My railroading story

[Galen]

So, I'm usually all for running a sandbox-type game, but last game I learned a lesson - sometimes you just have to railroad, and hard. Here's what happened. (by the way, it's D&D 3.5, not that the game system matters in this case)

PCs are level 13, quite the movers and shakers, they have achieved some success and fame within their kingdom, they have nobility titles and are somewhat of a big deal. Recently, there have been some leadership changes in the PCs kingdom, a Vampire King rose to occupy the throne, the new government proclaimed the PCs traitors to the realm and they were forced into exile. Right now, they're on a remote island, in a town occupied by pirates and scoundrels. Two plans were brought forth:

a. Return to the kingdom, face the Vampire King head-on, and let the dice fall as they may
b. Forget about the kingdom for now, go explore the island, looking for whatever is interesting

They argued for literally* two hours and couldn't reach consensus. They were practically screaming at each other. Finally I felt I had to do something. I couldn't stand this any more. I said, "look, I'm as tired of this as you are. I'm going to roll a die right now. If it's even, you receive word from your home kingdom that the situation is dire and requires your immediate intervention. If its odd, something happens that makes exploring the island very attractive". I rolled 11, turned to the character with the highest Knowledge (History), and said "you suddenly recall rumors of a vampire-slaying artifact hidden somewhere in a lost temple on this island".

There was a stunned silence for about a minute, then a collective sigh of relief as the party finally had focus. They left the town and headed into the jungle looking for the lost temple. Whew. I even got the time to run an encounter with a dinosaur and some "wee folk" (feral halflings), and the session ended well. I hope, fingers crossed.

* I have a pet peeve for people misuing the word "literally" when they actually mean "figuratively". Let me assure you, in this case it was literally two hours, not figuratively two hours.

[DM Nate]

Awesome. That's how I would have played it as well, though I probably would have just gone with your end result without even rolling the dice.

[draken50]

Yeah, I've always felt there was a big difference between railroading and providing some rails to guide.

Sure you can go do what you want, and I'm not going to force it. Just don't expect as good a game if you decide to ignore all plot hooks and head into the forest. I probably would have stopped after about 15 minutes of discussion, unless it was in character and entertaining and said. I would prefer/most prepared if you do this.

Also, totally not railroading, I don't think any player there would have any argument for you removing player agency. They could have ignored the vampire slaying thing still and went the other route.

[lytokk]

That's a little less railroading and more smacking them all in the face with a plot hook. Railroading would have been if the entirety of the group wanted to go back to the city to deal with the vampire and you saying "no, you're going to explore the island and find the item you need to beat the vampire. See, it says that here in my notes."

I'd say this is just roading. You built them a highway in order to get them from a to b. Every good game needs a road. A sandbox game is just essentially a road that looks more like a nascar track. Maybe one of those formula 1 tracks with all the twists and turns.

[Anxe]

Two roads diverged in the wood and I took the one that gave me a vampire slaying artifact.

[lytokk]

Two roads diverged in the wood and I took the one that gave me a vampire slaying artifact.

And that has made all the difference

had to do it, favorite robert frost poem

[Mr.Moron]

* I have a pet peeve for people misuing the word "literally" when they actually mean "figuratively". Let me assure you, in this case it was literally two hours, not figuratively two hours.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all that has literally changed the meaning of literally.

[jedipotter]

So, I'm usually all for running a sandbox-type game, but last game I learned a lesson - sometimes you just have to railroad, and hard. Here's what happened. (by the way, it's D&D 3.5, not that the game system matters in this case)


This is a great example of how a DM needs to Railroad to keep the game moving.

[IllogicalBlox]

I have a pet peeve for people misuing the word "literally" when they actually mean "figuratively". Let me assure you, in this case it was literally two hours, not figuratively two hours.

Yeah, me too. Good work, by the way, but I would have intervened much sooner.

[TheIronGolem]

This is a great example of how a DM needs to Railroad to keep the game moving.

Except this really wasn't railroading at all.

[Sith_Happens]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but all that has literally changed the meaning of literally.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d_l4U-tFfhA/UZ2sX0tDeHI/AAAAAAAAAMI/4uh4hP5VbGE/s1600/its-full-of-stars.jpg


This is a great example of how a DM needs to Railroad to keep the game moving.

