The Opposite of Railroading...

[Thornir Alekeg]

Ooo! I like that a lot! I've been striving for that "Morrowind/Oblivion" feel and I think that ought to hit the spot exactly if I work it out that way. I remember writing up a host of "random" encounters that I had detailed quite nicely for Basic D&D (basically, I went through the list of monsters given and wrote up encounters and lairs). I gotta kick my butt into gear to get working on that. Goodman Games's Dungeon Geomorphs set should help me generate some goodies on the quick. Thanks!

I have one of the En Route books from Atlas Games (hard to find now, and I think they are 3e rather than 3.5). I have used some of the scenarios from there for the purpose of filling in for player freedom (same campaign as my initial trainwreck of an adventure). I tossed in one that was supposed to be a little standalone mini adventure to keep the players feeling they had freedom to choose where to go, what to do. By the end of it, they had begun to see conspiracy plots tied to a couple of earlier adventures. I hadn't even considered tying this mini-adventure into the others, but what they came up with was so good, I had to make it true.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Non-Railroad: The party has the macguffin to destroy. Agents of the BBEG attempt to steal the macguffin. If they succeed, the party might be able to get it back before they reach the lair of the BBEG. If they still have or get back the macguffin, the party can proceed with destroying the it, or the party can go after the BBEG to prevent additional attempts to get it, or they can try to find someone else to destroy the macguffin. Heck, they could stuff the macguffin under the roots of a fallen tree if they want and go find something else to do.

There may be consequences of each decision, but it is up to the party to make it.

I think that one of my more interesting experiences as a DM was when my PC's came up with a plan for thwarting the main villian of the piece without it resulting in the big confrontation that is typical of adventures. Basically they got thier hands on the Mcguffin before it could be stolen from the exposed area that it was in. They also thwarted the attempts the retrieve it from them. They then decided to deliver it to one of thier powerful patrons for safe keeping (which was out of the scope of the adventure, but I was like Hmm let's go with this and see where it goes...) who in return rewarded them with guild memberships in the city.

It was in one of these guilds that one of the PC's ran into the villian who was trying to steal the McGuffin and related the story of them getting it to safety. When the villian purposefully gave away a detail about the item that he couldnt known otherwise realization set in for the PC's that they had pretty much made a powerful enemy who couldnt actually touch them directly but proceeded to make life REEEEEALY difficult for them from that point on.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Free Will = Illusion = Puppetry

Anti-railroading only requires that the players have an illusion of choice.

If your players ever find out that you DM by this philosophy, they are within their rights to accuse you of thwarting their agency (i.e., railroading).

-Samir

 

[Mallus]

This format has served me well for the last year or so, mostly since a problem in the group where the party found out the various different problems in the town and the surrounding area, what the rewards would be and, despite the fact that it was blatant metagaming (the players had every reason in the world to do these jobs) they decided to go off to a random point on the map for no reason. I told them the game was over, to go home, and that we would get together in a month after I had made a new campaign. Initially the stormed off angry...

Really? They got angry when their attempt to break the game actually succeeded?

Put another way, when you engage in a pissing contest, don't complain if your trousers or shoes end up a little wet...

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I was perusing the Role-playing motivation posters linked on another thread and came across this one, which I thought was good for this thread:

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I was perusing the Role-playing motivation posters linked on another thread and came across this one, which I thought was good for this thread:

Best. RPG. Demotivator. Ever.

 

[Wil]

Again, it depends how we define "railroading" (obviously ). For example, if I design a dungeon for an adventure, and place it just outside the village where the PCs start, it's hardly railroading if I expect the PCs to explore the friggin' dungeon. After all, that's the adventure I designed for them! But there are some players who would resent the fact that I expect them to explore the dungeon. Some players might say, we'll go south instead of north. Who needs a dungeon? And then expect me to make up stuff on the fly.

Incidentally, Knights of the Dinner Table had tons of stories like this. B.A. (the GM) prepares an adventure, but his players decide to ignore the adventure and wreak (sic?) havoc, and resent him for "railroading" them with adventure hooks.

But isn't that a problem with a disconnect between the GM and what the players would like to see? It isn't the players, it's a communication issue.

 

[Jupp]

Give details not some vauge outline. specific details. Thanks.

I see it as a big space with different dots on it, and through this space is a magnetic strip from one side to the other. Now the players start to follow that strip up to a certain point where they get distracted by one of the nearby spots. So they detach from the magnetic strip and are drawn to that spot. Once the dot is covered and whatever the players wanted to see or experience is over they have two choices. Either they wander to the next spot or they attach again to the strip. Sometimes the magnetic force is strong enough to attach the players again, sometimes not. Sometimes the dots affect the strip in some way, sometimes it's the other way around. It's in the players hands to choose their path and it's their decision in what way they will change the space they walk in around. Well, essentially all those words are nothing other than my interpretation of:

To me, it means you're running a game with multiple plot options subject to change based upon the actions of the PCs.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I was using a prewritten adventure, and it said right in it that the macguffin would be stolen from the party on the night of the festival.

A lot of published scenarios are heavily railroaded, Whispers of the Vampire's Blade being a recent example. Why they're written this way I don't know, but it sucks.

 

[Ourph]

The problem isn't railroading. The problem is players KNOWING that they're being railroaded. Railroading needs to stay safely hidden behind the DM screen.
<snip>
I keep tempting them with different entrances until they find one that they want to explore. The dungeon that I planned to use tonight WILL get used tonight WITHOUT the players knowing they were railroaded into it.

The players don't know they are being railroaded because they aren't. This isn't railroading. Railroading is as Thornir describes it, the PCs actions do nothing to affect the progress of the plot from point A to B to C. You aren't railroading the PCs by making efficient use of your prep-work. Exactly the opposite, in fact. You're allowing the PCs the freedom to roam wherever they want and even to choose NOT to enter a dungeon if they find something else that interests them.