Railroading by Request: A DM's dilemma

[meto30]

Hello, Playground!

Those of you who regularly visit the Ponythread would recognize me, and perhaps some of you here at the 3.5e subforum might remember me from a while back as the DM who asks questions about a very long-running and complex FR 3.5e campaign. The same campaign that I'd been running in those question threads a year or more back is still running, and it is regarding the very same campaign that I need to ask for advice. Anyways, straight to the point.

The Dilemma:
Short version: A player has requested that I (the DM) railroad for him.
One of the players, whom I shall refer to as Mr.K, is a fine strategist and and a very cooperative team player, but is suffering a lot in the RP department, especially of late as he tried to improve his acting skills on request from a fellow player (Mr.H). After three... rather agonizing weeks of abysmal performance in all regards, he has concluded that he can't roleplay and make effective and timely decisions at the same time. As a possible solution he suggested that, at least concerning his own characters (and by extension parties that his characters lead), I provide comprehensive role-playing, with predetermined 'route options' irregularly sprinkled throughout the railroad.
Now, allow me to explain the situation a bit further. Our campaign is complex and large, and is run with the philosophy of "everything has cause and effect," requiring players to think twice or more about their course of action, even seemingly small ones such as 'what titles to include in one's public self-introduction'. This results in a rather peculiar gaming environment where even minute details of one's role-playing can have magnified impact on the game's plot progression. While this makes role-playing much more of a headache than it usually is, the philosophy has been accepted with great praise by my players, who found it very "engaging," and "intriguing".

Mr.K is requesting me to provide role-play for a portion of his characters, which includes all of his PCs in party leadership positions. I use plural instead of singular, as our campaign also has multiple parties running around the game world simultaneously, with a mixture of PCs and NPCs in every one of them. Now, as I've said above, a lot of the RP has potential to affect the game at large, and thus if I were to provide the entirety of RP, I'd be effectively railroading a large portion of the 'choices' the PC could and would be making.

To quote player Mr.H, the greatest shining gem of the way I run our campaign is how I either anticipate for or improvise on absolutely any sort of choice or chance mishap that the PCs make. "No detail is ever missed, nor any event unexplained." (although I myself don't think I'm doing that fine a job) If I were to grant Mr.K's request, then I'd be robbing him of this very gem that Mr.H and the other players like so much. No matter how many 'choices' I give Mr.K, all of them would be predetermined, and all of them would be well within the boundaries of my imagination, not his.

The 'route choice' system that he requested is similar to ones on computer adventure games and some modern CRPGs (especially those found on JRPGS). He doesn't want the choices to be as comprehensive and oftenplace as those found on, say, Dragon Age or Mass Effect. The ideal number of choices, to quote him, would be no more than 10 per session. Given that our sessions usually last 6 to 8 hours, that's not that many, at least by our standards.

Mr.H has been very vocal in pushing for more and better RP from other players, especially Mr.K, who didn't do much RP for the first two years of our campaign. He is also at the heart of the 'Grand Game', which is what we call all the theorizing and decision making happening in the campaign as a whole, such as trying to determine who the villain is. Yes, the players don't know who the villain is yet. Mr.H, together with Mr.T and Mr.K, had been the 'think tank' of our group, but lately with Mr.T taking a temporary break from gaming due to personal circumstances Mr.H has been more and more dependent on Mr.K on sharing the burden of leadership. Now, if Mr.K were to relegate RPing of his leader PCs to the DM, almost all decision-making responsibilities would fall on Mr.H only. Mr.H does not like that at all, and has privately asked me to dissuade Mr.K from forgoing RP.

On reflection, Mr.K's leadership responsibility as of the moment is quite heavy, as Mr.H is currently fulfilling his mandatory military service term of 2 years and is scheduled to be discharged on early 2015. Mr.T is returning sometime on late 2014, and that might be delayed. Mr.K is the most active of our 'triumvirate' of leaders, and if the railroading request were to be granted, to quote Mr.H, "the DM would be playing against himself". I myself would prefer if Mr.K would role-play his own characters, but I've learnt in the past few years to put my thoughts behind those of my players, as that prevents many a DM-player conflict.

So in short, we have ample reasons to choose either paths of the fork. The first path is what the player himself wants, and that should get priority, by principle. But the second path is what everyone else (seemingly) wants.

What, do you dear Playgrounders think, should I do?

