Telling a story vs. railroading

[Endur]

I think the most egregious case of railroading comes when a DM has plans to capture a party that can not be thwarted. Without a lot of build up and work, most people will not let their parties be captured. Because of the nature of the game, many people would rather die than potentially lose their gear.

Blasphemy from a cleric 5+ caster levels above the party. Entire party is now prisoners. No railroading required.

 

[Quasqueton]

A1's a railroad too. (The whole A series, as written, is pretty railroady -- which is understandable, since those modules were written for tournament play. DL1, in contrast, has no such excuse.)

How is A1 a railroad? I’m not defending A1, I’m really asking to understand where you’re coming from. Please be as specific as possible.

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

I'll give you guys a classic example of railroading:

Final Fantasy 7. Aeris dies. no matter what you do, no matter how you play and how many buffs you give to Aeris, she dies. It's not something the player has any control over.

That's not a railroad. The DM is forcing the players to do something. That is a predestined event. Not all things should the PCs be able to stop or do something to stop. There is nothing wrong with the PCs failing at something and nothing wrong with the DM knowing the PCs are going to fail before the event even starts. A bad DM can make this unfun and unfair, but a good DM will make it work.

 

[Quasqueton]

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.

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

 

[mcrow]

part of the problem is there are several different ideas of what railroading is.

#1- Some people think that if you have anything written up for the game ahead of time you are railroading.

#2-Others think if you have a basic plot in place when the game starts, you are railroading.

#3-I have seen player accuse the GM of railroading because the GM wouldn't let them have everything they wanted , no matter if what they want would ruin the game.

#4- I think if you are forces to follow a plot, no matter what then you are railroading.

Those are the ones I can think of @ the moment.

As it was mentioned latter, the players in my group typically show up to the game knowing the basic premise of the game. Example, We have been offered a job to escort a diplomat to a meeting of high importance. Now we have the option to say no, but the pay is good and we are pretty broke. Not to mention this Diplomat is a relative of one our party members and we all grew up together. Honestly, why wouldn't the PCs agree? From there we make decisions.

 

[buzz]

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.

Okay, then let's focus on the situation I described and ignore the reference to the A modules. My comments still stand in that light.

 

[Quasqueton]

Okay, then let's focus on the situation I described and ignore the reference to the A modules. My comments still stand in that light.

Then, I pretty much agree with you. It's railroading when the DM (by his own idea, or by following the text of a published adventure) manipulates things with the intention of getting a specific result regardless (or in spite of) any PC actions.

Quasqueton

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then, I pretty much agree with you. It's railroading when the DM (by his own idea, or by following the text of a published adventure) manipulates things with the intention of getting a specific result regardless (or in spite of) any PC actions.

Quasqueton

There were some 2e modules which could only be used if they were completely deconstructed first to remove the rails. Adventure writers can definitely set up the Polar Express, but the DM still has to call "Alllllllll Aaaaaboooaaaarrrrrrd!" before any true railroading can begin. So, I guess I'm agreeing with you here, the railroad might be inspired by a module, and a module might be intended as a railroad, but the DM (sometimes with a lot of work) can avoid a railroad if he wishes.

 

[Lanefan]

A 'plot-based' adventure describes a series of events that lead up to some final climax. ... A 'plot-based' adventure can be a railroad, depending on how many variable routes there are for PCs to take towards the climax of the story. ... I think N1 ('Cult of the Reptile God') is a good 'plot-based' adventure, as are my two favourite modules of all time: B10 ('Night's Dark Terror') ...

A plot-based adventure is only any good if the players pick up on the plot. I'm reminded of this by your mention of 'Night's Dark Terror', as that's a module I wouldn't DM again if I was paid to. All it turned into was a series of disconnected encounters...disconnected because the PC's never asked anyone, friend or foe what was going on and never even tried to connect the dots. That, and they kept losing the encounters - some through bad luck, others through stupidity - despite starting at an average just under 4th level (the module assumes you start about 2nd-3rd)...by the time they were done, they'd gone through about 2 complete parties worth of characters and never did reach the valley of Kartoblepas(sp?). I probably overkilled on not finding more persuasive ways to lead them to the plot, but I was intentionally trying not to railroad.

Perhaps my worst experience as a DM.

Lanefan

 

[haakon1]

Not necessarily true. A lot of campaigns are run on the "this is the adventure the DM has prepared for tonight" assumption, so players don't bother to go to step 2. It's an unspoken agreement to go along with the play style of the DM, or the published adventure path he's running, or what-have-you...because everyone knows that if you challenge it, there'll be no game.

It's still railroading, though.

I sometimes ask my players (out of game) what sort of adventure they want next, with general descriptions of some of the choices. Sometimes, the adventures are not adventures you can easily walk away from (e.g., a castle under seige, a teleportal to far away) if you decide you don't like it after all. And sometimes, for surprise sake, I pick adventures with twists or don't tell them what's going to happen . . . the mists of Ravenloft are much more effective when you have no idea you're about to enter them.

Is all that railroading? Don't know, don't care?