D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[TwoSix]

Sure, I would do that and often do. Though I would guess more then one person would say that is Railroading!

I think a GM has pretty wide latitude to start a game by framing the players into a specific situation, as long as the players are aware of this. None of that power is railroading.

I almost always start my games in medias res, with a group of PCs who already know each other and are comfortable working together.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a GM has pretty wide latitude to start a game by framing the players into a specific situation, as long as the players are aware of this. None of that power is railroading.

I almost always start my games in medias res, with a group of PCs who already know each other and are comfortable working together.

I mean there has to be some rest-state at the start of the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, I would do that and often do. Though I would guess more then one person would say that is Railroading!

I think a GM has pretty wide latitude to start a game by framing the players into a specific situation, as long as the players are aware of this. None of that power is railroading.

I almost always start my games in medias res, with a group of PCs who already know each other and are comfortable working together.

I mean there has to be some rest-state at the start of the campaign.

My observation is that there is a widespread preference (though not universal - see eg @TwoSix above!) to start play in a low stakes environment - like a tavern or the city gates in D&D, or a starport in Traveller - and then have a situation with actual stakes emerge "organically" from there, by way of player action declarations for the PCs.

I'm not 100% sure of the origins of this preference within RPGing, given that it is not what Moldvay recommends (he recommends starting at the dungeon entrance) nor what Gygax describes in his DMG (which, again, has the PCs starting at the dungeon site). To me it seems connected to literary tropes, where the author starts the character in a low-stakes situation and then has the action rise as the situation is established/revealed - REH's Tower of the Elephant, LotR, Star Wars (for Luke), I think Dragonlance (starting in the tavern), all work like this.

 

[loverdrive]

My observation is that there is a widespread preference (though not universal - see eg @TwoSix above!) to start play in a low stakes environment - like a tavern or the city gates in D&D, or a starport in Traveller - and then have a situation with actual stakes emerge "organically" from there, by way of player action declarations for the PCs.

I'm not 100% sure of the origins of this preference within RPGing, given that it is not what Moldvay recommends (he recommends starting at the dungeon entrance) nor what Gygax describes in his DMG (which, again, has the PCs starting at the dungeon site). To me it seems connected to literary tropes, where the author starts the character in a low-stakes situation and then has the action rise as the situation is established/revealed - REH's Tower of the Elephant, LotR, Star Wars (for Luke), I think Dragonlance (starting in the tavern), all work like this.

Starting at a tavern also works reasonably well as a "pre-game lobby" where players can goof around a bit to a) figure out the game b) do something low-stakes while everyone someone is finishing up with character creation

Probably more applicable to crunchier games than Moldvay's, although I guess shopping for gear can also be a time-consuming process

 

[pemerton]

Another thought on the low-stakes start.

There is a certain interpretation of/approach to the idea that "the player controls the PC, the GM controls everything else" according to which the GM deciding to start things at the adventure site or in situ is the GM improperly playing the PC. I mean, who is the GM to say that my PC would head off looking for adventure in this particular dungeon?

I think that this can lead to a type of pantomime play, where the GM offers hooks/cues/prompts to the players that will enable the players, consistently with being in control of their PCs, to "choose" to have their PCs take up the adventure that the GM is ready to present to them. You could even say that this sort of thing is implicit in the 2024 rules on "The Social Contract of Adventures":

You must provide reasonably appealing reasons for characters to undertake the adventures you prepare. In exchange, the players should go along with those hooks. It’s OK for your players to give you some pushback on why their characters should want to do what you’re asking them to do, but it’s not OK for them to invalidate the hard work you’ve done preparing the adventure by willfully going in a different direction.

If you feel like you’re keeping up your end of the bargain but your players aren’t, have a conversation with them away from the gaming table. Try to understand what hooks would motivate their characters, and make sure the players understand the work you put into preparing adventures for them.​

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My observation is that there is a widespread preference (though not universal - see eg @TwoSix above!) to start play in a low stakes environment - like a tavern or the city gates in D&D, or a starport in Traveller - and then have a situation with actual stakes emerge "organically" from there, by way of player action declarations for the PCs.

I'm not 100% sure of the origins of this preference within RPGing, given that it is not what Moldvay recommends (he recommends starting at the dungeon entrance) nor what Gygax describes in his DMG (which, again, has the PCs starting at the dungeon site). To me it seems connected to literary tropes, where the author starts the character in a low-stakes situation and then has the action rise as the situation is established/revealed - REH's Tower of the Elephant, LotR, Star Wars (for Luke), I think Dragonlance (starting in the tavern), all work like this.

While I think the literary tropes likely help, I don't think they're responsible for causing it.

