Thought Experiment - "Is your game a railroad" test

[nedjer]

You're planning a new homebrew campaign. Do you:

a) tell the players how it's going to be in a 78 page PDF.

b) tell the players a few of your general plans and listen for any major complaints.

c) ask the players to tell you their hopes and expectations for a really good campaign and invite them round to help co-design a map

d) give the players a few basic suggestions/ boundaries and tell them to map the world you'll run

. . . and I brought blancmange

 

[Stormonu]

You're planning a new homebrew campaign. Do you:

a) tell the players how it's going to be in a 78 page PDF.

Wait, are we talking something like a travelogue of the Flaness or Faerun or a "here's your character background, the campaign background and how all of you met and where I expect you'll be going in this campaign." Because if it's the former I'd take exception to this being "railroading".

 

[TarionzCousin]

Actually, Patton Oswalt is the Patron Comedian of D&D.

 

[Stormonu]

Now you make me wonder....is a KillerDM a railroading DM?

 

[TarionzCousin]

Now you make me wonder....is a KillerDM a railroading DM?

Often, but a Rat Bastard DM™ is usually not!

 

[Janx]

The culminating scene of the campaign will be, what?

A. I have no idea. There probably won't even be a "culminating scene." <Not a railroad.>

B. It could be a number of different options, some of which I'm sure I haven't thought of yet. <Probably not a railroad.>

C. The heroes will defeat the dark lord, save the princess, and set the universe aright. <Probably a railroad.>

D. If the PCs try to be heroes, they will probably defeat the dark lord, probably save the princess, and probably set the universe aright. But if they screw up or take a radically different approach, then I'll have to adjust to make things end differently. <expected road, but not meant to be on rails>

I tend to run D. I look at the PCs and present a scenario they will probably pursue. With that, I build enough parts for them to get to the end of their goal. Unless they totally screw it up, or do something totally different, they'll probably get to the original outcome. I'll have to wing a bunch of stuff as they adjust their plan, and if what they're doing still make sense with the original scenario, they'll get to the end. otherwise, the "end" will be different.

It works for me and my group. But I also only tend to write 4-6 hours worth of material, and I don't write generic mega-quest storylines, rather focussing on the PCs direct and stated goals and situations. Example: last session you said you wanted to run for mayor and filled out the applicartion form, so I wrote all the stuff I need to run your campaigning for office adventure.

 

[nedjer]

Wait, are we talking something like a travelogue of the Flaness or Faerun or a "here's your character background, the campaign background and how all of you met and where I expect you'll be going in this campaign." Because if it's the former I'd take exception to this being "railroading".

Technically I see the possibility of limiting player choice in both, but yeah, they're very different approaches and you make a very valid point about how questions have to be worked through to get the right questions

 

[nedjer]

Everyone else lost interest, but I didn't - so I polished up the questions and blogged them with a few more.

Anyone who would like to rant against this is welcome to post comments on the blog, which will 90% never get looked at, because no one ever has time.

And yes if you wish to click through you're welcome to a laugh at my expense about my recent laptop purchase

 

[Herschel]

I'm not sure what this thread is about but here's a picture of me in my DM outfit.

I think every campaign is a bit of a "railroad" at some point or another. Otherwise the players randomly stumble through a campaign. I'll most definitely drop clues/hints as to what's going on. Everyone's definition of how much info to give varies.