Railroading on the linear plot wagon

[Buzzardo]

Just got through reading the "things you hate about published adventures" thread and found that the two most common issues were railroading and names. I have questions about the railroading issue, as I write modules, and am hoping to understand this issue better.

My question is this: Isn't a published module railroading to some degree by definition?

If a DM prepares a published module and presents the hook to his players, and they don't bite, and choose to go off into another direction... then what was the point of preparing a module? If the group wants to play the session anyway, the DM must then extemporize new stuff on the fly.

Furthermore this makes the issue a question of opposite styles: DM's who prepare, and DM's who don't.

Preparation: Means that the DM has a tiny little plot and section of his world fleshed out enough to have players go through it. It is prepared and will be great.

No Prep: means that a DM will extemporize the entire evening based wholly as a reaction to unforseen player actions. Not all DMs are good at this, while some are spectacular.

Of course there are many different degrees of preparation on the continuum between the polar opposites.

Isn't any pre-prepared module (whether published, or homebrew) really a railroad by it's very definition. What are some totally non-linear, non-railroad published adventures? Most folks refer to descent into the depths of the earth series as a good example of non-linear modules, but....

Isn't D-1 really more of a setting than a module? And even then, if a playing groups heads down in there, aren't they really consenting to swim inside a plot wagon poured by someone else?

Wouldn't a "non-railroading" module ultimately really have to be a setting with dozens of possible undeveloped plot hooks? Anytime you develop a hook, it becomes railroading, doesn't it?

Can anyone give me examples of published adventures that aren't railroad jobs, but that have fully defined plots, NPCs, keyed encounters, etc... In otherwords, they are actually modules and not just settings disguised as modules? Can there even be such a thing?

Thanks in advance. Just hoping to understand this better.

 

[S'mon]

"Settings disguised as modules" is a nice derogatory description of one sort of non-railroady module, yup. One of these I ran and enjoyed was "Lost City of Gaxmoor." You can also have railroads disguised as setting-based modules, mind you - one I tried to run and hated was 'Necropolis'. However you can also have event-based modules that are not railroads, these work by having events that take place whether or not the PCs follow a certain 'script' - eg a timetable of events in a murder mystery that occurs even if the PCs do nothing, yet can be affected by PC actions, is not a railroad. A 'story' that requires particular actions from PCs to function is a railroad.

 

[Iuz]

Buzzardo, as a module writer is there not a very valuable piece of information to be gleaned from the aformentioned thread and your own statements?

If modules (by definition according to you) must have railroading, and there are an enourmous number of gamers who don't like railroading, then perhaps modules (as you define them) are not what you should be writing.

Call them open ended modules or call them settings or anything else that suits you, but that's what a whole whack of people seem to want.

Me personally, what I would like to see is the generic aspect seen in many modules combined with the type of information seen in many settings. Give me a small town (or a castle, or a neighborhood, or an organization)
that's mapped, NPCed and complete with a dozen hooks.

I used to buy 20 or more modules a year, but haven't bought a single one in the past 9 years. If you want my dollars then you will need to start making products that meet my needs.

 

[random user]

For me, the railroading I hate is something like:

"As the party approaches, the villain will kill the girl." Based on that other stuff happens.

But what if the party wins initiative and holds person him?

What if they had auguried the plot and are with the girl when he arrives?

What if they had gather informationed the plot and have the guard waiting there?

etc etc.

It's not bad that you will need to railroad the players to start the adventure, for me at least. It's just that when plot turns revolve around requiring something to happen, and the players are powerless to prevent that.

 

[pogre]

My DMing style has evolved to presenting the party with several hooks and allowing them to choose. The kind of module that works best with this are the settings style modules like Lost City of Barakus. Lots of plot hooks with small to medium sized adventures works best for me. I currently have four or five hooks going and it requires using some pre-written material. I use Necromancer Games modules and Dungeon along with a bit of my own stuff to throw more at the party than they can hope to explore. It does mean I prepare some stuff they will never use, but it's worth it for the enjoyment of giving the players greater choice.

