Telling a story vs. railroading

[rounser]

A definition with too many variables is simply less useful as a definition.

I think it's quite broad through no fault of anyone here....and the fact that some people are desperate not to see themselves as fitting the label because of it's negative connotations (for them...despite attempts to get me to play the part, I'm not labelling anyone a bad DM for railroading by any reasonable definition).

Engaging in "plot protection" for certain NPCs can result from just freak die rolls causing an unplanned death, and that fits neither of our definitions so far as I can see...no players are being coerced, and no "one and only one option" is being presented, but arguably railroading by someone's definition has still occurred because the DM ensures that that NPC either doesn't die or doesn't stay dead, and therefore the plot is arguably on tracks on some level.

It's like arguing about "what is munchkin".

 

[Raven Crowking]

(Just as a side note: You can have a setup which is not a railroad in which X is not an option. That the PCs cannot do everything the players decide does not make it a railroad. Nor does the presence of some choice prevent a railroad. A railroad occurs only where a number of choices that logically should be present are illogically not present, and/or the DM usurps control over specific choices that belong to the players.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

(Just as a side note: You can have a setup which is not a railroad in which X is not an option. That the PCs cannot do everything the players decide does not make it a railroad. Nor does the presence of some choice prevent a railroad. A railroad occurs only where a number of choices that logically should be present are illogically not present, and/or the DM usurps control over specific choices that belong to the players.)

I think everyone agrees that just because the PCs really want an audience with the king even though they're only 1st level, the DM is not railroading to have them thrown out of the castle by the guards.

 

[rounser]

Ah, but you are assuming that there is a way to know whether it is possible in the first place without any attempt made at variance. In other words, you are applying a test based upon the assumption of possiblity or non-possibility, whereas I am saying that the assumption, untested, has no informational value.

I think that this in a lot of cases is one of those unspoken social contracts, like not killing other PCs in their sleep because it disrupts the game. If the DM only ever presents one plot hook, then arguably he's training the players to follow his tracks. They don't necessarily have to brush off his one and only hook to make the correct assumption about his style of play.

It's possible for such a DM to turn around and go, "Why don't you guys ever do anything apart from the obvious hook I give you", but that's unlikely, because the kind of DM who wants players to get off the tracks actually gives them a hint that those possibilities are available.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Presumably the DM knows. And, if you aren't him, you could ask him. But, either way, the state of the game exists, even if the PCs aren't even aware of it.

But the DM doesn't necessarily know. Again, imagine that the DM and players have agreed to run Shackled City. The DM isn't thinking about running Castle Greyhawk. Whether or not he'd be willing to switch the campaign may not be a glimmer in his mind. That the players will balk at the next section may not have occurred to him.

Sometimes the DM knows. Sometimes the DM thinks he knows.....and this includes thinking that he is open to change when he is not. The proof is in the pudding. Until actual evidence is offerred, any statement about railroading is an opinion only. At least, IMHO.

Give the PCs the choice to go left or right and they have the encounter with the goblins no matter what. The Players didn't know that. Is it a railroad plot?

Not enough information to answer.

Do the players have a chance to do neither? If so, then there is a very good possibility that this is no different than rounser making a number of lairs and setting them in places where the PCs unexpectedly explore. I do this myself. If the players are forced to explore these lairs, then there may well be some railroading...but this is still not a foregone conclusion.

Example: The PCs are moving through the Hollow Hills, which are known to be rife with orcs. I didn't expect them to go there; I thought they decided to head to the Lair of the Dripping Pipes at the end of the last session. Luckily, I have some pre-prepared lairs and encounters. In one of these encounters, the PCs are soundly defeated due to some bad die rolls, and the orcs take them prisoner per standard orc protocol. Now, the PCs are inside a lair that was not "set" and perforce must deal with it as a result of an encounter that was not "set".

However, within the context of setting, the PCs can still make meaningful choices, and in no way did I as DM usurp decisions that should have been made by the players.

There is a very real case to be made that your goblin room example is no different. Personally, it's not the way I'd set up an encounter. Realistically, though, I wouldn't jump from my seat and scream "CHOO CHOO!" at the DM.

RC

 

[Vigilance]

No, I'm not. That was just an example. I'm sure you can dream up less work-intensive ways of alternatives to decreeing from on high that the next dungeon is the Mines of Moria, come hell or high water.

Right, and that way is, they can suspend disbelief and do the adventure I have planned, or they can wander off in a random direction and play an adventure I ad libbed. Which do you think, statistically, is likely to be the more well thought-out engaging adventure.

Here's the disconnect I have: your characters aren't real, they aren't beings with thoughts of their own. They are vehicles for you to suspend disbelief and get out of the world of the mundane for several hours.

The GM spends time between adventures trying to make that experience (suspending disbelief) as easy and enjoyable as possible.

But the players have to meet him half way.

Sometimes that means playing along and going into the dungeon. Not everytime to be sure.

But if it happens a lot, instead trying to find "a way that isn't super work intensive" I am going to do something that's REALLY not work intensive: just ad lib.

If you want ultimate freedom, you lose me preparing adventures.

If I invite a group of friends over for dinner, and Im cooking and paying for the food, it's ok if someone has an allergy, or doesn't like chili (and for purposes of this analogy we will assume I didn't know they hated chili when I made it and invited them).

But if you have an allergy or just don't like chili, you can have a sandwich and some chips. If you expect me to make a special meal just for you, go to a damn restaurant, and if you expect to have complete control over the adventure path at all times, you can get a good cable package and watch movies on demand.

This isn't some hyper-realist submersive improvisational experience. It's a game. And it's not a game of "watch the GM dance".

