Telling a story vs. railroading

[Raven Crowking]

Im not sure how deciding in advance that Adventure B follows adventure A is any more railroading than deciding what Adventure A will be.

In other words, if deciding that Against the Slavelords will follow Temple of Elemental Evil is railroading, then why isn't deciding to drop the PCs in Hommlett at 1st level railroading?

Sure, they could run as fast as they can away from the Slavelords after the temple, just like they could run screaming from Hommlett at the first sight of an NPC.

But if the whole game is an exercise in making the GM ad-lib, say hello to less satsifying adventures.

And say goodbye to the DM.

Seriously, though, I think that when people are discussing railroading, they are talking about one of a pair of bookends. On one side, the DM attempts to control the PCs (railroading). On the other end, the players attempt to resist anything the DM presents (this really needs an equally derogatory name...?). Both destroy the fun of everyone involved.

The best games include the DM laying hooks that get followed, and a few that never do. If the PCs see a ruin on the hill they never get around to exploring, or hear of a cave complex that they don't check out, that's a good thing. It adds to versimilitude, and the design work that went into it can always be used with another group of players or in a later game.

Players should have choice, and the DM should not metagame to remove choice from the players. The DM, however, should also get a return on his time and effort invested; the players should not metagame to destroy the value of the DM's efforts.

I think that some of the problems arise when the players try to do the unexpected to achieve thier goals, and the DM perceives it as "that equally derogatory name" I failed to come up with. The DM takes steps to prevent this, and ends up railroading the players, who may well have been invested in the adventure even if they were unwilling to walk into an obvious trap. The worst experience I ever had as a player was with a DM running Slave Lords who decided that every round spent not following the preordained path, the PCs (me!) aged 10 years.

I think that other problems arise when the players do not trust their DM. The DM has laid out lots of hooks to give them a fun & interesting time, but they are too concerned with not being railroaded to follow any of them. Instead they do nothing. So nothing happens. And then they blame the DM. The worst experience I had as a DM was with a player of this type, who simply would not react to anything the campaign world threw him. So the rest of the PCs left him in the tavern and went adventuring.

Of course, I have no problem walking from a game I'm not enjoying as a player (though it would have to be a bad game indeed before I would use this option mid-session) or not inviting a player back to a game I'm DMing (though it would have to be a bad player indeed before I tossed him out mid-session).

Still, I think we're talking about things that are part of a continuum. Players refusing to follow hooks is on one end, DM railroading is on the other, and the kind of gaming most people find fun & rewarding occupies the space between the two.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

railroading

You've set up a strawman here. No one says that you have to have two dozen adventures ready.

What I have done, quite successfully (and no, I didn't get burned out) was create an area (a large island in my case), with a lot of wilderness. Then create 30 or 40 'lair' encounters (and yes, this is work), and spread them out in the wilderness. Then buy 3 or 4 site based modules (I have at least 20 in my bookcase), decide where they are in the wilderness, and what is known about them, by whom.

Then, just tell the party to 'go adventuring, in seek of fortune'. They decide where to explore, whether to just go in a dungeon blindly, or do research about others that had explored them and their fates, or try to learn the history of the dungeon, or scout it, all in order to learn how dangerous it is, and what kind of treasure might be inside. I don't label each dungeon with an 'appropriate for x level characters' sign. It's up to the party to not bite off more than they can chew.

I mix a few event based encounters into the mix, so that the party has to be reactive from time to time. For example, one week the village the party was staying in was attacked by a neighboring tribe of savages, and the party had to decide to 1) try to flee or 2) stay and defend the village (they chose 2). I foreshadowed the attack in previous weeks through a variety of means, to give the PCs some idea that their base might be in danger.

But generally, I let the PCs decide where to adventure, where to go, what level of risk they want to assume.

What I ask of the players, is to decide at the end of each session what they think they'll do the next week, to give me a heads up on whether I should refresh my memory on dungeon x or dungeon y.

It isn't really that hard! The choice is not to ralroad, or prepare 22 adventures. There is a middle ground.

