Telling a story vs. railroading

[Hussar]

I haVe found that the best games I run begin with me begining an area with a lot of possible adventures, a strong adventure hook for a "big" dungeon that the PCs know they cannot tackle starting out, and a strong adventure hook for a "maiden voyage" adventure. But the area is literally seeded so that the PCs can go in any direction and seek out something. This is, IMHO, one of the real draws of the Wilderlands setting -- PCs can wander about, involving themselves in all sorts of things.

That said, I do not believe that anything that takes control away from the PCs is railroading. That is simply too broad a definition to be of any value. I do not believe that charm spells constitute railroading (by forcing PC action) any more than I believe paralysis is railroading (by forcing PC inaction). That sort of reasoning results in PC death becoming lumped into the inflated term "railroading". Obviously, the DM is forcing me to make a new character.

*snipped for brevity

Just my $.02, of course, and IMHO.

RC

Just because I so rarely get to say this - I agree 100% with RC.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just because I so rarely get to say this - I agree 100% with RC.

 

[rounser]

Yet, one might easily say that a smaller setting has artificial boundaries that are themselves limitations on player choice.

Sure. It's the setting equivalent of a dungeon (Thunder Rift even has 1/2 mile high cliff "walls"). The trade off is that because the pond is small, there's a lot of freedom to do what you like within that small scope, as opposed to a big pond with limitations on choice imposed by necessity.

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.

If you put Thunder Rift on a pocket plane with no exits, why not? That is the setting, full stop. By locking the players into that setting, you're arguably no more railroading than running the entire campaign in the Forgotten Realms (with no trips to the planes, Realmspace, or other worlds like Krynn). If causing plane shift spells and items to fail in this setting is necessary to enforce this, then so be it - the accusation of railroading the RAW can well be made on that basis, but arguably it can be justified as a planar trait.

That decided, the only question to answer is "what if the PCs go into the mountains and continue beyond the edge of the map"...my answer is borrowed from Malatra (another microsetting, for the now defunct Living Jungle RPGA campaign), where incredibly powerful antipathy spell beacons are in effect on the borders of the map a few miles beyond the cliffs of the rift, put there by an unknown power. If the PCs somehow get past that, they find that the mountains "wrap around", and they appear on the other side of the map. These are just quirks of the pocket plane.

There's only one city, two towns, one keep and a dwarvenhome as the population centres....further human, halfling, humanoid, dwarven and elven settlements are implied, but are probably no more than villages or hamlets because they're not even marked on the map. You could detail these places using just published sources, let alone your own work, and thus, the PCs can effectively go anywhere within the setting.

 

[Vigilance]

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

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

Im not talking about training anyone. Im saying that players going off the rails is expected. Heck, it's the reason I run a game rather than write Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan fic

What I am saying is, players make choices.

That's what this whole thread is about, the ability of players to make choices.

Everyone agrees this is good. Players should be allowed to make choices.

But part of making choices are realizing that those choices have consequences, and then living with those consequences. That's what adults do.

When I write an adventure, since I know my group, I try to anticipate places where they might want go outside the lines. I also try to design adventures that appeal to what my players like.

Sometimes they will go pretty far afield, which as I already said, is expected, allowed and fun. I have very limited time, like most people. This puts constraints on how much energy I can put into my game. So if you go completely outside the margins of what's been prepared, then you aren't going to get a prepared adventure.

That's a choice and a consequence. Only little kids think you can have one without the other.

 

[Hussar]

The problem that I'm seeing here is that we're defining railroading so broadly that it has no meaning. If a setting like Ravenloft is railroading, then, well, pretty much anything is.

It doesn't matter if there are four choices or one in this definition. The fact that there are specific choices dictated to the party means its a railroad. Sure, it's less of a railroad if there are more choices, but, under this definition, it's a railroad nonetheless. It doesn't matter how many tracks there are, the simple existence of tracks is enough to say railroad.

