Station Squatting (Player Railroading)

[Rechan]

Yeah, if you're running an adventure path/quest type campaign then squatting is definitely a problem. In a sandbox campaign it can work well though. ... Of course sometimes the PCs want to do something so mundane it becomes difficult to run a fun RPG.

However, if your players are spending a lot of time on stuff like that and you don't want to, just talk to them.

The DM should convey what kind of game he wants to run. Given that he does that, if the players agree to play that game and then refuse to engage, it's lame.

The above, much truth.

This sort of situation isn't just cut and dry. "The players don't want to follow my railroad, so I shall destroy their distraction" is a bit harsh. But so too is "I set aside all my prep work because the PCs want to run a day care." As Harr points out, the former will seriously build some resentment in your players. But the latter can lead to DM resentment, that the players hijacked his campaign.

Certainly there must be more to the issue (and more answers) than one of two polar extremes.

There are generally three problems I see with this sort of focus.

1) Someone's fun is being sacrificed. In the OP, it's the DM. The question becomes, "Should the individual not having fun soldier through it for the benefit of the others?" A DM who is not happy is not going to run a good game. A player who is not happy is going to bring down the other players.

2) Not everyone can become as vested or situate into the focus. Even though everyone at the table when the game begins might be interested in the focus, new players may very well be turned off from it, or not be able to make it "their own" because they came in later. Let me provide an example from my game:

I am right now running an "Establish a frontier colony in the dark continent" campaign, involving lots of managing the colony, supernatural politics and battling the local monstrous denizens, along with some exploration. My old players I allowed to draw the initial blueprints for the colony's construction, establish their laws, and building/trade establishment (one PC is really going after establishing docks and waypoints along rivers and the coast).

However, getting new players to be as enthusiastic and engaged with the colony construction or the political landscape is challenging. A new player joined, wanting to just run around ruins and disable traps. Something that I do not have a lot of prep for, and I can't just turn the game to focus on that. The other new players might not feel as vested an interest in designing the colony's map, or fleshing out the colony at all.

3) What the PCs (or DM) want to focus on is sodding BORING. It is so mundane that there are only a few ways to spice it up to make it a fun RPG. Ultimately it just becomes a sitcom, rather than a prime time action thriller. While some people at the table might like this, it will sap the enjoyment out of everyone else.

What this comes down to is a lack of Communication. Talk to the players, talk to the DM.

First order of business, I think, is for the DM to lay out what ideas for a campaign he has, what he is interested in running, and how he expects the players to behave as PCs (Heroes, suckers, etc). If the DM desires a sandbox style game where the PCs determine goals and pursue them, or points to a map and wants to explore that region, then the players should know that. Otherwise, they might be waiting for him to feed them the plot, and the DM is getting frustrated with his directionless players.

Or, he opens the floor and sees what the players want to play. If they want to be bakers or whatever, they can start out that way. This also requires everyone to state what sort of campaigns they are not willing to play in ("Bill doesn't want to do an epic, save the world campaign, Daryll doesn't want an urban campaign, the DM doesn't feel equipped to do a sea-based campaign"). I once approached this, and everyone at the table agreed to play wandering gypsy con artists, and the campaign revolved around their various schemes.

After the game has all ready begun, and the players take a sudden left turn and plunk down, the DM needs to talk to them. Ask them, "Okay, what do you expect from this campaign, what would you like me to do to facilitate what you want, and what am I doing that you Don't want?" Being abrasive to the character's goals (The barge) will come across as petty and mean (Unless it's WHF, where torched barge is par of the course). If the players want to take that left turn, the DM needs to decide if he's fine with that, and if he can sacrifice his plot.

 

[Stogoe]

Station squatting is a complement to the DM's world building. Enjoy it.

No, it's selfish. I want to run a game/story of high adventure and danger, not listen to you list off bakery ingredients for several hours at a time. That's not fun for me - it's my game, too. I deserve to enjoy being a DM, because it's a bunch of work.

So if the players refuse to go to the adventure, I will bring the adventure to the players. I probably won't torch the bakery. But maybe somebody will poison the duke's birthday cake, or they'll be asked to send correspondence across the front lines via pastry. Maybe a portal will open up in the oven and they'll be transported to the Plane of Biting Donuts.

 

[roguerouge]

... I mean I've heard of players shopping for underwear, which frankly is a ridiculous waste of time. ...

That really depends on the underwear and who's wearing it, don't you think?

 

[roguerouge]

A lot of this strikes me as a false dichotomy. Surely you can have sessions that advance the plot and weave in sessions that explore the characters and build the world.

A railroad, after all, does have stations along the way.