Ken

My initial response to reading this is that it was meant as a joke. But others have said similar things (just not in as much detail).

The idea that a DM must come to each game session either with two dozen potential adventures, ready to run at the whim of the PCs, or with none at all, ready to make up everything at the whim of the PCs, is absurd.

You either burn out a DM quickly, or you don’t play much RPGs.

There is a difference between a DM preparing (or buying) an adventure, making plot hooks for the specific PCs, and expecting the PCs to go on the adventure, and a DM forcing you to go on an adventure, against the Player’s will, and orchestrating a pre-determined outcome. If you don’t understand that there is a difference, we simply can’t continue a discussion on the subject because our definitions are as different as saying black is white..

Quasqueton

 

[ThirdWizard]

Now, I know that having adventures or campaigns with time limits is unwise for several design reasons, but this is useful for purposes of showing a campaign arc and setting which reacts to the actions of the PCs. It's also unrealistic for most of us in that it represents about four times the prep work of just railroading the PCs into Halfhammer Crypt, and a lot of adventure design work has been shelved because the PCs didn't pick up that particular hook...but that's why it's not generally done.

Actually, it doesn't take more work. Just drop your plot hooks at the end of every session instead of at the beginning. Now you can give them many many options and still only have to prepare what they choose to do.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That assumes that the campaign is based on AND rather than OR conditions.

No. In your example, the path that the PCs take is still linear. That what the PCs do or do not do has an effect on the world (or not) is a secondary consideration to the railroading question.

In your example, the natural consequences of inaction means that the PCs miss the magic item auction. The time restriction on this adventure is exactly that -- a restriction. The DM prevents the PCs from going back and tackling that adventure after checking out the Skull Plains. If we were to assume that restrictions = railroading, then the mitigating factors (that this is a natural consequence of story, that the PCs knew their choice could well restrict future options, etc.) would either not be considered, or would not matter if they were.

Whether or not a campaign arc and setting reacts to the actions of the PCs has nothing to do with railroading, IMHO. I can easily imagine a campaign arc that reacts to the actions of the PCs but in which the actions of the PCs are to a large extent pre-determined, just as I can easily imagine a freeform campaign in which the actions of the PCs are far less meaningful simply because they choose not to become involved in anything noteworthy.

In my example, I included dungeons A, B, and C and assumed a relatively static environment for the purposes of simplification. In your example, you add some extra areas and give the environment dynamic qualities, but the outcome is exactly the same. If Relfren is Dungeon A, the Halfhammer Crypt is Dungeon B, and Burbrook is Dungeon C, the fact that the condition of these areas has changed doesn't preclude the PCs from investigating these areas after the Skull Plains. In all events, the PCs follow a linear path (no matter how it twists and turns on the campaign map) (or each PC does if they split up); it is the campaign world in your example that has its own path in opposition to (or in harmony with) the PCs' path.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, what you are saying is that you agree completely with me. As what you have said is exactly in line with what I feel, beleive, and have said. You have said nothing that disagrees with my posts.

Quasqueton

Well then, good.

 

[rounser]

So you're saying in order not to railroad, the GM must prepare four adventures and use one?

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.

Actually, it doesn't take more work. Just drop your plot hooks at the end of every session instead of at the beginning. Now you can give them many many options and still only have to prepare what they choose to do.

That does require scaling the adventures as PCs gain levels, mind you.

There are also a whole bunch of tricks for faking it. e.g. The PCs would have run into that lair you'd prepared as appropriate for their level no matter where they'd gone in the Skull Plains. (Arguably that's railroading, but at least an effort has been made at faking player choice.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

No. In your example, the path that the PCs take is still linear. That what the PCs do or do not do has an effect on the world (or not) is a secondary consideration to the railroading question.

I believe the idea is that if the PCs must do dungeons A, B, and C, then its railroading. If they can do A, B, or C, in any combonation, or none at all, then it isn't railroading.

That does require scaling the adventures as PCs gain levels, mind you.

I don't understand.

