Forked from "An Epiphany" thread: Is World Building "Necessary"?

[Ariosto]

If there are multiple paths to reach the same conclusion it's in no way a "railroad".

Ourph, I don't know how you come by that notion, or how anything but a simple text (with NO game element at all) could fit your definition of a "railroad" plot.

I came by my usage by way of convention going back decades among D&Ders of my acquaintance.

We called the Dragonlance series "railroad," and Ravenloft, and other modules. I called Vecna Lives! the greatest "railroad" I had ever encountered. Even "pick your own path" books at least allowed for different outcomes!

 

[S'mon]

Heh, honestly, I'd likely do the same thing.

Really though, is a random encounter table world buildling?

Not if they're the generic tables out of the book.

The results of those tables do create the world, by establishing that orcs live here, and there's a dragon over there. But that creation occurs in-play.

BTW, thinking about it I never used to have any trouble winging it, whatever the players did. 1e AD&D, WEG Star Wars, even Paranoia, they all gave me plenty of support. My early days running 3e were like that too, but at one point running 3e I definitely got in a rut where I didn't want the players to deviate, I was afraid to wing it (though with notice I was happy to prep stuff). I think 3e's prep burden and possibly a lack of GM support tools (like good encounter tables - 3.0 was dire) was to blame.

My current 3.5e campaign has a sketchy but fairly atmospheric world/setting inspired by CS Lewis' The Last Battle and the Song of Roland; the campaign comprises basically a series of modules* which are site-based with basic goals like rescue the prisoner, retrieve the sun disks, kill the enemy leader. The PCs are pretty much constrained by the module; they could abandon it but I may not have anything else prepped for them to do. It sounds unsatisfactory, but for a public access RPG club game with highly variable player group it seems to work very well.

*So far, a 1-session intro adventure followed by
B7 Rahasia
B5 Horror on the Hill (partially completed)
GG Palace of Shadows
GG The Slithering Overlord

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Majoru, that simply happens to be what "railroad" means in this context. "Wrong" doesn't figure into it except that it's not how D&D has traditionally been played. "Of COURSE White always wins, that's what Chess is about" would be similarly so. The "of COURSE" bit puts it in the category of hypocrisy.

I was just trying to make a point about our point of view. From my point of view it comes down to this:

-If the DM is giving us a plot hook, it is because he has spent some significant time planning for us following the hook.

-No one I know has enough time to plan for multiple plot hooks. They barely have enough time to plan for one. If they wrote up a dungeon where the Dragon lived, then it took him his entire preparation time since last week. If we say no to rescuing the princess, it is likely that the DM will either find a way to use that dungeon wherever we go, provide us with more incentive to save the princess, or he'll be running the game on the fly. On the fly games are not very much fun. The battles tend to be randomly picked from a Monster Manual rather than planned out in advance. The NPCs are cardboard cutouts because they haven't been planned out, and so on.

-I like to accomplish things that matter beyond my own character. Preferably good and heroic things. Which means I need problems to solve. Which means I need a DM to give me problems.


I hear people talk all the time about how they plan out 4, 5, or 6 or more plot hooks, fully fleshed out with monsters, names of NPCs, plotlines, and so on just in case they are chosen by the players. That amount of work for a game is way beyond what anyone I know is willing to spend.

 

[S'mon]

We called the Dragonlance series "railroad,"

Dragionlance railroads because if you try to leave the path, draconians attack you until you get back on it. If you die, you come back to life. You're not supposed to deviate from the plot of the novels.

A typical site-based module has a goal - Kill the Giants, Rescue the Princess, etc. The better ones have various possible approaches to achieving the goal. Even the more linear ones (eg Palace of Shadows, which I just ran), which have numerous sequential rooms, do not railroad if they do not predetermine the outcome of the encounters.

Railroading requires plot. It is a plotting technique. A bad technique. There are genuine railroad adventures (one I bought recently - The Cult of Yexx - "PC X cannot die. If he does, the GM must resurrect him"). IMO they are an abomination, and should never be confused with regular 'you are the hero, save the princess' adventures.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Care to explain how it is "certainly a strategy that works" if, overall, you disagree that it has any benefits?

It works, but it has no benefits over any other approach. We are comparing relative benefits, not absolute benefits.

I don't think it should be a hard concept to grasp. I do apologize of my wording was a bit vague, though. However, in the future I would appreciate it if you didn't try to tell other people how to interpret my wording.

To be absolutely clear, though... My main purpose in that post was to express disagreement with the many posters in this thread who have been trying to claim that their style is inherently better than the style Hussar has been advocating, yourself included.

Did you miss the part about Hussar's players, the thief's guild and them having to wait a week? In contrast, I was able to accomodate my players, who wanted to go to an entirely different kingdom at the last minute based on an epiphany they had, that very same evening- I simply had pull out some notes and take a minute to claify some background info from one of the players. No need to postpone for a week.
Not having to take a week to prepare, because I had info prepared prior to the the campaign starting, sure sounds like saving me work once the campaign starts.

