D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Campbell]

This always confuses me. This sounds like nothing happens in the game. Though you would say things do happen. But how?

How does a story plot work with no "agenda". Or are you just saying by "agenda" there is no DM sitting back and saying "this is my game and your just player pawns in it...muhhahahaha!"

I present a dynamic situation where some ball is about to roll down some hill and ask players what their characters are going to do about it. Then together we all see how that situation resolves based on what they do.

By no agenda I mean that I don't have any aims for how the situation must resolve or what the players will have their characters do. I just want them to address the fictional situation and then based on that I'll present a new fictional situation that compels action and respects what precedes it. I want to know what happens and will frame situations that sustain the momentum of play, but I'm approaching with curiosity rather than to forward some plot. The player characters and NPCs have an agenda for how things unfold, but we should not.

 

[kermit4karate]

I present a dynamic situation where some ball is about to roll down some hill and ask players what their characters are going to do about it. Then together we all see how that situation resolves based on what they do.

By no agenda I mean that I don't have any aims for how the situation must resolve or what the players will have their characters do. I just want them to address the fictional situation and then based on that I'll present a new fictional situation that compels action and respects what precedes it. I want to know what happens and will frame situations that sustain the momentum of play, but I'm approaching with curiosity rather than to forward some plot. The player characters and NPCs have an agenda for how things unfold, but we should not.

I feel like this is a big ol' red herring. I run pretty traditional D&D as far as my role as DM, and I've generally always run homebrew adventures that take the party along a generally linear path while the players create the bulk of the fiction. They interact with my NPCs, decide how to overcome whatever obstacles I put before them, navigate whatever challenges I put before them. They create most of the narration, and to act like their actions aren't ultimately still deciding what happens next would be disingenuous.

Help me out here. If a player in one of my games is walking beneath the copper-tiled rooftops of the market district, threading his way through the crush of merchants and hawkers as the scents of cinnamon, hot oil and sea-salted fish fill the air, and passes a group of dwarves arguing over an anvil’s price. What if, just then, a figure stumbles out of a tavern -- a wiry half-orc with a jagged scar across his jaw? Without warning, the stranger snarls, grabs a dented spear and slams it down in front of the character, blocking his path. If I paint that scene and ask the player what he does next, what style of gameplay would that be? Does it fit neatly under a single label, or can games be multiple styles at once?

 

[bloodtide]

Gotta be honest, I've never had a player ruin one of my games. Like, no one in real life has ever said, "You're railroading!" even though people here have said I do. No one has argued against my interpretation of spell variability (magic is unpredictable) or how my monsters differ from those in the MM (stat blocks aren't gospel).

It is common enough.

I present a dynamic situation where some ball is about to roll down some hill and ask players what their characters are going to do about it. Then together we all see how that situation resolves based on what they do.

So, random action, right? You don't know anything about the ball. You are just saying 'pop' the ball is there, and wait for the players to react.

I get it feels pure to just say "Ball" and let the players do things.......except what happens after that? Once the PCs take any action, you will need to know why the ball is there, what it is, what it is doing and so on. You and only YOU, the DM, has to make up all of that. And you can't make it up without at least a vague "agenda"

By no agenda I mean that I don't have any aims for how the situation must resolve or what the players will have their characters do. I just want them to address the fictional situation and then based on that I'll present a new fictional situation that compels action and respects what precedes it. I want to know what happens and will frame situations that sustain the momentum of play, but I'm approaching with curiosity rather than to forward some plot. The player characters and NPCs have an agenda for how things unfold, but we should not.

This is just basic role playing to me.

I guess the problem is the "Classic Railroad" definition.....even more the one you find in nearly EVERY RPG adventure module. So, with a group that just "wants to play and have fun" and "does not care at all what we do". The DM pulls out an Adventure Module, and:

Start: "As you walk down the road, you see an overturned wagon in a ditch several feet off the road."

Classic Adventure Module Railroad: "So your characters go over to check out the wagon and see what happened.....AND...". Okay, so this is pure blatant No Choice. The Adventure Plot Needs to have the PCs investigate the wagon to start and get the PCs hooked. It has to happen, so the Adventure Forces it to happen. The DM running this adventure wants to start the adventure and is willing to railroad the PCs to force it to happen.

Normal DM: Says the 'start' above and then waits. If the PCs investigate the wagon, something will happen. If the PCs just walk on, nothing will happen.