Pure speculation, of course, but I think the idea is, when players don't yet know any of the rules, starting in a tavern is a rules-light place. Conflict is possible, but unlikely, you don't want to piss off your main source of booze and jobs, after all. Opportunities seem highly plausible: taverns can have anybody in them, there's the (perhaps literary-driven) perception that a smoky late-night tavern could have just about anybody, and some of those people might be someone looking to hire some muscle. Finally, it creates golden opportunities for players to ask questions about the world around them, since various tavern-goers naturally invite such things, the publican/bartender/innkeep/etc. is likely to be an ongoing minor NPC and thus worth getting to know, and someone can ingratiate themselves with the party (or the party can ingratiate themselves with others, if they have a bit of cash) by simply offering a round of free drinks.

This also creates a situation where the GM can narrate without narration--by speaking the words through an NPC's mouth. Instead of simply narrating what the exterior of the dungeon looks like, the GM can have the prospective-employer NPC describe what they know of the place. It becomes a dialogue, with opportunities for the players to display their investment into the world (whether that be roleplay in terms of acting and voicing, or roleplay in terms of smart questions, good planning, or canny foresight). Plus, by being a dialogue, despite being a lower-stakes environment, it actually can be more interactive than an abrupt "you appear in front of the dungeon" situation.

And that last bit might be the biggest reason why this sticks around. A tavern start where the party decides to take a job manages to be more interactive and a gentler introduction at the same time--a rare combination.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’m pretty sure “meeting at an inn” draws heavily on the At the Sign of the Prancing Pony chapter of LotR.

But if you want something older, there are The Canterbury Tales.

It became very surreal when we were role playing an inn whist playing D&D in a 15th century inn.

 

[pemerton]

I think the idea is, when players don't yet know any of the rules, starting in a tavern is a rules-light place. Conflict is possible, but unlikely, you don't want to piss off your main source of booze and jobs, after all. Opportunities seem highly plausible: taverns can have anybody in them, there's the (perhaps literary-driven) perception that a smoky late-night tavern could have just about anybody, and some of those people might be someone looking to hire some muscle. Finally, it creates golden opportunities for players to ask questions about the world around them, since various tavern-goers naturally invite such things, the publican/bartender/innkeep/etc. is likely to be an ongoing minor NPC and thus worth getting to know, and someone can ingratiate themselves with the party (or the party can ingratiate themselves with others, if they have a bit of cash) by simply offering a round of free drinks.

This also creates a situation where the GM can narrate without narration--by speaking the words through an NPC's mouth. Instead of simply narrating what the exterior of the dungeon looks like, the GM can have the prospective-employer NPC describe what they know of the place. It becomes a dialogue, with opportunities for the players to display their investment into the world (whether that be roleplay in terms of acting and voicing, or roleplay in terms of smart questions, good planning, or canny foresight). Plus, by being a dialogue, despite being a lower-stakes environment, it actually can be more interactive than an abrupt "you appear in front of the dungeon" situation.

And that last bit might be the biggest reason why this sticks around. A tavern start where the party decides to take a job manages to be more interactive and a gentler introduction at the same time--a rare combination.

This seems like a description of what I called "pantomime play", and/or what @TwoSix has called "thespian play: everyone knows where it's heading - namely, to the players having their PCs take up the GM's proffered opportunity for adventure - but it is played out, rather than everyone just starting play at the adventure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This seems like a description of what I called "pantomime play", and/or what @TwoSix has called "thespian play: everyone knows where it's heading - namely, to the players having their PCs take up the GM's proffered opportunity for adventure - but it is played out, rather than everyone just starting play at the adventure.

Does "thespian" play require...well, for lack of a better term, "theatrical" acting? Because I don't see these benefits as confined solely to folks I would consider engaging in "thespian" play. E.g. I can see pawn-stance groups still preferring this approach over the immediate "you are at the dungeon" start, because it's a lower-stakes environment, yet it encourages the kind of question-asking that the rest of the game will warrant, because the player can directly imagine a person they're asking questions of.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that model also survives because its relatively era-agnostic; at least once you have community gatherings significantly bigger than dispersed agricultural communities, some kind of public house is present all the way from ancient cities to most SF settings. How relevant they are to the campaign flow can vary (as I've noted before, there are all kinds of campaign structures where some degree of what some would class as "railroading" is baked into the basic premise of the game, as the players' choices are constrained by the organizations characters are members of out the gate or the functions they serve, assuming the players actually accept the premise in good faith) but its why you can see something like the "find a job in a tavern" thing work all the way from fantasy up to cyberpunk, space travellers and post-apocalyptic settings.