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

[Hella_Tellah]

Look, when you plan an encounter, you probably have a few ideas in mind about what the bad guys are going to do, how they might take advantage of the terrain or counter the PCs abilities or whatnot. Those ideas are hardly a "straightjacket" on how the encounter is going to unfold. An adventure or campaign arc story is a bit more involved, but the same principals apply.

There's nothing wrong with planning what the baddies will do in an encounter. But if you spend countless hours planning on having Hank the Barbarian carry the enchanted Halberd of Pabst Blueribbin to the sky kingdom of the winged elves, and Hank's player is more interested in bedding wenches and killing goblins in the forests of Daventry, there's a dilemma. Either the GM abandons his long prep work that assumed the players would act a certain way, or he finds ways to force Hank to carry the Halberd.

As a GM, it's easy to become emotionally attached to the plot I've developed, especially if it's awesome. Many GMs I've known have responded to player disinterest by trying to prove how awesome their plot is, pushing even harder against player apathy. This is why I suggest that people learn to wing it a little more and prepare a little less--the less you invest in a plot, the less you'll become attached to it when players reject it. The next best alternative is to prepare even more, and just have a ton of alternatives available. I haven't been able to do that since I was 20, but that can work, too.

 

[Greg K]

Am I the only one wondering whether people who constantly decry any form of railroading and 'illusionism' actually [a] DM a game, have ever practiced what they preached and [c] have happy players?

On the contrary, all but a few of them ran us through stock off-the-shelf adventures, and of those that were left, only one managed a campaign that was anything except random and uninspired. Almost *all* of them, however, were great. None of them felt more, or less, 'right' than the next. There was always fun there to be had..

I won't say that I have never used illusionism or railroad. I have on occassion when it makes sense.

Example 1: To bring the party together to a certain point for the initial adventure. However, I use the character backgrounds and motivations as a hook for them to be there. After that, the players are pretty much on their own and in charge of the direction by following hooks or finding other things of their own to follow (although I may, occassionally, throw in a side adventure along their journey to follow up on friends or enemies that the players have made or provide them with events to create a sense of the world around them (and possible hooks)). However, the players are free to have their characters ignore this except when the enemy an enemy puts the players in an immediate reactive position (e.g, ambushes the player, attempts to steal an item both are pursuing, etc.)

Example 2: the players made enemies earlier in the campaign. The enemy has been sending emissaries to various kingdoms to set up an alliance and the players, knowing that the emissaries will magically kill any ruler refusing the alliance (they have their reasons which are unknown to the players), take it upon themselves to warn the castle.

As for player happiness, any time someone else tries to give me a break from DMing, the other players will ask me when I'll be ready to run again so that they can resume playing their character.

 

[Cadfan]

Why I use "illusionism." I'm scare quoting it on purpose, because I think its a dumb way of phrasing things that obscures more than it reveals- the whole D&D world is an illusion, after all.

Lets use the mystery plotline example, since it was big in another related thread.

Suppose my players, if successful in an interrogation, will learn that the guy they're interrogating recently had an affair with someone important to the crime the PCs are investigating.

Now, everyone in that thread agreed that failure to succeed in the interrogation shouldn't stall the investigation.

The question is, what to do?

DM Option 1: The PCs learn a different clue through some other avenue of investigation.

DM Option 2: The PCs learn the same clue through some other avenue of investigation.

For some reason, people call Option 2 "illusionism." Then they say that the interrogation obviously didn't matter, because they got the clue anyways.

What I'd say is that a DM who uses DM Option 1 is writing twice as many clues as he actually uses, and he's not even getting any value out of it, because the PCs can't know that he's doing it. In a way, this is a form of illusionism as well- the DM is providing himself the illusion that information never given to the PCs somehow matters. Of course it doesn't, its like believing that your campaign world is a more rich, vibrant place because you've written out detailed rules on a secret society that the PCs never discover and who's actions never affect the PCs in any way. It might be more vibrant to you, but not to the people in your game.

Note that I'm bracketing the issue of how realistic it is to find the clue in the other way chosen. I'm assuming that whichever route is chosen will be done with a standard level of DM skill and believability.

The key is simply realizing that the game world consists only of the things conveyed to the players.

 

[apoptosis]

Why I use "illusionism." I'm scare quoting it on purpose, because I think its a dumb way of phrasing things that obscures more than it reveals- the whole D&D world is an illusion, after all.

Lets use the mystery plotline example, since it was big in another related thread.

Suppose my players, if successful in an interrogation, will learn that the guy they're interrogating recently had an affair with someone important to the crime the PCs are investigating.

Now, everyone in that thread agreed that failure to succeed in the interrogation shouldn't stall the investigation.

The question is, what to do?

DM Option 1: The PCs learn a different clue through some other avenue of investigation.

DM Option 2: The PCs learn the same clue through some other avenue of investigation.



