D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't either. That is why they write adventures, and often, older gamers encourage inexperienced DMs who are having difficulties, to run a "module" or adventure path. Those do wonders as far as honing skills and learning how to build encounters.

You'll forgive me for not particularly having much faith in WotC's ability to write adventures that in any way successfully teach this.

 

[Scott Christian]

You'll forgive me for not particularly having much faith in WotC's ability to write adventures that in any way successfully teach this.

I know you don't think so, but I am curious as to how many you have actually run. I have run Hoard of the Dragon Queen and The Rise of Tiamat. I didn't need to change a thing except when the players decided to follow a different path. I needed to do my work, and know that if my group of six didn't have both fighters showing up, I needed to adjust things. I needed to add NPCs, and character story arcs. But that is the job of the DM. The encounters though - even the famed dragon attack from Greenest in Flames - ran fine.
I have played in Rime of the Frostmaiden, Candlekeep, and Infinite Staircase as a player. I have discussions, sometimes long ones, especially for Frostmaiden, about how much they change. They do the work, like a DM should learn how to do, but the encounters are pretty solid. Most, like for Infinite, have had to ramp the encounters up. But that is why these are great learning tools, because they teach the DM that when you have seven players as opposed to four, you might need to add a complication into the encounter. If you have four players, but they are all min/maxers, you learn to adjust. That is why these books are great for teaching.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know you don't think so, but I am curious as to how many you have actually run.

Not very many, but mostly because I only got started on GMing too late to have any audience for 4e (and wanted a system somewhat lighter for friends who had never touched a TTRPG before.)

 

[loverdrive]

That is the very thing in contention though. If you are chronically rewriting the rules under the players' feet, and merely informing them after the fact "oh yeah by the way, today I've decided that initiative is done with a deck of cards, I know it was popcorn last week but popcorn is too chaotic for my taste", they aren't playing a game. They cannot play, they cannot make informed decisions and learn from the consequences of those decisions, when the rules that decide what decisions are good and useful and what decisions are bad and harmful chronically change.

Full post in question:

I personally just make up rules and don't really consult with the players about the changes, merely inform them. I often have to modify them in the middle of a campaign because quite often it turns out that the initial idea conceived in a vacuum is... Bad. Who would've thought.

And I can certainly see introducing a new rule that would make taking prisoners easier, letting players figure it out, adapt to the changes in the metagame ("metagame" as in "general reasoning of what constitutes a bad/good position, expected enemy strategies, wincons, etc" — like, general gaming sense, not weird TTRPG jargon) and then putting the new mechanic to the full use as a perfectly viable technique.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does it? Must I also seek council when picking the system, when introducing NPCs or when designing a new random table?

When picking the system, my answer would absolutely be "yes". If you don't understand the difference between that, house rules, and the other two things you list, I have to conclude there are additional problems here.

Do players even want to concern themselves with design decisions, or do they want to just play the game?

If you don't ask, how would you expect to know?

(And more pointedly, with at least some, they absolutely do.)

 

[Mort]

Do players even want to concern themselves with design decisions, or do they want to just play the game?

Absolutely, many do.

A while back I joined a Deadlands HoE game. I was told it was bog standard rules. So I made a typical gunslinger character.

First session, I noticed EVERYONE else had swords knives and other melee weapons - with range not that prevalent. This struck me as VERY odd for Deadlands game!

First combat (for me) happens. That's when I learn the DM has house rules that heavily favor nimble melee characters. Very irritating, I would at least have liked to come into this eyes open. Plus, for me, it really didn't feel like a Deadlands game with these rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Absolutely, many do.

A while back I joined a Deadlands HoE game. I was told it was bog standard rules. So I made a typical gunslinger character.

First session, I noticed EVERYONE else had swords knives and other melee weapons - with range not that prevalent. This struck me as VERY odd for Deadlands game!

First combat (for me) happens. That's when I learn the DM has house rules that heavily favor nimble melee characters. Very irritating, I would at least have liked to come into this eyes open. Plus, for me, it really didn't feel like a Deadlands game with these rules.

This is why I endeavour to have my houserules determined before the campaign begins, so that I can tell them to the players and they can make informed character building decisions.

 

[loverdrive]

When picking the system, my answer would absolutely be "yes". If you don't understand the difference between that, house rules, and the other two things you list, I have to conclude there are additional problems here.

They all are artistic decisions, and I'm charging $50 per face per session for my artistic decisions. If a player doesn't want that, there's like ten other GMs in the same community, probably three times more in all others, and chances are, they'll have to deal with way less diva behaviour at that other tables.

I don't just spring them at players from out of nowhere, updates are introduced at the end of the session so they can take time to mull over implications and adapt their strategies in a week between games. I often permit some sort of respec for affected builds.

If you don't ask, how would you expect to know?

(And more pointedly, with at least some, they absolutely do.)

It's not player's job to make design decisions. Okay, it isn't GM's job either, it's the job of the designer. And if you put on big designer pants, then you have to take big designer responsibility. What if the house rule is bad? In my case, it's my fault, and I'll drop it or rework it -- but if it was a collective decision, then who is to blame? Everyone is much more inclined to stick to it, even if it turns out to worsen the overall experience.

 

[bloodtide]

For many folks, artful railroading is no better than clumsy railroading.

It’s the railroading itself that is the issue… not how well it’s done.

True, but then for many folks anything they don't like is Railroading. Some go as far as anything the DM says is Railroading.

Soooo... GM, and by extension, the villain, made a mistake and players set out to rightfully punish this mistake, and that didn't work for... Reasons?

Where's the game in this process?

The example does not give any background as it is fairly generic.

If the DM is role playing the villain character in deep role play(the acting kind), then the DM could have the NPC come to foolish gloat and foolishly expose themselves. This is just fine for a planned game event.

If the DM is Casual, or Clumsy, or a Player-DM, then they will quite often do goofy things without really thinking them through. Such a DM is all Happy as a Clam to have the villain pop in and gloat. And such a DM is all shocked and awed when the PCs turn and capture or kill the villain. Such a DM is far better just doing the "Aw Shucks" and attempt to DM a little bit better next time, if that is possible for them.

If the DM just makes an honest mistake, and puts the NPC in harms way, then they could use the advice to keep the NPC alive.

This is why I endeavour to have my houserules determined before the campaign begins, so that I can tell them to the players and they can make informed character building decisions.

I mostly agree here too. Though players with "fish out of water" is a good learning experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

True, but then for many folks anything they don't like is Railroading. Some go as far as anything the DM says is Railroading.

Sure, but I think we can focus on what you offered in the examples and don’t really have to worry about a broad application oftbe term.

The GM forcing things in a certain direction is railroading. If he’s clumsy about it, it’s very obvious. If he’s clever about it, it may be nearly undetectable.

For those who don’t like railroading, neither is acceptable.