Yes and no. Technically this was less "railroading" and more "coming up with a last minute incentive for the party to make up their damn minds." We don't know what the OP would have done had the party been told about the vampire-slaying artifact and then promptly reached consensus to immediately return to the kingdom.

[jedipotter]

Except this really wasn't railroading at all.

True.

But it is still a great example of how a DM needs to Railroad to keep the game moving.

Consider:

DM G: Sat there for two hours and let the players discuss what they were going to do. So, no one played D&D for two full hours.

DM R: Let the players talk it out for...maybe..ten minutes. Then the DM set down some rails, blew the horn and got the game going again on the Railroad.

And

DM G: Well....the DM rolled a die and then told the players how they would play out the game. But this was not the DM taking control of the characters, was not railroading and was not the Dm saying ''you must play my plot''. Right? Just as the DM did something on a whim, out in the open, to settle an argument, everyone ignores the rest. Oddly.

DM R: Without directly telling the players anything, would have just picked the ''stop the vampire'' plot. They might have done the same thing and added an anti-vamp item, but it would have all been in game. None of the DM telling the players ''this is what you will do''. The anti-vamp item is a clever plot trick to get the game moving. As three players want to explore the island and three players want to go home and stop the vampire....but look the anti vampire item on the island allows everyone to be happy.


The basic point, DM R saved two hours of game time...and both groups G and R ended up doing the exact same things. Except Group R gets two more hours of game play.

[TheIronGolem]

What you're missing is that R didn't save two hours by railroading, he saved two hours by acting sooner. Had he done what G did after ten minutes, he would have solved the impasse without railroading.

So not only is the OP's experience not proof that a DM "needs" to railroad, but neither is the story you contrived for the purpose of proving it.

[jedipotter]

What you're missing is that R didn't save two hours by railroading, he saved two hours by acting sooner. Had he done what G did after ten minutes, he would have solved the impasse without railroading.

So not only is the OP's experience not proof that a DM "needs" to railroad, but neither is the story you contrived for the purpose of proving it.

So wait, how is it not Railroading?

The DM picked an adventure: there is a anti vampire magic item somewhere on the island that you must find to save your home city....and that is what you will do. But that is not Railroading....why?

The players did not have a choice. The DM said ''there is a plot over there'', set down the railroad tracks, and the players got on the train.

So are you saying that it's not Railroading as the players know about it OOC and they are agreeing to ride the train?

[Galen]

So wait, how is it not Railroading?

The DM picked an adventure: there is a anti vampire magic item somewhere on the island that you must find to save your home city....and that is what you will do. But that is not Railroading....why?

The players did not have a choice. The bolded parts have no connection with anything that anyone posted on this thread, so I'm going to assume you made them up for rhetorical purposes.

[mythmonster2]

Indeed, it's not railroading because he didn't make them do anything. Even with the new information, the PCs could have said "screw the city" and try to take over the island. Or find a new city. Or joined the vampire. Or anything else. Railroading would have been saying, "You remember there was an artifact on the island and decide to go there." Notice how there is no choice in that one, the DM told they were going, with no say in the matter.

[jedipotter]

Indeed, it's not railroading because he didn't make them do anything. Even with the new information, the PCs could have said "screw the city" and try to take over the island. Or find a new city. Or joined the vampire. Or anything else. Railroading would have been saying, "You remember there was an artifact on the island and decide to go there." Notice how there is no choice in that one, the DM told they were going, with no say in the matter.

What?

The DM wanted them to destroy the Vampire that took over their home. Remember the DM created the vampire and had it take over the PC's home. When the DM makes a foe, it is for the characters to fight and defeat. This is how you play D&D.

I guess you could run around in circle and say ''the DM made the vampire and had it take over the PCs home...for no reason. But really? For no reason? It just happened? At random?

And sure, I guess you can say the players were not Railroaded as they still had the illusion of a choice. The players, in theory, could have done anything. So sure the players could have ignored the DM and kept out the discussion of what to do until the sun came up.

So, your saying that it is only a Railroad if the players Know it's a Railroad?

