D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

The immediacy of the task at hand is important to me. Remember, we're talking about a situation where the GM has a prepped adventure ready. If that's the case, why dilly dally? Jump to the beginning of the actual adventure. Put the characters in some kind of situation that demands action.
I think this is a good point.

Everyone comes over to play the game, quite often an action/adventure game. The idea that the players just want to sit around and do the random sandbox free form role play just does not fit.

I've had players complain they want to do random sandbox free form role play more before the game. As DM I say no, but "the game starts at 6pm, so if you all want to come over and role play among yourselves, you can". Amazingly no player wants to come over "early" just to sit around and do random sandbox free form role play. They only want to waste game time doing it...

GM should not prepare adventures that the PCs do not care about and then expect players to play through them. And of course the players tend to be willing to go along in such situations, you just need to give them some somewhat adequately presented reasons and they are likely to be willing to be persuaded by some of them. It is like in improv acting, being willing to go with the flow, but there still needs to be some input from the GM the players can react to.
This only sounds good on paper. The idea that the players must "feel good" and "care" about the adventure is often a non starter. The DM can do the "d20 pitch" and toss out 20 adventure ideas. The players will then drink some Mt. Dew and pick one. At random. At best they will pick the one that "sounds cool". But it is not like you can detail every tiny part of the adventure. It's like asking someone what new movie they want to watch. You can't describe the whole movie from start to finish and then say "ok, you want to watch that?"
It is established, in a sense that the player, as playing the character feels in some way about the situation they are in. If you later introduce additional emotional context, that feeling is likely to change. But as it is a flashback, then logically they should have felt that way from the get go. Like if I first played my character as having more callous and mercenary attitude about the quest, but then was really moved by the king's plight in the flashback scene (and the other characters were there to see it) then my feelings and behaviour in the beginning of the game were inconsistent with this.
For my more advanced good players I like to do flashback 'mini games' over post or discord. It's a great way to fill in things for a character.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Then, in my opinion, they can never be more than mediocre GM at best. It is such a crucial aspect of the GM that I do not think you can neglect it.

First, I’m not saying to neglect it. I’m saying that it has a time and place.

Second, I believe it can be done with less time and effort than you believe.

For reason to have real emotional weight, it need to be backed by something. It is unlikely that this can be done in a sentence.

And I am not saying you can never summarise things, for expediency you sometimes need to. The backstory of a big adventure is not where I would do it though, it is too important. I just strongly feel that emotional connections with NPCs tend to be better if they are actually played at least somewhat. It simply is differnt for the GM to say "your old friend Idris is in peril," and this to be the first time we hear of Idris, than Idris to be an actual NPC that has been encountered and interacted several times previously. Yes, players can pretend to care about Idris either way, but in the latter case they are far more likely to genuinely care.

If the adventure is an expected thing… if we’re going to be playing a specific adventure because that’s what the GM has prepared… then I think it’s better to get to it. Let whatever emotion I hope the players to have develop over the course of play.

GM should not prepare adventures that the PCs do not care about and then expect players to play through them.

But to me this seems like exactly what you are advocating for. You don’t expect the players to care until you give some performance that you think will make them care.

And of course the players tend to be willing to go along in such situations, you just need to give them some somewhat adequately presented reasons and they are likely to be willing to be persuaded by some of them. It is like in improv acting, being willing to go with the flow, but there still needs to be some input from the GM the players can react to.

I remember the first time I played The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. The GM started us outside the steading and explained that we’d been hired by the human kingdom (of Furyondy, I believe, but perhaps that was just the GM’s personal choice) to deal with the problem.

And then we played. And it worked spectacularly.

I’m trying to imagine a situation where playing out the scene where the king or one of his agents hired the PCs would really enhance play. Is it possible such a scene would add some weight or pathos to play? Yes, it’s possible. Is it necessary as you describe? No.

Especially not when the intention, no matter how the scene goes, is for the PCs to accept the job. Given that key factor, I would say it’s better to simply ascribe a motive to the PCs and then get right to the actual adventure.

It is established, in a sense that the player, as playing the character feels in some way about the situation they are in. If you later introduce additional emotional context, that feeling is likely to change. But as it is a flashback, then logically they should have felt that way from the get go. Like if I first played my character as having more callous and mercenary attitude about the quest, but then was really moved by the king's plight in the flashback scene (and the other characters were there to see it) then my feelings and behaviour in the beginning of the game were inconsistent with this.

I don’t really think this is concerning at all. Players can change their minds, the characters’ feelings can shift over time. I don’t really think it’s a case of changing so much as establishing, but even if it is changing, I don’t really see an issue.

It means fully, as in fully roleplayed rather than just discussed OOC. I did not mean "proper" as opposed to "improper" or "wrong."

And why do you assume that this performance will elicit the response you want?