[Ortesk]

Question: Does he not like getting into the character (Voice, expressions, that sort of things) or does he truly only enjoy the fighting and strategies of the game?

[Phelix-Mu]

A very minimal level of role play competency is usually within the grasp of almost everyone. There are always exceptions, but how much coaching did Mr. K receive?

There are a couple of approaches:
- Let Mr. K play socially inept characters, and have the other characters cover those bases for Mr. K.

- Let Mr. K make Cha-checks/Wis-checks for social situations. Based on the roll for a given character, give a little bit of helpful coaching or some prompts.

For Example:
Mr. K's character has engaged a person in the local tavern in pursuit of rumors of a given sort. Mr. K is at a loss how to proceed. Allow Mr. K a Cha-check or Wis-check for his character. He rolls a 14, not great, but above average, and respectable for this given character. As DM, suggest that Mr. K's character notices that this person his character wants to talk to has the air of a lower-class worker (maybe assisted by Spot or Sense Motive), worn hands and such. A down-to-earth approach is called for. While the man may welcome a "reward," he seems honest, and a bribe might insult him.

Thus, give some advice, but don't railroad. If the DM plays a major portion of the game for the character/player, then the DM is robbing the player of a chance to enhance his proficiency in the game. Learning is also a big part of playing, and if all playing happens well within the comfort zone, learning is often lost out on.

[Keneth]

What, do you dear Playgrounders think, should I do?

I would have suggested a similar solution to the one presented by the player. At key points, create several clear choices, and have the player choose one, much like in a computer game. With one exception, of course: If the player wants to RP something different than what you've offered him, he should always be able to do so.

Forcing a player into an aspect of the game they don't enjoy is never a good idea. I am kinda interested in why the player chose character types they are not comfortable roleplaying though.

[meto30]

Question: Does he not like getting into the character (Voice, expressions, that sort of things) or does he truly only enjoy the fighting and strategies of the game?

Mr.K doesn't 'dislike' RP per se, but he has requested the railroading because, to quote him, "RP interferes with my reasoning in other areas of the game". Recently his judgement of circumstance and decision making has downgraded noticeably, resulting in multiple near-disasters in a particularly sensitive area of the game world. In a certain meta discussion, Mr.K has brought up his observation that since attempting to RP more, his mind would often 'go white' and his every thought would screech into a deadlock, a phenomenon we here in Korea call a 'mental breakdown'. He then concluded that this must be the root of the problem, and asked me to RP for him.



A very minimal level of role play competency is usually within the grasp of almost everyone. There are always exceptions, but how much coaching did Mr. K receive?

There are a couple of approaches:
- Let Mr. K play socially inept characters, and have the other characters cover those bases for Mr. K.

- Let Mr. K make Cha-checks/Wis-checks for social situations. Based on the roll for a given character, give a little bit of helpful coaching or some prompts.

This is something I tried for another player a couple of years back; the attempt failed spectacularly, and after that I refrained from coaching my players that way. Perhaps I should reconsider? The incident happened with Mr.D, who ragequit after two months of coaching, saying "he didn't like being treated like a child." In Mr.D's case the suffering portion was tactical combat.

Mr.K might respond better to coaching, however, as he is (at least in my opinion) much more patient than Mr.D is. He is also quick to accept his own shortcomings, a trait that hopefully will be helpful in learning. Whether he'll be willing to is another question entirely, though.



I would have suggested a similar solution to the one presented by the player. At key points, create several clear choices, and have the player choose one, much like in a computer game. With one exception, of course: If the player wants to RP something different than what you've offered him, he should always be able to do so.

Forcing a player into an aspect of the game they don't enjoy is never a good idea. I am kinda interested in why the player chose character types they are not comfortable roleplaying though.

He is, in my opinion, a very combat-oriented type of player. Mr.K denies this, and always defines himself as a plot-enthusiast type, but then, he rarely comes up with his own backstories for his PCs. Almost his entire roster of PCs are copies or amalgamations of pre-existing characters he's seen in other works of fiction, and a lot of the rest were created with no backstory at all and had to be 'filled-in' by me and the other players.

Note that he doesn't usually come up with his own fluff. That is the reason he ended up with a lot of characters he is uncomfortable role-playing.