I didn't miss that. Actually, the part of my post you are quoting was intended to implicitly reference that idea. I disagree that the "create it as a you go" approach is inherently limiting in this regard. If nothing else, I have absolutely no doubt that a good DM can just make up a thieves' guild on the fly without a week's prep work. That is the kind of DM I am working to become, at any rate.

To be perfectly honest, the only real "worldbuilding" that needs to be done is the creation of a basic framework that makes future "on the fly" creativity easier to do while still maintaining verisimilitude. The DM just needs to create basic rules and concepts, and a world will naturally follow from those concepts whether it is fleshed out in the beginning or not (something like a fractal program evolving from a seed value, I guess).

Also, since I am on the topic of this thread, I may as well say that while I do think heavy worldbuilding is a valid way to play the game, it is not the method of playing the game that should be taught to beginner DMs. The ability to tell the difference between the kinds of setting detail that are useful to the game and the kinds of setting that are unhelpful or even damaging to the game is a difficult skill to learn for someone with no DMing experience, yet it is an absolutely essential one for a worldbuilding-intensive approach. Without that skill, it is easy to fall into the pitfall of creating a setting that doesn't allow for fun adventures, yet that skill may be even harder to learn than the skills needed to run the game on the fly.

 

[S'mon]

IIf we say no to rescuing the princess...

I think sandbox games where the PCs do whatever interests them, and scenario-based games where the PCs do what the GM puts before them (as in my current campaign) are both valid approaches.

The latter approach I think requires a touch more responsibility from the GM. He has to ensure that there is player buy-in, that the adventure is something the PCs would reasonably undertake, that they don't feel forced into an unnatural situation. It helps I think to have a campaign premise that supports mission-based play; eg the PCs may be part of a military unit. In my current game they are champions of the kingdom, sent on missions by the aged king. Their exploits are greeted with public acclaim and much gift-giving. And I try to present choices where possible, especially if the PCs are doubtful. Eg Palace of Shadows (rescue the King of the West from the wizard Egarim) looked a bit like a suicide mission, so I emphasised the dangers and offered the PCs an easier alternative mission. Naturally they insisted on undertaking Palace!

 

[Ariosto]

S'mon, it appears that you are in agreement with me. Is the determinative meaning of shall in English no longer familiar? I thought it clear enough, given the context I provided.

 

[Ourph]

Ourph, I don't know how you come by that notion

I come by that notion because the term "railroad" is a metaphor which applies to a certain, real-world apparatus that has very definitive features, one of which is that you can't deviate from the path between two points. If the rails that run from Chicago to New Orleans pass through St. Louis, you can't take the railroad from Chicago to New Orleans without passing through St. Louis, period. That's how railroads work. Ergo, if you go from Chicago to New Orleans without passing through St. Louis, you weren't on a railroad. The same applies for the metaphorical usage.

Even "pick your own path" books at least allowed for different outcomes!

How could they, each of those books was "about" something (like rescuing a princess) if you were reading The Forest of Doom you couldn't choose to go off and explore The Dungeon of Dread by turning to the right page, you had to work on the quest that the book was "about". OMG, it must be a railroad!

The "save the princess" adventure allows for different outcomes too, just like choose your own adventure books do (moreso even, since it's an RPG rather than a pre-written book). The PCs could fail and/or die. The PCs could make a deal with the dragon rather than fight it. The PCs could kidnap the princess themselves and hold her for an even larger ransom than the dragon. You are asserting that such an adventure can have only one outcome because it suits your purposes in this discussion, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Ariosto]

Ourph, you can look up railroad maps (or simply what switches are) for yourself. The fact remains that being unable to change the outcome most definitely falls historically into the category of what "railroad" means in D&D terms. I would call it indeed the most egregious form! Since you apparently are approaching the subject theoretically, I'll point out that an encounter with an overwhelmingly likely outcome is typically not considered "railroading" -- the greater context of how the encounter came about is telling.

"Pick your own path" books arguably were railroads. They just happened (if they were halfway decent, IMO) to connect the starting station with several destinations -- the more, the greater the replay value. The whole context, though, is different from a D&D game.

I never asserted "that such an adventure can have only one outcome!" Let me remind you, by the way, that I did write that setting up a limited scenario is a fine way to play ... so perhaps you'll at least think twice before falsely attributing to me the opposite claim.

I do assert that when the PCs cannot fail, the "save the princess from the dragon" scenario is a railroad.

 

[LostSoul]

...and the amount of simulationist-hate thrown about gets rather tiresome. It's a two-way street.

World building is part of all creative agendas.

How you build your world will differ depending on which creative agenda you're working with, but all role-playing requires a setting in order to work.


On "railroading": I think the best definition is when players are not able to make meaningful decisions. What's meaningful for a certain player or group varies quite a bit.