Telling a story vs. railroading

[haakon1]

The best way not to railroad is to create characters and situations that your players care about. That's really all you need.

If you start with a pre-made plot (such as an adventure path) tell your group about it and let them make characters who will care about it. If they don't like the idea, don't run the adventure path. Of course, this works better before you buy one, but still...

Agreed. This is much more likely to work than expecting the DM to have dozens of different plots ready for the PC's to choose from at any moment.

 

[haakon1]

IMO, "railroading" depends on whether you're talking about the beginning or the ending.

Setting up a situation that begins an adventure is not railroading, even if the situation makes a lot of assumptions. E.g., (iirc), the classic Slavers series of modules for 1e started with the PCs stripped of gear and in a prison. This is an interesting and challenging "bang" that gets the adventure rolling. As long as the players are free to deal with the setup as they see fit, you're good.

Driving an adventure or encounter towards a pre-planned ending is railroading. E.g., the DM manipulates an adventure or encounter so that the PCs will inevitably be stripped of their gear and placed in prison. No choice they make will alter this outcome.

Hmmm, I think that makes sense.

Another example: Railroading is "you can't try to pick pocket the Duke" or pickpocketing automatically fails for no pre-determine, rules-based reason. But if I player says "I want to pick pocket the Duke" and the DM advises him, "Hey, you remember the 4 big guards with halberds, right?" or has the guards attack the upstart in an "unfair" fight, that's not railroading.

 

[Elfdart]

The only module in the original Slavers series that started the PCs off a prisoners without gear is A4. A3 ended with the PCs encountering the Slavelords, in their own “lair” – they can surrender or fight or try to flee, but those guys aren’t called SlaveLORDS for nothing. Chances are, the PCs will end up prisoners without their gear, or the series ends with A3.

If you are referring to the megamodule built from the Slavers series, well, that is just an aberration that should be burned and it’s ashes scattered. *That* whole thing starts out as a railroad.

If we are going to discuss this concept, let’s not confuse the original series with the megamodule. Maybe this is why I'm not understanding Akrasia.

Quasqueton

Railroading was for David Cook what suspense was for Alfred Hitchcock!

 

[howandwhy99]

A railroad is when the DM, as a player of a game, disallows the Players, as players of a game, from taking action outside what the DM wants to have happen. You are being railroaded when the DM, as the controller of the *game*, *tells* you what happens without your taking action, or he prevents you from taking action. Railroading means the DM doesn't give the Players a choice, at all. Your actions are dictated.

I agree with you here. I think that's why it's best to never run a single adventure at one time. Seven or more in an initial region of the setting is probably best. An experienced DM could likely run 1 or 2 dozen at the same time, but that takes some skill. Drop some high level adventures hidden deeper in the region an you've got some potential growth for the area. Sketch in the surrounding regions with a pile of yet-to-be-placed adventures on hand and the DM is covered in case the PCs decide to leave. Measure the needs of filling in those regions by how fast the PCs can travel there and the DM knows what directions to fill in for the next session or 2+ sessions away from the current.

All of this helps alleviate the "Go here, do this" imperatives that tournament modules include due to their fixed time limit.

Also, you mentioned linear adventures as not railroading. While I agree in definition, I think they are very poor examples of adventure design. If an adventure presumes the PCs move from A to B to C to D, it's going to fail the second the PCs take a non-presumed action. I've seen the flowchart adventures too where all presumed actions branch out, but inevitably lead back to a single outcome or event (whether for a big finish or as a choke point). To me, funnelling PCs towards a definite end fulfills the "Your actions are dictated" part of the definition above. The Schrodinger's Cat method of placing encounters in a dungeon regardless of players' chosen direction is a similar extension of this. They're all predetermination. Linear adventures often can be repaired, but I still believe they're poor design. Pretty much any with a Synopsis at the front requires change. IMO, presuming anything of the PCs is a dangerous road for a DM.

