RPGA Scenarios Strengths & Weakness

[charonsg]

i play RPGA scenarios once in a blue moon at gamesday at conventions and at the local gaming store

is it just me? or do the rest of you feel that RPGA modules are heavily railroady?
Their strength is that the GM doesnt need to prep but i normally prefer sandbox settings where my characters can explore their goals, motivations.

Do the rest of you feel the same or otherwise?

i dont mind RPGA games once in a while all things considered.

 

[MarkB]

I don't think there's any easy way to make a game freeform while also having it be part of an ongoing 'living' campaign setting.

For what it's worth, DMs have more scope to take liberties with the written scenarios in LFR than they did in previous D&D Living campaigns.

 

[Henrix]

The problem with sandbox games is that they are very hard to play in a slot of time - they tend to take a long time.

Railroading is a way to keep a reaonable play time. This is not a problem in home games, but the store has to close, and other people have to get a chance to play.

 

[arscott]

As far as the 4e adventures go, I find them railroaded, but not atypically so when compared to other convention games of a similar type.

The tournament games I've played in have been just as railroaded as LFR games, as have most D&D games where I was allowed to create my own character.

the 3e Living Grayhawk adventures, on the other hand, could sometimes be much more railroaded that the 4e ones--A problem I attribute to poor quality control on WotC's part.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem with sandbox games is that they are very hard to play in a slot of time - they tend to take a long time.

Railroading is a way to keep a reaonable play time. This is not a problem in home games, but the store has to close, and other people have to get a chance to play.

This is the biggest reason for the railroad factor and its easy to understand why. There is no good reason to make an adventure nothing more than a poorly linked series of combats just because of this though.

 

[Henrix]

There is no good reason to make an adventure nothing more than a poorly linked series of combats just because of this though.

Indeed, a poor scenario is never good. But perhaps it's not just the railroading that is the problem, but too little story.

 

[Stormtower]

RPGA adventures are linearly structured due to the necessity of completing the adventure in a 4-hour time slot. Here are a few things any DM can do to break up the monotony and railroad:

1. Prep and playtest the adventure beforehand. If the DM is really prepared and has timed out each section of the adventure, s/he can usually find some time during skill challenges or roleplaying interactions to allow some creative and experimental actions by the PCs (or just some immersive RP).

2. On timing out the adventures -- it really helps to put a "time stamp" on each section or encounter of the adventure once it's prepped/playtested (encounter 1 = 30 mins, encounter 2 = 15 mins, encounter 3 = 1 hour, etc.). Then, keep one eye on your cell phone or watch to make sure you're within approximate time limits for each encounter. For example, in CORE1-3 (Sense of Wonder) there is a huge running battle at the end of the adventure, but only one other combat encounter, and that's right at the beginning. So you can plan ahead and know there's about a 1.5 hour stretch in the middle of the module for skill challenges and role-playing.

3. When adjudicating skill challenges, use your DM Empowerment to broaden the scope of the challenge, and allow "off-skill" usage and creative solutions at +5 DC so everyone who wants to contribute, can contribute. But in order to accomplish this, you need to understand what the setup and goal of each skill challenge is. Again, I cannot stress enough how a pre-gameday playtest session increases one's knowledge of how to run a given adventure within the 4 hour time slot.

4. Understand that a certain degree of linearity is essentially required and expected when running RPGA adventures. The players know it too, if they are at all experienced in the RPGA. They want to finish the adventure, succeed to the utmost, and get the loot and magical goodies at the end... so they have an incentive to follow the plot hooks you present.

I'm not an RPGA rep or anything like that, but I've run many successful tables so I hope this advice is helpful. You can't really go for that idealized sandbox-type gaming experience in RPGA adventures, but they can be great fun and very rewarding to run if one is properly prepared.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Indeed, a poor scenario is never good. But perhaps it's not just the railroading that is the problem, but too little story.

Agreed. Just because an adventure needs to be kept short and the PC's are led from the hook to the start doesn't mean it needs to be devoid of good story/background elements or opportunities for play that are not either combat oriented or meaningless.

 

[D'karr]

This is the biggest reason for the railroad factor and its easy to understand why. There is no good reason to make an adventure nothing more than a poorly linked series of combats just because of this though.

And though all of them can be played like that, the DM has complete control of how he approaches the delivery of that adventure. I had one group at GenCon that asked me to run a particular adventure as roleplay heavy as we could. That was a very interesting adventure. The party got hired to handle some tasks. The party ended up negotiating with some bandits and were then double crossed, which led to a combat on the alleyways of Baldur's Gate, instead of in a warehouse. Then they investigated the "abduction" of a citizen. They ended up siding with the "abductors", and their final report to their employers was not very favorable. The employer was not pleased, to say the least.

In the end, none of these situations are covered in the module. They all happened because I let the players dictate HOW, they wanted to approach events. Some led to combat, some led to successful negotiations, and some led to negotiations that led to combat.

All in all that was one of the most fun tables I had the pleasure of running at GenCon.

So to those that keep saying that the adventures are railroads, I'd suggest you talk to your DM and adjust as needed. The adventures can be a lot of fun, when the DM just lets the events happen in response to the player's actions instead of in spite of their actions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In the end, none of these situations are covered in the module. They all happened because I let the players dictate HOW, they wanted to approach events. Some led to combat, some led to successful negotiations, and some led to negotiations that led to combat.

All in all that was one of the most fun tables I had the pleasure of running at GenCon.

So to those that keep saying that the adventures are railroads, I'd suggest you talk to your DM and adjust as needed. The adventures can be a lot of fun, when the DM just lets the events happen in response to the player's actions instead of in spite of their actions.

This is very true, and the type of advice that should appear in the adventures. A good DM can run a great adventure with a few stats and some scribbles but a less experienced DM running an event that just receives an adventure in the mail composed of: Intro-statblocks-link-statblocks-link-statblocks- The end, may not be aware of all the options available with that adventure outline.

If the adventures were written as a series of challenges with an overall end goal, and provided multiple examples of how to approach the challenges with some different success/fail consequences it could help newer DM's with less time to playtest/tweak the adventures run things with a little more variety.