Chuck

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that this in a lot of cases is one of those unspoken social contracts, like not killing other PCs in their sleep because it disrupts the game. If the DM only ever presents one plot hook, then arguably he's training the players to follow his tracks. They don't necessarily have to brush off his one and only hook to make the correct assumption about his style of play.

It's possible for such a DM to turn around and go, "Why don't you guys ever do anything apart from the obvious hook I give you", but that's unlikely, because the kind of DM who wants players to get off the tracks actually gives them a hint that those possibilities are available.

The perception of having been presented only one hook, however, is unfortunately not necessarily factual. I have been DMing for a long time, and if I've learned one thing it's that players can easily miss, forget, and ignore plot hooks.

In one session, not horribly long ago (last summer), I actually had a player suggest that they were being forced to follow one course of action if they wanted to do anything. This was because of my finally throwing a really blatant plot hook at them in the form of an NPC that wanted them to do something for him.

I responded by enumerating the plot hooks that they were aware of, or should have been aware of. I ran out of fingers. They then decided to split the party and follow up two of the plot hooks that they had hitherto ignored. Fun ensued. The obvious plot hook, which was time sensitive, went away. One day the PCs might find out what it was about, and the area that it led to has changed due to their choice not to follow it up.

(Their hooks included the obvious ones, several cave complexes, an abandoned temple, taking a boat downriver...which was what they had decided to do last session, breaking a curse on an NPC, and visiting or exploring several other locations they were aware of. Even having planned to do something specific during the last session did not prevent them from seeing it as an option during the current session. The very next session, the players conceded that they have so many options they'll never be able to follow them all. That's the way I like it. )

What I am trying to say (in my typically long-winded way) is that an allegation of lack of choice, or a perception of having only one plot hook, is not in itself evidence of anything. Two roads lead out of town. One goes to the Dungeon of Fungal Remedies. The other goes to the Village of Restenford. The dungeon is an obvious hook, but the PCs might go exploring the other way. Or they might ask around and discover that six other possibilities open up.

When I begin a campaign, as said earlier, I like to have a strong hook for a higher-level dungeon, a strong hook for a maiden voyage, and several other possibilities for those people not interested in the first thing presented. My goal is not to overwhelm with choices. Rather, I like to allow the players to learn about the world through play and slowly add information that allows additional options. The players might start out with a strong hook to examine the Cathedral Caverns (where a local disappeared just last night...can you resuce him?), but investigation will show several other options (including other hooks for the Cathedral Caverns...can you get me a sample of green slime while you're there?). Going on that adventure opens up three more options. Each adventure after that opens up three more. Sometimes these options are loops....three adventures might hook back to the Castle of Snoring Frogs, for example. Other times they are completely new areas.

Even so, one can be accused of railroading. Perception isn't always accurate. Preception isn't enough.

 

[rounser]

Right, and that way is, they can suspend disbelief and do the adventure I have planned, or they can wander off in a random direction and play an adventure I ad libbed. Which do you think, statistically, is likely to be the more well thought-out engaging adventure.

That's a very good example of how players are generally trained to stick to the tracks.

If you want ultimate freedom, you lose me preparing adventures.

Sure. I didn't say "ultimate freedom" was the only alternative to railroading, though, nor did I say that your way is wrong.

 

[rounser]

Conversely, if the players were following the Shackled City adventure path, grew tired of it, and decided to go delve into Castle Greyhawk instead, and the DM forced them onto the next section, then there is railroading. If the DM says "Sorry, but I'm running Shackled City; perhaps someone else might like to do Castle Greyhawk" within this context, and simply stopped DMing, there is no railroad. The DM has not killed the potential of the characters; the players have no right to expect anything outside the initial "contract".

This is a good example of why I think that campaign settings are generally far too big for serving the needs of actual play, and why as a result many campaigns just hide in a dungeon because the setting's too big to truly use. In a setting the size of Thunder Rift, which is absolutely tiny at about 24x32 miles in size (yet still manages to fit in a whole gamut of D&D setting tropes), you could reasonably expect the DM to have detailed Ravens Ruin or Wizardspire, and interrupting the current adventure to go for a look there probably wouldn't be a problem.

In a campaign setting hundreds or thousands of times that size, such as Greyhawk, the DM won't be prepared for anywhere the PCs choose to go. That begs the question as to why bother with hundreds or thousands of miles that will remain unused in the first place, IMO. The size seems to be purely for epic worldbuilding reasons rather than gamist ones. A bit of rebalance towards the gamist end of the scale wouldn't hurt in some cases, I think.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is a good example of why I think that campaign settings are generally far too big for serving the needs of actual play, and why as a result many campaigns just hide in a dungeon because the setting's too big to truly use. In a setting the size of Thunder Rift, which is absolutely tiny at about 24x32 miles in size (yet still manages to fit in a whole gamut of D&D setting tropes), you could reasonably expect the DM to have detailed Ravens Ruin or Wizardspire, and interrupting the current adventure to go for a look there probably wouldn't be a problem.

In a campaign setting hundreds or thousands of times that size, such as Greyhawk, the DM won't be prepared for anywhere the PCs choose to go. That begs the question as to why bother with hundreds or thousands of miles that will remain unused in the first place, IMO. The size seems to be purely for epic worldbuilding reasons rather than gamist ones. A bit of rebalance towards the gamist end of the scale wouldn't hurt in some cases, I think.

Yet, one might easily say that a smaller setting has artificial boundaries that are themselves limitations on player choice. Assuming the use of the RAW (and I'd not blame you if that assumption was invalid in yuour case), I would think that perforce one would be forced to "railroad" as you define it one the PCs reached mid- to high-levels. Simply put, there is no way you can fully flesh out everywhere that high level magic can reach ahead of time.

RC