Do Plot-Based Adventures Necessarily Involve 'Railroading'?

[hagor]

I think there are various degrees of railroading.
IMHO, the really 'linear' plots (find A, then talk to B, who accuses C, etc) are the least fun: as a player you have indeed little to say in the matter.

As a player I don't mind a clearly defined plot/goal: as long as I can develop my character and make some choices which (seem to) matter for reaching that goal, the game is already for the greater part succesful for me. Of course, character development and decision making are easier in a more detailed setting.

As long as everyone is having fun it doesn't matter that much.

Hagor

 

[hagor]

as a little side note:

I'm currently running (a slightly modified) 'Assassin's Knot' (the sequel of the 'Bone Hill'-module IIRC). I don't know if you'd classify it as a 'plot-driven' or 'setting-driven' module. While it has a clearly defined goal, it has a well-developed setting and NPCs as well, thus giving the players plenty of choice for their actions (which lead to NPC reactions, etc, so we have a nice PC-DM interaction!). In the end, I expect the PCs to solve the problem, but based on the way they got that far, I don't think of it as railroading (at least not of a high degree). Perhaps use a different term: the players are 'meandering' toward the goal?

Hagor

 

[Jupp]

as a little side note:

......Perhaps use a different term: the players are 'meandering' toward the goal?

Hagor

Hehe, thats a just great

 

[wedgeski]

It still means the players don't make meaningful choices with respect to their characters, however crafty it may seem to you.

Not true. A PC may arrive at the end point a completely different person than they started. Their actions at that end point may be light-years from what they would have done when the campaign started. 'Meaningful' runs the gamut of definitions in the same way 'railroading' does.

 

[rounser]

Except of course, where the multiplicity of plot hooks really all lead to the same choice, presented differently and hooked differently

A certain amount of this is probably par for the course; setting up a certain scenario that all the threads lead to eventually (e.g. one megavillain who all the roads might lead to).

But I think it also misses out on some DM fun if you do this too much. For instance, you set the PCs a genuine dilemma based on the campaign timeline clock ticking and the fact that they're the only real heroes around; they can either purge the vampire infestation spreading quickly in villages to the south, or rescue the royal family who have been spirited away to the plane of shadow. They only have enough time to pursue one of these goals successfully; which will they choose, and why? And what are the consequences? Then you can really get your evil cackle on.

 

[Quasqueton]

I prefer to create site-based as opposed to plot-based adventures - here's the environment, have at it...

Yes, I quite agree. I like this style of campaign.

This is my favorite campaign style too, as DM and Player. [Quasqueton = The Shaman = Akrasia? What's up with that? A sign of the Apocolypse?]

Two of my favorite old adventure modules are Keep on the Borderlands (Caves of Chaos) and Temple of Elemental Evil. Both are site-based adventures without any pre-written pressing plot. In all the times I've run or played these adventures (only played in ToEE), the PCs manage to "create" their own plots -- usually personal to the party -- in and out of the actual dungeon.

there are players who get simply *incensed* with the idea that ANY pre-planned adventure is afoot at the table. Once they smell it, they take it as a challenge to their freedom and go out of their way to ignore anyhitng that smells of pre-planned adventure.

Yep. There are a number of people on this forum who apparently are like this -- they even call "railroad" when the DM follows through with effects to their causes. This rather flabbergasts me. "Don't you *want* to adventure?"

Quasqueton

 

[Howling Coyote]

Well I like to tell a story, and that's how all my campaign ideas are born. Many times the players aren't even the main cast, just some individuals that happen to witness part of what is going on. This means that I run almost purely railroad campaigns, but in the recent months I've gotten positive feedback from my players about my ability to mask all that railroading and creating an illusion of freedom.

More to the point most of the best GMs I know railroad, but are really good at disguising the linearity of their games. Running a completely free campaign is very difficult and I know only couple of GMs that can do it. The rest just get gray hairs when their campaigns go to pieces due to player inactivity or their completely brainless actions (even more so than with railroad campaigns).

 

[MonsterMash]

This is my favorite campaign style too, as DM and Player. [Quasqueton = The Shaman = Akrasia? What's up with that? A sign of the Apocolypse?]

Uh oh, all we need now is the face of Gary Gygax to appear on the moon and we know its all over.

Personally I usually avoid too much railroading - even where there is a plot type thread there should still be potential for the things to go different ways, personally with homebrewed stuff I try to do a certain amount of prediction and flowcharting, but rely on the players habit of going off in a different direction to avoid doing too much work on one thing. My usual preference is for a site based adventure. One of the better published modules which has a distinct plot is the Grey Citadel from Necromancer Games.

 

[Akrasia]

I could not agree with Steel_Wind's post more. Like a good film score, the better you become as a DM, the less your players even notice you. Their decisions could have been predestined almost from the word go, and they are none the wiser.

I would find this rather unsatisfying as a GM (even if the players had a great time).

Much of the fun of running a game, for me, comes from the unanticipated course the campaign can take as a consequence of the players' decisions.

 

[Akrasia]

... [Quasqueton = The Shaman = Akrasia? What's up with that? A sign of the Apocolypse?] ...

Hey, I often agree with the Shaman!