Is this serious railroading?

[Dancingdeath]

A group of 6 level tens finally get to the room with the vampire queen, current BBEG and at least level 18. We are told we can not buff. Barbarian tries to rage, and it gets dispelled. Those of who can fly are told we get an overwhelming compulsion to stay on the ground (no save). We can't use any kind of magic to escape the city we're in with her because there is some kind of magic not only preventing it, but disentegrating anyone who tries. She recruits half the party to her side, and they swiftly turn on the rest. Killing the half celestial cleric in the first hit (due to a triple crit=auto kill house rule). They get the surprise round of course.

Is this a mega case of rail roading?

I feel this was a case of railroad bull crap, but would like to hear objective opinions on the subject. And yes, I realize that some degree of railroading is necessary to tell a story as a DM, but this seemed like complete overkill.

[ScrambledBrains]

While I am not an expert, I would most definetely classify this as rail-roading, and rather blatent railroading at that. :smallannoyed: It speaks poorly of the DM.

[Aegis013]

Sounds like overkill railroading to me. The thing I would be most upset about is the invalidation of player actions: do x, no save. If you try to do that thing I didn't think you might do, you instantly die, no save, and things of that nature.

I really really dislike having my actions invalidated, as I feel like I'm not playing a game at that point, but listening to an audio book that takes up extra time.

[Flickerdart]

This is the maximum railroad.

1) Can't buff? As in, are not allowed to take actions to cast buff spells? It makes sense that you wouldn't get prebuff rounds with the vampire queen just chilling next to you though.

2) Rage is Extraordinary, and cannot be dispelled.

3) That could also have been accomplished by having a ceiling. Sloppy.

4) Lame house rule is lame.

5) Did the party have a choice in the matter, or were they simply told "you're best friends now"?

[NeoSeraphi]

...The rage got "dispelled"? :smallconfused:

Yeah, that's not how that works. Rage is an extraordinary ability, which is completely non-magical. It works in an antimagic field, as well it should, because you're not casting a spell on yourself, you're getting angry and pumping your muscles up.

As for an "overwhelming compulsion to stay on the ground", well, that could be fair. After all, this is a vampire we're talking about, they have the ability to dominate characters. The DM could have rolled your Will saves secretly, which I would have in that situation. The only way this is indisputably BS is if one or more of your flyers also had the protection from evil spell or somesuch active at the time. If you were protected from compulsion effects and still compelled, that's when you can get justifiably angry.

As for the disintegrating teleporters, well, yeah. That's kind of overkill, but you were clearly meant to lose this fight. So...yep. Railroading. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Predicting at least two swordsages...

Edit: Hey, exactly two!

[Menteith]

When you say "Dispelled Rage", do you mean they used a Calm Emotions to negate it?

Even if the correct spell, this is insanely high degree Railroading.

[hunt11]

You are right, your DM is railroading the campaign, and is completely disregarding the rules to do so. Dispel should have had no effect on rage, as in no way is it a magical effect, showing horrible DM fiat. The rest of the story is a clear case of railroading.

[Dancingdeath]

Can't buff as in, if Rage won't work then spell buffs won't either. We were told that the ceiling was thirty feet, so flight was technically possible. I can live with the house rule. The players turned of their own accord, which was just a prick move on their part. But I feel they would not have done so, at least not as easily, if we had a more level playing field.

And no roll was secretly made, as the DM was pacing about the room at the time.

[awa]

this situation just seems bizarre with a 8 level difference why does she need to break the rules to win vampires have dominate and with a 8 level difference should be able to do enough damge to kill a 6 hd creature with out a house rule

[Dancingdeath]

She was apparently a wizard or sorcerer too.:smallfurious:

[Dancingdeath]

He did not say what he used to negate the Rage, and by that point it was obviously useless to argue.

[Voyager_I]

If the only way the DM can get their plot to work is by breaking, changing, or making up rules on the spot to prevent players from using basic abilities of their characters (flight, buff spells, rage on a barbarian), they're doing something seriously wrong.

