D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[Neonchameleon]

Why would I want to expect anything from my players?

Because if we're not on the same page there's going to be a trainwreck. When I GM I run in different styles depending on what I'm running; I'll run sandbox D&D very differently from Adventure path D&D differently again from Leverage differently again from Marvel Heroic Roleplaying differently again from Apocalypse World differently again from Firefly differently again from Monsterhearts differently again from Dread differently again from My Life With Master differently from Blades in the Dark differently from facilitating Fiasco. All of which are games that I can literally pull sessions together for with about ten minutes notice (and many of them less).

I need to know what to expect from my players. And there are combinations of players that are individually great to run for but combined I have a problem with.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The extreme example he gives aside... it sounds like you do have expectations of your players - based on the kind of people you recruited.

Stepping again away from his extreme example - you run a sandbox game. Do you not have the expectation that the players will proactively seek out interesting things to do?

Do you not realize this expectation is not universal? There are entire games (Shadowrun, Ashen Stars, Leverage, to name a few) where basic conceit is that the characters are a team for hire, and the expectation is that they'll take jobs offered to them, and they will generally continue to do so throughout the campaign. Haring off to accomplish their own schemes may be possible, but it is not the games' usual approach.

I'd say I have expectations when inviting players, but not at the game table.

I'm sure games like that exist. I haven't played them.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Because if we're not on the same page there's going to be a trainwreck. When I GM I run in different styles depending on what I'm running; I'll run sandbox D&D very differently from Adventure path D&D differently again from Leverage differently again from Marvel Heroic Roleplaying differently again from Apocalypse World differently again from Firefly differently again from Monsterhearts differently again from Dread differently again from My Life With Master differently from Blades in the Dark differently from facilitating Fiasco. All of which are games that I can literally pull sessions together for with about ten minutes notice (and many of them less).

I need to know what to expect from my players. And there are combinations of players that are individually great to run for but combined I have a problem with.

I think the right time to handle those issues is away from the game table, not through in-game mechanics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Note that the assumption that character story arc and character mechanical progression are linked... is an assumption on your part.

Yes, limits on mechanical development options do limit how successful a characer can be in a fictional role - you probably don't expect a D&D Barbarian to become the premier diplomat of the Nine Kingdoms, or the like. But that still leaves wide swaths of stories that can be told. The barbarian might not becoem the top diplomat, but he can still be King.

And mechanical progression puts very few limits in the internal personal growth story arcs a character might have. That barbarian can still be a hero or a villain. They can process their rough upbringing, or they can let it control them, and so on.

Good clarifications. Some forms of character growth are pretty much railroaded in D&D - others exist outside the system and that the system provides neither support nor hinderance to, but points in other directions. Meanwhile character mechanical growth always happens.

 

[jayoungr]

This code is limited to the first 10 people who take advantage - if it doesn't work after that, I'm afraid that someone got there first!

Thank you! I nabbed one of them. Looking forward to reading it.

 

[Helldritch]

I would never force a character arc onto a player. They can stay the same all the way through if they like. But that doesn't mean they can't be presented with situations that could cost them their soul.

I had an adventure where the players where aided by a hag who presented the players with a plan (the "only plan") to beat the Villain was for a paladin to merge his soul with an evil dragon. Through determination and a little luck the party managed to defeat the villain without the dragon, thus saving the paladin's soul. But it could easily have gone the other way. And the paladin remained lawful stupid throughout the adventure.

If an arc is a required part of the story I would make "Londo" and NPC who the players could influence one way or the other with their words and deeds.

I was refering to the game our friend was talking to. Pretty much looks like the character arc is forced one way or an other. As a DM I would never do that. Ever.

Note that the assumption that character story arc and character mechanical progression are linked... is an assumption on your part.

Yes, limits on mechanical development options do limit how successful a characer can be in a fictional role - you probably don't expect a D&D Barbarian to become the premier diplomat of the Nine Kingdoms, or the like. But that still leaves wide swaths of stories that can be told. The barbarian might not becoem the top diplomat, but he can still be King.

And mechanical progression puts very few limits in the internal personal growth story arcs a character might have. That barbarian can still be a hero or a villain. They can process their rough upbringing, or they can let it control them, and so on.