How about what i would have done: The players talk for five minutes....then assassins attack!. And the last assassin would say something like ''you will never find the Cup of Alzera!''. And the players would uncover the plot of: the vampire king knows about the cup and knows it is on the island...and he assumes that is what the characters are doing there: looking for the cup to destroy him. So the players then decide to do that plot....they will find the Cup of Alzera and destroy the vampire king.

So is what I would have done Railroading?

[Sith_Happens]

True.

But it is still a great example of how a DM needs to Railroad to keep the game moving.

A story about someone resolving a pacing problem by non-railroading means is an argument for railroading?:smallconfused:

[jedipotter]

The bolded parts have no connection with anything that anyone posted on this thread, so I'm going to assume you made them up for rhetorical purposes.

Hey it's the OP. Ok, lets break it down:

The DM picked So after two hours you picked the two adventures and rolled to see the one the players would do. Note the you picked the two adventures. Sure you have the dice pick the adventure, but you picked the two choices...right?

that you must find...and that is what you will do. So the players don't ''have'' to find the plot item....but then they kinda do. Your not forcing them to find the item, they will just find the item for no reason? Or are they finding an item to follow the Dm's plot? So they are acting like they are being forced to find the item...but in reality they are free to do whatever they want...as long as they decide to find the item.


The players did not have a choice. So if the players choose to do whatever adventure the DM wants, it is not Railroading? If the DM wants the characters to take the right tunnel and puts lots of treasure down it (and monsters) that is not Railroading as the players choose to go to the right?

[Galen]

What?
How about what i would have done: The players talk for five minutes....then assassins attack!.Five minutes is your threshold of tolerance for people talking before you start breaking out the assassins?

[Aedilred]

And sure, I guess you can say the players were not Railroaded as they still had the illusion of a choice. The players, in theory, could have done anything. So sure the players could have ignored the DM and kept out the discussion of what to do until the sun came up.

That's not the illusion of choice. That's an actual choice. It's like when you flip a coin to make a decision: you're not actually obliged to do what the coin tells you, it just gives you a hurry-up to make the decision.

("You're overruling the coin?!"

"The coin isn't actually the boss of me, Jeremy.")

In this instance the players were still free to ignore the plot hook for Plot A and go for Plot B or indeed Plot Q instead; they were just given a strong extra incentive to choose Plot A (along with a timely reminder to make a decision asap). If that had happened, they'd gone "nah, screw that, let's go kill the vampire now" and the GM had contrived a bunch of reasons why they couldn't leave the island, thus negating their choice, that would be railroading.

[mythmonster2]

What?

The DM wanted them to destroy the Vampire that took over their home. Remember the DM created the vampire and had it take over the PC's home. When the DM makes a foe, it is for the characters to fight and defeat. This is how you play D&D.

I guess you could run around in circle and say ''the DM made the vampire and had it take over the PCs home...for no reason. But really? For no reason? It just happened? At random?

And sure, I guess you can say the players were not Railroaded as they still had the illusion of a choice. The players, in theory, could have done anything. So sure the players could have ignored the DM and kept out the discussion of what to do until the sun came up.

So, your saying that it is only a Railroad if the players Know it's a Railroad?

How about what i would have done: The players talk for five minutes....then assassins attack!. And the last assassin would say something like ''you will never find the Cup of Alzera!''. And the players would uncover the plot of: the vampire king knows about the cup and knows it is on the island...and he assumes that is what the characters are doing there: looking for the cup to destroy him. So the players then decide to do that plot....they will find the Cup of Alzera and destroy the vampire king.

So is what I would have done Railroading?

No, that is not, because, again, they had a choice. Railroading is removing choice. The players are free to ignore your plot hook and do whatever they'd like. And when on Earth did I say the DM created the vampire for no reason? If the players choose to follow the plot the DM intended, that's fine and also not railroading.

[Galen]

.... plot item..... Dm's plotOk, I think I see the problem. You say "plot" a lot, but that's purely your misunderstanding, there is no plot. There is a vampire king in one place, a jungle-covered island with pirates and mysterious temples in another, and about half-dozen potentially interesting places they know about elsewhere. That's what *is*. It's all *situations*, not *plots*. The only plot comes from the PCs dealing with a situation.