 

[Shallown]

I know writing the Plot hooks for the Cooperative Dungeons I made an effort to include most major playing styles of playing groups. Good, evil, mercenary I tried to come up with a reason for each to go to the dungeon.

I think the solution to some extent is two things is...
A) Face it Module buyer its a Module of limited size and scope. Some railroading will be involved. Railroading is not bad. If the players agree to board the train they know they have to follow the tracks. Its the Gm's job to make the ride fun and scenic. I had to learn this with my present group becuase they are not proactive in any sense of plot advancement. They want to board the train an it is my job to make it fun and include some choices just not all. I was use to a very open ended run on the fly game before this was not a steo back but merely a different style for me to learn. And trust me just as hard to run.
B) Face it Module Maker, not every group bites the same bait. A plot hook in a module needs to be flexible enough to be baited a little different. Don't build bait around one possibility don't design places as static. Modules need to have a level of design that says A may happen but so may B and C or all three. Then even if D happens the information for A,B,C may be enough for the GM to handle the possibilities of D. Start writing plot hooks with 3 angles not 1. I think 3 is a minimum and it should be 3, somewhat diametrically opposed angles to help Gm's adjust if their group falls in the middle. The more information the easier it is for GM's to adjust on the fly. Motivations are mor important than reactions of NPC's. Knowing why the crazy Druid is Crazy and what kind of Crazy is more improtant than knowing why he'll attack anyone who comes into his grove. The Motivation should be wrapped around the reaction supporting it.


I think those to me are the most important falacies in published adventures. I admit I seldom use published adventures but that is more due to my poor memory and not "Knowing" the adventure well enough to be comfortable with it. I tend to improvise too much to actuall have things set in writing. But thatis my style not a fault of Modules in general. Still I do buy some and read them to steal ideas if nothing else. I think they often assuem too much of the players reactions and don't prepare for differing styles of play. Sometimes just saying that we as writers assume players will do X and therefore the module is written around that might help. At least the GM knows where his group will go off track. I think it couldn't hurt to write IF the Players don't Do X the most likely other reactions are Y and Z therefore this is a guide to what effect they may have.

Just my ideas

Later

 

[Pielorinho]

Awhile ago I was enamored of the idea of a new adventure structure, basically a flexible timeline with some cool locations and interesting NPCs.

The timeline would describe a villainous plot in stages, describe about how long each stage would take. There'd be information about how PCs might interact with each stage, and what that interaction might mean, and about how the NPCs might respond to various types of interference. It would include backup plans for villains if their primary plan is thwarted.

The default assumption would be, "EVIL TRIUMPHS!" The PCs would have to act in order to prevent this.

This would be the ideal type of module for my DMing style; when I write up my own notes, that's how I do it. However, I have the advantage of never working too far ahead. Each week I can think about what the PCs have done so far and come up with enough villain plans to take us through the next session. I'm not sure how this would work for a module writer.

Daniel

 

[jmucchiello]

My question is this: Isn't a published module railroading to some degree by definition?

No. Not with good adventures.

If a DM prepares a published module and presents the hook to his players, and they don't bite, and choose to go off into another direction... then what was the point of preparing a module? If the group wants to play the session anyway, the DM must then extemporize new stuff on the fly.

Which is why good adventure modules have more than one hook. Not all hooks snare all parties. The DM is assumed to know what lure is most appropriate and uses it to get the ball rolling.

Preparation: Means that the DM has a tiny little plot and section of his world fleshed out enough to have players go through it. It is prepared and will be great.
No Prep: means that a DM will extemporize the entire evening based wholly as a reaction to unforseen player actions. Not all DMs are good at this, while some are spectacular.

Actually, modules are written for the people in the middle. Extreme no prep DMs don't need the module. They DM for the improvisation of the whole thing. The extreme prep guys, well they already have their adventures laid out and don't need the module. You should be writing for the DMs in the middle.