 

[Umbran]

No, it's selfish. I want to run a game/story of high adventure and danger, not listen to you list off bakery ingredients for several hours at a time.

Being a DM is an exercise in compromise. "Give and take" is the order of the day.

That's not fun for me - it's my game, too. I deserve to enjoy being a DM, because it's a bunch of work.

Being a DM is a lot of effort. If that effort feels like "work", then I suggest you take a good look at how you are going about it. It doesn't have to feel like work.

 

[Greg K]

No, it's selfish. I want to run a game/story of high adventure and danger, not listen to you list off bakery ingredients for several hours at a time. That's not fun for me - it's my game, too. I deserve to enjoy being a DM, because it's a bunch of work.

Then, find players that share your interest and playstyle.

 

[jdrakeh]

No matter the number of pleasant terms that it is couched in, when I read the suggested definiton of "Station Squating" and the recommended 'solutions' to the issue in question, what I see is "I'm the Conductor, and if players try to get off of my train before it reaches the end of the line, I'm going to start blowing up train stations so they don't have that option!"

So, you have a Master Plan and the players don't want to follow it? You're upset that players are more interested in creating their own adventures than following that Master Plan to the letter? You feel that players shouldn't be allowed to pursue their own interests and are obligated to do what you (as the GM) tell them to do? Great. Here's the thing. It's not all about you.

When you GM a game, you're running it for other people, not dictating it to them. If you just want to bark orders and have people fall into line, you're in the wrong hobby. Ultimately, the GM is a game facilitator — a person who takes care of things behind the scenes so players can do X. While this typically means setting up various challenges, it by no means entails dictating character behavior, goals, or pre-scripted plot to the players.

Having said that, ideally, the players and the GM should work together to get things done — neither entity should hold complete power over the other. If the DM is a tyrant that smashes, kills, or mangles anything that the PCs have an interest in outside of his pre-determined epic railroad, he'll soon be running a train without passengers. Likewise, if the PCs take every opportunity to abandon the train, they'll never travel very far.

So, continuing the analogy, if you own a train and expect to keep people onboard for the long haul, you had better make their stay comfortable. More often than not, this means making scheduled stops. Likewise, if you get on a train, keep in mind that it's going somewhere specific. If that's not a place that you want to go, then don't board the train in the first place (or, alternately, let the Conductor know that you'd rather go someplace else ahead of time — he can always throw some switches on the track).

Oh, and Conductor? You should always let the passengers know where your train is going before you start selling tickets.

 

[SiderisAnon]

And if the players want to open a bakery... god... ok...

Two words: Pastry Golem.



We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

My biggest problem with the whole "station squatting" thing is that I tend to have a couple of players station squatting, a couple driving the plot, and one off chasing butterflies somewhere. I've actually had to schedule time after sessions or sessions where some of the players couldn't be there due to work so the ones who really wanted to station squat could do so, be happy, and then get on with the plot line.

And every once in a while, I just throw my notes out the window and start winging it because the players have crashed the train, ripped up the tracks, sold it all for scrap, and then sold all the stock in the railroad to someone else.

 

[S'mon]

I don't run railroads (including Adeventure Paths, or many Call of Cthulu & Warhammer Fantasy scenarios), but I've had the experience of:

Me:
"OK, I want to run Caverns of Thracia" - a sandbox dungeon

Players:
"OK, we are a merchant ship captain and crew, we have no interest in dungeons or dragons. Entertain us."

I tried running a merchant ship game, but it foundered quickly.

I think fundamentally the onus is on the players to create suitable PCs for the game - normally that means adventurers, not merchants and shopkeepers.

 

[Rechan]

I don't run railroads (including Adeventure Paths, or many Call of Cthulu & Warhammer Fantasy scenarios), but I've had the experience of:

Me:
"OK, I want to run Caverns of Thracia" - a sandbox dungeon

Players:
"OK, we are a merchant ship captain and crew, we have no interest in dungeons or dragons. Entertain us."

I tried running a merchant ship game, but it foundered quickly.

I think fundamentally the onus is on the players to create suitable PCs for the game - normally that means adventurers, not merchants and shopkeepers.

The best response to this, in a situation where you have no intention of running "Merchant Ship and no adventuring", is you say "Very well. You don't need me to DM for that. Get back to me when you want me to run you through Caverns of Thracia."

Sidenote: There are systems that revolve not around adventuring. Take Prime Time Adventures for instance; I've seen PTA used to emulate sit-coms like "The Office". Something like this might be more appropriate to "Merchants on a Ship", turning it into a drama about the lives of men at sea on a cargo vessel. A possible better fit than D&D. Sitting down to play D&D implies, well, dragons and dungeons.