My game: Well, I ignore the silly 'wagon' and say "off the road you see a gold and crystal crashed dragonfly spelljammer pulsating with strange purplish strokes of lighting. So, my description is sure to have a great many players saying "wow, my character runs over to check it out!". Why? Well, "powerful magical spelljamming ship" very much attracts most players. This is not classic railroading, but some players will say it is....

My game two: If the players are playing Very Good alignment characters and/or caring helpful characters and/or local militia, I could say "the over turned wagon" as good characters should investigate a scene of trouble.

In either case, they are both examples of me tailoring the game world around the players, and to a lesser extent the characters...unless the players are good role players(the acting kind). Greed is the easy lure: put anything of value around and the players will run towards it. Giving the players what they think they want, is also an easy lure. and making something interesting, to the players, is sure to get their attention and lure them in.

In my game, there is not much Railroading here....unless you could the "lures" as Railroading.....

 

[soviet]

the players create the bulk of the fiction. They interact with my NPCs, decide how to overcome whatever obstacles I put before them, navigate whatever challenges I put before them.

I think you and I have different understandings of what 'creating the bulk of the fiction' looks like.

Help me out here. If a player in one of my games is walking beneath the copper-tiled rooftops of the market district, threading his way through the crush of merchants and hawkers as the scents of cinnamon, hot oil and sea-salted fish fill the air, and passes a group of dwarves arguing over an anvil’s price. What if, just then, a figure stumbles out of a tavern -- a wiry half-orc with a jagged scar across his jaw? Without warning, the stranger snarls, grabs a dented spear and slams it down in front of the character, blocking his path. If I paint that scene and ask the player what he does next, what style of gameplay would that be? Does it fit neatly under a single label, or can games be multiple styles at once?

Note that all of these game elements appear to have been created entirely by you, with seemingly no connection to the goals or flags the player has set for their character. I think part of what Campbell is talking about as the 'momentum of play' (apologies if I have got this wrong Campbell) is the feedback loop between player-stated goals and GM-created elements that challenge or feed off those goals. That's what creates the actual momentum and gives players agency, they are setting an agenda and pursuing it rather than responding to random orcs that stumble out of taverns etc.

 

[gban007]

It is common enough.


So, random action, right? You don't know anything about the ball. You are just saying 'pop' the ball is there, and wait for the players to react.

I get it feels pure to just say "Ball" and let the players do things.......except what happens after that? Once the PCs take any action, you will need to know why the ball is there, what it is, what it is doing and so on. You and only YOU, the DM, has to make up all of that. And you can't make it up without at least a vague agenda.

I disagree that only the DM can make up all of that. I dont see why a player can't say 'it is a sign from my god, the god of balls (assuming that was already part of fiction, or not yet established) - he has sent it, and now if we catch it good things will happen like x, and if not bad things will happen like y' and the group agree or use mechanics to establish what the fiction is.
Doesn't feel too dissimilar to a runes example in a prior thread, where the player through the mechanics established what the runes meant, without the DM getting involved beyond placing the runes there.

 

[gban007]

I feel like this is a big ol' red herring. I run pretty traditional D&D as far as my role as DM, and I've generally always run homebrew adventures that take the party along a generally linear path while the players create the bulk of the fiction. They interact with my NPCs, decide how to overcome whatever obstacles I put before them, navigate whatever challenges I put before them. They create most of the narration, and to act like their actions aren't ultimately still deciding what happens next would be disingenuous.

Help me out here. If a player in one of my games is walking beneath the copper-tiled rooftops of the market district, threading his way through the crush of merchants and hawkers as the scents of cinnamon, hot oil and sea-salted fish fill the air, and passes a group of dwarves arguing over an anvil’s price. What if, just then, a figure stumbles out of a tavern -- a wiry half-orc with a jagged scar across his jaw? Without warning, the stranger snarls, grabs a dented spear and slams it down in front of the character, blocking his path. If I paint that scene and ask the player what he does next, what style of gameplay would that be? Does it fit neatly under a single label, or can games be multiple styles at once?

From my understanding of a more narratavist(?) Game is that it would more likely be framed as:

Existing character, who may be of the order of light, is seeking to purchase a special artifact to help him defeat the order of dark.
They then did a roll that said success with complication.
Then he is in market as described above, then sees in the distance a stall that sells the artifact in question, but just then the half orc appears, who happens to be an agent of the order of dark as signified by the scar and then play works out what happens next. Or the half orc is a foe they've fought before and scarred but not killed, who has come back seeking revenge.
The DM is looking to use prior fiction and player goals to determine the next frame.

 

[kermit4karate]

I think you and I have different understandings of what 'creating the bulk of the fiction' looks like.


