Skipping time - "... and then six months later..."

[Umbran]

Hr. Okay, here's the thing - railroading is a technique, a tool. Like any other tool, it is neutral - you can use it well, or you can use it poorly.

A good roleplayer recognizes that the GM needs to be able to set up situations, especially in a one-shot game. No matter what you do, no matter what your plot elements, you must railroad them some small amount to get the ball rolling.

Personally, I think that the "we tried to subdue, but the werewolf winds up dead anyway" isn't really railroading. It would simply be a clear statement that there are other forces in the world with which the players must contend. It isn't like the PCs are the only characters in the world who take actions, or like the way PCs resolve issues is supposed to always be left standing untouched. There are other forces in the world. They act, and sometimes the PCs won't like the results. That's action adventure gaming for you..

 

[S'mon]

Don't listen to Evil Lawyers.... railroading is always bad...

edit:

"Okay, here's the thing - crack cocaine is a drug, a pharmaceutical. Like any other drug, it is neutral - you can use it well, or you can use it poorly."

 

[Daniel Knight]

It's definitely not a "storytelling" game - not any D&D game I'd ever play in or run. I agree w EGG that stories are what you tell about games, not what happens at the table. And if there's "Story Now", as Ron Edwards describes Narrativism, it's story-creation as interaction between players and GM, not as an act of story-telling by the GM.

If it wasn't a storytelling game - it would almost be a war game. It would also mean that there are a thousand published modules out there that are *wrong* because they have strong storytelling elements. Don't get me wrong - you certainly can take out the storytelling elements of D&D (in fact if you enjoy it - I think you should), but please don't assume that everyone else is from the same camp. But don't feel bad D&D has a large enough appeal to cater to many, many different tastes - even for those (such as yourself) who don't want story interfering with their characters.

And yes, I agree with Ron Edwards too. And luckily for Hypersmurf, he's proposing doing just this! He'll tell his part of the story - and then let the players tell theirs. In fact, Hypersmurf is being such a nice guy - he's even letting the players tell him how they killed the werewolf.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm argueing the wrong issue. Where is it exactly that you think he is railroading?

 

[S'mon]

If it wasn't a storytelling game - it would almost be a war game. It would also mean that there are a thousand published modules out there that are *wrong* because they have strong storytelling elements. Don't get me wrong - you certainly can take out the storytelling elements of D&D (in fact if you enjoy it - I think you should), but please don't assume that everyone else is from the same camp. But don't feel bad D&D has a large enough appeal to cater to many, many different tastes - even for those (such as yourself) who don't want story interfering with their characters.

And yes, I agree with Ron Edwards too. And luckily for Hypersmurf, he's proposing doing just this! He'll tell his part of the story - and then let the players tell theirs. In fact, Hypersmurf is being such a nice guy - he's even letting the players tell him how they killed the werewolf.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm argueing the wrong issue. Where is it exactly that you think he is railroading?

Hm, you seem to be confusing "storytelling" with "roleplaying". I'm big on in-character roleplaying, but I definitely don't see the GM role as telling a story.
The railroading Hypersmurf proposes would be setting up the werewolf fight so it appears that the PCs can choose what to do, yet _whatever they do_ the outcome will be identical, ie the preplanned 'true start' of the adventure. So the werewolf encounter is a 'false start' where the PCs have no chance to influence the outcome _despite the GM making it seem otherwise_.

 

[Thanee]

"Okay, here's the thing - crack cocaine is a drug, a pharmaceutical. Like any other drug, it is neutral - you can use it well, or you can use it poorly."

Funny enough, that is actually true for some substances rated as drugs.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

S'mon, there are two ways to see storytelling.

As in "storyteller", which means, one person describes what happens, the rest listens, or in the roleplaying way, that the story is told from multiple persons. Together, it is still telling a story, but everyone takes part in the tale.

You seem a bit focused on the first.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Daniel Knight]

Hm, you seem to be confusing "storytelling" with "roleplaying". I'm big on in-character roleplaying, but I definitely don't see the GM role as telling a story.

Sure it is. Otherwise your character wouldn't have interesting situations to role play through.

The railroading Hypersmurf proposes would be setting up the werewolf fight so it appears that the PCs can choose what to do, yet _whatever they do_ the outcome will be identical, ie the preplanned 'true start' of the adventure. So the werewolf encounter is a 'false start' where the PCs have no chance to influence the outcome _despite the GM making it seem otherwise_.

I really don't see it as railroading. Depending on what the players achieve at the beginning could easily set the tone for the entire adventure and offer some really great role playing opportunities. For example...

Players Don't Kill the Warewolf and Get Framed
Who framed them and why? The characters have just been imprisoned for a substantial amount of time - and I bet they're sure as hell gonna wanna know who did it.

Players Kill the Warewolf
Why is this being covered up? Why are they being sent to prison for doing the world a favour? There's something bigger in the picture here - what is it?

Both scenarios offer a different BBEG, and also offer a different adventure. But - and here is the thing of beauty - you can get away with writing one adventure! You could easily use the same BBEG template and adventure for either direction the characters go in. From their perspective, they're choosing who their characters go after, and everyone wins. The players don't even realise the railroading has occurred.

 

[hong]

Hypersmurf, DO inflict this predetermined-outcome because it's no worse than the predetermined-outcome that says the entire party starts in a tavern.

Ah. This must be some new meaning of "outcome" that I wasn't aware of before.

 

[Piratecat]

I do this sort of "time skipping" all the time, and it works fine. It's especially appropriate in a one-shot game. Just make sure that you don't screw over the PCs by positing that they make stupid decisions in the downtime, and you should have no problems.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

I do this sort of "time skipping" all the time, and it works fine. It's especially appropriate in a one-shot game. Just make sure that you don't screw over the PCs by positing that they make stupid decisions in the downtime, and you should have no problems.

I agree with Piratecat on this one. In regards to skipping time, we do it in our games all the time. Albeit, usually its to cover travel from one area to another. Usually our gm says something like "you board the boat and, after a fairly pleasent three months, arrive at your destination", whereby we typically take a few moments to explain what our characters would have done during the three months. One might join as part of the crew and help sail, one might describe a bout of terrible seasickness, one might describe spending most of thier time meeting the other people on the boat, etc. This way, it gives your characters a bit of control over the time passage. For instance, one of your characters might tell you that they've been spending their time hell-bent on escaping. You might say that there was a particularily good attempt a few weeks ago, but the character was caught, which explains why they are in solitary confinement. I find this allows the players to participate in the passage of time and makes people feel less railroaded.

Moreover, on the topic of railroading, its really necessary when your leading a one-shot campaign. I understand, hypersmurf, that you have a very short period of time to bring new characters together, so what your describing is highly necessary. What's more, you've got a noble who is using the pc's, so, in fact, HE/SHE is doing the railroading. I've played in several campaigns where my characters have been lead by the nose by a NPC. Its wonderfully infuriating for the PC's and leads to some fantastic roleplaying.

Sounds great to me, hypersmurf, hope all goes well!

T from Three Haligonians