Now, they had to choose to do X or Y. Usually, my players are pretty good at just going somewhere and doing stuff, but this time, it didn't work. I had to artificially create some auxiliary situation that will give them incentive them either to go this or that way. There is, still, no plot until they actually interact with the situation.

[Sith_Happens]

I guess you could run around in circle and say ''the DM made the vampire and had it take over the PCs home...for no reason. But really? For no reason? It just happened? At random?

The reason was so the DM could then have the PCs kicked out of said home. It was up to them whether they wanted back in, had things gone differently they could very well have decided to start their own kingdom with blackjack, and hookers and decided to never go back to the old one. Which to me would in fact be a waste of a perfectly good vampire king, but tastes vary.


How about what i would have done: The players talk for five minutes....then assassins attack!. And the last assassin would say something like ''you will never find the Cup of Alzera!''. And the players would uncover the plot of: the vampire king knows about the cup and knows it is on the island...and he assumes that is what the characters are doing there: looking for the cup to destroy him. So the players then decide to do that plot....they will find the Cup of Alzera and destroy the vampire king.

So is what I would have done Railroading?

No, you dangled a plot hook and the players bit it of their own accord. If they had instead decided "Eh, screw that, let's just start our own kingdom with blackjack, and hookers" and you proceeded to repeatedly throw arbitrary nigh-impassible obstacles in their way* until they finally got the hint and started looking for the Cup, that would be railroading.

* Periodically sending more assassins at them, on the other hand, is something that they could theoretically accept as a side-effect of their new endeavor, I just don't happen know many players who wouldn't eventually snap and confront the vampire king purely out of personal pissed-offedness.:smallamused:

[Pex]

Five minutes is your threshold of tolerance for people talking before you start breaking out the assassins?

"Pixie" confirms you're new around here.

Google "rudisplork"

[holywhippet]

One of the main things to remember about RPGs is that you are playing it together with the DM. If either has a good idea how to proceed or make the game better then it's fair enough to consider it. Railroading is when the DM forces you along a certain direction no matter what you try or want to do. For example, you might be considering exploring some ruins you found out about but suddenly your entire party is teleported to a different kingdom because the ruler there needs you to do something.

On top of that, it's the DMs job to come up with something interesting for the players to do. Telling the players about something they might want is exactly what a DM is supposed to be doing.

[nedz]

That's not the illusion of choice. That's an actual choice. It's like when you flip a coin to make a decision: you're not actually obliged to do what the coin tells you, it just gives you a hurry-up to make the decision.

("You're overruling the coin?!"

"The coin isn't actually the boss of me, Jeremy.")

this: the example given involved the DM using an artificial crisis to break a deadlock, it did not involve any rail-roading. After all the Players could have ignored his intervention and gone back to the argument — possibly depending upon which was the most fun.

[lytokk]

The dm has many jobs at the table. Rulemaster, referee, worldmaker, and storyteller (there's more but...). In this situation, Galen had to put some story into the game. Now, I get you run sandbox games which are from what I understand (never been in one), full of player choices and everything is shaped by the players choices. There can be an overarching story, or there may not be. What happened here was the prime choices left to the players to make put them in a complete deadlock. Sandbox games may be story light, but some essence of story still needs to be told. No one has heard the thrilling tales of the "adventurers who sat and argued in a tavern for 3 days", but they have heard the tale of the "adventurers who found a mystical artifact capable of destroying vampires which they used to retake their homeland".

The two ideas were the most prevalent, and all the DM did was give more incentive to take one path A over B, but by giving that incentive he also put a little bit in there so that the people who wanted to pursue B will still get to have their choice. Everyone wins, no one loses, and the game goes on. This isn't railroading. Hell, the players were okay with the dice roll helping them to make their choice.

[Jay R]

Like most discussions of railroading, this one has foundered on the fact that there is not one unambiguous definition of railroading that we all agree on.

Some people think it means that the DM chose what plot to pursue, and other people think it means an unescapable story that must be handled in an exact sequence. [You must say "Mellon" to open the cave. You must enter the side door in the first room to avoid all the traps, you must face the Clickclicks down the hall which can only be beaten with their secret weakness, you must solve the puzzle to get to the dragon-slaying artifact, and you can't turn away from this sequence.] In this second (and earlier) definition, the DM isn't choosing what they do; he's merely not letting anything happen until they make the one pre-defined winning action in each episode.

