Railroading is bad?

[The_Universe]

If, instead, the PCs are playing smart - hiding by day, traveling only by night, staying off of main roads, holing up in caves, moving slowly so they don't come around a bend and into a patrol - then there should be a chance that their intelligent play allows them to bypass the patrols in the area.

I agree that this is completely reasonable. What I disagree with is the assumption that the character must be *granted* a way to avoid it if they aren't doing those things.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That permanent duration is a bit much ... is there at least an XP cost associated with it?

-The Gneech, imagining his players making whole towns teleport-proof

That would be the 1,500 gp +1,500 gp/cube material component cost.

 

[The Shaman]

How the heck could part 1 bother you? Is it really stretching the bounds of verisimilitude to have a patrol around some place a PC would want to escape? Do I have to purposefully create ways to escape to make it all OK? Is it not a valid prison if there is no escape tunnel? The whole *point* of guards is to have them find escapees. Surely this cannot be all that controversial.

As I play it, the difference would be that the adventurers would either have a percentage chance to encounter a patrol, or I would plan the route of the patrol and compare that to the route taken by the players' characters to see if they connect in space-and-time.

In the first instance, it becomes a matter of chance rather than certainty - in the second, it puts the outcome firmly in players' hands by making it a consequence of their choices. Either way I'm not deciding, "The adventurers will encounter a patrol as they attempt to escape..."

So let's say I show you the sheet, and those guards all have unusually high ranks in spot, move silently, and hide. Does that make it all more valid? In the game, I'd certainly assume that patrols *could* have access to those skills, and I'd probably max them out because they're likely to be important.

Speaking for myself, that breaks down my suspension of disbelief - I suppose one could argue that the guard patrols are made up only of warriors who've demonstrated acute senses or whatever, but it strikes me as highly contrived. If I'm the GM in this case, I might give one or two patrol leaders some better than average skills or some other advantage, like trained wolves for tracking or somthing magical like an invisible stalker, rather than creating a corps of guards selected for the skills that I need to hose the adventurers. It's a slight distinction, I know, but it's one that is part of the verisimilitude of the game-world for me.

To me, this is not about 'illusion', but about providing real elements of chance and the ability of players to make meaningful choices that affect the outcome of encounters, rather than plugging in encounters because they 'make a better story'. I know it's a very old school approach, but I'm a very old school GM, so that just sort of follows I suppose.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I agree that this is completely reasonable. What I disagree with is the assumption that the character must be *granted* a way to avoid it if they aren't doing those things.

But that doesn't seem to be what you've been arguing for.

You seem to be arguing that it's perfectly non-railroady (because "it's required for the story") to have the patrol show-up regardless of whether or not the PCs are doing the above, or how well they are doing the above, and you can't comprehend how a player might be upset when that happens.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted something you've said.

 

[The_Universe]

I'm saying that it's really not all that different whether I reveal the patrols statistics, keep them secret, or never assign them (and thus just label that patrol a "force of nature" or something). Regardless of the fact that it's *really not different* IMO, I'd still try to run it pretty much as you have suggested.

My argument has been that the line between "letting proactive players do things that might work out to their benefit" and "giving players that aren't proactive a way out" is extraordinarily blurry. At least in my experience, as soon as you let some players *attempt* something, they assume it has to have a way to succeed. I'm really not for just telling players, "no, you can't try that." I never have been. But I do think that there can be a slippery slope when labelling railroading, and because the differences between each level of consequence are relatively small, if one thing is "the wrong way," then it's just a little jump to the next step, etc.

As a DM, neither you or I should *have* to justify everything we do to the players, to constantly assure them that they did indeed have valid choices. To me, railroading is often about a lack of trust.

I dunno - I'm probably rambling. DM's should allow choice without being illogically permissive, and players should have opportunities to effect their collective destiny without constantly trying to thwart (or complain about) every in-game event that does not meet with their specific approval. <---That's the core of my argument.

Most of the things I've taken issue with just logically extend to the point where players would have to "approve" anything to make it "not railroading." I'm not a big fan of it, but I think some people expect too much; demanding the game center completely on the "self."

 

[The_Universe]

As I play it, the difference would be that the adventurers would either have a percentage chance to encounter a patrol, or I would plan the route of the patrol and compare that to the route taken by the players' characters to see if they connect in space-and-time.