Fully agree on that. You do not need rules to do as you describe. They can be useful or not. It all depends on the players and the DM. Since the RP aspect of a game is so dependent on the participants anyway, I much prefer to have free reins on that.

You can play Monopoly as a role playing game, where you are playing sentient incarnations of the tokens, and they can have rivalries, duels to the death, and character arcs.

The mechanics of Monopoly provide zero support for this. But the mechanics don't stop you from doing it.

When you have decisions to make, you can use your character's motivations to determine which choice you make, within the framework of the game. These are quite limited (do you bribe your way out of jail? Do you build houses? Do you buy or bid on a property?) mechanically.

It can help if the banker roleplays as the jail guard.

This is (a) funny, and (b) makes it clear that the "there are no rules for it, but you are allowed to do it" position actually has an issue.

Monopoly is a pretty crappy roleplaying game, because the rules of the game are really not suited for it. I mean, you can have fun roleplaying in it, but most of the fun is the self-referential absurdity of roleplaying while playing Monopoly.

Having mechanical support for something tends to actually encourage and support it happening, and can make the experience of doing it more fun. And yes, without support, you can still do it, but at some level you are basically roleplaying monopoly tokens: a top-hat made of rags to a top-hat made of mercury felted beaver pelts story.

Ishhh... Not having a rule for something does not mean perverting or diverting the game for an entire different purpose. Monopoly isn't a RPG and never was. Yes you could modify it in such way. But that is no longer Monopoly. D&D on the other do have rules for social interactions. This means that adding some to your game is not a perversion of the game but an addition. The game stays on purpose wheras what you describe is an entirely new game in itself. It might be interesting, but go for Acquisition Inc 5ed for such a game. Much more interesting than a board game and you'll have a lot of corporate jokes to do to kick your asses off!

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I love boardgames. But they're not RPG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think the right time to handle those issues is away from the game table, not through in-game mechanics.

The D&D campaign I'm currently running has multiple newbies who had never played D&D before. (In fact I don't think any of them had played D&D before although one was an already experienced roleplayer and played the cult leader in that Apocalypse World game). The one who really founded the group is a Critter and wanted to play rather than listening, and two of the other players got recruited through being told what was happening in the game. It's difficult to handle that through out of game prep.

All of which means I'm running the game with largely inexperienced players who do not know what they like or how they are going to play and I'm having to tease that out of them, all of us learning as we go. Mechanics help.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The D&D campaign I'm currently running has multiple newbies who had never played D&D before. (In fact I don't think any of them had played D&D before although one was an already experienced roleplayer and played the cult leader in that Apocalypse World game). The one who really founded the group is a Critter and wanted to play rather than listening, and two of the other players got recruited through being told what was happening in the game. It's difficult to handle that through out of game prep.

All of which means I'm running the game with largely inexperienced players who do not know what they like or how they are going to play and I'm having to tease that out of them, all of us learning as we go. Mechanics help.

If you have good results, the mechanics are working. I'm happy you're having a good time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was refering to the game our friend was talking to. Pretty much looks like the character arc is forced one way or an other. As a DM I would never do that. Ever.

If you mean me I have already pointed out that this is false. There is no rule for a character arc. There is no rule that ever forces you to change playbook. It simply gives you the opportunity to and a consequence heavy game, and the players all took this suggestion up with me only feeding it to one of them (the "bleed out into your mask" one). There was nothing saying that the creepy psychic being left for dead couldn't actually have stayed a creepy psychic although there would have been a permanent wound. And the only thing that made the cult leader stop being a cult leader was the roleplaying - and the mechanics being fluid enough to be able to allow him to stop being a cult leader in the mechanics as well.

For you to think that because players found character arcs compelling and to flow naturally out of both the system and the specific game they must be forced is something I can understand. But it is not true and I have already said it is not true. Now please stop saying it is.

 

[Cadence]

Good clarifications. Some forms of character growth are pretty much railroaded in D&D - others exist outside the system and that the system provides neither support nor hinderance to, but points in other directions. Meanwhile character mechanical growth always happens.

I think a lot of my characters have some character arc built in when I design them so that I can picture there motivation and be interested in playing them. On the other hand one group I play with has a min-maxer whose idea of character arc is finding the least combat looking combination that is actually a combat monster. I'm not sure if he's no an arc if it hit him on the head or would enjoy having one if he did.

Edit: Started before I saw your last post.