Neither of these definitions is either right or wrong. If there were a single, unchanging meaning of the word railroading, it would be real-world transpotation - sitting in a long sequence of chained cars while they are pulled by a coal or electric engine along a pre-graded pair of rails. The two metaphorical usages are equally right - or equally wrong.

Nonetheless, we won't get anywhere unless we use the same language. It's been over two hours since we started arguing over it, so I'm going to roll a die right now. If it's even, then for this discussion, railroading means choosing what plotline the characters pursue next. If it's odd, then railroading is pre-defining every step of the story in order.

<Roll.> I rolled a twelve. For the rest of this discussion, we will use the loose definition that railroading is when the DM chooses which plotline to follow, without deciding how they must pursue it. The OP's action was clearly railroading in that sense.

If you want to refer to step-by-step absolute control of sequence, call it something else. "micro-management" or "unavoidable sequential puzzles" or some such.

And I enjoy the irony that because of the roll, those people who agree with the decision will think I railroaded them, while those who disagree will not.

[Anxe]

Your die roll isn't the boss of me!

[aspi]

In my opinion, the problem has less to do with the structure of the adventure/campaign (which is the level where I, personally, would talk about railroading) and more with the inability of the players to reach a consensus OOC. In one of my groups where the GM runs a campaign that's fairly sandboxy at times (and completely railroaded for storytelling reasons at others), we initially had a similar problem.

Our solution was to call a vote whenever a discussion about how to proceed had lasted for more than 15 minutes. We stop the argument, go around the table and everyone gets to make his case in a few sentences. Everyone may state IC as well as OOC reasons (such as "I really wouldn't have fun doing it that way") and then we vote. Whatever is favored by the majority is the decided upon course of action for the group.

This essentially does the same thing the OP did, except that it leaves control with the group. So wether or not the OPs actions should in fact be considered railroading, I don't think it is even necessary for the GM to force the outcome of a decision as long as the process of making that decision itself is enforced.

[Galen]

Nonetheless, we won't get anywhere unless we use the same language. It's been over two hours since we started arguing over it, so I'm going to roll a die right now. If it's even, then for this discussion, railroading means choosing what plotline the characters pursue next. If it's odd, then railroading is pre-defining every step of the story in order.Thank you, best response ever:smallbiggrin:

[jedipotter]

Five minutes is your threshold of tolerance for people talking before you start breaking out the assassins?

Yea, maybe five minutes at the maximum. And that is for ''players talking in character, but just going around in circles and not doing anything''.

My threshold of tolerance for OOC stuff is about three seconds:

DM: ''You walk along the rocky badlands moving west ward----"

Player Josh "Oh, wait! Way cool! You guyz gotta see this awesome you tube video about this guy and a gas can!'' ** leaps up, gets his phone and starts to 'search' for the video** , **two other 'problem players' also leap up all wide eyes and excited to watch the awesome video**

DM "A red dragon swoops down from the sky and breathes!''

[lytokk]

Yea, maybe five minutes at the maximum. And that is for ''players talking in character, but just going around in circles and not doing anything''.

My threshold of tolerance for OOC stuff is about three seconds:

DM: ''You walk along the rocky badlands moving west ward----"

Player Josh "Oh, wait! Way cool! You guyz gotta see this awesome you tube video about this guy and a gas can!'' ** leaps up, gets his phone and starts to 'search' for the video** , **two other 'problem players' also leap up all wide eyes and excited to watch the awesome video**

DM "A red dragon swoops down from the sky and breathes!''

I see that as a slightly different problem. Your example is a player distraction, one type I'm coming to terms with and finding the most civilized method of dealing with. (though the red dragon would surely be cathartic)

The OP's example was the characters arguing about which way to proceed, which while may have been happening OOC, could very well translate into an IC debate, just switching the names everyone's calling each other.

[jedipotter]

The OP's example was the characters arguing about which way to proceed, which while may have been happening OOC, could very well translate into an IC debate, just switching the names everyone's calling each other.

Well the OP is not clear if the debate was OOC or IC, but my five minute limit would still stand.

[Aedilred]

Five minutes is really not very long for any kind of conversation, especially if you have multiple people with divergent opinions trying to persuade others.