Plots I think are integral to good event-based adventures. The problem is, they all too often are created in the linear style. All plots really are, in the realm of the game, are the plans in the minds of the NPCs. A demon's master plot to destroy a kingdom may include several interlinking plans. If enough succeed, the demon achieves his goal. For instance, taking power in the thieves' guild, corrupting the tax collectors to impoverish the commonfolk, alienating the country nobility from those in the city, dividing the king's family against him, starting a secret cult to create demonic-priests, and on and on. It doesn't take much to determine the operations of this intricate web and how the demon will use them to collapse the kingdom. With such intricacy, he likely has back up plans in case the primary doesn't work. What the PCs' actions do is constantly force the demon to redetermine his strategies. Initially, these probably mean small changes, greater PC victories likely mean some larger changes, and in the end the demon may just decide to change the goal. (i.e., cut his losses and run unless he's just another pawn in the game)

However, if a plot is something the DM designed for the Players to follow, whether complicitly or not, the PCs' choices become limited and forced. Nowhere in the above example does the plotting dictate player action, success, or even involvement.

I'll go out on a limb and say I think all uses of the term "railroading" really refer to DM force. Every DM forces their players to some degree or another. That's probably why you hear players seemingly misusing the term "railroading" when certain races or classes are restricted from play. Or when the world is low magic or high magic. These options were not to the player's choice, so they complain. That said, I think a certain amount of force is needed to make a good game. The genre needs to be agreed upon. The style of game as well. Starting a campaign with neophyte players often requires a "bang" to get them in motion, discover aspects of the world, and present decisions to make. It also gives the characters a reason to be together. However, often times an old group won't need an adventure or hook to start adventuring at all. For new players though, the the DM uses the force of the world to push the players into action. It can be used to push players away from actions the DM doesn't want as well, but I agree this is often frustrating to veterans. A new DM may use force more than others until he gets better at winging unprepared encounters, but in the end I think it's better to go where the players lead. They are the ones in charge of the adventure after all. To force feed a prepared adventure is essentially "saying NO to the players" when they've taken initiaive. Instead of allowing them the room to play, the DM puts on a play. Instead of players creating their entertainment, the DM too often becomes the entertainer.

To enable players to start taking iniative I propose presenting a world of adventure. Filled with adventures like the 7 or more suggested above, rumors and storyhooks are flush for the finding. Ideally, the setting itself is fresh enough to inspire the players to explore or take charge of what they see. (I think this was probably easier in the early years of D&D when everything was fresh, but as fantasy and fantasy literature has become more like pastiche, in my opinion, this becomes more difficult to do) To be really fresh I'd suggest mostly new monsters, magic items, spells, and more. Motivating the players is more important than providing a motivation for PCs. Once the players start planning their own plots, regardless if they line up with the DMs, the game really starts moving.

Players taking initiative and not being boxed in by a DM means less force overall. With more choices players can choose what to do rather than playing the game "what way are we supposed to go?". There is a nice article on the Wizards boards about "Leaning into it". It's about players needing to lean into a DM-prepared adventure instead of making choices against it, but I would turn it around on its' head. The DM would be better off leaning into the players' decisions, flushing out the aspects of the world they seek out, rather than leading the action down a pre-planned course. After all, if the players choose the direction, they're interested, right?

All that said, I know many players don't like to make their own decisions. They enjoy games where the course of events is chosen for them. I wasn't playing D&D when the Dragonlance craze occured in the mid-80's. So I don't know why it enthralled so many to play adventures following a narrative one could already read in a book. My guess is some authors are just better at creating an interesting story than a group of D&D players is through play. The fact that it led to the style of 2E adventures and so many non-D&D games based on storytelling and narrative is something I can't ignore. I'd like to think their is room for both. One with less DM force and one with more. But I haven't heard about people running more than one adventure at a time for awhile.

Players who favor storytelling play often misrepresent other styles in my mind as: "Just killing monsters and taking their stuff" to paraphrase. I'd really be interested in knowing what the "something more" is that pre-determined story games offer. To me they look to create barriers around player choice and opt for author created scripts rather than player created ones.

In my new FR campaign the PC's found a dead body in a goblin lair surrounded by dozens of dead goblins. With the body they found a letter addressed to a prominent NPC in the nearest town and a Harper pin. They showed the Harper pin to the NPC (who is a Senior Harper operative) and since the party can now tie a known Harper to him the NPC has forced the PC's to work with him, or be imprisoned in a Harper stronghold until his mission is over

In my view, in this case you're doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons. Having a powerful foe travel along and dictate the PCs' actions is a bit like dominating the whole party - with no choices it stops being a game. Even if it makes sense due to consequences, I'd still try and think of another plausible course of action. As a player, I'd believe my PC was essentially imprisoned and would seek escape. If the Harper is so overpowering the only outcome is a TPK or slavery, I'd change the PCs to NPC status and start a new group (perhaps to free them).

