D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[AnotherGuy]

That's an utterly terrible idea. It totally destroys any tension caused by dangerous situations.

Disagree. Besides death there are a number of loss conditions to be explored...fictional and mechanical.

There is an entire line on DMsGuild which is perfect for post TPK scenario - Doomed Realms. In fact I've used it as a precognitive element (via an ever changing map of the future) should a TPK actualise.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. I'm operating under the presumption that the group actively likes their current situation and would rather continue playing, and thus "just start a new game" is a bummer outcome even outside the game.

Does such immortality "devalue" death and reduces tension? Yes. There are no win-win deals, something must be sacrificed.
Is it worth continuing the game and having more room for learning more about it and developing better strategies? Depends on how much you value this sense of finality of consequences.

Sorry if I'm just rehashing some of the last 53 pages of, hrrmmmm, fluffy material, my interest waned at page 4...

I think this is exactly why we have games like, say, 1000 Arrows. Death is certainly not entirely off the table in that game, but it isn't about trying to avoid getting killed. It is about who you are, what you will do, and how your character is tested, and ultimately most characters will die/retire/accomplish their goal/become unplayable, at a point where the participants have reached a natural end to the arc of the story. This is effectively the answer to the dilemma you pose, don't focus your game on winning tactical situations. D&D was derived from wargaming, by wargamers. We have LONG since moved far beyond that, and basically left trad play in the dust.

 

[loverdrive]

I think this is exactly why we have games like, say, 1000 Arrows. Death is certainly not entirely off the table in that game, but it isn't about trying to avoid getting killed. It is about who you are, what you will do, and how your character is tested, and ultimately most characters will die/retire/accomplish their goal/become unplayable, at a point where the participants have reached a natural end to the arc of the story. This is effectively the answer to the dilemma you pose, don't focus your game on winning tactical situations. D&D was derived from wargaming, by wargamers. We have LONG since moved far beyond that, and basically left trad play in the dust.

Yes, but it's not only about story.

Trying a difficult combat encounter several times until you win by the skin of your teeth is fun. If PCs just respawn as if nothing happened, it enables the GM to punch harder and challenge them more, and enables players to experiment with new strategies and approaches.

At the end of the day, there are reasons most videogames tend to not delete your save on game over, and those reasons are very much applicable to tabletop games, especially if we consider the whole "fight things and talk in silly voices" strata of campaigns.

 

[Celebrim]

No it isn't. If you come to that conclusion, then your definition of railroad is unprintable. Think harder.

One wonders how you think that's a strong argument. And for the record, I linked to my definition of a railroad. It's therefore very definitely and literally printable. There is even a little menu item on the brower you are using for that purpose should you wish to prove it to yourself.

Every game presents situations to the PCs. If 'presenting a situation' IN AND OF ITSELF is 'railroading', then the term is worthless

If you think that that is what I was saying, then sir, "If you come to that conclusion..."

Oh nevermind.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Trying a difficult combat encounter several times until you win by the skin of your teeth is fun. If PCs just respawn as if nothing happened, it enables the GM to punch harder and challenge them more, and enables players to experiment with new strategies and approaches.

I don't think this is really playing a roleplaying game in a meaningful sense. It is just some combat puzzle solving.

 

[loverdrive]

I don't think this is really playing a roleplaying game in a meaningful sense. It is just some combat puzzle solving.

"What is and isn't Real Role-playing" sounds like an argument about semantics to me, and those tend to go nowhere.

I don't find a single unbroken continuity to be a defining factor of roleplaying games.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think my words may have made it unclear.

Nearly all 5e games I've played have started at level 1. With the exception of Hussar's group, literally 100% of those games have failed to reach level 4.

I have never seen a 5e game that (a) started out at level 1 and (b) actually reached level 4.

I have seen 5e games that did reach level 4--they just didn't start at level 1. Specifically, I've had one that started at level 5 and another that started at 6, I think? Can't remember, that was a PbP game.

Oh, my bad. Sorry for not reading more closely. And wow, that is even more cause to see it as odd. I get it, many campaigns fail to end. We had a fantastic 5e campaign one time, and that just fizzled out. It was sad, as the group was great, we all still wanted to play, and the DM and world were extremely interesting. But, for whatever reason, we were never able to get together consistently.

I guess I can't complain though, because every other 5e campaign I have been a part of has come to a conclusion, either at level 20 or level 13-15. There have been four of those.

@EzekielRaiden Sorry to hear that. Those higher levels are very interesting, and can be a lot of fun with the right DM.

 

[Maxperson]

If the GM has prepared an adventure, and the players won't engage with, other than playing a completely different game, what could possibly happen?

A different adventure. It's pretty easy to improvise the start of something and then prep for what you started after the everyone goes home.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes it's the "only" difference.

Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

It's not the only difference. The players can leave a linear adventure layout, override it with something else, finish the adventure in a way the DM didn't think of, etc.

With linear adventures, only the adventure prep is linear, the game play doesn't have to be.

 

[bloodtide]

I am going to argue against this because two hours in movie time in twenty hours in story-telling time. Think, book to movie. Hundreds of pages can sometimes equal one section or episode.

Guess it depends on the person.

Again, sorry to disagree, but this is not modern. The reaction to the of the GM to the players has been in existence since I started playing - the early 1980s.

The idea that the DM is just a player and it is a group storytelling activity is very modern.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Because of course, a five-year-old could fix The Hobbit or Harry Potter.

Of course they could.

I've literally never seen that. A true TPK is a death sentence for a campaign. I've seen that several times personally, and too many times to count secondhand. Never once seen the thing you describe--except, secondhand, in sandbox play. TPKs are a massive downer and put a terrible black cloud over the game for every group I've ever interacted with that has had one.

Not for my games. This happens quite often in my games. And sure a couple of players are so full of anguish that they leave the game, unable to game any more, but most players can make new characters and keep going.

I have quite often done a "legacy type campaign" where each time the group obliterates themselves, the players come back to try again as the kids of the dead characters. Often with an over aching meatplot so the characters do remember their past lives.

The average gamer that joins my game is totally unprepared for thing in my game like: Unfairness, Unbalanced, Harsh, Cruel, Old School, Let the Dice Roll where they May, Combat is War, Life is War, The Hardknock Life, and Death and Doom. No matter what is said to them before the game. So, this makes character death quite common for them. An example is they don't take cover when under a ranged attack, or worse when a PC leaves cover for some dumb reason to make themselves a target.

If the campaign has a "save the world" premise, and the PCs all die, then it seems to me that the world hasn't been saved!

Bringing in the second string, in the way that was being talked about, suggests that the whole thing doesn't relate to the PCs in any particular fashion. It's the GM's story, not the players'.

I would disagree here. You don't have to overly super attach the players to specific characters. This is more of the Cinematic View. The players still "save the world", even if they have new and diffrent characters.

I agree. One of my favorite campaigns was one we were TPKed. Our new characters were set 50 years into the future - and man, was it grim. The DM showed us that failing had consequences. Our old characters and any related NPC in their backstories were all tragically seen through the new characters. (Basically, the dragon that we were trying to stop had overrun everything. Common trope, but still fun.)

I do this sort of thing quite often.

I don't think this is really playing a roleplaying game in a meaningful sense. It is just some combat puzzle solving.

Of course "playing a RPG in a meaningful sense" has different meanings to each person. To complete an adventure, or something like a campaign arc is a lot more then just solving puzzle.