D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Statblocks work for generic opponents, but often they don't exist for more specialized ones (spellcasters for example). I made a lot of use of RQ basic specs in the day, but if I needed an advanced opponent with certain traits, that just wasn't going to do it.

 

[TwoSix]

So you then disagree with most players who have voted Lost Mines of Phandelver as one of the best adventures WotC has ever written then? Well, that's your prerogative.

Like I said before, I don’t do modules. Never have. The few times I’ve tried I haven’t really lasted more than a session.

So my agreement or disagreement would be mostly meaningless.

 

[pemerton]

We're talking about the player's experience at the table, is my understanding. And the contrast between experiencing a story and the agency of the players to drive their own experiences within the story, and the incompatibility of the two.

My thesis is that a pre-published adventure can either tell a story (to be "like a novel or movie"), or it can set up the pieces to allow the players to construct their own story. To me, you appeared to be asserting that this isn't a binary, and that adventures can do both. I'm simply confused as to what aspects of "like a novel" are preserved if "plotted" is removed.

Trad hasn't cracked the code because it's impossible. You can't simultaneously experience a fantasy novel AND simultaneously have full agency to explore the setting.

Players who want to experience a story have to abandon some agency. Players who want full agency over exploration have to abandon the idea of an experienced plot structure.

You made me think of these two blogs:

The Interactive Toolkit: Part Two: Why Do Modules Suck?

If you’re one of the people who buy published adventures, you’re probably one of the people who complain about them. You’ve found them to be so linear that they undo the open-ende…

playsorcerer.wordpress.com

Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

www.arkenstonepublishing.net

But I also think it is possible to have a fair bit of cake while also eating it. I think what has to be given up is exploration: the structure/story that is experienced won't be a pre-authored one. The player knows that it is emerging out of their play; they are not playing through a (pre-given) story. Kubasik picks up this idea in the subsequent entries in the Interactive Toolkit blog series.

 

[pemerton]

That is essentially every RPG dynamic in which a GM presents and the players interact.

GM presents and players interact is pretty fundamental to RPGing (except at the avant garde cutting edge). But that doesn't mean that all RPGing has to involve the GM dictating what happens.

Just as a really simple example, the GM can take suggestions from the players as to what they present to them.

 

[Deset Gled]

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?

Option C could be that the DM plans what happens if the path isn't followed.

The king calls for aid. The princess has been kidnapped by Guilder. Who will save her?

The PCs search for treasure in an abandoned mine.

The king calls for aid. The princess has been killed. Who can negotiate with Guilder to prevent a war?

The PCs investigate a legend of a magic fish.

The king calls for aid. Who will help defend the country in the war with Guilder?

The PCs help defeat a ghost in a cellar.

The city is overrun. The PCs are attacked by Guilder's army.

Did the DM railroad the PC's into an encounter with Guilder, or was that their choice through inaction? Does if matter if the DM later claims there were other possible outcomes (like uncovering that Guilder was framed for the kidnapping), but the PCs never learned that information because they refused to engage?

 

[Thomas Shey]

The city is overrun. The PCs are attacked by Guilder's army.

Did the DM railroad the PC's into an encounter with Guilder, or was that their choice through inaction? Does if matter if the DM later claims there were other possible outcomes (like uncovering that Guilder was framed for the kidnapping), but the PC's never learned that information because they refused to engage?

I'd say it probably matters what happens if the PCs look up in the middle of that and go "Looks like a war's coming, we'd better skedaddle and leaves the country. At that point, worst that can be accused is the GM chased them out of town, but that's a bit of a reach.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've been watching this thread, but haven't commented yet. In recent conversations that touched on railroads and linear adventures, I was a poster who said there was not much functional difference. And I still feel that way... as far as experiences go, the GM having a pre-determined scenario that must happen is not all that different from me politely agreeing to stay within the lines and stick to the path. I find both constraining in a way that I'm not crazy about.

In the past, I've tried to point out how I don't view railroads as inherently negative. This is because I equate them with linear adventures... and I don't think those are inherently negative.

But there has been some distinction made about when a GM resorts to force to maintain the linear adventure... and that this is what makes it a railroad. This isn't necessarily how I'd view it, but there's obviously something there... many people have cited it.

I'm going to set aside the discussion of what label to use RE linear adventures and railroads. I'll just use linear adventure in this discussion for the type of game. Because I don't think it's the type of game that's the problem.

It's the GM force.

Linear is an adjective that describes the game. Force is a verb that describes action by the GM.

Most people are clearly objecting to the GM exerting force over what would normally be considered a decision of the player's. Most people seem perfectly fine playing in a linear manner, where A leads to B leads to C and so on. In most cases, there will be some amount of freedom within this overall structure. The players will likely be able to have their characters wander a bit, maybe get involved in some tangential "side quests" or what have you, and may be able to overcome obstacles or challenges in any number of ways.

But if the GM usurps even that freedom by overriding player action declarations, or by insisting that there is only one solution to every obstacle... that's when it's problematic.

I agree that there is a difference in this sense between a linear adventure and one where a GM uses force to enact their preferred state of things. I think the difference is more social or emotional than it is experiential. Having played in both kinds of games, I can say that neither really appeals to me... but in a linear adventure, there may at least be a chance for some fun. And I'm at least given some choices that may matter at least a bit.

So you then disagree with most players who have voted Lost Mines of Phandelver as one of the best adventures WotC has ever written then? Well, that's your prerogative.

Isn't one of the reasons that Lost Mines of Phandelver is held in such regard precisely because it's not linear? It's a small regional sandbox consisting of a town with a gang problem, and a few nearby locations of interest. It's also designed for beginners in mind... and any time that's the case, I think it's reasonable to expect at least a little hand holding.

I mean, if you want to look at an example of a linear 5e adventure, look at the Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat adventures. They're certainly linear... and definitely not as highly regarded as Phandelver. The linearity of them is one of the major criticisms.

 

[payn]

I’ve finally come to realize the note struck in me about the linear = railroad claim. I’ve experienced GM force to the point of railroad in sandbox games more than I have in linear ones. Yet, there is a notion that sandbox is railroad proof.

 

[Mort]

I’ve finally come to realize the note struck in me about the linear = railroad claim. I’ve experienced GM force to the point of railroad in sandbox games more than I have in linear ones. Yet, there is a notion that sandbox is railroad proof.

Interesting. I would think a "true" sandbox is railroad proof, there would be absolutely no need for any kind of railroading.

But if the DM wants you to think it's a sandbox, doesn't have enough prepared, doesn't randomize, and doesn't want the group to realize this? Yeah, I can see some resorting to railroading.

 

[Mort]

Isn't one of the reasons that Lost Mines of Phandelver is held in such regard precisely because it's not linear? It's a small regional sandbox consisting of a town with a gang problem, and a few nearby locations of interest. It's also designed for beginners in mind... and any time that's the case, I think it's reasonable to expect at least a little hand holding.

Lost Mines uses a pretty classic narrow-wide-narrow design.

The beginning is almost completely linear, pushing the PCs through the first two encounters. Then it widens out to a sandboxy area where the PCs have lots of room to maneuver and lots of choices as to where to go etc. Then as they explore, it narrows pushing/pointing the PCs to the ending/final encounters which are set.