Presumably you're dropping plot hooks at some point. Just make that some point at the end of a session instead of at the beginning of a session. Instead of beginning a session with "You hear about plot hooks A, B, C, and D" end a session with "You hear about plot hooks A, B, C, and D." Then find out what they're going to do.

Between the two sessions, write the one adventure.

 

[rounser]

No. In your example, the path that the PCs take is still linear.

From point A, they have a choice of proceeding to points B, C, D, or E. That's quite a clear branch in the railroad tracks. After choosing point E of these options, they have indeed proceeded in a line of their own choosing.

That what the PCs do or do not do has an effect on the world (or not) is a secondary consideration to the railroading question.

Alright. Meaningful choice of what they can do next probably matters more.

In your example, the natural consequences of inaction means that the PCs miss the magic item auction. The time restriction on this adventure is exactly that -- a restriction.

It was an answer to your assumption that after the PCs have done E, then B, C and D are still back there waiting for them. That example was to show that your assumption isn't necessarily correct. "Not railroading" doesn't mean "no cause and effect."

The DM prevents the PCs from going back and tackling that adventure after checking out the Skull Plains. If we were to assume that restrictions = railroading, then the mitigating factors (that this is a natural consequence of story, that the PCs knew their choice could well restrict future options, etc.) would either not be considered, or would not matter if they were.

Well, he doesn't have to. Instead, we could use your model of all the other adventures still being available afterwards. Or only one of them, or whatever. Yes, the DM gets to choose which of these is the case, but he's still offering the players a meaningful choice within that framework.

I think the disconnect we're having is that you're saying that any DM restriction = railroading, whereas I'm saying that having even one meaningful choice at the "direction of the campaign" level is enough for it not to be considered railroading. Even a choice of the order in which adventures are played is enough to prevent it falling into my definition of railroading.

I find your definition a bit of a furphy, because any arbitrary decision on the nature of the game such as "goblins live in the Skull Plains and not flumphs" could be considered a restriction on the PCs ("But....we want to fight flumphs!"), and therefore "railroading".

I'm content to leave my take on railroading at the level of "next adventure is...", because I think that's the classical definition of a railroad, in the Dragonlance Classics sense (although DL Classics also commits other "sins" that could be considered railroading, such as NPCs who cannot die). Railroading within an adventure is another issue, and also being discussed in this thread (I think). I'm not discussing that.

 

[rounser]

I don't understand.

Presumably you're dropping plot hooks at some point. Just make that some point at the end of a session instead of at the beginning of a session. Instead of beginning a session with "You hear about plot hooks A, B, C, and D" end a session with "You hear about plot hooks A, B, C, and D." Then find out what they're going to do.

Between the two sessions, write the one adventure.

What I mean by "scaling the adventure" is that if we've prepared adventures A, B, C and D, and they're all prepared as appropriate to challenge a 1st level party, then adventures C and A will probably need to be made more deadly in order to challenge the 4th level PCs that the party has become after completing D and B. Either that, or you're content with a walkover, or only completing A, B, C and D is sufficient to raise the PCs to level 2, or something like that.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What I mean by "scaling the adventure" is that if we've prepared adventures A, B, C and D, and they're all prepared as appropriate to challenge a 1st level party, then adventures C and A will probably need to be made more deadly in order to challenge the 4th level PCs that the party has become after completing D and B. Either that, or you're content with a walkover, or only completing A, B, C and D is sufficient to raise the PCs to level 2, or something like that.

Ahhh of course! I forgot because I run mostly intrigue based, city based, or for hire adventures where if the PCs don't bite a hook then it isn't an option again. When a plot hook is that Group A seems to be working with Group B who are normally enemies, then by the time the PCs get done with whatever they chose to do instead its usually too late to investigate. So, that's the norm for my games.

But, yes, generally in that case I stick with letting everything stay the same and if the PCs choose to go somewhere that would have been a 1st level adventure when they get to 4th level, its still a 1st level adventure. Likewise, I've dropped hooks for things much higher than the PCs could handle. They're still making plans to go fight a dragon they've known about for 4-5 levels so far. Someday.