Note that all of these game elements appear to have been created entirely by you, with seemingly no connection to the goals or flags the player has set for their character. I think part of what Campbell is talking about as the 'momentum of play' (apologies if I have got this wrong Campbell) is the feedback loop between player-stated goals and GM-created elements that challenge or feed off those goals. That's what creates the actual momentum and gives players agency, they are setting an agenda and pursuing it rather than responding to random orcs that stumble out of taverns etc.

Thanks. By 'bulk of the fiction,' I'm saying that they, the players, do most of the talking. If one were to be taking dictation and turned the adventure into a book, most of the exposition and dialogue would be theirs.

Regarding that second paragraph, I'll wait to see if @Campbell also responds, but I would say that I do see a fundamental difference between the way I and most people run D&D, and the so-called narrative style that I keep seeing discussed here on enworld in reference to games like DH, but in those threads the style is often also qualified with caveats and exceptions to water it down.

I wonder if some of the discussion on enworld about 'narrative' games is driven by a desire to pigeonhole D&D and make it fit a strict definition of a style of play, because that gives folks a villain to hate (D&D) and a new hero to like (DH).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As a thought exercise to scratch an itch on a community forum, maybe. As they pertain to most TTRPGs like D&D or Daggerheart, practically speaking, it's hard to imagine a fun time at a table involving one without the other.

Well, my main counterpoint to this would be that some people aren't particularly good actors, but they can have phenomenal story ideas. Giving those story ideas a compelling, exciting, enthralling performance is rather different from having them in the first place, and just because someone can't shift their voice or convincingly act, doesn't mean they should be told they can't really express the story ideas they have.

But notice what the person you responded to was saying: in D&D, and games like it, this association is extremely strong. To have more "we are living through an interesting story", you usually have to have more "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio". This isn't true of all games, and many games that followed the style of Apocalypse World--those "Powered by the Apocalypse", PbtA--specifically do separate out "I am an Actor upon a Stage speaking Lines and Emoting" from "I am part of the process of unveiling and advancing an interesting story".

Especially because, as noted, most "narrative" games actually do have rules...and you actually are supposed to follow them. Like this is a big bone of contention in these sorts of threads, that such games (allegedly) hem the player and GM in with all these rules and why would you want rules, rules are bad, they make you sad and hobbled and always fail/breakdown/etc. usually extremely quickly so (etc., etc., I frankly find these arguments incredibly tedious).

Unfortunately, a big problem here is that most of the words we could use will sound either technical, if we keep them formal, or infantilizing if we don't. Because the non-"ism" versions of these words are "playacting" (thespianism) and "storytime" (narrativism). I don't think it would be an improvement to try to express this distinction with those words! But the distinction is real, and other games that aren't D&D don't force the two to always be found together.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thanks. By 'bulk of the fiction,' I'm saying that they, the players, do most of the talking. If one were to be taking dictation and turned the adventure into a book, most of the exposition and dialogue would be theirs.

Regarding that second paragraph, I'll wait to see if @Campbell also responds, but I would say that I do see a fundamental difference between the way I and most people run D&D, and the so-called narrative style that I keep seeing discussed here on enworld in reference to games like DH, but in those threads the style is often also qualified with caveats and exceptions to water it down.

I wonder if some of the discussion on enworld about 'narrative' games is driven by a desire to pigeonhole D&D and make it fit a strict definition of a style of play, because that gives folks a villain to hate (D&D) and a new hero to like (DH).

In my experience, it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with making "a villain to hate" (which is, if anything, a very silly and humorous thing to say!)

Rather, it has to do with the plain and simple fact that D&D, even with the breadth of internal styles it has....is not, has not ever been, and will not ever be a "absolutely all styles and approaches" game. People get pretty hung up on the idea that it's the "do ANYTHING" game and, well, it just...isn't. Calling out the difference between the "putting PCs' values and interests to the test" side of things and "doing amateur VA work and effectively emoting" side of things is simply foreign to how D&D is played.

 

[gban007]

I wonder if some of the discussion on enworld about 'narrative' games is driven by a desire to pigeonhole D&D and make it fit a strict definition of a style of play, because that gives folks a villain to hate (D&D) and a new hero to like (DH).

my experience differs - I'm one who prefers trad games generally, with a little meta currency at times (e.g. Dnd, CoC, WFRP, 2d20 games), but conversations I've seen is that because DnD at heart looks to support a variety of playstyles, but is by default DM driven, it isn't as good a ruleset as other rules dedicated to a certain why of play and more player driven/ authored. It can still be done in DnD, and 4e was especially good for this,.but other systems may require less tweaking.