This was a classic case of terrible DM'ing, made worse by the fact that a level 18 Vampire BBEG should be capable of doing all of those legitimately and he just couldn't be bothered.

[Dancingdeath]

Non magical flight even. With wings.

[Voyager_I]

Actually, on closer examination, stopping the Rage would have been hard. Calm Emotions requires concentration, meaning the BBEG can kiss their standard actions goodbye without some significant optimization. This isn't to imply that an 18th level BBEG should be terribly intimidated by a raging 10th level Barbarian, but your DM's not even trying to make it a game. He still could have made it an overwhelming encounter by having the Vampire play to her strengths instead of just shoving Rule Zero down your throat.

[tyckspoon]

Somewhere your DM is complaining about his players, because he has this "awesome story plan" for you all to become vampires and seek a way to earn your freedom and bring down the vampire queen from within her power structure, only his players keep fighting him on every step! :smalltongue:

[Alabenson]

Honestly, this isn't just railroading, this is bad, "get a new DM NOW" railroading.
Not only was it an unbeatable, or at best near-unbeatable opponent, but the DM was invalidating player actions for no reason and with no explanation other than "I'm the DM and what I say goes".
Seriously though, I'd either abandon the game or get a new DM at this point.

[Dancingdeath]

Somewhere your DM is complaining about his players, because he has this "awesome story plan" for you all to become vampires and seek a way to earn your freedom and bring down the vampire queen from within her power structure, only his players keep fighting him on every step! :smalltongue:

Are you high? One of them was a half celestial, lawful good, radiant servant of pelor. NO ONE could actually be deluded enough to think that a character like that would go all evil that easy.

Tempting the party is the oldest trick in the book. It's practically required from the BBEG. "Serve me, and ultimate power, blah blah blah". You don't actually go for it. Why make BBEGs if that were the case? We could just roll up new characters and beat on each other every session. We wouldn't even need a DM. Also, the story goes where the players take it. 6-8 players v.s. one DM. He caters to our plans, not the other way around. And yes, I've DMed before and I played with that mentality.

[Dancingdeath]

Well, he started as LG, but shifted to NG for the Radiant Servant, but you get the idea. Not going to be tempted to evil no matter what.

[Dancingdeath]

I've actually begun to suspect that this kind of DMing is what provokes players to try and create completely over powered, nigh unkillable characters. I have never before wanted to make a character that way until now. Just in spite.

[Slipperychicken]

Honestly, this isn't just railroading, this is bad, "get a new DM NOW" railroading.

This. The appeal of an rpg is that you decide what your character does and doesn't do. If I want someone else to dictate my characters actions, impose arbitrary restrictions on what I can do, and have a script read to me, I'll play a video game. At least then there's decent voice-acting and graphics to distract me from it.


You are absolutely right in being pissed off at this kind of DMing, I agree with you: It is "a case of railroad bull...", and I support either leaving the group or switching DMs. When the DM does things like telling you things like "you can't buff, or fly, or use class features, because I'm the DM", time's coming to jump ship. If you leave or try to switch DMs, do be calm and polite about it (it's just a game after all).

[demigodus]

You can got the three of you who's characters were killed off, and all of you make really broken characters. But, not make use of that broken ness, until a few sessions later, the next time he pulls something like this.

It is either that, or leaving the game at this point really. UNLESS, massive railroading aside you still enjoy it. However, in that case, you should still talk to your DM about this. Preferably as a group. Don't really sugar coat it either; just straight up tell him that you did not enjoy that part of the session, and would prefer to play an interactive game, not listen to a narrative that breaks the previously established rules of the setting and reality.

[Sturmcrow]

ChoooChooo

[NOhara24]

What level spell is "Blatant DM fiat"?

Also, just walk away from the table. No DM this poor deserves a group.

