I wanna get back on the railroad

[Raven Crowking]

If you copy and paste the stat block as is, won't you just get a copy of the Monster Manual? I guess it depends on how much extra info you include. I'll e-mail you and see.

But I have got a different solution, which is to put the entire monster on an index card. All the complications are spelled out -- spell durations, immunities next to the saves, fast healing next to the hit points. This is how I think the monsters should have been packaged in the first place, so you can use them as initiative cards.

Either way works fine; the point is to have the info on hand without having to flip through a book.

Also, may I suggest finding Reynard's Blog on EN World? Very good reading for sandbox type DMs.


RC

 

[Noumenon]

The town is a pretty geographically bound nexus of relationships. Family and old friends (and enemies) might more easily be worked in wherever the PCs go.

It's true, I don't have to railroad the PCs to keep them close to a wizard the way I would have to to keep them close to the wizard's tower. But still, leaving town means leaving most of the plotlines behind unless they all follow you or can develop in your absence. I guess it's not the plotlines I fear leaving behind, really, it's the prepared encounters, because those go stale quickly with leveling up.

"Legend says that the Staff of Horus is lost in the Dungeon of Boiling Warts."

You know, Dungeon Crawl Classics don't really use treasure as a hook very much, and neither did the game I was a player in. I'm pretty sure it would work.

My one player also wants me to threaten the hometown instead of just the sheriff's job. So I need better hooking skills if I don't want to railroad.

Leaving it up to the players to choose how they spend their time (rather than "pacing" it for them) introduces an element of skill. Skills tend to take some practice to develop.

Hey, that addresses my pacing issue really directly. If they complain, I'll tell them "go take a hook next time, or ask for one. You can do it."

I don't know if it will be easy for them to develop this skill, though. I have seen them just sit around town drinking and fishing, how can they help getting bored. The development of the vodka-dipped flounder is an interesting new dish, but it's not enough to keep a game afloat.

 

[roguerouge]

Consider getting the players to make major decisions near the end of game sessions, particularly in ways that will irrevocably commit them for the next session. Then you can run the next session with preparation and direction as much as you like, and they still got to make the initial choice.

I'll take this one step further: Your players should be consciously doing this for you. In one long-running campaign that was very much a balance between player choice and plot threading, we would explicitly call on each other to make our big decisions before the end of the session so as to give the DM time to prepare. It's just good manners.

 

[Stoat]

Consider getting the players to make major decisions near the end of game sessions, particularly in ways that will irrevocably commit them for the next session. Then you can run the next session with preparation and direction as much as you like, and they still got to make the initial choice.

I'll third this, particularly in light of this:

I have been playing for one year or so. My players have been playing for over ten years. They seem firmly convinced that in D&D, it is perfectly OK to just get up one session and decide you're going to travel across the entire continent.

I think its something of a tradition in D&D that the session begins with the players deciding what to do. I think that's a bad tradition. I also think its something of a tradition to avoid talking about what the PC's are doing out of character. I think that's a bad tradition.

Let your players know: they can go anywhere they want and they can do anything they want. BUT, they need to give you a heads up before you sit down to play so that you can be ready to run the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know, Dungeon Crawl Classics don't really use treasure as a hook very much, and neither did the game I was a player in. I'm pretty sure it would work.

Yeah, the idea there is to try to tell the players why their characters might want to look into the Creepy Olde Mansion, rather than merely assuming that they will do so simply because (1) it is a Creepy Olde Mansion, and (2) that's what's being served tonight.

As far as encounters stale-dating goes, I recommend allowing players to have multiple characters of various levels active in the campaign world over the course of the campaign.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Here's a bit of the advice to players in the first-edition Advanced D&D Players Handbook:

First, get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy an altar to an alien god, some firm objective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. Note, however, that inflexibility or foolish stubbornness is often fatal. ...

Co-operation amongst party members is a major key to success, particularly when the characters are relatively low-level. Later, when players have characters of 9th, 10th, or even higher level it will be a slightly different matter, for then some adventures will be with but one or two player characters participating, and the balance of the group will be made up of henchmen whose general co-operation is relatively assured. But to gain the upper levels, it is essential that a character survive, and survival at lower levels is usually dependent upon group action and team spirit. Co-operation must begin when the party prepares for the adventure and continue through safe return to base and division of spoils -- including the special treatment required for any unfortunate characters cursed, diseased, maimed, or killed. ...

When everything is all set, it will take only a very few minutes to organize the group for the adventure once time for actual play begins. Your referee will certainly appreciate this, for his or her enjoyment comes from adventuring, not from waiting for a party to get their act together. ...

The time frame of "a game is scheduled for tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it well in advance so as to have as much actual playing time as possible" is appropriate to an expedition into a traditional underworld or "mega" dungeon. It could also be adequate for a wilderness or city adventure, if those campaign elements are set up for running on such short notice.

If the DM needs more time for preparation, then it is reasonable to expect notice of intent further in advance. This highlights a difference between the old campaign model and the "TV show" style. An old-style DM had no implicit obligation to "provide an adventure" for Player X on a set schedule. It was up to Player X and his peers to put together an expedition and arrange for a session in which to play it. Better-organized players naturally took precedence in the allotment of the DM's finite resources of time and energy.

NOTE that the term "adventure" is used throughout to mean an undertaking by players! It is first of all a "venture" on their part, not a contrivance on the part of the DM.

 

[Noumenon]

On the other hand, I think that greater complexity is in general associated with greater rarity. Ordinary animals and common types of human (and humanoid) NPCs and monsters are likely to appear most often in regions canny players of low-level characters frequent. As time goes on, more and more should be familiar from repeated use.

More powerful (and more game-mechanically complex) creatures are reasonably likely to require a bit of initiative to meet.

Maybe Goodman GAmes spoiled me; in Dungeon Crawl Classics, you don't meet rats, you meet mutated rats. You don't meet zombies, you meet zombie grigs. You don't meet a ranger, you meet a werebadger ranger with pipes of the sewers. My own encounters try to be that special too, special every time. It's like a game of Zelda that's all boss fights and no Octoroks.

 

[S'mon]

Sounds like you just like railroading (in the broader sense) - you were still in a railroady "They must do this! Here are the adventures! Must have combat!" mindset the whole time, as opposed to creating an environment for the PCs to explore at their own initiative.

 

[S'mon]

Or Prince of Persia, the merciful DM that just wants to make sure you see all the cool environments it's laid out in a straight line. That's a fun railroad too, despite having no branches whatsoever.

God, I hate that game.

A better term than railroad here would be "Linear Campaign", as discussed in the 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and contrasted with the "Open Campaign" (sandbox) or "Matrix Campaign" (interlocking threads - called Illusionism above - I disagree; Illusionism refers to illusion-of-choice).

 

[S'mon]

Maybe Goodman GAmes spoiled me; in Dungeon Crawl Classics, you don't meet rats, you meet mutated rats. You don't meet zombies, you meet zombie grigs. You don't meet a ranger, you meet a werebadger ranger with pipes of the sewers. My own encounters try to be that special too, special every time. It's like a game of Zelda that's all boss fights and no Octoroks.

Definitely not my cup of tea - I tend to edit WotC/GG encounters to make them simpler, or for Dungeon Crawl Classics use the C&C version instead of the 3.5 version. To me this is is 'special' the way the hospital scanner operator used it to my pregnant wife: "99 in 100 parents will take home a normal baby, 1 in 100 will take home a special baby..." (we got a normal baby, thankfully).