D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Mort]

Though I think acting like they're still playing and not engaging with the extent adventure, after they'd agreed to go with it is pretty bad form too. Just outright say "We don't find this at all interesting, can we do something else?" Then the GM can go "I'm not really interested in something else, so it'll be someone else's gig."

Right, hopefully everyone is engaging in good faith and with the fun of the group in mind. If not, that's a different issue.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I think their point was that while that might be the only difference, its a heck of a big one in terms of the experience.

That I can definitely agree with. It's just that some folks are insisting that there are differences other than player buy in. As far as I can tell, there aren't, and most of the posts recently reinforce what I see, so I'm just kinda confused. As for the experience, yeah I can see being forced to engage with a predetermined plotline when you don't want to would be no fun. Whereas if you are happy to follow the path, it would make for a fun experience. As I said, when I GM I think my style qualifies as "sandbox" because I don't prepare plotlines for the players to follow, I instead let them decide the direction of the narrative. As a player, I'm full on hardcore "follow the quest markers" the best I can as I kind of feel that it is my responsibility to do so. I often also want to see what nifty stuff the GM has come up with! I'll be completely honest, but I don't think a GM could "railroad" me as I will just smile and follow the breadcrumbs...cause I'm weird like that!

 

[Thomas Shey]

That I can definitely agree with. It's just that some folks are insisting that there are differences other than player buy in. As far as I can tell, there aren't, and most of the posts recently reinforce what I see, so I'm just kinda confused.

Well, they may also be assuming that there's more wiggle room within the plot in some linear adventures than with a true railroad, too. In the case of the latter a GM may be very invested in only dealing the scenes and steps he's prepared, where with the former they may (notice the qualifier) be willing to do some things a little differently if people return to the main line after a bit.

As for the experience, yeah I can see being forced to engage with a predetermined plotline when you don't want to would be no fun. Whereas if you are happy to follow the path, it would make for a fun experience. As I said, when I GM I think my style qualifies as "sandbox" because I don't prepare plotlines for the players to follow, I instead let them decide the direction of the narrative.

The question is, once they do engage with something, how much wiggle room is there? You can have heavy duty plotlines without a lot of wiggle embedded in an overall sandbox environment.

As a player, I'm full on hardcore "follow the quest markers" the best I can as I kind of feel that it is my responsibility to do so. I often also want to see what nifty stuff the GM has come up with! I'll be completely honest, but I don't think a GM could "railroad" me as I will just smile and follow the breadcrumbs...cause I'm weird like that!

I've commented elsewhere that people often GM in a different way than they want to play for any number of reasons.

 

[bloodtide]

Could you give an example of one of these? I'd be very interested in a worked example of the kind of thing that handles this well

Yes, I'm interested as well...

Do you really think that most situations in real life have a singular, obvious, correct solution?

Yes. On the more personal micro individual level. If you are hungry = eat some food. If you need money = get a job.

Do you really think it is good storytelling to have characters that consistently see the singular, obvious, correct choice?

Yes. This is also true on most "story" levels. Say a dragon attacks a town...there is really only one way to stop it: attack and kill it. Sure there are other theoretical ways to stop the dragon. But in nearly all cases the PCs will be unable to do those without putting in a lot of time and effort. You could say "oh well option two is they could cast an Epic Dragon Charm on the dragon to stop it". Ok...this is "possible", except the PCs don't have an Epic Dragon Charm. But sure they can go on a quest or craft the Epic Dragon Charm....of course the town will be a cold dead hole by then. But if the PCs are high level with tons of arms, armor, weapons and magic....they COULD just attack the dragon as they are RIGHT there.....

For example, a group found a long-lost ancient tomb through the aid of a church. Thet recovered a rare gem. They return to the city and the church wants the gem since it was symbolic of their deity. You return it. There is a curse, and a mummy starts killing everyone who touched the gem. One of the major NPCs died. You attend the funeral. You gather clues as to how the NPC died. You do research at the library and find out about the curse. You go to get the gem. Rather than fight the priests, you decide to break in at night and steal it. You go back to the long-lost temple. You return the gem.

There are so many decision points in this it is ridiculous. This can be written as a linear adventure. Yet, it clearly could have differences in part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, etc. - not just the ending. And that is just four or five or six sessions of gaming, let alone a year! And that is why no one can agree. Because railroad, linear, etc. still allow a lot of choice. And the only thing differentiating it from the sandbox is, in the sandbox, you might not have the story arc.

The problem here is how the above is taken by the players.

As soon as the DM says "the church wants that gem", many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing them to get rid of the gem.
As soon as the DM says "there is a curse", many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen
As soon the mummy starts killing, many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen
As soon as the NPC dies, many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen
And the whole "you must return the gem to the lost temple" sure is a linear plot, many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen

Look, they wouldn't have given you the hit points and treasure allotment of every person in the Keep on the Borderlands if you weren't supposed to just go in and kill them all, would they?

True!

And with all those EVIL people hiding in the Keep....why the only safe thing to do is kill them all.....

Okay, so the GM creates a series of scenes and encounters for the PCs to engage with, a path for them to follow.