[navar100]

What the DM says goes. If the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go too.

Go!

[Empedocles]

That's really bad railroading...and DMing. Even if that stuff had to happen for the plot the DM could at least have had you guys get badly overpowered...at least there'd be a game.

[Big Fau]

That's really bad railroading...and DMing. Even if that stuff had to happen for the plot the DM could at least have had you guys get badly overpowered...at least there'd be a game.

Even that isn't a good idea, as players can get unexpectedly lucky or react in ways you haven't planned for.


When the railroading is this bad, it's best to handle the situation in the backstory of the campaign. This includes the whole "you're thrown in an anti-magic jail without your equipment,, think of a way out so we can begin the campaign" BS.

[Empedocles]

Even that isn't a good idea, as players can get unexpectedly lucky or react in ways you haven't planned for.


When the railroading is this bad, it's best to handle the situation in the backstory of the campaign. This includes the whole "you're thrown in an anti-magic jail without your equipment,, think of a way out so we can begin the campaign" BS.

It's OK to make up contingencies for your villain that you didn't really have. Just let the players try, or else it's not a game anymore. It's a badly written book.

[Canarr]

Somewhere your DM is complaining about his players, because he has this "awesome story plan" for you all to become vampires and seek a way to earn your freedom and bring down the vampire queen from within her power structure, only his players keep fighting him on every step! :smalltongue:

This is the *only* goal I could possibly see the GM trying to achieve with that - but, given what DD said about the party, it doesn't seem likely that would work.

Yes, it's railroading, of the bad kind. As has been said before, a lvl 18 vampire sorcerer or wizard should be mopping the floor with a group of lvl tens, easily. That's not even a challenge anymore, so why cancel out the PCs' abilities? And if, as DD said, the group usually plays more of a sandbox-style game, what made the GM suddenly go for that kind of railroad?

What happened? How did you go from, "The GM caters to the players' plans!" to "Face this all-mighty vampire queen, AND DIE!" ? That's what puzzles me.

[Zerter]

What this thread needs is someone argueing the other side, I'll give it a go:

Not being able to buff seems logical if the encounter is already hot.

Barbarians can be calmed down.

House rules are fine as long as they were known before first use (so not made up on the spot). If you want to disagree with them you should do so when first learning them.

If several members of the party pick her side, there's obviously something going on not just limited to the DM.

Surprise round seems out of place, but I don't know the exact context.

The fly thing is weird, though vampires do dominate.

Not being able to teleport makes sense depending on the circumstances, it does not seem a stretch that someone would have protection in place against it.

[Taffimai]

I have to ask, is "The GM caters to the players' plans!" your personal opinion or the group consensus?

I know there are DMs who can handle sandbox games, but I wouldn't ever consent to one. I'm more the "I have spent three evenings stocking this here tower with maps, traps, killables and loot, because we agreed last week that today would be a dungeon, you will now kindly play said dungeon and not wander off into the forest or build a ship to become pirates, mkay?" -type.

I can very easily see what you describe as the frustrated actions of a DM who is fed up. Fed up with having to justify every single thing an opponent does and having it argued. There are spells / abilities that could have accomplished what you described, so why not roll with it?

Frustrated, perhaps, because they can't seem to keep up with the party's abilities or power level? Could be that they planned for you to fight your way through scores of mooks and lesser bosses first whilst uncovering more of the plot, but you somehow managed to circumvent that in a way they hadn't foreseen and that negates a lot of the work they did?

It is, of course, infuriating to lose your character under such circumstances, but if some of your party members voluntarily betrayed you, then not all the blame lies with the DM. The fight probably would have gone very differently if they hadn't done that.

At any rate, flipping out isn't going to accomplish anything. Sure, you can leave the group and find another game. That's your prerogative whether the DM messes up or not. It wil not help your DM improve, however, nor will it necessarily net you a more enjoyable game.