In the first instance, it becomes a matter of chance rather than certainty - in the second, it puts the outcome firmly in players' hands by making it a consequence of their choices. Either way I'm not deciding, "The adventurers will encounter a patrol as they attempt to escape..."Speaking for myself, that breaks down my suspension of disbelief - I suppose one could argue that the guard patrols are made up only of warriors who've demonstrated acute senses or whatever, but it strikes me as highly contrived. If I'm the GM in this case, I might give one or two patrol leaders some better than average skills or some other advantage, like trained wolves for tracking or somthing magical like an invisible stalker, rather than creating a corps of guards selected for the skills that I need to hose the adventurers. It's a slight distinction, I know, but it's one that is part of the verisimilitude of the game-world for me.

To me, this is not about 'illusion', but about providing real elements of chance and the ability of players to make meaningful choices that affect the outcome of encounters, rather than plugging in encounters because they 'make a better story'. I know it's a very old school approach, but I'm a very old school GM, so that just sort of follows I suppose.

But you have to admit that that's a really illogical way to set up a patrol.

"Now, I want to just have a few of you out there, so if someone gets out, they have a chance to get past you. Try to circle the prison in loose circles and regular patterns, so that someone decently stealthy could get past without you being aware of it. Make sure you take some of the guys with poor eyesight and hearing. I mean, we hired them. They have to go on patrol sometime. Might as well be now, because we really want to recapture these escapees. Sure, those are horrible qualities in guards, but we wouldn't want to have a secure prison, would we?"

"Or do we? I guess not - we've got this set up so that there's a decent chance that a variable set of choices will let anyone get out here."

To me, this is just as contrived than my own example (which is obviously contrived, as you note)...just contrived to the opposite extreme, and (to top it off) a great deal less logical than a prison whose practices and employees are designed to prevent people from escaping.

Obviously, the above is an exaggeration, but it's just a tiny step away from "every trap must have a bypass." This is the opposite of railroading - metagaming in the EXTREME.

But, as long as your players like it, I'd say you're A-OK! As we all know, to each his own.

 

[gizmo33]

Gotcha covered!

Forbiddance

Isn't that cleric only? And doesn't it prevent physical entry by non-aligned creatures as well? I'd expect there to be something a wizard could cast, as well as something that prevents only transportation - so that you could ward a throne room from teleportation in or out, but the visiting ambassador doesn't get fried trying to to talk to you just because he isn't your alignment. (And, big surprise, such a spell does exist IMC)

 

[sniffles]

@The_Universe:

I'd just like to say that when I first started reading this thread I was in the camp of "If there's not an out, it's railroading". Your well-considered responses have made me reconsider my position, however. Sometimes things happen that the PCs just can't avoid/change. As players perhaps we should learn to accept that. Although I think the reason many players find it hard to accept is because we have to accept it IRL and we'd prefer to have more control over the lives of our imaginary alter egos.

 

[The Shaman]

But you have to admit that that's a really illogical way to set up a patrol.

No, I don't really think I do. 'Logic' is so often in the eye of the beholder.

Most patrollers are likely to be general-issue warriors in my game-worlds - there might be a tracker, or a leader with some better than average skills, or the aforementioned animals or magical creatures, but the patrols themselves are generally composed of bored, poorly-paid guards tired of traipsing across the moors, who'd rather be in the barracks out of the draft or better yet getting post-holed in a tavern somewhere.

Routine patrols follow a more-or-less set route that hits the high-probability areas each hour, watch, day, or whatever. In the event of an alert, they might be a bit more on the bounce and they will likely move to choke-points to interdict movement or to beat the brush looking for the escapees. Either way, the regular patrollers are mostly grunts, with average abilities.

If I create an elite formation of guards, then I would expect the scores to be higher across the board - however, these will be the exception, not the rule, and they are unlikely to be involved in routine patrols in any case.

That said, I still wouldn't drop them on the players as a plot device: that's railroading and putting the GM's story ahead of the players', IMHO. My NPC elite guards might track the adventurers or scry them and pursue, but they don't just show up out of nowhere because it's what I think 'should happen next.'

 

[The_Universe]

No, I don't really think I do. 'Logic' is so often in the eye of the beholder.

Lots of escaped convicts in your game world?