PDA

View Full Version : Is this railroading?



waterpenguin43
2009-10-18, 12:26 PM
OK, when my Dungeon starts, the characters are going to fight a humongous war, I assume that eventually they will be forced to retreat and the war is lost, but f they can annihilate enough of the powerful foes then they won't come back later.
Is that railroading?

Arakune
2009-10-18, 12:29 PM
OK, when my Dungeon starts, the characters are going to fight a humongous war, I assume that eventually they will be forced to retreat and the war is lost, but f they can annihilate enough of the powerful foes then they won't come back later.
Is that railroading?

Depends, they MUST fight it even if they don't want to and provide means to escape the fight? Even if they are willing to take whatever drawbacks for not fighting in said war?

If so, it is.

Railroading isn't always bad, but you need to tell your players first that you have a plan ('let's go fight in a war') and you don't have anything else prepared. If they are reasonable they will go on the tracks for the most part.

Requiem Star
2009-10-18, 12:39 PM
I'd present it as a number of rapid fire encounters. Give them only 2-3 rounds break between the encounters. At the end, if they've done well, make it clear that the REST of the battle has not. After all they're fighting one small part. Their army is breaking apart, their general is dead, the rout is starting, and unless they want to be facing 1000/1 odds they'd better vamoose.

How you follow this up is very important. Are these characters volunteers, are they mercenaries, or were they drafted? If they're volunteers they're going to want to fight, possibly to the death. If they're mercenaries they're going to want to be paid. If they were drafted then they might be criminals. In ancient times people drafted to fight in a war who survived were often put to death.

Just as important is who is doing the invasion. If this is some monstrous horde then the kingdom might turn into a buffet. If they're humanoids then you might have an azure city situation where the heroes are fighting an occupation. If the kingdom surrenders then they might have to grudgingly accept the status quo.

All in all it's not a bad way to start a campaign. You should have a unifying theme though. Maybe they were all willing volunteers. Maybe they were all drafted and forced to fight or die. IF they're a blend of these, maybe they all recieve an arcane marked tattoo showing their unit on the arm or shoulder. Something to give the party a link to each other.

Tengu_temp
2009-10-18, 12:53 PM
There is nothing railroading about this scenario. The PCs only have so much power and they can't affect everything that happens around them. Battles you can't win and have to run away from are a perfectly acceptable plot device.

Grumman
2009-10-18, 01:02 PM
What level are they? If they're above level 9, you should definitely consider the possibility of them not just fighting to a draw, but slaughtering the entire force single-handedly.

ericgrau
2009-10-18, 01:06 PM
Making the enemies so strong that it's nigh impossible to beat them is not railroading. Letting the PCs figure this out and run into the nearby forest (or wherever they want) to escape, only after thwarting their pursuers, is not railroading. Fudging results so the enemies win regardless or so that the PCs escape regardless is railroading. Providing only 1 obvious option to escape while the PC's allies keep shouting "There's too many of them, we can't win!" before the fight even begins is railroading.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-18, 01:11 PM
Depends, they MUST fight it even if they don't want to and provide means to escape the fight? Even if they are willing to take whatever drawbacks for not fighting in said war?

If so, it is.

Railroading isn't always bad, but you need to tell your players first that you have a plan ('let's go fight in a war') and you don't have anything else prepared. If they are reasonable they will go on the tracks for the most part.

They don't have to, they can sneak off at night, although then anybody with a good or lawful component to there alignment wouldn't be living up to their deal, plus nowhere to survive.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-18, 01:13 PM
Making the enemies so strong that it's nigh impossible to beat them is not railroading. Letting the PCs figure this out and run into the nearby forest (or wherever they want) to escape, only after thwarting their pursuers, is not railroading. Fudging results so the enemies win regardless or so that the PCs escape regardless is railroading. Providing only 1 obvious option to escape while the PC's allies keep shouting "There's too many of them, we can't win!" before the fight even begins is railroading.