[Larkas]

I've actually begun to suspect that this kind of DMing is what provokes players to try and create completely over powered, nigh unkillable characters. I have never before wanted to make a character that way until now. Just in spite.

Just pointing out that this is not a good idea. If the DM really wants it, he can just invalidate all the work you put in your class, regardless of how broken it is. If he can negate extraordinary flight and rage to tell his story, you can be damn sure he will simply ignore that nasty trick you have up your sleeve. And while it is sometimes okay for a good DM to do that to powergamers, though preferably with some ahead talk on how they are breaking the game, in your case it will only piss you off even more.

[Dsurion]

Are you high? One of them was a half celestial, lawful good, radiant servant of pelor. NO ONE could actually be deluded enough to think that a character like that would go all evil that easy.Brotip: Insulting people is not a good way to get feedback.

[Ranting Fool]

First off, yes this does sound like removing player choice in favour of story. Not a wise move most of the time.



I know there are DMs who can handle sandbox games, but I wouldn't ever consent to one. I'm more the "I have spent three evenings stocking this here tower with maps, traps, killables and loot, because we agreed last week that today would be a dungeon, you will now kindly play said dungeon and not wander off into the forest or build a ship to become pirates, mkay?" -type.
I've had days like that, do a huge amount of work and detail into Evil Lair of X (Which all players said they wanted to go off to) and then have them start the session by going, oh we're off do go to this random town, which we have never shown interest in before :smallbiggrin::smallconfused: Is a downside to DM'ing a Sandbox game


I can very easily see what you describe as the frustrated actions of a DM who is fed up. Fed up with having to justify every single thing an opponent does and having it argued. There are spells / abilities that could have accomplished what you described, so why not roll with it?

+1, I have been known to get quite worked up when accused of making monsters/evil npc's cheat or tailored to fight the PC's because I let them have the basic int of a 4 year old. Evil spellcasters WOULD have spells alowing them to not be trapped / die (I always do when I'm a PC) and complaining that the baddies "always ready to ambush" them when they've kicked in the first door had a massive fight with large amounts of barbarian rage and then let one or more of the baddies run away. That or just slaughter your way through half a temple of evil, then sit in the store room and rest for 8 hours :smallfurious: *Takes deep breath*

Having enounters tailored to beat PC's/warp rules to give NPC's unfair advantage = Bad DM'ing
Having rounded NPC's and "Living worlds" where people notice things like a pile of dead guards = an engaging challenge

[Yahzi]

On the other hand, if I put my old group of players in that position... they would probably slaughter the Vampire Queen in two rounds.

They were like that. :smallbiggrin:

[SGNenets]

Somewhere your DM is complaining about his players, because he has this "awesome story plan" for you all to become vampires and seek a way to earn your freedom and bring down the vampire queen from within her power structure, only his players keep fighting him on every step! :smalltongue:

Just throwing it out there that tyckspoon here was most likely being sarcastic here, and not actually saying the DM has a valid reason to complain.

And yes, railroading all the way. I've had campaigns like this. I believe the catchphrase me and the other PCs came up with by the end of it all was: "no adventure arc is complete without at least one unescapable confinement".

Could the BBEG conceivably do all those within the rules? Absolutely. Does that mean this isn't railroading? Absolutely not. There's what is technically possible for characters to do, and there's what is believable for characters to do. Basically, the problem here isn't that the BBEG is really powerful, but rather that the overpoweredness is used in such a way as to negate all meaningful choices by the players.

And no, being frustrated that the PCs aren't making the choices that the DM wants them to make is not an excuse for blatant railroading. What you do then is to go with it and try to incorporate some of the stuff you worked hard for back into the story, but perhaps refluffed a little. For example: the PCs want to go sailing rather than go to this awesome tower of deadly adventures? Make them meet a storm out in the sea, they see a light in the distance and finally manage to get to it, and lo and behold! It's a lighthouse tower of deadly adventures! PCs want to go to the town instead of going to the dungeon? Orcs attack the town! They kidnap the villagers and take them to their dungeon hideout!

