The Invisible Railroad

[mneme]

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20110922

Not a horrible article, as presented. The "railroad", not as a chain to attach the players to, but a way for the GM to keep track of events in the game, potentially including multiple hooks into the same event if needed, as it makes sense.

OTOH, I'm somewhat offended by the poll question #32B:

How do you deal with a player who tries to derail your campaign?

I pack up my dice and leave.
I ignore the bad behavior and try not to reward it.
I politely urge the player not to ruin the game for everyone else.
I sic the other players on the offender. Peer pressure—can't beat it.
I put on a brave face and cry myself to sleep at night.
I kill off or savagely maim the player's character.
I don't mince words: I tell the player to stop being a jerk and knock it off.
I banish the player to the Abyss (kick the player out of the group). Problem solved.
I laugh at the player and shout, "Nice try, you damn dirty ape, but my campaign cannot be derailed by the likes of you!"

Ok, fine, I answered the last one of course, but really -- 9 answers, and 8 of them are variations of "I'm a lousy GM and incapable of dealing with player initiative", while the last is adverserial? What's wrong with, say, "Player's can't derail my campaign; I don't know where it's going any more than they do," or "I grin, make a few notes, and adapt," or even the illusionist "I adjust a few notes and keep running the same thing I initially intended, I just don't tell the players that?"

 

[Incenjucar]

It's the "Old School" thing.

Personally my campaigns can't be derailed because the entire point of them is to provide interesting stuff for the PCs to do. If they choose to abandon the major plot points, that's their decision and I roll with it and work something new into the story until they find something they want to tackle. Sure lots of people die horribly around them if they refuse, but they're adventurers first, heroes when convenient.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Invisible Railroad)


OTOH, I'm somewhat offended by the poll question #32B:

I pack up my dice and leave.
I ignore the bad behavior and try not to reward it.
I politely urge the player not to ruin the game for everyone else.
I sic the other players on the offender. Peer pressure—can't beat it.
I put on a brave face and cry myself to sleep at night.
I kill off or savagely maim the player's character.
I don't mince words: I tell the player to stop being a jerk and knock it off.
I banish the player to the Abyss (kick the player out of the group). Problem solved.
I laugh at the player and shout, "Nice try, you damn dirty ape, but my campaign cannot be derailed by the likes of you!"

Ok, fine, I answered the last one of course, but really -- 9 answers, and 8 of them are variations of "I'm a lousy GM and incapable of dealing with player initiative", while the last is adverserial? What's wrong with, say, "Player's can't derail my campaign; I don't know where it's going any more than they do," or "I grin, make a few notes, and adapt," or even the illusionist "I adjust a few notes and keep running the same thing I initially intended, I just don't tell the players that?"

You're leaving out the first part of the poll...

Hey, DMs: Have you ever had a player maliciously [emphasis mine] derail your campaign?

• Yes.
• No.
• I dunno. Maybe.

Considering that the first part is asking about a player maliciously (rather than inadvertantly) derailing a campaign, I believe that the second part is asking how you would deal with that. Hence options like telling him not to be a jerk.

No matter how free form your campaign is, players can always find ways to mess with it in maliciously. One example would be players who suddenly decide to try and kill the other PC's, or sell them out to the villain, which is really rather unfair to the other players if they're not in a campaign specifically about such things. In a case like that, telling them to knock it off, getting the other players after them ("Why don't you all tell [jerk] how what he just did makes you feel? Are you ejoying this campaign now, or has it been ruined?") or kicking them out of the group if they refuse to knock it off are all valid responses.

 

[mneme]

Doctor Proctor: Yes, I did (I also accidentally left out the question; fixed that). Because it's not really relevant. You can't read your player's minds -- so while it's possible to -know- a player maliciously messed with your plot, it's also possible to believe this is the case and be completely wrong.

Moreover, I'd argue that deliberately derailing a campaign is far from (necessarily) malicious (adversarial, probably, but not all adversarial play is malicious); the role of the GM isn't to provide plot. One can run a game, of course, where part of the contract is that the role of the GM -is- to provide plot, but that's far from a given.

