Cohesion vs Railroading

[Doug McCrae]

Since when?

1974

 

[DongShenYin]

Okay, based on what you guys have told me, I think I have a general outline for the first adventure... Let me know what you think. (Of course! )

GOAL: control of the fief
-the PCs are the official caretakers assigned by the king

COMPLICATIONS: other people want/have the fief
-the mayor of the next town wants it by marrying the former lord's daughter
-the bandits have it and aren't letting go easily (the bandit were originally hired by the mayor to scare the daughter into marrying him, but now they've taken the fief for themselves)
-the former lord's daughter will give it to her husband as part of her marriage contract
-the villagers just want to be left alone to live in peace

So basically the players and I have the job of coming up with the PC's vested interest in the fief.

--Dora

 

[Desdichado]

1974

Believe it or not, a lot of things have happened in the roleplaying industry since 1974.

 

[barsoomcore]

Well, see, that doesn't sound like a very fun game to me.

Well and good. It would be weird if EVERYONE agreed with each other.

Frankly, that's a kind of railroading. Or at least, player disempowerment.

Eh? Railroading? Not according to the definitions being tossed around in this thread, which are more or less variations on "The DM only allows one course of action to be followed."

Having sinister assassins stalk the party, deceitful nobles try to manipulate them into serving evil schemes, ruthless warlords send bands of berserkers to destroy their homes isn't railroading in any sense of the word I've been using. It's just having bad things happen to the party that they need to react to. If I try to control how they are allowed to react to such things, THEN I'm railroading them ("No you can't negotiate with the berserkers. No you can't misdirect them to another village. No, you can't dig a pit and catch them -- you have to fight them in the town square, guys!" THAT'S railroading). But I don't do that. HOW they react is up to them entirely.

How is this disempowerment? How is it railroading?

In my campaign world, THINGS HAPPEN. If the party sits in the bar and drinks, things will continue happening around them. Since they're the stars of the story, I try to make sure that things happen to THEM.

If good things happen to them, that's nice for them, but not exactly thrilling adventure. If bad things happen to them, they then need to take steps to solve the problem, and hey presto! we've got adventure.

Maybe you and I are using terms like "bad things happen" and "railroading" to mean different things, cause otherwise, I don't understand your point of view at all.

 

[DongShenYin]

Maybe you and I are using terms like "bad things happen" and "railroading" to mean different things, cause otherwise, I don't understand your point of view at all.

I think of "bad" as in terms of "interesting twists". All well and good if the GM's intent is to make the game fun.

--Dora

 

[Tonguez]

Next step - ask Why?

the PCs are the official caretakers assigned by the king - Why? let the players discuss and determine this, it explains their motivation and vested interest to the fief (plot hook 1)

-the mayor of the next town wants it by marrying the former lord's daughter Why? is it just power or something else (plot hook 2)
-the bandits have it and aren't letting go easily Why? Is it a convinient base with easy pickings, or have the bandits found something interesting (plot hook 3)

 

[Shallown]

I told my players the first day of my last campaign that I had a big world shttering plot for them and that more or less I was gonna go with that plot. I explained that it isn't really railroading if they all agree to get on the train. The train is going somewhere new and exciting, The train will make stops and theplayers can wander around knowing the train is probably waiting for them and at leastif the trainis leaving a whistle will sound. Train rides can be exciting and fun and not neccessarily constraining. Whether players feel railroaded is completely a meta issu to me. The characters can feel helpless it happens often enough in real life that I can accept it as long as the players don't feel helpless or lacking choices. They were also told they could pull the emergency cord and get off the train at any time and avoid the world shattering plot but didn't mean the train was not continueing and the world may shatter. They were told make characters that can accept ad care about the train ride.

So have I worn out the railroad/train analogy? But tructhful that is how I explained it. I knew my group and they weren't the type of players enmasse who handled campaigns with too much player freedom, They floundered badly. They knew I knew it it was cool.

Now my GMing style was to write up possible/probably encounters and absolutely nothing else. I had everything planned out in my head and had most probable plot lines planned out. I was sometimes surprised both by my players and the thinsg I did but it mostly worked out.

I think the amount of railroading/cohesion and player choice is going to be defined by the players. I have run groups that All I had to do was show up and place them in a room somehwere and they lead me through the campaign and I have had players who would sit like a lump until something happened that would engage them and if you didn't keep tem engaged and lead them by the nose they didn't do squat. Its about being adaptable to the players. I have been at this a while and know what my limitations are in those areas. I sort of prefer the middle ground a little lead a little be led.

Later

 

[barsoomcore]

Tonguez has the right idea.

Take each element and "twist" it. Assume that the truth is in fact the OPPOSITE of what you started with.

the former lord's daughter will give it to her husband as part of her marriage contract

But only because she's actually a succubus who hopes to trap a good mortal in her clutches -- she'll seize on the most righteous party member and somehow contrive to need him to "rescue" her.

Keep twisting things and pretty soon it will be so complex even you can't understand what's going on.

Then back up a bit, because you really ought to know what's going on (or at least be able to fake it).

Tie things to each other whenever the opportunity registers. Your notion of having the bandits originally hired by the mayor is a great one, and you can readily see all sorts of things spilling out from there. If the party goes after the bandits, will they discover clues to the mayor's treachery? Are the bandits potential allies against the mayor as he summouns darker forces to his side? Will he send unsightly minions to kidnap the daughter and force her to his will?

Now this is good stuff all around. You see? It's not so hard.

What I would also add is a few encounters to happen as the party enter the district. Perhaps the bandits try to roust them. Maybe the mayor sends goons to intimidate them. Or the daughter tries to contact them secretly. Maybe the villagers, wanting to be left alone, are driving away outsiders, taking matters into their own hands. Just things to happen that present puzzles, indicate threats and, as ever, promise a story.

 

[Doug McCrae]

How is this disempowerment? How is it railroading?

It's not railroading but it's disempowerment in the sense that the PCs are reactive rather than active.

If the PCs say, out of the blue, that they want to travel to Far Eredeth to overthrow the Nameless Tyrant then they're active. The players have chosen what to do and the GM (presumably happily) comes up with an adventure based on that.*

But if the PCs say they want to spend the day in a tavern and the GM has them jumped by assassins working for the Nameless Tyrant then they're reactive. No decision they made brought them into conflict with ol' NT.


*I'm assuming the players express this desire at the end of a session so the GM has time to create the citadel of the Nameless Tyrant, etc. Otherwise he'd have to be a lot better at improv than I am to pull it off.

 

[barsoomcore]

Shallown, that was a great comment on how no one style is in and of itself BAD. Exactly.

And I think it's possible to have a "world-shattering plot" in mind and NOT railroad. Barsoom kind of does. Or at any rate, there are bad guys lurking in the wings who are planning to destroy the world. If the PCs don't care to get involved, that's fine, but then the world gets destroyed. I see my job as delivering information about the ongoing events and making sure players have ENOUGH information that they can recognize the threat and perceive courses of actions that might help, but beyond that, it's up to them as to what they do.