DM Issues: Railroading

[Herschel]

Railroading is an interesting concept. DMs need creativity, but the players also have to be cognicent of not derailing the story/campaign. If it makes sense to do what's presented, then do it. It's a war and teh region's resources will be geared twoards that regardless of where you are at.

In other words, if the trip is fun and makes sense, buy a ticket and enjoy the ride. You're not the conductor. Let him drive you where you need to go.

 

[AeroDm]

I imagine your DM puts a lot of effort into writing engaging adventures because he believes that is what you guys enjoy. Evidently, he is at least partially wrong; this is usually a communication (not an ability or willingness) issue. I would phrase it positively--"Hey, we've really enjoyed the last few adventures but don't feel like we are in as much control of our characters as we'd like. Is there any way we can broaden the scope of the adventures to pursue various character interests?"

 

[Tamlyn]

As a DM, I try and manage player choices differently depending on which phase of the campaign we're in.

Picture a garden rake. The early part of the campaign is like the handle. It goes in a straight line with no branches. This introduces the PCs to the game world and whatever conflict(s) are in existence. As they progress in level and understanding, I start throwing in the "tines". Based on their earlier experiences, they now get to choose which options to pursue.

The funny thing is, I was feeling like I wasn't giving my players enough options at the current point in the campaign, so I asked them what they thought. The response was, essentially, "Too many options!" But now I get to make the game more fun for them because we talked about it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

If I was you I would very quietly talk to the DM in between sessions about the issues you are having (and by this I mean personally yourself; not you representing the entirety of the group). If you are concerned he will take it personally, please highlight all of the things you are enjoying about the game and discuss with him the personal input you would like our particular character to have. Keep it one-on-one rather than DM versus player-representing the group. It might feel like you're dancing around the issue but you need to put the railroading-seed in your DM's head first. Also, don't use the term railroading - use the term "directed-storyline" or something euphemistic.

At the root of all these sorts of issues I think is that you have a DM who is trying to tell a cool story rather than presenting a cool scenario and trusting the players to give him a cool story in return.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Morrus]

Railroading has become an emotive term.

There is a balance - if your DM has written an adventure, you should play that adventure. You don't have the right to demand the DM create any adventure you wish to play at a moment's whim. The balance of that is that the DM should be able to accomodate reasonable deviations.

One extreme is "I don't want to explore the evil dungeon, I want to explore the obsidian glacier - write an new adventure for me now, bitch!" The skill of the DM lies in accomodating player freedom to choose with what is, essentially, a workload. And the job of a player is to accept certain restrictions out of respect for his friend who's trying to write an adventure for you and who isn't your slave. In the long run, even when the player has no real freedom to choose the adventure, though, it should feel like his character had.

It's a tricky balance to take, but "railroading" isn't, by definition, a bad thing unless done to extremes; it's merely a play-style. A fully sandbox world? That's a LOT of work. It's possible, but it's not something I'm ever prepared to run, because I simply don't have 26 hours a day to design it. So my players accept that there's a plot, and they go along with it in the interests of everyone having fun.

 

[chaochou]

There are other things our characters would like to do (such as spend downtime to go over treasure acquired and create magic items that would be beneficial to our merc company and in the course of the overall war or retake one character's hometown) but the DM responds with lines like "well, you're in the middle of a war, so I don't know about spending downtime..."

I'd like to sidestep the railroading thing entirely and instead highlight how much of a an opportunity situations like this might offer.

If I read it right, as a group you seem to want some almost 'free' or 'no strings' downtime, and the GM is resisting that because there's a war on.

So maybe you need to talk to the GM about the consequences of not aiding the war effort. Will your characters be seen as cowards for not being there when Town X got over-run? Does one guy hiring you lose faith in your loyalty or motivation? Does morale in the allied army drop, or supplies run short as the enemy cut lines of communication?

My view is there's room for negotiation here without 'railroading' entering the frame. If there's a war on, and you are the heavy hitters in the war, I think you should be ready to agree - maybe more than agree, to enjoy - new hardships and problems as a result of your actions.

But to go that route I think it has to be open - the options should be there, discussed up front, so you can make an informed decision, rather than feeling persecuted or 'gotcha'd'. If your GM can balance the offer of a deteriorating war situation against the freedom and benefits of your downtime you might find yourself with significant, and possibly memorable, decisions to make.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Railroading has become an emotive term.

There is a balance - if your DM has written an adventure, you should play that adventure. You don't have the right to demand the DM create any adventure you wish to play at a moment's whim. The balance of that is that the DM should be able to accomodate reasonable deviations.

One extreme is "I don't want to explore the evil dungeon, I want to explore the obsidian glacier - write an new adventure for me now, bitch!" The skill of the DM lies in accomodating player freedom to choose with what is, essentially, a workload. And the job of a player is to accept certain restrictions out of respect for his friend who's trying to write an adventure for you and who isn't your slave. In the long run, even when the player has no real freedom to choose the adventure, though, it should feel like his character had.

It's a tricky balance to take, but "railroading" isn't, by definition, a bad thing unless done to extremes; it's merely a play-style. A fully sandbox world? That's a LOT of work. It's possible, but it's not something I'm ever prepared to run, because I simply don't have 26 hours a day to design it. So my players accept that there's a plot, and they go along with it in the interests of everyone having fun.

As a GM who runs a sandbox game, I disagree that it takes 26 hours a day to run. In fact, this is by far the game I do the least amount of prep work for. For example, I might put in about 10 minutes of "work" each week, and that's mainly just jotting down a few names and who they are, or reviewing some thing five minutes before sessions.