 

[ShinHakkaider]

You know I'm reading all of this stuff about how railroading is "bad" and the game should be controlled by the players and I'm thinking that all of this should be common sense for experienced DM's. I'm also not seeing a middle line here about using published adventures. The fact that you use a published adventure isnt railroading, it's HOW you use the adventure which once again comes back to a point that one or two people have already pointed out, it's the DM NOT the adventure itself.

A DM who let's his players know that he's using a adventure path or a module is letting his players know that there is a definite goal in mind for the adventure. It's the PLAYER'S responsibility at that point to speak up and say "uh, no. we want to just wander and do whatever". Then the PLAYER'S and the DM to talk and reach a middle ground as to what they want.

As a DM with limited time I really get all types of heated when I read things that basically say that the DM should be slave to the player's whim, which I think is absolute garbage. There needs to be a balance to this relationship. As a DM I'm there to basically help my players to have fun, but also to enjoy myself as well. I've done the freeform plot thing before, several times and I'll tell you IT SUCKS. My players, tend to like direction. And I'm not talking about my present group, I'm talking about most of the people I've run games for since I was 13 back in 1984. Direction and focus are not railroading.

That being said if youre using a published adventure and the PC's stray from the path of the adventure...let them. They dont know what the details of the adventure are. The illusion of choice is only an illusion for the DM because he/she is the only one who is aware of how things are supposed to go. Let the players try to carry out whatever plan that they want to, if it's a good well thought out plan they might have a chance of success. If they pull it off, great. But as a DM sometimes we have to think on our feet, so we have to change the plan that's in front of us to make sure that our players have fun. But that doesnt mean we SCRAP the plan altogether becasue it's a published adventure.

Bottom line, the players really only start to suspect things are wonky when the DM tells them flat out: "NO". Otherwise most time they'll TRUST you to do right by them. So the trick is: don't tell them no unless it's something truly outrageous. Let them bribe the bad guy instead of fighting him, let them try to pick pocket the Duke with the heavily armed escort, let them try to do whatever. But as long as they are aware there is a consequence for failure there shouldnt be a problem.

But railroading, it's only railroading if they think that there's only one way to do things.

 

[buzz]

You know I'm reading all of this stuff about how railroading is "bad" and the game should be controlled by the players and I'm thinking that all of this should be common sense for experienced DM's... which once again comes back to a point that one or two people have already pointed out, it's the DM NOT the adventure itself.

What if you're not an experienced DM? If I'm following the published advanture, and the adventure is railroading the players, it's not my fault. How am I supposed to know otherwise?

As a DM with limited time I really get all types of heated when I read things that basically say that the DM should be slave to the player's whim, which I think is absolute garbage.

I don't think that anyone here is saying that, Shin. There absolutely needs to be consensus. The main point (as James Wyatt points out in my .sig) is that the PCs are the protagonists. What they do should matter.

Bottom line, the players really only start to suspect things are wonky when the DM tells them flat out: "NO". Otherwise most time they'll TRUST you to do right by them. So the trick is: don't tell them no unless it's something truly outrageous. Let them bribe the bad guy instead of fighting him, let them try to pick pocket the Duke with the heavily armed escort, let them try to do whatever. But as long as they are aware there is a consequence for failure there shouldnt be a problem.

Yep. As Vincent Baker puts it in Dogs in the Vineyard, "Say 'yes,' or roll the dice."

 

[happyelf]

Telling a story is not railroading. Setting up an adventure is not railroading. Having consequences to action/inaction is not railroading. “Linear” adventures are not railroading.

Linear adventures are railroading. It's also railroading if the GM creates overwhemling or extremly severe 'consequences' for diverging from a certain path.

 

[Quasqueton]

What classic (AD&D1 or B/ED&D) adventure modules were/are “railroads”? What such adventures definitely were/are not?

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Linear adventures are railroading.

Escort the caravan from City A to City B.

Take this letter to Mr. X.

Etc. Linear adventures, not [necessarily] railroads.

Quasqueton

 

[Agent Oracle]

What classic (AD&D1 or B/ED&D) adventure modules were/are “railroads”? What such adventures definitely were/are not?

Quasqueton

Well, the Tree of Elven Might, the only one I'm intimately familiar with was definitely not a linear adventure. as a matter of fact, you could argue that it is entirely too vague. Either that, or i'm missing a big piece of it