etc.

The game I ran on Saturday, things went well off any rails when some wandering goblins escaped the PCs, the PCs pursued, and ended up alerting the hobgoblin king's entire army, precipitating an enormous battle as several encounters' worth of foes were engaged at once. The fight was much tougher than anything the module writer intended, and the party considered retreat, but as it happened the players eventually prevailed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have a lengthy article I sometimes post at times like this about DM perspective and Player perspective, and how I think that what you're doing is looking at DM decisions from a Player perspective, but meh, I don't feel like writing a book today.

I try and look at a lot of game elements from a player perspective, especially when I am running the game. I think that this helps me improve as a DM. Roleplaying is an important aspect of the game and the impact of player choice is also important.

When planning events and encounters I try not to envision them happening in any particular way. If a necromancer NPC were planning an assault on a town and the PC's get involved then I accept the possibility that they may find and bring down the necromancer before such an attack ever takes place. I plan out more or less how things play out if the PC's fail to act but once they get involved all plans are off and its down to what the PC's are able to do. The town may never know that they were in such danger if the PC's deal with the threat swiftly and expertly.

Saying in advance that the attack will happen no matter what would only happen if the PC's were unaware of the necromancer and his army in the first place. A surprise attack in the middle of the night that happens suddenly is different. Now the PC's are in a position where they must simply react to the threat. Even with this approach, the actions by the PC's will have observable consequences. The damage and death toll the town suffers rests on how well the situation is handled.

The whole point in giving the PC's knowledge of an impending attack is in the hope that they will use this information to stop the attack and will undertake an adventure to do so.( assuming that the PC's are heroic and would WANT to)

Of course the necromancer and the zombies are not "real" to the players but they should be very real to the characters. If an attack of strength X is going to happen no matter what then the world will start to seem less real to the characters. The game will play out like a video game cut scene. No matter how many kills the PC's rack up the next wave will be just as numerous because the game designer (DM) decided that this point in the game would be at a particular challenge level no matter what the player did. A thinking living DM should be able to deliver a better more reactionary gaming environment than that.

 

[pemerton]

The whole point in giving the PC's knowledge of an impending attack is in the hope that they will use this information to stop the attack and will undertake an adventure to do so.( assuming that the PC's are heroic and would WANT to)

Of course the necromancer and the zombies are not "real" to the players but they should be very real to the characters. If an attack of strength X is going to happen no matter what then the world will start to seem less real to the characters. The game will play out like a video game cut scene. No matter how many kills the PC's rack up the next wave will be just as numerous because the game designer (DM) decided that this point in the game would be at a particular challenge level no matter what the player did. A thinking living DM should be able to deliver a better more reactionary gaming environment than that.

These paragraphs presuppose a certain rationale for playing the game which not all players share.

If the players' goal is to have a game of exciting combats, then they want the necromancer's legion of zombies to pose a real challenge.

As Cadfan and Tigerbunny have explained, this can still be a game in which the players' choices matter: they change the flavour and thematic content of the final encounter. For some players this is what they care about in playing the game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As Cadfan and Tigerbunny have explained, this can still be a game in which the players' choices matter: they change the flavour and thematic content of the final encounter. For some players this is what they care about in playing the game.

In this case the choice doesn't matter but if the players are happy playing out the events of a pre-determined occurance and having a good time doing so then that works. Different playstyles for different folks.