Well, there of course can be different preferences, but I think it is a bit weird to not want to roleplay characters and NPCs in a roleplaying game. To me that is the literal core of the activity, the reason why I am doing it, and if it is not happening, then I really do not want to participate.

But if that's not why you play, what is then? What is is you feel is the important part of the game?

It is one prt of things. But I don’t really think that part of play is best served by performance so much as consideration. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t expect some performative elements here and there… but as with anything I may do as a GM, it is a tool that I’ll select when I think it will best serve.

I don’t think that the example you gave would be one of those times.
 

If the adventure is an expected thing… if we’re going to be playing a specific adventure because that’s what the GM has prepared… then I think it’s better to get to it. Let whatever emotion I hope the players to have develop over the course of play.
I agree.
I’m trying to imagine a situation where playing out the scene where the king or one of his agents hired the PCs would really enhance play. Is it possible such a scene would add some weight or pathos to play? Yes, it’s possible. Is it necessary as you describe? No.
A great way to do this is outside the game. If the game starts at 6pm, have everyone come over at 5pm to do the introduction. Or the lunch can work great: have everyone come over for lunch at noon and do the introduction. Then everyone can go home and come back for the game at 6pm.
Especially not when the intention, no matter how the scene goes, is for the PCs to accept the job. Given that key factor, I would say it’s better to simply ascribe a motive to the PCs and then get right to the actual adventure.
As I said, it can sometimes be hard for the players to grasp the idea that they should just accept the job or quest or mission.
 

I agree.

A great way to do this is outside the game. If the game starts at 6pm, have everyone come over at 5pm to do the introduction. Or the lunch can work great: have everyone come over for lunch at noon and do the introduction. Then everyone can go home and come back for the game at 6pm.

As I said, it can sometimes be hard for the players to grasp the idea that they should just accept the job or quest or mission.

It depends on the situation, I think. I much prefer not to have a set “adventure” or “module”. The nature of D&D makes it a bit tricky to avoid that. The game expects and benefits from preparation. There are ways around it, but not everyone is aware of them or able to pull them off. For many folks, having a prepared adventure is necessary.
 

It depends on the situation, I think. I much prefer not to have a set “adventure” or “module”. The nature of D&D makes it a bit tricky to avoid that. The game expects and benefits from preparation. There are ways around it, but not everyone is aware of them or able to pull them off. For many folks, having a prepared adventure is necessary.
The random sandbox non-adventure is popular enough. And plenty of players love the near free form as they can use it against the DM

Though the vast majority of gamers like to have the adventure structure.
 

No, I disagree. If a GM is a good enough actor to actually evoke emotion in players that regularly and strongly, then sure, they should continue to do it.

If they’re not… and my guess is that the vast majority are not… then they should not expand an area of the role they’re not strong at. They should focus on their strengths.
In my opinion that's an extraordinarily wrong position to hold and I hope to God that nobody who reads that takes it to heart. A great many people enjoy roleplaying and get a lot out of it, even if they aren't(and almost all who enjoy it aren't) actors so skilled that they can regularly evoke strong emotions.

Just wow.
 

Well, if the situation is that dire then the GM certainly needs all practice they can get and they should do more of such scenes!



To give context to why we are even doing this at all! Action without reason seems narratively rather pointless to me.



Not specific emotion. Some emotion. Perhaps the character ends up thinking that the king is a pathetic fool, and they need to rescue the princess from the dragon to make sure that that the leadership of the realm will be in better hands. Perhaps they pity the king and they wish to save his beloved daughter. And yeah, if it turn out that none of the characters care about the king or the princess, then we probably should not next play and adventure about rescuing said princess!



I mean it changes how they felt before the flashback occurred. Granted, if it is just after the first action sequence it is unlikely matter terribly much.




This just seems like a way worse way of doing the same thing. Why not just actually play the bloody scene properly, and then the players will naturally come to know how their characters feel a bout it? Why are we creating this needless distance and hashing this out from some writers' room, instead of getting into the heads of the characters and letting them experience the thing?



That is the game! Interacting with NPCs, roleplaying the reactions, decisions and speech of your character, immersing to their headspace, feeling their feelings, is why I play these games. Why you want to skip the actual good stuff?
This is a deep, personal discussion, and it's a lot more subjective than it's being presented as. I think there's room out there for all kinds of DMs.

I do completely agree with the notion of embracing one's strengths too. Nothing wrong with that. If the table has the most fun, which is how most of us measure whether we're doing well as a DM, when you're concentrating on your strengths, then why stop? If something works, by all means, keep doing it!
 

It depends on the situation, I think. I much prefer not to have a set “adventure” or “module”. The nature of D&D makes it a bit tricky to avoid that. The game expects and benefits from preparation. There are ways around it, but not everyone is aware of them or able to pull them off. For many folks, having a prepared adventure is necessary.
I'd put it more as a preference than something necessary for myself. I prefer to have something prepared. How much and what varies day to day, but I would say that I generally always like to have at least a little something ready ahead of time.

