Station Squatting (Player Railroading)

[Jhaelen]

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

Exactly. Before I as a DM start a campaign, I make sure everyone knows what it'll be about.

For my current campaign I wrote a short overview, describing setting, people, and theme. I described recent events, hinted at things to come and defined their proposed role.

I also made a list of 'houserules' I wanted to use and provided a list of allowed races.

After collecting initial feedback I made some minimal adjustments, and off we went!

We're now into our 6th year and I haven't had any problems with 'station squatting'. So far there's only one character that can be hard to convince to engage in 'adventuring' from time to time.

Over time I've also loosened some of the initial restrictions to allow for a wider range of character concepts.

Then again, I've known most of my players for about two decades, so I know what playstyle they enjoy...

 

[Desdichado]

While I agree there is a time and place for running a business I don't think DnD is that type of game.

Why not? One of D&D's greatest assets is that it can be about anything the group collectively decides that it's about, and it tends to work.

I mean I've heard of players shopping for underwear, which frankly is a ridiculous waste of time. I'd have no issues with them trying to start up a village or protecting their business from a local crime lord, but I don't think they should care about making muffins when the local cult is trying to assasinate the city rulers.

Yeah, but why should they care about local cults and city rulers? Are they invested in the city rulers? For all you know, these characters don't care who's in power, or heck; they may even prefer a power changeover.

If your hooks aren't getting the players' interest, my first thought isn't to blame the players; it's to blame the hooks for clearly not being compelling enough. You kinda hit on it yourself; if they want to run a business, let them. And then create hooks that threaten their business. Find some way to make the adventure personal so that they care about it.

Its really a matter of a level of respect for the story and the purpose of the game. I'm not saying that people would be playing wrong or any of that nonsense, but I do think its bad form on the players to not adventure in a game about adventuring.

Actually, in spite of your denial, it seems to me like it's exactly what you're saying: running a business in D&D is the wrong way to play the game. Baloney. There is no wrong way to play it.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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 DM has a responsibility here as well. I think that before any campaign starts, the DM and players should discuss what kind of game and the parameters of the game. I typically engage my players in discussion in order to get an idea of what they want out of the game, and to give them options.

 

[Desdichado]

I generally find that player's only statio squat when they either

1. Are passive aggressively rebelling against the existing storyline, or

2. Are in a sandbox campaign and don't know what else to do.

Both are usually the DM's fault. Once station squatting starts, the best thing to do is try to incorporate the station into the adventure. Players develop quick emotional attachments, and its not worth fighting with them about it.

Bingo! This post is full of win.

 

[S'mon]

Actually, in spite of your denial, it seems to me like it's exactly what you're saying: running a business in D&D is the wrong way to play the game. Baloney. There is no wrong way to play it.

If that means the GM is expected to accommodate whatever play style the players want, then I disagree. I can run a wandering bandits game, or a loyal knights of the crown game, possibly a thieves' guild or apprentice wizards game. I can run a territory development game, or a political intrigue game, possibly a pirates game. Possibly a mining game. I can run a police/investigation game. I can run a rebels vs authority game. I can't effectively run a bakery game, or a farming game, unless the farm is on the frontier - territory development on a smaller scale.

I don't want to run a game where the PCs run a small business in a city. That just doesn't interest me.

Edit: OTOH it's fine for the PC adventurers to own a small business, as long as they still go adventuring! Maybe the players want an island of stability in a chaotic setting. In that case I would be reluctant to threaten the business, I'd let it tick along nicely while the PCs continued dungeon-delving.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't want to run a game where the PCs run a small business in a city. That just doesn't interest me.

Me neither, but that's neither here nor there. It's not objectively wrong or "bad form", as his post claims. It's just something that he's not interested in.

 

[S'mon]

Me neither, but that's neither here nor there. It's not objectively wrong or "bad form", as his post claims. It's just something that he's not interested in.

It's bad form to agree to play Dungeons & Dragons, then demand to play Bakers and Breadrolls. But if GM and players are both in agreement then it's fine, sure.

 

[Desdichado]

Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the game and the "proper" way to play it, so much as it has to do with setting expectations of everyone involved on the same page.

For instance; I have no interest or desire to play games in which large cavern or temple complexes need to be explored to find treasure and monsters to fight. I find that kind of game extremely boring, formulaic and unengaging. Nevertheless, I'd object rather vehemenently to anyone who tried to say that I'm playing D&D wrong, or my D&D games exhibit bad form. Especially since my players seem to be happy enough with the games I run in spite of the lack of a number of specific D&Disms.

The only wrong way to run a game is where the group isn't having fun. That means different things to different people, but there's no proscriptive formula that can be applied to a D&D game, and otherwise you're showing "bad form." If everyone at the table enjoys it, keep whatever form floats your boat.

 

[Alikar]

Why not? One of D&D's greatest assets is that it can be about anything the group collectively decides that it's about, and it tends to work.

Yeah, but why should they care about local cults and city rulers? Are they invested in the city rulers? For all you know, these characters don't care who's in power, or heck; they may even prefer a power changeover.

If your hooks aren't getting the players' interest, my first thought isn't to blame the players; it's to blame the hooks for clearly not being compelling enough. You kinda hit on it yourself; if they want to run a business, let them. And then create hooks that threaten their business. Find some way to make the adventure personal so that they care about it.

Actually, in spite of your denial, it seems to me like it's exactly what you're saying: running a business in D&D is the wrong way to play the game. Baloney. There is no wrong way to play it.

I had a nice response to this whole thing, but as I have yet to learn ENWorld consumes long written posts and forgets you wrote them.

Regardless, I have nothing against businesses in a game, things like mercenary companies and protection guilds offer great center points to a game. However, I believe that things like bakeries and such are something where you should be looking for a different system and not DnD. Since DnD is a combat centered RPG why are you running an economics game out of it? Seems fairly odd to me, but as I have said I'm not telling you that you can't merely that it isn't what would be expected.

To me DnD is like the Lord of the Rings, you don't expect Frodo to suddenly open a pastry shop along the way to Mount Doom. So neither would I expect my players, who have never done this in any of my campaigns (regardless of people implying such, not to mention begrudging my DM skills who have never seen them), to set up a bakery when the local town is being attacked by hobgoblins.

Station Squatting is a new concept and just like rail roading I expect it to meet with an initial resistance from individuals before people realize that while a DM shouldn't force players down a script, neither should the players change the genre of the story.

 

[jdrakeh]

Station Squatting is a new concept and just like rail roading I expect it to meet with an initial resistance from some individuals before people realize that while a DM shouldn't force players down a script, neither should the players change the genre of the story.

By your definition, though, Station Squatting isn't a new concept at all. . . it's simply an effort to intellectualize age old DM complaints that PCs are actively avoiding a heavily rail-roaded plot. I don't typically agree with Hobo (in fact, we typically agree about nothing), but I agree with him here. I guess it's a Christmas miracle.

If you can explain to me how your concept of "Station Squatting" is anything other than a disguised complaint that PCs won't follow the DM's pre-scripted story, I'd love to hear it. So far, though, this is all that the proposed definitions and examples amount to. In that regard, "Station Squatting" is merely a new word for a very old concept.

Now, I'm not going to say that having the DM dicatate all of your actions to you or attempt to enforce that your PCs are only allowed to do the things he has planned for you to do is bad DMing — but it's certainly not the kind of game that any roleplayer I know would be interested in.