D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Maxperson]

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.

See, I alter crap like that. It's not my job to play their characters for them. 99% of the time they're going to investigate the wagon anyway, so why do I need to abuse my authority and railroad them? Besides, if they don't, there are ALWAYS other ways for them to find stuff out.

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....

If you aren't making them go, it's not railroading. You need to apply force, not simply put interesting things into the game. There are supposed to be interesting things in the game.

 

[kermit4karate]

Not fudge.

Yes fudge. Don't you dare besmirch fudge!

 

[Maxperson]

Yes fudge. Don't you dare besmirch fudge!

I'm not! You can't fudge fudge. It's already fudge!

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm not! You can't fudge fudge. It's already fudge!

Challenge accepted.

‘Real’ Fudge? Keebler ‘Fudge Stripes’ Cookie Packaging Misleads Consumers, Class Action Alleges

A lawsuit claims the packaging of Keebler “Fudge Stripes” cookies is misleading in that it does not disclose that the product is not made with real fudge.

www.classaction.org

 

[Maxperson]

Challenge accepted.

‘Real’ Fudge? Keebler ‘Fudge Stripes’ Cookie Packaging Misleads Consumers, Class Action Alleges

A lawsuit claims the packaging of Keebler “Fudge Stripes” cookies is misleading in that it does not disclose that the product is not made with real fudge.

www.classaction.org

Wouldn't that be fudging not fudge, though?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nothing "should" be fudged...but all things "can" be fudged.

At least at my table, nothing is fudged.

Of course, it helps that essentially all rolls for whether something happens are made by players, not by the GM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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".

Interesting thing to say, and I think you are right. And I think this is why I prefer the D&D style approach (though I'm not quite convinced it is due rules supporting it here rather than just not interfering with it.) Basically method acting roleplay, you inhabit and express your character. And our Blades in the Dark certainly has a lot of that too, but I also feel that rules of that game forces me to step outside of the character more, to look things more from writer's perspective. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, as doing so allows players to influence the narrative in ways in ways they couldn't in more trad approach. But it does sometimes chafe with the method bit, as we get pulled into the writer's room. (Somewhat similar things in my experience happens with combats in D&D, when people get pulled into "tactics mode."

And as for some players not being good at acting; that is fine, then you try it, do it badly, and get better. Same than with any other aspect of the game. But to me it is a fundamental part of the game, and I really have no interest in playing with people who are not willing to engage with the game in this way. And this is not a professional theatre performance, no one expects you to be Ian McKellen.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Interesting thing to say, and I think you are right. And I think this is why I prefer the D&D style approach (though I'm not quite convinced it is due rules supporting it here rather than just not interfering with it.) Basically method acting roleplay, you inhabit and express your character. And our Blades in the Dark certainly has a lot of that too, but I also feel that rules of that game forces me to step outside of the character more, to look things more from writer's perspective. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, as doing so allows players to influence the narrative in ways in ways they couldn't in more trad approach. But it does sometimes chafe with the method bit, as we get pulled into the writer's room. (Somewhat similar things in my experience happens with combats in D&D, when people get pulled into "tactics mode."

And as for some players not being good at acting; that is fine, then you try it, do it badly, and get better. Same than with any other aspect of the game. But to me it is a fundamental part of the game, and I really have no interest in playing with people who are not willing to engage with the game in this way. And this is not a professional theatre performance, no one expects you to be Ian McKellen.

You at least understand that some people legitimately want some distance and are working from a writer-level approach to the game. They may not give you what you want out of other players, but you don't seem to consider their approach illegitimate.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I agree with this. That's a most of the reason why I funnel what the player is saying through the lens of the PCs charisma. You can have the most eloquent voice actor giving this amazing speech to the king when making a request, but if the PC has a charisma of 7, it's going to sound to the king like it's coming from a braying donkey. You might roll well and hit the DC, convincing the king anyway, but it's not going to be as eloquent in the fiction. Conversely, if you have a PC with a 20 charisma and have stutter, a problem choosing the right words, or whatever as a player and are trying to convince the king, the king is going to hear eloquence in the fiction, even if you roll poorly and it's not enough to convince him.

Edit: Added in the 20 charisma so that sentence makes more sense.

 

[bloodtide]

See, I alter crap like that. It's not my job to play their characters for them. 99% of the time they're going to investigate the wagon anyway, so why do I need to abuse my authority and railroad them? Besides, if they don't, there are ALWAYS other ways for them to find stuff out.

A typical adventure module assumes the players won't play the adventure. And sadly this is both common and true.

If you aren't making them go, it's not railroading. You need to apply force, not simply put interesting things into the game. There are supposed to be interesting things in the game.

As some say, but not all.

And as for some players not being good at acting; that is fine, then you try it, do it badly, and get better. Same than with any other aspect of the game. But to me it is a fundamental part of the game, and I really have no interest in playing with people who are not willing to engage with the game in this way. And this is not a professional theatre performance, no one expects you to be Ian McKellen.

As a DM that demands a lot of role playing (the acting kind), it really does not matter if the players do it good or bad. Sure good acting is great, but even bad acting is a thousand times better then the player just playing themselves as the character and saying mechanical rule things like a robot.

I agree with this. That's a most of the reason why I funnel what the player is saying through the lens of the PCs charisma. You can have the most eloquent voice actor giving this amazing speech to the king when making a request, but if the PC has a charisma of 7, it's going to sound to the king like it's coming from a braying donkey. You might roll well and hit the DC, convincing the king anyway, but it's not going to be as eloquent in the fiction. Conversely, if you have a PC with a 20 charisma and have stutter, a problem choosing the right words, or whatever as a player and are trying to convince the king, the king is going to hear eloquence in the fiction, even if you roll poorly and it's not enough to convince him.

To star with, I very much tell players to only only role play character they can role play. If you don't have the ability, then don't do it. Stay in your Lane.

For the few, rare players that want to work at it and become better, I'm more then happy to work with them and teach them how to role play and act.

I give rewards for role playing, and this helps encourage players to role play, but also role play their ability scores.