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

[pemerton]

In Cadfan's version of the events, the only difference between the two paths is the location of the final boss battle.

That's not correct. I don't want to speak for Cadfan, but this is what he actually said:

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.

Cadfan's "roleplaying" is my "flavour and theme". That is different in each of the two final battles. And as Cadfan (and Tigerbunny) noted, that's a real difference in a real part of the game.

I'd much much rather play (or GM) in a world where the PCs' actions can help determine whether the necromancer's attacking legions are anything from Overwhelming to Trivial - although in the latter case the Nec should probably not be attacking anyway. If I wanted balanced combats I'd be playing Warhammer Battle.

Fair enough. That doesn't mean that others, who have different views about what is meaningful in play, are not getting to meaningfully affect those things provided the GM and players work together in building and resolving the encounter so as to ensure it reflects (in flavour and theme) the prior course of play.

 

[pemerton]

The problem is the way modern modules are written. Many of them are seriously verging on railroads simply because of how they are presented.

I think WoTC modules are particularly bad in this respect. They entirely presuppose both a sequence of encounters, and a series of moral responses to those encounters, leaving bascially no room for player input other than rolling the dice and seeing what the module writer had in mind.

That's not to say that some of them don't have interesting ideas, NPCs and vignettes (eg The Bastion of Broken Souls). But these have to be pulled out of the plot and broken apart from one another, to give players the freedom to actually influence the game.

 

[The Little Raven]

The "illusion of freedom" works fine, if you have players who don't DM. The moment one of them starts reading things on "how to be a dungeon master" then you have serious problems.

This isn't true with my group, where half of the group takes a turn in the DM's chair.

 

[Ydars]

Hi Raven; should have prefaced that comment with "I have found..........."

I know some people are fine with the illusion of freedom, even when they know what is going on, but for me it kind of ruins the game when I am playing.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I know some people are fine with the illusion of freedom, even when they know what is going on, but for me it kind of ruins the game when I am playing.

See, I don't think it counts as Illusionism if the players know what's going on. It's just railroading that the players are in on. Illusionism, to me, means there's an illusion going on--the players don't know they're being railroaded, so it doesn't matter.

It seems to me that you're arguing that Illusionism can't really be done, is that it? I mean, it does sound like a really difficult thing to pull off, but in the abstract, I don't see why it can't work.

This is all from someone who hasn't really tried to do this, mind you. I've always either played in ad-libbed sandbox games or blatant, everyone-is-in-on-it railroading.

 

[Krensky]

Things don't necessarily have to be one or the other.

Things in my world happen for one of three reasons:

1. Story Events. Recent example, the villians in my SG-1 game attacked Earth and nuked Volgograd while the PCs were off-world. There was nothing the players could do to prevent this. Partly because the structure of the game means they had very strong disincentives to not going on the mission, but also because none of them could have taken action had they been there. Volgograd was destroyed by the villians because that's where the campaign is going.
2. Player Actions. Same game, the players are given a mission to recce a villain's base. They uncover a weapons program, destroy it and capture the scientist behind it. This results in access to more information then I had planned on them getting at this point, but I tossed those notes and they'll learn what he knows when they get around to interrogating him, despite my expectation that he would escape or die. It also means they won't encounter that weapon in use for a while.
3. Metagame Reasons. I have a few adventures plotted out that the team will encounter. The planet may change, the timing of when it occurs may be effected by the players actions, but eventually they will wind up in the right place and right time and the encounter will happen. They've been given general orders and a goal, and regardless of what world they go to; at some point, the encounter will happen. Probably when they're about to get bored the sandbox.

Now, the first is 'railroading', the players can't influence it at all. The second is their choices and actions directly affecting what happens in the world. The last is illusionism, that adventure piece will be the same (more or less) mechanically whenever it occurs, but how it plays out and is presented to the players will change.

Every game I've played in or ran has had this mixture of scripted events, player directed story, and illusionism, and I've never had a complaint from either side of the screen.

 

[SKyOdin]

Cadfan's "roleplaying" is my "flavour and theme". That is different in each of the two final battles. And as Cadfan (and Tigerbunny) noted, that's a real difference in a real part of the game.

Fair enough. That doesn't mean that others, who have different views about what is meaningful in play, are not getting to meaningfully affect those things provided the GM and players work together in building and resolving the encounter so as to ensure it reflects (in flavour and theme) the prior course of play.

I understood that. In my post, I said that that level of control is not sufficient to satisfy me as a player. Like Cadfan said, roleplaying is a real thing, but I think that it is hardly the only thing a player may want out of a campaign. Beyond just individual roleplaying experiences and the enjoyment of a tactically challenging combat, there are numerous other ways a player can draw meaning and fun out of RPGs. One of these is the ability to pursue and achieve goals; another is the ability to feel that your actions have created a meaningful change in the world.

In other words, players can draw enjoyment from helping to write the story of the campaign themselves. That is why DM railroading is so repugnant to players: the DM is denying the players a chance to contribute to the game's story.

So yes, you and Cadfan's suggestion does give the player's something real: a flavorful roleplaying experience and a balanced combat challenge. However, I think that some kinds of player fun are sacrificed by choosing to follow such a railroady path. Since there is no one true way of having fun, it is impossible to say that every player will be happy with such a set-up.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why do you say that?

I said that because in the example given it is true. This doesn't make it wrong if its what the group wants. For groups that might what what they accomplish or fail to accomplish to have more impact on world events than a change of presentation flavor then it might not fully satisfy thier needs.

The whole premise of these types of choices is that the DM has already written the events of the story and the players just get to help fill in details as the pre-determined events play out. If everyone at the table agrees that the story the DM has written is entertaining and wants to play out these events then they can do so without any kind of deception which puts those players in the position of acting out a storyline with freeform improv dialogue. In this type of play A will lead to B which will lead to C no matter which route is taken or how the events are roleplayed.

A great example of this is the Dragonlance module series. To play this out as written, the players have to accept that certain things will happen. The flavor and tone of the story may differ from the novel version but story events keep moving on much the same.

If the DM is honest about the type of game being offered then I see no problem with story oriented adventures. If the players know what they are getting and are still up for the campaign there is a chance that it could play out successfully.

 

[SKyOdin]

Now, the first is 'railroading', the players can't influence it at all.

I actually do not agree that what you described is railroading. That is just stuff happening off-screen. Railroading is when the DM denies player's options in order to get them to do what he expects/wants them to do. Story events can only become railroading as soon as the player's become involved.

 

[Krensky]

I actually do not agree that what you described is railroading. That is just stuff happening off-screen. Railroading is when the DM denies player's options in order to get them to do what he expects/wants them to do. Story events can only become railroading as soon as the player's become involved.

Well, there was no way any choice could have prevented it. That they weren't around helps cover the scripted nature up a little.

Based on a number of arguments I've seen in this thread, technically the whole campaign could be one big railroad as the players until recently did not have a choice other then to follow the tracks. Most of the game is: General says go here, do this, and they go and do. Things don't always follow the ops plan, but they don't really have a choice other then to go on the mission they're given.