Option A: The players follow the path as laid out by the GM. Hence a "linear adventure" is had.
Option B: The players do not follow the path but the GM forces/tricks them into following the path. Hence a "railroad" is had.
Option C: ???

Please, enlighten me! What is Option C?

Well....MY C is:

I create gameworld setting in detail with a series of scenes and encounters, but no path.

So for my home brewed adventure Dragon Day: I have created a small town and the lands around it for a couple miles. Many of the local NPCs. And the Dragon and the Dragon's Lair. The prologue is that a young red dragon claims the town and demands a sacrifice of young people to eat. The townsfolk are unwilling to move or sacrifice people. So, they hire a "hardy band of adventurers" to get rid of the dragon. Enter the players. They are hired by the town to get rid of the dragon. The townsfolk don't really care how....though they assume killing the dragon is a good idea.

The players are free to try anything they want too. Of course, the most obvious and direct action is to just kill the dragon. The setting remote town in the wilderness in a harsh, cruel world does not give the players many options. For example one not so clever idea was to "get an army" to attack the dragon. Except there is no army nearby, and not nearly enough people to make one. The PCs have no epic anti dragon magic, so they can't use any of that.

I have the whole area mapped and set out of what is there and not there. So there is nothing in my game ever like a PC just "says they know a guy" and says "the guy has an anti dragon ballista".

Though, still there are options....as groups over the years have done(with hard work and effort):
*The players using wacky alchemy put everyone in town into a 'coma like state' so the dragon thought the town had killed themselves rather then live under the dragon and forced the dragon to find a new town to rule over
*The players made a magical poison that slowed the dragon down...with the noble sacrifice of two townsfolk..were able to kill the poisoned slowed dragon
*The players figured out what treasures the dragon loved the most and stole them from it's lair. The dragon pressured them, of course....but it did save the town
*A group of noble female paladins sacrificed themselves in battle vs the dragon...each using a Holy Martyr spell that did divine damage when they were killed. It took all six PCs, but they did kill the dragon.....

 

[Mort]

As soon as the DM says "the church wants that gem", many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing them to get rid of the gem.
As soon as the DM says "there is a curse", many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen
As soon the mummy starts killing, many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen
As soon as the NPC dies, many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen
And the whole "you must return the gem to the lost temple" sure is a linear plot, many players will cry Railroad as the DM is forcing that to happen

Logical consequences resulting from the players actions are not railroading!

For example, the PCs looting a gem they later find out is cursed. That's a consequence of their own actions.

The NPC stating an outcome they want is not railroading, it's a request/demand etc.

Just because the church wants the gem doesn't mean the PCs will give up the gem. Heck many groups would expressly NOT give it up because they suspect something or are just being contrary

 

[zarionofarabel]

The question is, once they do engage with something, how much wiggle room is there? You can have heavy duty plotlines without a lot of wiggle embedded in an overall sandbox environment.

In the games I run, potentially infinite wiggle room, as I never prepare scenes or encounters ahead of time, I improvise events in real time as the session progresses. So, if the players initially decide to investigate a rumor, then halfway there they change their minds and go in the opposite direction, that's what happened. I've seen my "style" called Emergent Play on a number of occasions. I don't have a storyline for the players to experience, instead the storyline is what happened during play and is not known until after play has happened. At best I have a few very rough ideas as to what might end up happening. If the players go the way I anticipate, then the story ends up being similar to what I anticipated it would be. If they go in the opposite direction, then the story ends up being that instead.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I create gameworld setting in detail with a series of scenes and encounters, but no path.

I do something similar, save I have neither scenes, nor encounters, in addition to having no path.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In the games I run, potentially infinite wiggle room, as I never prepare scenes or encounters ahead of time, I improvise events in real time as the session progresses. So, if the players initially decide to investigate a rumor, then halfway there they change their minds and go in the opposite direction, that's what happened. I've seen my "style" called Emergent Play on a number of occasions. I don't have a storyline for the players to experience, instead the storyline is what happened during play and is not known until after play has happened. At best I have a few very rough ideas as to what might end up happening. If the players go the way I anticipate, then the story ends up being similar to what I anticipated it would be. If they go in the opposite direction, then the story ends up being that instead.

I often ran that way in part in my younger days. Only in part though, because I've always been prone to using systems where ad-hoc making some opponents on-the-fly just wasn't going to work well.

 

[pemerton]

“The Halls Of Tizun Thane”

Assuming you're meaning the old White Dwarf scenario, it's a nice module, and I've converted it to Torchbearer 2e although haven't yet actually used it.

But if someone (say) reads LotR, and then wants a FRPGing experience that would make them feel like they're in LotR or something similar, that module won't deliver.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I often ran that way in part in my younger days. Only in part though, because I've always been prone to using systems where ad-hoc making some opponents on-the-fly just wasn't going to work well.

That's what the so called "stat block" is for! That's part of the reason why I find it strange that "sandbox" haters claiming that one needs to prepare encounters ahead of time is not really an issue. Especially with something like DnD where there are literally whole books filled with potential opponents. I've successfully ran combat encounters for decades without ever preparing them in advance. Flip open the book to a random page and away you go! I have encountered very few systems that don't come with any "stat blocks" for opponents of some kind.