Isn't any pre-prepared module (whether published, or homebrew) really a railroad by it's very definition.

No. I think you don't know what railroading is. Railroading is not the corridor between encounter room 1 and room 2. Players don't get upset when only one passage leads from room 1 to room 2. They get upset when there is only one passage from all room x to room x+1. Once you put a crossroads in a dungeon, the party can go in multiple directions.

Railroading I've seen includes, the forced meeting. The party arrives in town and something happens. Now all the NPCs are saying, "you should talk to the mayor." When they party breaks down and meets the mayor, several railroads can exist here:
1) He tells them the story intro and offers money for them to do something, even though they just strolled into town.
2) He is killed and the assassin escapes. Party may or may not be framed for this. Party has no chance of catching the assassin as he escapes, of course. The assassin is encounter D8, later in the module.
3) He attacks the party for no reason (other than he's supposed to) because he is possessed, undead, or something.

Railroading is also a pivotal moment in the action that must have a certain outcome. I call these the "sorry guys" moments. When the party breaks something that has to happen, the DM just looks at them and says, "Give me a minute I have to figure out what to do next."

aren't they really consenting to swim inside a plot wagon poured by someone else?

There's a difference between boarding the plot wagon at the beginning of the module compared to discovering that through out the module there are no tracks that branch off the main line.

 

[Berandor]

The default assumption would be, "EVIL TRIUMPHS!" The PCs would have to act in order to prevent this.

This would be the ideal type of module for my DMing style; when I write up my own notes, that's how I do it.

Me, too.

Damn, that would be a great module.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'm not sure reailroading is always bad.

I just ran the pilot session of a new game; the plot for the first session went roughly like this:
-PCs, as part of a rebel force, search a field for an artifact.
-The bad guys attack from a super-powerful ambush! The PCs get basically no chance to detect this ambush (since it involves magics beyond their ken).
-The rebel force is getting slaughtered!
-The PCs fall down a hole torn in the battlefield by the magic.
-After experiencing various trippy effects caused by the artifact, the PCs find the artifact, getting in one last fight with one of the lower-level bad guys.

As you can tell, it was quite the railroad they were on. And I knew that some players had trouble with the session, so I asked them all afterward for feedback.

Turned out that the tripy stuff underground annoyed several of them, but they unanimously praised the first, extremely railroady section.

Why did it work? Here's my thoughts:
-The railroading stemmed from the fact that the bad guys were so obviously outclassing the PCs. Plus the one coincidence (the hole torn in the ground by the battle).
-The bad guys had a good in-story reason for outclassing the PCs.
-There was a certain appearance of freedom of choice. I knew the PCs would fall down this hole at some point, but I waited until a good, dramatic moment to spring this on them. When a PC described running backwards while firing shots at the enemy, why, that was the perfect opportunity .
-The railroading was over fairly quickly, at which point the PCs had more freedom of choice. If all the following sessions were equally restrictive, I'd have a problem.
-While it was railroady, the PCs had something fun to do. Namely, they got to kill almost twenty enemy mooks in a running fight, and watch cool spectacles elsewhere on the battlefield.
jmuchellio, I agree that some of your examples of railroading are problematic--but usually because they break suspension of disbelief. If the mayor is attacked by an assassin, either the assassin is or isn't far more powerful than the PCs. If she is more powerful, why doesn't she just kill the PCs? If she isn't, why can't the PCs make a good attempt to capture her? If the mayor is offering them money, why isn't he offering it first to the town guard? Why does he trust the PCs?

However, if he attacks the PCs for some good reason--he's possessed, a PC looks like an infamous criminal, etc.--that's not a problem IMO.

So I guess I'd say that if events are plausible, and if things are only briefly out of the players' control, and if the railroading sections involve fun things for the PCs to do, they're probably okay. But you neglect any of these choo-choo features at your peril.

Daniel