The point is: you don't expect players to just go do something just because its been presented to them. You give them a solid story reason why they would be doing it.

[HeadlessMermaid]

OK, let's take this step by step.


We are told we can not buff.

If you are told you can't buff for no apparent reason, then yes, it's definitely railroading. However, you said you were already in the room. Why hadn't you buffed before entering? Didn't you know what you were about to face? (Possible, just asking.)

Was it, perhaps, more a "if you use your action to buff, the lvl 18 BBEG will obliterate you next round - not saying you can't, but bad idea" situation? Was it simply because it wasn't your turn yet? If something like that happened, then it's not railroading at all. Or was there a specific magical effect in place (not necessarily one in the books, but one that makes sense in game)?


Barbarian tries to rage, and it gets dispelled.

That makes no sense. Dispelling an extraordinary ability is not only illegal, but almost impossible to justify in game. Barring a horrible misunderstanding (it wasn't dispelled, but the barbarian was dominated on the spot, or convinced to join the BBEG and stopped fuming), this sounds like a very bad DM fiat.


Those of who can fly are told we get an overwhelming compulsion to stay on the ground (no save)

Yes, that's blatant railroading, and bad encounter design. If you don't want your players to fly, there are a million plausible ways to do it.


We can't use any kind of magic to escape the city we're in with her because there is some kind of magic not only preventing it, but disentegrating anyone who tries.

The city, not the room? So you knew that all along, right? I find that acceptable. Teleport is a terribly unbalanced spell, and a campaign killer. Inventing a reason why you can't use it within a specific area is fine (provided it's a plausible reason).


She recruits half the party to her side, and they swiftly turn on the rest. [...]
The players turned of their own accord, which was just a prick move on their part.

Wait, turned of their own accord? That has nothing to do with railroading, then. That's player's choice.


Tempting the party is the oldest trick in the book. It's practically required from the BBEG. "Serve me, and ultimate power, blah blah blah". You don't actually go for it.

Hm, that sounds like you're the one railroading your fellow players here. Who says they don't actually go for it? Who are you to decide what they'll do? Haven't you ever heard of angels falling, heroes turning villains, greed getting the best of people? What if someone wants to roleplay that? Is it forbidden?


Verdict: It sounds like the DM was railroading an encounter, and badly. It doesn't sound like the DM was railroading the campaign, though. Rather, some players chose a path you didn't like at all (possibly in part because of said railroading, but that's not a given - maybe the BBEG actually had brilliant arguments), and now you're blaming it all back to the DM.

Either way, I suggest explaining to the DM why you were disappointed. And to your fellow-players who changed sides, too. ("You don't actually go for it" isn't, frankly, a strong argument. But maybe it was roleplayed badly and broke your immersion and your suspension of disbelief - that's a legitimate concern.) There's no reason to be rude, but there's no reason to remain silent about it, either.

Best case scenario, it won't happen again. Worst case scenario, your differences are irreconcilable, and you have to find a new DM/group. Most frequent case scenario: compromise. Good luck!

[Slipperychicken]

I've actually begun to suspect that this kind of DMing is what provokes players to try and create completely over powered, nigh unkillable characters. I have never before wanted to make a character that way until now. Just in spite.

It's fine to feel that way, just don't actually do it. It's a very immature thing to do, and will not solve your problem. The only result of that is to create more problems for your group. (One of the problems is that he resorted to fiat. Pumping your character's optimization levels will only make that option more attractive to him, as it will become harder to challenge or limit your character "legitimately".)


This is an out-of-game issue, and can only be solved out-of-game. Talk with the other players and GM about your concerns, see if you guys can work something out like switching or rotating GMs (possibly helping the current GM get better in the process). If you figure out a situation you're happy with, that's great. If it doesn't work out, you can always find/start a new group.

