Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 2957802" data-attributes="member: 3192">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 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).</blockquote>

Verification