They are simply fighting too many, too powerful forces to handle by themselves and have to flee either via the port or the caravan after they run out of Power Points, spells etc.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-18, 01:14 PM
What level are they? If they're above level 9, you should definitely consider the possibility of them not just fighting to a draw, but slaughtering the entire force single-handedly.

They're level 8.

SurlySeraph
2009-10-18, 01:15 PM
I wouldn't call this railroading. The thing you should worry about is the very real possibility that they won't understand that they're supposed to retreat, and things will end in a TPK. You may want to tell them out-of-character that it would be a good idea to run at some point.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-18, 01:21 PM
I'd present it as a number of rapid fire encounters. Give them only 2-3 rounds break between the encounters. At the end, if they've done well, make it clear that the REST of the battle has not. After all they're fighting one small part. Their army is breaking apart, their general is dead, the rout is starting, and unless they want to be facing 1000/1 odds they'd better vamoose.

How you follow this up is very important. Are these characters volunteers, are they mercenaries, or were they drafted? If they're volunteers they're going to want to fight, possibly to the death. If they're mercenaries they're going to want to be paid. If they were drafted then they might be criminals. In ancient times people drafted to fight in a war who survived were often put to death.

Just as important is who is doing the invasion. If this is some monstrous horde then the kingdom might turn into a buffet. If they're humanoids then you might have an azure city situation where the heroes are fighting an occupation. If the kingdom surrenders then they might have to grudgingly accept the status quo.

All in all it's not a bad way to start a campaign. You should have a unifying theme though. Maybe they were all willing volunteers. Maybe they were all drafted and forced to fight or die. IF they're a blend of these, maybe they all recieve an arcane marked tattoo showing their unit on the arm or shoulder. Something to give the party a link to each other.

My plan is that they all have various reasons, depending on their nature, but mainly they don't have much choice. Three enormous legions (Deadlands, Chainhaul and the Slashing citadel) and several small ones (Nightmare forest, and one belonging to drow, trolls etc.) are conquering all the continent, and there are few safe places remaining. The one after them is the Slashing citadel, a massive army that has unique weapons and powerful spellcasters, and where they are (Port Elysia) stands little chance. The captain (human paladin 8) has hired them as well as a conjurer, a druid, and a rogue to be the leaders in war, but he knows they stand little chance against the enormous army, so they are allowed to flee if they wish. But he hopes they will continue to help him in his quest to avenge his city and directly infiltrate the citadel and defeat the enigmatic leader, who simply calls himself Blaasnova (which means: Child of Hell in Infernal).

waterpenguin43
2009-10-18, 01:22 PM
I wouldn't call this railroading. The thing you should worry about is the very real possibility that they won't understand that they're supposed to retreat, and things will end in a TPK. You may want to tell them out-of-character that it would be a good idea to run at some point.

There NPC allies will.

valadil
2009-10-18, 05:37 PM
OK, when my Dungeon starts, the characters are going to fight a humongous war, I assume that eventually they will be forced to retreat and the war is lost, but f they can annihilate enough of the powerful foes then they won't come back later.
Is that railroading?

Sort of, but it's necessary. If you're going to prepare ahead of time, you have to try to predict where your players will end up. Just because you guess where your PCs are going doesn't mean you railroaded them. Maybe you'll let them win. Maybe they'll decide to profiteer from the war and they try to keep it going forever. If you let them get away with that, clearly you're not railroading.

taltamir
2009-10-18, 10:24 PM
level 8 eh?... I hope they are not just standing in the thick of combat fighting low level peasant conscripts?
Because if they are a level 8 party I would expect them to be sneaking to assassinate enemy commanders. to quickly strike down enemy casters, to alter the terrain with magic on the fly to impede enemy troops and aid their own, etc... keep in mind that at this level they have access to flight and protection from arrows.