Now, as I've said, Mr.K's a combat-oriented player. He thrives in situations which require quick tactical decisions and/or assessment of the battlefield. He's responsible for leading the party in the grand majority of the major battles we'd come through, and has managed to snatch victory in some of the more desperate situations. Naturally, as the game progressed, we suggested he make and use 'leader' type characters so that he can take the helm by default in parties. The problem is that those same PCs are also some of the most politically/socially adept ones by fluff. Unfortunately, as we came to discover in the last few weeks, Mr.K is not.

Case in point is Captain Karmor Kyle, commanding officer of Fenrir 5th Company, consisting of interesting personalities such as Junior Lieutenant Kythorn, Master Sergeant Lanian, Sergeant Helmolt, and Corporal von Shwarzlang. By fluff, Kyle is confident, observant, experienced, caring, and determined. Kyle and his second-in-command Lt. Reyn Bryling are so good in teamwork that they practically complete each other's sentences, again according to fluff. Mr.K did not come up with it, but rather imported it wholesale from a RPG that he particularly adores. And as you can probably guess, now that he's trying to actually RP Kyle (as Mr.H requested), the character is horribly breaking apart.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

An important thing to note is that you DON'T have to be good with people at all to be a leader.

A really easy way to RP a leader-type character is as the kind of guy who barks off orders and expects to be obeyed unfailingly (and thus is somewhat harsh and unfeeling to his inferiors), and while not necessarily Lawful, cares more about completing the task at hand than any personal problems he might be feeling. In other words, his character doesn't really have to react to roleplaying opportunities aside from brushing them off, as that in itself is acting in character.

Plus, that personality can actually open up some roleplaying possibilities of its own, if you're able to be sly about it. That can help him build up his individual skill without putting too much pressure on him to make a quick change.

[Ortesk]

I had his same issue. RP wasnt fun, i put stats on a sheet and built concepts not characters. Here's the best thing you can do, and my friend did for me


Ask him what he would be if he could be anybody. Even if it sounds silly, encourage him. Tell him some relatable tale of something you wanted to be as a kid you got to be in dnd

For me, it was a rock star. I felt stupid admitting it, but playing that bard was the funnest i have ever done. I got to seduce, be the star, bed multitudes of women, and kill baddies. It got me into roleplaying

[Thrudd]

If what he feels comfortable with is basically RP'ing himself, let him do that. His characters can be smart tacticians and strategists and not really want to get involved in a lot of social situations. Whatever the fluff you wrote for his characters, he ultimately has to be the decider of how the character is played, and there is no wrong way to do it. Alternatively, let him treat social situations in a tactical manner. He has a goal, he comes up with a plan how to accomplish it, and he tells you what his character is going to do to get there. Keep it in third person instead of making him act it out. I wouldn't ask him to play "night at the improv" style if he clearly does not have fun trying. This is how a player who isn't comfortable acting can play a high charisma character, you've got to give them some leeway and be willing to give them a good outcome if the dice support it regardless of whether the player really knows the right words to say.
IE - Player: "got a 20 on my diplomacy check" DM: "You knew exactly the right thing to say to the duke, he agrees to your terms".

I also don't think you need to go so far as to railroad the plot with narrow choices just for the sake of one player. How many other players are in the campaign? Why is it such a problem to have him step back and let other players do the in-character talking bits? Let them understand that either style of play is acceptable (if that is in fact the case). For those who have fun doing the improv where their choice of words have consequences later, keep doing it. If someone wants to use their character more tactically and rely on third person descriptions and skill rolls to determine outcomes, let them do that, too. D&D 3.5/PF can be played either way.

[TheDarkSaint]

There are reasons why great leaders have generals.

My gregarious roleplayers take over the social roles, guiding the social situations while my combat monkeys hang back.

My tactical officers take over when the grid is thrown down and are the ones calling the shots when combat starts. Each seems pretty happy to let the others take the lead when their forte sets up.

[Douglas]

It sounds like a significant part of the problem could be solved simply by changing the fluff of his characters. It seems like your group has him trying to play 'competent leader' fluff, when what he really should be playing is 'competent tactician/strategist' fluff. He's the go-to guy when it's time to ask "how can we do X", but is better taking a back seat when "what should we be doing" is the question of the moment.

The ideal fluff for him is a partnership between his character and someone else, where the other character takes the fore in choosing goals and doing politics, then sits back and follows Mr. K's directions when it comes to means and methods. See what you can do to shift existing fluff towards that. Looking at your example of Captain Kyle, that kind of partnership would be trivial to add simply by inserting an appropriate division of responsibilities between him and his "perfect teamwork" second; the only problem is that the better fluff fit has the division going the wrong way. Maybe have Mr. K switch to playing Bryling instead?

