Railroading is bad?

[ThirdWizard]

Yes, but if the attempt is doomed before it begins, not because the PC shouldn't be able to do something (which might be a perfectly reasonable expectation), but because the DM doesn't want it to happen, is that any different than not being able to attempt something?

I'd say no, not necessarily. Which is why I think the definition of railroading around here is far too broad. At the very least, it's weighted far against the DM.

Not every puzzle needs to have a solution, and every trap need not be designed with a bypass in mind. In order to avoid the situations that are commonly defined as railroading (at least as far as the thread is concerned) the players must have a reasonable chance at succeeding at *any* action they attempt.

You completely ignored what I said...

There's a difference between not being able to stop a bad guy from running away because it is beyond the power of the PCs and not being able to stop a bad guy from running away because the DM wants the bad guy to get away even if the PCs could easily stop him. There's a huge amount of difference between the player saying what his PC does and a DM declaring the PC's actions because that is what is necessary for the plot to continue. If you don't agree, then I guess we have vastly different playstyles.

 

[Jupp]

Jupp, are you primarilly a player or a DM? Just curious about the "in love with their storylines" comments. This sounds like a player's perspective, and nothing wrong with that. Or are you speaking from personal experiance, and the plots you were "in love with"?

Oh yes, when I started with DMing I wanted to stick to the plot at all costs, because otherwise there was the fear I would loose control over the group of players. Thats even worse since I was already gaming for about 4 years or so as a player and I still didnt do it right. It took some time until I stopped doing that and the game became much better with that, at least that is what the players were telling me

Now I have mix of 50% Dming / 50% playing, roughly. And yes, I had my fair share of railroading DMs as well I found that I do not enjoy this style of game at all so I try to avoid it either as a DM or as a player.

 

[The_Universe]

You completely ignored what I said...

There's a difference between not being able to stop a bad guy from running away because it is beyond the power of the PCs and not being able to stop a bad guy from running away because the DM wants the bad guy to get away even if the PCs could easily stop him. There's a huge amount of difference between the player saying what his PC does and a DM declaring the PC's actions because that is what is necessary for the plot to continue. If you don't agree, then I guess we have vastly different playstyles.

I thought I was, in fact, answering your question.

Essentially, if the DM doesn't want the PCs to stop the bad guy, I really can't imagine a situation in which he or she wouldn't have some precautions so that the PC's could not "easily" stop him. I suppose if it ever happened that it *was* that transparent, I guess it could be considered different. But, if you were a player chasing after the bad guy X, does it really make you feel all that much better if the DM says, "he escapes because he's actually a 21st level sorcerer" as opposed to "he escapes. Sorry."

I really don't think that DM's should be heavy handed...but since it's *so easy* to craft a situation in which the PC's have no chance of succeeding at a particular task within the rules, without resorting to "because I said so!" there's really very little difference, in my opinion.

Does that make a little more sense?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I really don't think that DM's should be heavy handed...but since it's *so easy* to craft a situation in which the PC's have no chance of succeeding at a particular task within the rules, without resorting to "because I said so!" there's really very little difference, in my opinion.

Does that make a little more sense?

Not really, because there is a *huge* difference to most players

If he casts some wierd spell, my wizard should get a Spellcraft check to figure out what he's doing. If he's just running, we should be matching speeds and making Con checks. If he's dodging into and out of shadows, we should be getting Spot and Listen checks.

We may fail all of the above, but we should still get to make them - and if we *don't* fail, then we should be able to foil the bad guy's escape.

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=21

 

[ThirdWizard]

Does that make a little more sense?

A bit. However, if the PCs can't alter the plot through their actions, then that game wouldn't sound very interesting to me as a player. Yes, he could scaratch out 5th level aristocrat and write in 20th level sorcerer and the PCs would never be the wiser. He could suddenly create a secret tunnel so the NPC pulls a leveler and is whisked away from danger, too, and the PCs wouldn't think twice about it.

The problem is that if the plot is the most important thing to the DM over and above PCs having an affect on the world around them, then it will become quite obvious to the players whenever this happens. Every time they figure something out early, something miraculous happens for their enemy so that they have to go through all the hoops to reach the "end" of the plot. If the plot hinges on a character going through door #1 then nothing in the entire world will happen until the PC goes through door #1. You cease to have the illusion of a living breathing world and instead have a very static world where the PCs blunder through the pre-planned schedule the DM has layed out for them.