What it really takes to run well is good improvisational skills, and a good memory for consistency's sake. But, I'd say that's necessary to run a pretty great anyways, so it's not a big stretch.

Since everything I do is basically purely reactive, I don't have to worry about writing up anything. I just wing it, and maybe make notes along the way for NPC names and who they are. The rest is run off of my memory (or occasionally the group, if I miss something).

But, with the system I use (a point buy system), winging NPCs is especially easy. I don't have to worry about class features or anything. I just say "they have ability X, get +X to attacks, and have X hit points" and I know the system will accommodate me if I really feel like justifying it later on. I can even throw in special abilities or traits and know it's fine.

Still, even if I went back to a D&D system, all I'd have to do is complete the initial time consumption of, say, mapmaking, and then I'd be good to go. Once that is done, all I have to do is completely wing everything else, while keeping in mind the barest concepts of political machinations. I basically only move the magnifying glass somewhere if the players have a reason to know about it (they're currently at a location, Knowledge check, etc.).

Just my two cents. But, honestly, it's the least work I've put in to GMing by far. As always, play what you like

 

[Morrus]

As a GM who runs a sandbox game, I disagree that it takes 26 hours a day to run.

I was exaggerating! Obvioisly 26 hours a day doesn't exist. If I was serious, I'd have picked an existent number.

In fact, this is by far the game I do the least amount of prep work for. For example, I might put in about 10 minutes of "work" each week, and that's mainly just jotting down a few names and who they are, or reviewing some thing five minutes before sessions.

What it really takes to run well is good improvisational skills, and a good memory for consistency's sake. But, I'd say that's necessary to run a pretty great anyways, so it's not a big stretch.

Maybe you have those skills. I have them, to an extent. But I'm not good enough to do that perpertually. I need a good plot in front of me to make it good.

Perhaps that does work for the top echelon of elite DMs, but it's too hard for me. And while I don't for a second think I'm a great DM, I don't think I'm a terrible one, either.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I was exaggerating! Obvioisly 26 hours a day doesn't exist. If I was serious, I'd have picked an existent number.

Ha, no worries, I knew it was hyperbole. Though, it got the point you meant across clearly to me.

Maybe you have those skills. I have them, to an extent. But I'm not good enough to do that perpertually. I need a good plot in front of me to make it good.

Perhaps that does work for the top echelon of elite DMs, but it's too hard for me. And while I don't for a second think I'm a great DM, I don't think I'm a terrible one, either.

I'm sure you're a good GM. Since I'm still rather new to the site, I've only really seen your input in other threads, but I found it interesting.

At any rate, maybe it's just my players, but they tend to latch onto things for me to build on easily. They will pursue one thing at a time, and I only have to worry about the ripple effect their actions take with this one pursuit. Sometimes, it's fighting for the government mercenary style, sometimes it's fighting the demons on the realm, sometimes it's looking for gold wherever they can get it, sometimes it's just being on the run while town guard hunt you down.

Honestly, it ends up pretty similar to my previous style of play, except that I'm much less hands-on with plot. However, if the players are pursuing one course of actions (we'll say fighting demons), then it only makes sense to change the setting as necessary when taking their actions into account. Yeah, they might kill a dozen infantry demons and it makes no difference on the setting, but if they kill enough elite commanders, then they'll start to get noticed on both sides of the conflict (mortals will like them, demons will dislike them).

Theoretically, the players could just up and drop this pursuit to pursue something else, but I've found that it's rare. It does happen, and it takes good improv skills, but I think most GMs are used to it as players tend to do it occasionally anyways.

Anyways, thanks for the quick reply! As always, play what you like

 

[Morrus]

Ha, no worries, I knew it was hyperbole. Though, it got the point you meant across clearly to me.



I'm sure you're a good GM. Since I'm still rather new to the site, I've only really seen your input in other threads, but I found it interesting.

At any rate, maybe it's just my players, but they tend to latch onto things for me to build on easily. They will pursue one thing at a time, and I only have to worry about the ripple effect their actions take with this one pursuit. Sometimes, it's fighting for the government mercenary style, sometimes it's fighting the demons on the realm, sometimes it's looking for gold wherever they can get it, sometimes it's just being on the run while town guard hunt you down.

Honestly, it ends up pretty similar to my previous style of play, except that I'm much less hands-on with plot. However, if the players are pursuing one course of actions (we'll say fighting demons), then it only makes sense to change the setting as necessary when taking their actions into account. Yeah, they might kill a dozen infantry demons and it makes no difference on the setting, but if they kill enough elite commanders, then they'll start to get noticed on both sides of the conflict (mortals will like them, demons will dislike them).

Theoretically, the players could just up and drop this pursuit to pursue something else, but I've found that it's rare. It does happen, and it takes good improv skills, but I think most GMs are used to it as players tend to do it occasionally anyways.

Anyways, thanks for the quick reply! As always, play what you like

I ran a fantastic sandbox city a long time ago. But I was younger; I had more time on my hands. These days, in my mid-30s, married, and continually trying to not make my friends feel like I'm neglecting them (and I fail at that, too), I find that sort of campaign much harder to run. It's not just prep-time, but the time you have available to idly think about it - and I just don't have that any more.

I'd hate to think of what it'd be like if I had kids. I imagine that I'd be running WotC adventures only, exactly as-written.