The key is simply realizing that the game world consists only of the things conveyed to the players.

This is an advantage to stake setting mechanics. Additional conflicts tied to the conflict will arise whether the interrogation is a failure or successful as they are written into the conflict itself.

Obviously a potential disadvantage for some is that the game is less simulationist when such mechanics are employed.

 

[Mallus]

Why I use "illusionism." I'm scare quoting it on purpose, because I think its a dumb way of phrasing things that obscures more than it reveals- the whole D&D world is an illusion, after all.

At at very basic level, a D&D world can be seen as one big contrivance designed to produce fantasy action-adventure stories. No matter what the PC's do, action and adventure will find them. As far as I'm concerned, the game is based on the illusion of choice, seeing as the players inevitably end up embroiled in fantasy action-adventure stories.

 

[Melba Toast]

What I'd say is that a DM who uses DM Option 1 is writing twice as many clues as he actually uses, and he's not even getting any value out of it, because the PCs can't know that he's doing it. In a way, this is a form of illusionism as well- the DM is providing himself the illusion that information never given to the PCs somehow matters. Of course it doesn't, its like believing that your campaign world is a more rich, vibrant place because you've written out detailed rules on a secret society that the PCs never discover and who's actions never affect the PCs in any way. It might be more vibrant to you, but not to the people in your game.

This is exactly the "improvisational slight-of-hand" I referred to earlier. If you craft a dungeon in advance, and the players don't catch the adventure hook that you intended the dungeon for, the dungeon should be prepared so that it could be recycled for another adventure hook. It could be the same dungeon, but there may be multiple reasons to enter it.


Another alternative is to have a world that is so completely realized in your mind that you can let your players run free in it. Most DMs don't have the time to construct such lavish worlds, but, if you keep the PCs trapped within a very small geographical area, it could be done.

It's not hard to keep your PCs grounded in a small area if traveling is dangerous, time consuming or difficult. Think about being a teenager in suburbia with no car. Where are you going to go? What are you going to do with your time? You heard there's an old abandoned incinerator just beyond the woods. Might as well break in and have a look around. Similarly, what adventurous soul trapped in a quiet farming village would resist the temptation to explore the old cave or ruins just over yonder?

I do think DMs rush the traveling component of their game. It should be hard to travel from town to town. I don't buy this "skip ahead three days and you arrive in Waterdeep" crap. There's a reason people didn't travel much before the invention of cars.

Someone brought up DM fiat with regard to starting a campaign. This is an interesting point that should be discussed further. If you give your players free range to act as they desire, what's the best way to tie a group together? I never liked "Welcome to the Gameworld, you are all sitting around at a Pub together" approach.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not sure I know what you mean here.

If I need to introduce an NPC, a faction, or an event, I simply put it on stage--generally with a reason for the players to interact with it at least a little.

Let me back up a bit - I'm not sure what you mean by a "key event". I thought you meant, "And then the PCs go to the Dungeon of Doom where they kill the necromancer," but I now think I was wrong.

 

[LostSoul]

This is exactly the "improvisational slight-of-hand" I referred to earlier. If you craft a dungeon in advance, and the players don't catch the adventure hook that you intended the dungeon for, the dungeon should be prepared so that it could be recycled for another adventure hook. It could be the same dungeon, but there may be multiple reasons to enter it.

That's why it's called illusionism - because it's based on the illusion that players actually make meaningful choices.

 

[Cadfan]

That's why it's called illusionism - because it's based on the illusion that players actually make meaningful choices.

So lets get this totally, completely accurate. Because I want to make absolutely sure that you really mean what you said.

You are saying that the only way to avoid illusionism in the example he gave would be to destroy the first dungeon you made. When you next need a dungeon, you can't use that one, because that would make the PCs choice not to visit it meaningless. Instead, you have to write an entirely new dungeon. You can never use the first dungeon again. It is dead now.

That is what you are saying. It is possible that it is not what you mean. Please clarify.

 

[Afrodyte]

It took me years to figure this out... And here's the simple solution.

GMs SHOULD FOCUS ON CHARACTERS NOT STORIES.

By populating your world with interesting characters for whom the PCs can interact with at will, the game is freed from the confines of story structure. Every time your PCs enter a crowded bar, they will have options. Who do they want to talk to? And if the characters in that bar are well-conceived in advance, at least one of them will lead to something.

If the environment and the characters the PCs interact with are full fleshed out, the players can operate according to their own whims and desires.

Exactly.

As a DM, I much prefer running character-focused games with strong protagonists (aka the PCs) who have strong motivations - things they will go after at the slightest provocation. And the motivations need to be deeply personal for it to work. I can't deal with Generic Adventurer #35 with generic motives and generic ways to pursue them. I want "real" people. I want characters.

After all that, it's easy for things to fall into place.