Ideally, the other character in this partnership would be played by another player. If that's not feasible, then all this arrangement really does is provide an in character rationale for where the "railroading" and "plot menu options" are coming from. Still a good thing, but doesn't do anything about the "DM playing against himself", etc., problems.

[Kane0]

It sounds like a significant part of the problem could be solved simply by changing the fluff of his characters. It seems like your group has him trying to play 'competent leader' fluff, when what he really should be playing is 'competent tactician/strategist' fluff.

This. He sounds like a Turian. Good with strategy, not so much with people.

Ever played a command and conquer game? Have him play the intelligence/support officer under the 'commander' who takes the role of leader (Eg. Eva, Zofia, CABAL, etc).

[meto30]

An important thing to note is that you DON'T have to be good with people at all to be a leader.

*snipped for conciseness*


There are reasons why great leaders have generals.

*snipped for conciseness*


It sounds like a significant part of the problem could be solved simply by changing the fluff of his characters. It seems like your group has him trying to play 'competent leader' fluff, when what he really should be playing is 'competent tactician/strategist' fluff. He's the go-to guy when it's time to ask "how can we do X", but is better taking a back seat when "what should we be doing" is the question of the moment.

*snipped for conciseness*


This. He sounds like a Turian. Good with strategy, not so much with people.

Ever played a command and conquer game? Have him play the intelligence/support officer under the 'commander' who takes the role of leader (Eg. Eva, Zofia, CABAL, etc).

Thank you for your input. However, refluffing Kyle is out of the question, as Mr.K desires that PC to be exactly the way he is now, and also desires to play as Kyle and not as Bryling (or someone else for that matter). I reiterate: Mr.K actually wants Karmor to be the way he's currently fluffed. He is just asking me to do the job instead of doing it himself.

His other characters may be more open to refluff than Captain Kyle, however. I'll look into what we can do.

Lt. Reyn Bryling already is giving Kyle all sorts of advice on everything imaginable, and this was the way she was fluffed. We'd rather not change the fluff thirteen months after the character's introduction.



I had his same issue. RP wasnt fun, i put stats on a sheet and built concepts not characters. Here's the best thing you can do, and my friend did for me

*snipped for conciseness*

Thank you for your input. I believe one of his new PCs, Gilion the elf archer, is ideal to try out what you suggested. I'll float the idea to him right away.



*snipped for conciseness*

I also don't think you need to go so far as to railroad the plot with narrow choices just for the sake of one player. How many other players are in the campaign? Why is it such a problem to have him step back and let other players do the in-character talking bits? Let them understand that either style of play is acceptable (if that is in fact the case). For those who have fun doing the improv where their choice of words have consequences later, keep doing it. If someone wants to use their character more tactically and rely on third person descriptions and skill rolls to determine outcomes, let them do that, too. D&D 3.5/PF can be played either way.

The 'railroading' portion would consist only of Mr.K's PCs' roleplaying. None of the other PCs are being affected; they'd just be interacting with me instead of Mr.K. Of course, neither me nor Mr.H (the vocal RP person) is happy with this, but I've managed to dissuade Mr.H from yelling at Mr.K by promising him the 'railroad' is only temporary.

There are six players in the group, but one of them is only rarely in the sessions, so you can think of us as 5 players (+1 DM).



I've talked a bit with Mr.K and we both agreed on the fact that the railroad should be considered as merely a temporary solution until Mr.K can come to grips with properly roleplaying his characters. We're going to be using some of his fluff-less PCs to teach him RP, while his heavily-fluffed PCs (almost all of whom are leaders!) are put on semi-automatic mode. Mr.H is willing to agree to this as long as Mr. K returns to full-time RP before Mr.H is out of military service.

[Oko and Qailee]

Hello, Playground!

What, do you dear Playgrounders think, should I do?

Wow, for everyone else, I recommend you read the long explanation.

Well for starters, Mr.H is right. You shouldn't RP for Mr.K, the problem with this is exactly what he said "the DM will be playing with himself." So that's kinda off the table.

I would suggest talking about it more with Mr.K first, his RP shouldn't have to be brilliant, just passable.

A weird solution, but one that might work, is bring in another player who is willing to learn the current plot and have him RP for Mr.K? There are some people who prefer to RP a lot and don't care much for combat.