 

[The_Universe]

A bit. However, if the PCs can't alter the plot through their actions, then that game wouldn't sound very interesting to me as a player. Yes, he could scaratch out 5th level aristocrat and write in 20th level sorcerer and the PCs would never be the wiser. He could suddenly create a secret tunnel so the NPC pulls a leveler and is whisked away from danger, too, and the PCs wouldn't think twice about it.

The problem is that if the plot is the most important thing to the DM over and above PCs having an affect on the world around them, then it will become quite obvious to the players whenever this happens. Every time they figure something out early, something miraculous happens for their enemy so that they have to go through all the hoops to reach the "end" of the plot. If the plot hinges on a character going through door #1 then nothing in the entire world will happen until the PC goes through door #1. You cease to have the illusion of a living breathing world and instead have a very static world where the PCs blunder through the pre-planned schedule the DM has layed out for them.

Your hypothetical does sound unreasonable. I certainly wouldn't run a game that way. Of course, I would never have written "5th level Aristocrat" on the sheet if my plot demanded that the NPC escape the PCs. I would have made it "20th level sorcerer" from the beginning. Likewise with the secret tunnel.

But anyway...

I completely agree that the players must be able to affect the plot the GM creates. After all, if either one of them wants to play without input/choices/consequences from the others, they should probably go write a novel, rather than play in a game. I think there's a reasonable line - but I think many players *don't see* that reasonable line, because the definition of railroading held by so many is *so broad* that it can essentially include the fairly reasonable examples we've mentioned above.

 

[RFisher]

Let's put this in a war-gaming setting.

I like that way of looking at it, RA. Setting up the board/scenario should be understood as a separate issue.

It's quite possible for the pc's to start moving off of the 'board' (i.e. outside of the parameters of the campaign as envisioned by the referee) without realizing it.

Of course, that's the what separates roleplaying games from other games. There are no boundaries because the DM can handle anything. (Not necessarily well...but he can handle anything.)

It can be hard when the players want to go a different way than what you might have wanted/expected/prepared for, but--personally--I'd rather file that module & break out another one, improvise (even badly), or cut the session shorter than usual (so I can prepare for their new course) than to tell them they're moving "off the board".

Of course, the fun thing I just love is when the players, after having a week to think about how we left off last session, spring an unsuspected change of course on me at the beginning of the session. That's why I've been trying to perfect minimizing preparation & winging it.

 

[LostSoul]

A single man rides in an escape attempt, and finds himself faced by thirty warriors. He can try to fight them, but he should know that his chances of success are essentially nil (saver perhaps all of them rolling ones, and him rollign all twenties). He can either surrender, or die. Not much of a choice.

This is one of those things that can get on my nerves when I'm playing. The DM is assuming a certain number of things: 1) that the patrol runs across the PC; 2) that the PC failed his spot check to notice the bad guys and didn't have a chance to hide; 3) that the NPCs made their spot checks and saw the PC before he had a chance to do anything.

I remember once playing a ranger/barbarian character with high Spot and Listen. I was moving, using Hide, 60 feet ahead of the party. I came across a clearing with Dire Lions and Harpies. Next thing I know, the entire group is next to me and we're making initiative rolls and will saves. I guess those bad guys spotted me before I could do anything, even telling my companions about what was going on before they closed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rather than say that's not railroading, I think you should be asking yourself if railroading is always a bad thing.

Truth is, it isn't. Just like power gaming isn't always a bad thing.

And to prove how useful this new book is, I'm gonna say the DMGII gives some good insight into this.

Of course, when railroading breaks verisimilitude, it becomes a bad thing. As is the case with a DM who dictates PC actions to ensure a villain escapes, in effect describing a static cutscene instead of playing the game. The PC's could easily do something to stop, but the DM precludes it from happening. This happens more often than you might think -- there are many occasions when the game gives the PC's a power that the DM does his darndest to make not impact his story. Dungeons that preclude teleportation, invincible villain speaches, inexplicably useless divinations, wishes that constantly backfire, etc., etc.

 

[gizmo33]

(snip)-- there are many occasions when the game gives the PC's a power that the DM does his darndest to make not impact his story. Dungeons that preclude teleportation, invincible villain speaches, inexplicably useless divinations, wishes that constantly backfire, etc., etc.

IMO DnD is under-developed in terms of ways to counter high level effects. High level wizards, at least, should have researched ways to shield areas from teleport. No one has a problem with "see invisibility" or "resist elements", do they? Of course the spirit of what you're saying is mostly that the DM shouldn't arbitrarily fudge these things. I agree with that. If a divination does not yield the expected results, it should be explicable (even if the players don't know the reason).