Although, there is no reason why their side cannot lose. sure they can fly to various locations and take down any OBVIOUS targets (some enemies might blend in with the troops later on, but it can end in an: "ok you killed the enemy casters and generals, in the meanwhile, your forces are decimated. You are now flying above a sea of enemies, many archers are shooting at you. The enemy has no casters or leaders left to kill, but there are a thousand of them and your flight and protection from arrows spell will expire soon, what do you do next?"

Which, of course, begs the question of what they were doing there to begin with... they might surprise you though and win the battle. Are you intending to just declare the battle lost, or stat out an insane opposition that will probably decimate their army?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-18, 10:28 PM
Look at Complete Warrior...it's got some good guidelines about how to have PCs play in part of a fight.

Obviously, it shouldn't be as simple as "battle is a win/loss if PCs win/lose", but you do want to provide different results based on what your PCs accomplished. Did the wizard get bored and fireball the siege engine crews while the rogue completed the assassination mission? Then, in addition to what you had planned, consider the opposing army a bit less effective at dealing with fortifications for a while.

Wars provide *tons* of opportunities, IMO, and it's not necessarily railroading...railroading isn't so much what you do, as what you don't let them do.

caden_varn
2009-10-19, 06:53 AM
As Tyndmyr said, the important thing is to make what the characters do in the fight count in some way. They are not going to win completely, OK, but they shouldn't feel that the result is the same whether they ran from the start or fought the army to a standstill for 3 days.

Something like - 'Well, your side lost, but your heroic efforts destroying the siege engines/killing the enemy leaders/routing the right wing has stopped the enemy army from advancing for 3 days, allowing much of your side to withdraw to safety.' would probably be sufficient.

As other posters say, be a bit careful that they don't actually win the fight though

random11
2009-10-19, 07:01 AM
Just like in real life, you don't always get options, sometimes you are forced to do a specific action since it's the only sensible choice.

"Making" the characters run away is legitimate action.

It will become railroading if you start pushing the characters to a specific location even if they have other reasonable alternatives, or if they somehow find a solution to the impossible situation that might actually work, but you will keep insisting to block their way.

ericgrau
2009-10-19, 10:51 AM
They are simply fighting too many, too powerful forces to handle by themselves and have to flee either via the port or the caravan after they run out of Power Points, spells etc.

Sounds fine to me.

And I wouldn't tell them to run OOC. Having the NPCs do it like you planned is great. As long as it happens after they have a plausible reason to believe such. i.e., after the PCs might be having doubts of their own. As long as the caravan and port are merely shown to them (perhaps with NPCs fleeing to them), and the PCs choose to use one themselves or to use their own method of escape, then it's fine.

Basically you merely make the PC's options visible, maybe even have NPCs express their opinions from their own limited knowledge. That's not railroading. On that note you may want to read Rich Burlew's articles on What is Texture (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YUMiX2JPVjHIJ6h5VlD.html) for tips on how to give out details without making it too obvious to the PCs that they should investigate something. Only telling the PCs about a limited number of things they see is an indirect form of railroading, though a minor one.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-19, 05:20 PM
Sounds fine to me.

And I wouldn't tell them to run OOC. Having the NPCs do it like you planned is great. As long as it happens after they have a plausible reason to believe such. i.e., after the PCs might be having doubts of their own.

Such as, say....
a half-water elemental gargantuan monstrous crab with a water shugenja and other spellcasters on it? A very powerful necromantic mystic theurge using lightning bolt to kill almost all of the siege engineers in one section? A horde of creatures either strong enough to rip through the walls or crumble them with magic?
If so, then I think that I'm okay.
:smallsmile:

waterpenguin43
2009-10-19, 05:22 PM
Just like in real life, you don't always get options, sometimes you are forced to do a specific action since it's the only sensible choice.

"Making" the characters run away is legitimate action.