It may be 15 minutes of work -- a keyed area sketch, a couple NPCs, a list of random names, and a few encounters -- but even a little bit helps me a great deal.
 

The random sandbox non-adventure is popular enough. And plenty of players love the near free form as they can use it against the DM

Though the vast majority of gamers like to have the adventure structure.

I don’t know what “use it against the DM” means. It’s not a concern I have when I GM.

Regarding what players like, I think it varies enough that saying what “most” like is kind of silly.

In my opinion that's an extraordinarily wrong position to hold and I hope to God that nobody who reads that takes it to heart. A great many people enjoy roleplaying and get a lot out of it, even if they aren't(and almost all who enjoy it aren't) actors so skilled that they can regularly evoke strong emotions.

Just wow.

I don’t think you’ve taken the comment in the context of the conversation. It’s not an argument against roleplaying.

I’d express similar surprise as you… but it really isn’t that surprising that you’d ignore context.

I'd put it more as a preference than something necessary for myself. I prefer to have something prepared. How much and what varies day to day, but I would say that I generally always like to have at least a little something ready ahead of time.

It may be 15 minutes of work -- a keyed area sketch, a couple NPCs, a list of random names, and a few encounters -- but even a little bit helps me a great deal.

Sure, I get that. When I GM D&D, I tend to prep lightly, and mostly between sessions. Like, once the session ends, we have a good idea of what the next one will bring, so I prep accordingly. It likely is pretty brief… some bullet points and ideas for locations and NPCs and so on. Probably having some generic statblocks ready. That’s about it.

But I know that’s not something all or even most GMs may be comfortable with.
 

First, I’m not saying to neglect it. I’m saying that it has a time and place.

Second, I believe it can be done with less time and effort than you believe.

I don't think I have gone into much detail about how much time I expect to spend on this beyond "some."

If the adventure is an expected thing… if we’re going to be playing a specific adventure because that’s what the GM has prepared… then I think it’s better to get to it. Let whatever emotion I hope the players to have develop over the course of play.

But to me this seems like exactly what you are advocating for. You don’t expect the players to care until you give some performance that you think will make them care.

Yes. But then they will care, so there is no problem. And it is not necessarily about whether the characters accept the quest at all, it is about giving emotional context which will inform their attitude towards it. Is this personal or just a job? Stuff like that.

I remember the first time I played The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. The GM started us outside the steading and explained that we’d been hired by the human kingdom (of Furyondy, I believe, but perhaps that was just the GM’s personal choice) to deal with the problem.

And this is purely mercenary motivation, and I agree there is no pressing need to roleplay to establish such. But if it is something more personal, then I think some roleplay will definitely enhance it. And I think it is usually better if the characters have motivations beyond XP and gold.

I’m trying to imagine a situation where playing out the scene where the king or one of his agents hired the PCs would really enhance play. Is it possible such a scene would add some weight or pathos to play? Yes, it’s possible. Is it necessary as you describe? No.

I did not say it is necessary. I said there are very good reasons for doing it that way.

I don’t really think this is concerning at all. Players can change their minds, the characters’ feelings can shift over time. I don’t really think it’s a case of changing so much as establishing, but even if it is changing, I don’t really see an issue.

Then I don't really see how you are immersing in the viewpoint of your character. Yes, people's feelings can change, but here the timeline of that change is messed up due the flashback. In fiction the character was moved by the king's distress before they arrived to the dungeon, so they felt that way from the get go. But the player didn't even know that then, only later due the flashback, so they could not immerse into that or roleplay that.

To me the things you say indicate third person thinking outside of the character, where we are looking and shaping the narrative from the outside. It doesn't really make sense when we are in the first person trying to feel like being the character. Nothing wrong with that, but personally I endeavour to do and support the latter.

And why do you assume that this performance will elicit the response you want?

It will elicit some response. Though as I am good at portraying NPCs and I know my players and their characters, I certainly can anticipate with some confidence what sort of reaction given performance will elicit.

It is one prt of things. But I don’t really think that part of play is best served by performance so much as consideration. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t expect some performative elements here and there… but as with anything I may do as a GM, it is a tool that I’ll select when I think it will best serve.

I don’t think that the example you gave would be one of those times.

I just do not really get the whole "skip the RP and get to the good stuff" attitude. The RP is the good stuff! And yeah, RPGs have other elements too, and it is more interesting if you vary things, but it just felt fundamentally wrong to me to describe such interactions somewhat pointless or inconsequential. They are not, they are the heart and soul of the game. Doesn't mean you could never start with action and have RP to establish the emotional context later, but then I'd definitely prefer it to go in that order in the world too. Like if the PCs arrive at "the adventure site" on purely mercenary reasons, but once there encounter people affected by the situation and then it becomes more personal.
 

Remove ads

Top