Moreover, as the article points out directly, there's nothing wrong with having your game derailed -- you can go with it, and you'll have opportunities to reintroduce the rails if you need to later.

Functionally, both the first question and the second question are wrong (but at least the question is wrong in the first one, not the answers; it's possible to answer "no" on the first question). Compare to, say:

anyway: Trad vs Indie: FIGHT! pt2

6 out of 6 designers surveyed -- Indie and D&D alike, think that the right answer when players mess up your plans isn't to treat them as adversaries, but to go with it.

 

[Riastlin]

Aye, as DP said I think the second question was about much more than just not following the hook tossed at them. I think its about a player who is deliberately trying to disrupt the campaign, making it unfun for everyone (except maybe the disruptor).

I agree with you though that if it was truly intended to mean "What do you do when your players don't want to follow the notes you had planned for your session?" and those were you only options, that it would be a bit insulting. Reading the article, and looking at his diagrams, I think its pretty clear how Perkins feels about players simply jumping off the rails (i.e. it can be a great thing).

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Doctor Proctor: Yes, I did (I also accidentally left out the question; fixed that). Because it's not really relevant. You can't read your player's minds -- so while it's possible to -know- a player maliciously messed with your plot, it's also possible to believe this is the case and be completely wrong.

Which is why one of the options was to politely talk to the player, and another one was to ignore it for the time being. If the player wasn't doing it maliciously, then it won't be a problem.

Moreover, I'd argue that deliberately derailing a campaign is far from (necessarily) malicious (adversarial, probably, but not all adversarial play is malicious);

No one said that it was. In fact, as I said, the question was only about malicious derailment, nothing else.

Functionally, both the first question and the second question are wrong (but at least the question is wrong in the first one, not the answers; it's possible to answer "no" on the first question). Compare to, say:

anyway: Trad vs Indie: FIGHT! pt2

6 out of 6 designers surveyed -- Indie and D&D alike, think that the right answer when players mess up your plans isn't to treat them as adversaries, but to go with it.

Again, I think you're reading something into the question that's just not there. Someone maliciously derailing the game (not the same as ignoring a plot hook) is generally going to be ruining everyone's fun at the table. Part of the job of the DM is to ensure that everyone has fun, and therefore when a player is actively inhibiting that, it becomes a problem that the DM has to deal with.

Edit: One problem here might be that you're assuming that his question is directly referencing the column, which was about plot derailments. It might be something he's asking in a general sense because he's thinking of doing his next column on dealing with problem players, and wants to see the community's thoughts on that.

 

[keterys]

Both questions seem to be addressed to that rare, though not mythical, player who wants to be the evil assassin in the group with the paladin, the kender who steals the potion needed to stop someone's death... the guy who joins a game that's run for a long time, where the 5-year love arc and building of a dynasty is reaching its climactic point for one of the other players... and offs the key NPC. And his family. And dog.

Honestly, there wasn't enough there for me to answer to, but there are people who care about that kind of thing. It does happen. There are people who I'd not want to give the excuse to turn on their comrades, or access to all too fragile NPCs that the other players care about. I just don't happen to play with those people

 

[Jacob Marley]

Hmm, it seemed clear to me that Chris was trying to be humorous with his poll - at least in part B. Every answer was facetious.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How do you deal with a player who tries to derail your campaign?

* I politely urge the player not to ruin the game for everyone else.

*****

...variations of "I'm a lousy GM and incapable of dealing with player initiative".

I find it amusing that you consider talking politely with your players to be a sign of a lousy DM.

 

[mneme]

I find it amusing that you consider talking politely with your players to be a sign of a lousy DM.

Talking with their players as if they're a bad puppy who needs some quiet time, when based on the question there's no implication that the player did anything wrong?

Sure.

The GM is not the game mommy. The GM is not the boss. Treat your players as equals, not inferiors. If a player's style doesn't fit with the rest of the group, a split or readjustment may be necessary, but -just- messing with the GM's plot isn't necessarily that point (unless you're a "the GM provides the rollercoaster, the players ride it" group, in which case good luck).

[edit] Also? Passive aggression (which is basically what's described by "talking with your player"; this really was designed as a humorous question with no right answers, particularly in context) is hardly not aggression.