However, if you define railroading as an action taken by the adventure designer or the DM to protect a particular result, then it becomes a much more useful term to use.

 

[tetsujin28]

RPGs do not exist to "tell a story". They exist to, hopefully, create a story as a collaborative effort.

Or not.

The whole "GM as storyteller" idea must die the death it deserves.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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

AWESOME. TOTALLY AWESOME!!!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure. It's the setting equivalent of a dungeon (Thunder Rift even has 1/2 mile high cliff "walls"). The trade off is that because the pond is small, there's a lot of freedom to do what you like within that small scope, as opposed to a big pond with limitations on choice imposed by necessity.

If you put Thunder Rift on a pocket plane with no exits, why not? That is the setting, full stop. By locking the players into that setting, you're arguably no more railroading than running the entire campaign in the Forgotten Realms (with no trips to the planes, Realmspace, or other worlds like Krynn). If causing plane shift spells and items to fail in this setting is necessary to enforce this, then so be it - the accusation of railroading the RAW can well be made on that basis, but arguably it can be justified as a planar trait.

That decided, the only question to answer is "what if the PCs go into the mountains and continue beyond the edge of the map"...my answer is borrowed from Malatra (another microsetting, for the now defunct Living Jungle RPGA campaign), where incredibly powerful antipathy spell beacons are in effect on the borders of the map a few miles beyond the cliffs of the rift, put there by an unknown power. If the PCs somehow get past that, they find that the mountains "wrap around", and they appear on the other side of the map. These are just quirks of the pocket plane.

There's only one city, two towns, one keep and a dwarvenhome as the population centres....further human, halfling, humanoid, dwarven and elven settlements are implied, but are probably no more than villages or hamlets because they're not even marked on the map. You could detail these places using just published sources, let alone your own work, and thus, the PCs can effectively go anywhere within the setting.

Rounser, pardon me if I am wrong, but it seems to me as though you are saying that a prescribed location in which the PCs must adventure (or not adventure at all) is railroading when, say, I do it, or Quasqueton does it, but not when you do it. Or, are you saying that enough rooms and branching tunnels prevent railroading even if it's the only dungeon in town?

The only difference I see between something like "We're playing Waterdeep and Undermountain" and "We're playing Thunder Rift" is (maybe) scope.

RC

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'm simply saying that I see the reasons for why most people railroad (including myself), but that the game would probably improve if it was more conducive to allowing player choice. I've stated the reasons for why most people railroad, and I'm not asking anyone to change, but Quasqueton and yourself seem to be taking the idea of "less railroad would probably improve the campaign" to be an affront on your playing style.

I don't consider it an affront to my gaming style. What I do have a problem with is people saying that X or Y WILL improve your game, when I've pretty much stated that I've tried X or Y in the past and it hasnt really worked for myself or many of my groups. My players like focus they like to know where they are going. Putting lots of things for them to do on the map is great, but then What to do? They can spend HOURS sometimes entire sessions trying to figure out what to do and then you know what? NOBODY ACTUALLY GETS TO PLAY.

In a scenario like that, If I as a DM take control of the situation and start nudging them in a general direction it might be percieved as "railroading" and then I'll be forced to summon C'thulhu to consume my players and then finally my own frail sanity. Fortunately, my players dont mind the nudging, so no C'thulhu for them. But you lot however...

I can see a couple of problems with this:

a) D&D parties have no way of knowing the relative toughness of a monster until they're deep into the encounter (i.e. have suffered significant damage).

b) If the monster is tough enough and faster than them, they may not be able to retreat when they've worked that out, calling for either DM fudging or character deaths.

Wow, youre really reliant on the actual system to do everything that an actual half decent DM could pull off in his sleep.

Youre right most parties dont know the relative toughness of a monster. But as a DM part of your job is to frame the world that exists around the players. They should know that the area to the north where the HILL GIANTS are at constant skirmish with the Korchac Barbarian Tribes is a DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE.