It will become railroading if you start pushing the characters to a specific location even if they have other reasonable alternatives, or if they somehow find a solution to the impossible situation that might actually work, but you will keep insisting to block their way.
PC
No, I'm not doing that, any reasonable option is fine, but if one PC says:
"I go into space and fly down through the ceiling of their castle, turning into a meteorite and killing everyone inside." then I think I'll have to say no.

waterpenguin43
2009-10-19, 05:26 PM
As Tyndmyr said, the important thing is to make what the characters do in the fight count in some way. They are not going to win completely, OK, but they shouldn't feel that the result is the same whether they ran from the start or fought the army to a standstill for 3 days.

Something like - 'Well, your side lost, but your heroic efforts destroying the siege engines/killing the enemy leaders/routing the right wing has stopped the enemy army from advancing for 3 days, allowing much of your side to withdraw to safety.' would probably be sufficient.

As other posters say, be a bit careful that they don't actually win the fight though

Yep, pretty much. Like if they manage to beat up enough enemy forces, then they could spare some small fishing villages for a bit and a lot of their forces.
But one of the issues for them is that if in the unlikely event that they do manage to destroy the WHOLE army, the Deadlands and Chainhaul will grow in power.

random11
2009-10-20, 01:57 AM
PC
No, I'm not doing that, any reasonable option is fine, but if one PC says:
"I go into space and fly down through the ceiling of their castle, turning into a meteorite and killing everyone inside." then I think I'll have to say no.

The PC has complete control over his actions, but you (with the help of the rules and the dice) have control of the results.
Without doubt, any stupid idea should be rejected or automatically failed.
In this example and many others, death of the character without any positive results is a reasonable outcome and not railroading.

An example for railroading will be if the characters can come with a plan to assassinate the enemy leaders that technically has a chance to work, and the DM as a result invents new obstacles to force them to run away to the specific location he was thinking about, instead of improvising the quest the player lead him to.
Of course, there isn't always such an option. breaches in security during a fight are extremely hard to find, but that was an example under the assumption that the players did manage to form a good plan that could work with this specific enemy.

Myrmex
2009-10-20, 02:06 AM
An example for railroading will be if the characters can come with a plan to assassinate the enemy leaders that technically has a chance to work, and the DM as a result invents new obstacles to force them to run away to the specific location he was thinking about, instead of improvising the quest the player lead him to.

Not necessarily. An int 20 wis 20 cha 20 general of Hell who has been fighting wars since before any mortal race existed is going to have a heck of a lot more going on than what I, mortal of average mental stats, will be able to think up. If the players find a way around a design flaw of my doing, that's not the same as actually finding a way to get at the Iron Duke.

random11
2009-10-20, 03:32 AM
Not necessarily. An int 20 wis 20 cha 20 general of Hell who has been fighting wars since before any mortal race existed is going to have a heck of a lot more going on than what I, mortal of average mental stats, will be able to think up. If the players find a way around a design flaw of my doing, that's not the same as actually finding a way to get at the Iron Duke.

On the other hand, this difference also exists with the players. An average person playing a trained professional hero/mercenary.

If the players come up with a good idea, the basic question the DM needs to ask is "would the warlord be prepared to such a plan?".
The question isn't answered only with the warlord's stats or years of experience. It should also include the exact plan and how it matches the warlord's habits and traits.

For example, the warlord can be overconfident and dismiss the chance of a lone assassin, or maybe he feels so Superior over others, that he doesn't even bother to learn the names of the people who are supposed to guard him.

Another point to remember that an army, especially with an experienced leader, has a tendency to act in patterns like regular guard shifts and patrol routes, or a preferred strategy in battle.
While it is unlikely that the characters will manage to both learn the pattern, find holes and plan a way to use them, and all during a single battle, it is also not impossible.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-20, 03:34 AM
Dropping them in, and starting the campaign in the middle of, a battle isn't railroading, in and of itself.

Forcing them to fight or make certain decisions would be.