[Suddo]

So let me just make sure I understand everything right. You walk into the, I assume, underground city ruled by this Vampire Queen to go mess with her. When you enter the city you find out that Magic is useless, the barbarian can't rage and people who can fly (I assume via non-magical effects) can't. Then the Vampire Queen, either threw a charm or just an offer, gained control of half the party and then your cleric died.
IF this above is true, here is my opinion:
The Barbarian not being able to rage and people who have wings being compelled to not fly is kind of crap, did you back off and read magic the area to try and figure out if it was a zone or aura or... Universal Antimagic Zone that the queen is attuned to is kind of legit (she is level 18 that's almost epic). Charming half the party is kind of harsh but it could have been much much worse. Auto kill rules are stupid, specifically because the PC take more rolls than an NPC usually does.

I'm personally a fan of doing out of the box tricks. I mean she was level 18 if one guy got separated she could have mindraped him and then have a sleeper agent in your party, is that railroading? No its just a really smart NPC.
Though I do think that having winged PCs be "compelled" not to fly is kind of crap. Barbarian's Rage being hampered is kind of crap to, what did he say? You try to go into a rage but you feel calmed? Or did he just say "Nope can't do it"?
I mean there's good railroading, as stated above playing to strengths of the character is fine, in fact he probably could have easily crushed you in a fair fight, but instead he decides to throw an impossible to win scenario at you. If this happens again simple state out of character this is bullcrap if he can't defend his action then leave.

[Dancingdeath]

So let me just make sure I understand everything right. You walk into the, I assume, underground city ruled by this Vampire Queen to go mess with her. When you enter the city you find out that Magic is useless, the barbarian can't rage and people who can fly (I assume via non-magical effects) can't. Then the Vampire Queen, either threw a charm or just an offer, gained control of half the party and then your cleric died.
IF this above is true, here is my opinion:
The Barbarian not being able to rage and people who have wings being compelled to not fly is kind of crap, did you back off and read magic the area to try and figure out if it was a zone or aura or... Universal Antimagic Zone that the queen is attuned to is kind of legit (she is level 18 that's almost epic). Charming half the party is kind of harsh but it could have been much much worse. Auto kill rules are stupid, specifically because the PC take more rolls than an NPC usually does.

I'm personally a fan of doing out of the box tricks. I mean she was level 18 if one guy got separated she could have mindraped him and then have a sleeper agent in your party, is that railroading? No its just a really smart NPC.
Though I do think that having winged PCs be "compelled" not to fly is kind of crap. Barbarian's Rage being hampered is kind of crap to, what did he say? You try to go into a rage but you feel calmed? Or did he just say "Nope can't do it"?
I mean there's good railroading, as stated above playing to strengths of the character is fine, in fact he probably could have easily crushed you in a fair fight, but instead he decides to throw an impossible to win scenario at you. If this happens again simple state out of character this is bullcrap if he can't defend his action then leave.

There was no compulsion, domination, or any other mental coercion applied to any of the characters.. He said You go into a Rage, and it is instantly dispelled.". We had no clue we were about to enter the BBEG's lair. We went past several puzzles, and there she was. There was a new player being introduced that night, and he placed him on her side before the encounter even began. He apparently gave her godlike powers too. When one of us died, she was speaking to our spirits (without having cast a spell to do so) and offering to return us to life as we died if we joined her. Which she was able to do, again without apparently having cast a spell.

And as for the other characters turning, if we're going to turn on each other at the drop of a hat who wants to play in a game like that? No matter the outlook of the individual characters, they have to find a way to adventure together. If not, then they fight all the time, and the story never goes anywhere. And him forcing us to sit on our hands until the BBEG finishes monologueing is the only story element we tried to ruin in his campaign. Magic was perfectly fine. No anti magic was in place. He just wouldn't let us until he finished his speech. She had abilities that shouldn't have been possible, i.e. a mini wall of force that she could apparently cast as a free action.