Any group that doesnt at least ask questions about an area that they are going to venture to is asking for trouble. When they ask you either tell them through RUMOR or through people who have actually been there or through history or whatever means that you can that this area might be a little over the heads of some Novice adventurers. I really dont understand how this is a hard concept to grasp. Once again it's nitpicking details that usually get worked out at the actual table, during actual play, not discussions on theory.

You can put on the kiddie gloves by having "hint hint" encounters that PCs can escape from on the edges of a tough area, or have in-game signposts up saying "bad idea, don't go here yet", but how do the NPCs know what the PCs are capable of? How do the PCs tell between "everyone who's gone there has died" and a "you're 12th level now, everyone who went there and died was 6th level or less...have a go".

Once again this is all handled IN GAME. There are any number of ways to address these things. In fact I dont see any problem with the first thing that you mentioned (not using literal signposts, but dropping little hints that this might not be an area that they want to be in). One of the things that I did waaaaay back in second editon was have the PC's have a freindly rivalry with 2 or 3 different groups of adventuring groups, some higher level and some lower level. I had them witness, from a distance of course one such group get taken apart by a threat that would have been too tough for the PC's. How did they know that, because the PC's knew that the other group was more experienced and tougher than they were. So they knew that proceeding would have spelt the end for them.

Like I said, most thinking DM's have ways to communicate information to thier PC's that work within the context of the world that they are playing in. That much is NOT in the ruleset and is handled by the DM.

Maybe PCs need a mentor who can say, "Ahem, well yes, I did say the Marshes of Certain Doom would spell certain doom for you a month ago, but you cleared out the Canyon of Easy Pickings, so I think you can handle it now." Seems a touch metagamey, and asks how the NPC knows that the Marshes of Certain Doom are that tough unless he's some kind of Elminster (which brings problems of it's own), but this is a metagamey issue.

How is this metagamey and Elminster like? You seek to limit the scope of an argument by using an archtype (the mentor) and then calling it metagamey? Seriously D00d, if the PC's do have a mentor, to you presume that the mentor has no other sources of information? The mentor has no idea what the PC's may or may not be able to handle? No idea that once again the PC's may or may not be the only adventurers who may want to attempt to enter the Marshes of Certain Doom and that a reasonably powerful group of adventurers entered there last month and NEVER RETURNED. Or is using his own resources to investigate the threat him/herself and gauge when the PC's might be able to interceed? If all of that is metagamey then I might have misunderstood what metagaming is....

MMORPGs solve this dilemma by letting you consider a monster, and basically you get told it's CR (or an abstract notion of that relative to your own level). D&D doesn't do this, as far as I'm aware.

D00d, isnt what you just described metagaming?

 

[rounser]

Rounser, pardon me if I am wrong, but it seems to me as though you are saying that a prescribed location in which the PCs must adventure (or not adventure at all) is railroading when, say, I do it, or Quasqueton does it, but not when you do it. Or, are you saying that enough rooms and branching tunnels prevent railroading even if it's the only dungeon in town?

No, because railroading isn't about being tied to a specific place in my definition of it; it's control over the course of the campaign in terms of which adventures occur.

You can railroad in Undermountain (by my definition) by saying "we're playing Stardock, then the Lost Level, then Maddgoth's Castle" and as a DM making sure it's so.

Being locked into Ravenloft when the campaign's set there isn't railroading by my definition; that's just the chosen setting. Forcing the PCs into Feast of Goblyns as their only possible course of action while in there is.

As I've said earlier in this thread - I'm discussing railroading at the campaign arc level, of which adventure occurs next, not in terms of the finite area of a dungeon or setting. By that measure, I'm sure that not even all the infinite planes would satisfy someone's strange definition of railroading as "any DM-imposed restriction whatsoever", which you again seem to be hinting that you believe in, and as we've covered earlier in the thread is a furphy.