I'd be inclined to say that if that's your patience threshhold... that's your problem, not the players'. What's more I'd start pulling faces if the GM sent a random monster to attack us IC because he was bored OOC, or just because he felt the party had been standing around "not doing anything" for too long, especially when that "too long" is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to spend doing anything.

I mean, if the party gets attacked every time it stands still for five minutes not advancing the plot, they're never going to be able to eat or drink in safety again, let alone relieve themselves.

[lytokk]

Well the OP is not clear if the debate was OOC or IC, but my five minute limit would still stand.

He did state that it was "literally two hours" which would imply to me it was OOC. But by any stretch of the imagination it wouldn't be hard to think that this debate was actually going on IC. Some discussions can very well bridge the gap, esp if everyone is arguing from their characaters viewpoints.

[Pex]

For another point of view, it is actually a great compliment to the DM about his campaign for the players to be arguing in character about what to do for two hours out of character.

[jedipotter]

I'd be inclined to say that if that's your patience threshhold... that's your problem, not the players'.

It's not a problem for me....

This is a great example of the undercover things a DM needs to do to make a good game and keep the game flowing.

First you have the players that ask for help. After the third game in a row where ''everyone just talked about stuff'' for hours, two players seperatly come over to the DM and say ''I hate when we sit around and do nothing'' or ''can't you move the game along'' or ''you should do something''. Now this is the type of player that won't say anything when the ''group is all talking'' about this, but they want it done....they just want someone else, the DM, to do it. So the DM can be safe in knowing that two players want the game to continue.

The second one is harder, as this is the player that does not ask for help. Sometimes they are easy to spot, they are the one in the corner just rolling dice while everyone else is talking. Often they are the ones watching the time, with ''come on guys lets play, I gotta go in an hour''. And then it gets harder from there.

And if some (not) players (as they are not playing the game) really need some time to talk......I would just tell them ''how about you guys 'talk' any time during the week before our next game.''

[aspi]

It's not a problem for me....

This is a great example of the undercover things a DM needs to do to make a good game and keep the game flowing.

First you have the players that ask for help. After the third game in a row where ''everyone just talked about stuff'' for hours, two players seperatly come over to the DM and say ''I hate when we sit around and do nothing'' or ''can't you move the game along'' or ''you should do something''. Now this is the type of player that won't say anything when the ''group is all talking'' about this, but they want it done....they just want someone else, the DM, to do it. So the DM can be safe in knowing that two players want the game to continue.

The second one is harder, as this is the player that does not ask for help. Sometimes they are easy to spot, they are the one in the corner just rolling dice while everyone else is talking. Often they are the ones watching the time, with ''come on guys lets play, I gotta go in an hour''. And then it gets harder from there.

And if some (not) players (as they are not playing the game) really need some time to talk......I would just tell them ''how about you guys 'talk' any time during the week before our next game.''
I have to say that none of these actually seem like DM problems. In my opinion, they're group problems. If you as DM feel that you alone should (or worse: have to) handle these, something is already going wrong.

[Sith_Happens]

Player Josh "Oh, wait! Way cool! You guyz gotta see this awesome you tube video about this guy and a gas can!'' ** leaps up, gets his phone and starts to 'search' for the video** , **two other 'problem players' also leap up all wide eyes and excited to watch the awesome video**

DM "A red dragon swoops down from the sky and breathes!''

Funny how many people forget about the -5 distraction penalty to Spot and Listen.:smallwink:

[Traab]

I consider it not railroading, but impasse breaking. You acted as the neutral third party to break a tie that they couldnt or wouldnt break. You didnt make the decision for them, the dice roll did. You didnt put them on that path because its what your notes said, you would have worked with either direction. Honestly, thats one of the jobs of the dm imo, being able to settle issues like these that would bring the game to a grinding halt and ruin it for everyone. Im just surprised you waited 2 hours. If they couldnt decide in a half hour of arguing, another hour and a half is only going to at best determine who has enough stubbornness to wear down everyone else.

[Urpriest]

Agreed with everyone else. Giving the players a plausible incentive within the bounds of the campaign is pretty much literally the opposite of railroading.

Jedipotter, I can believe that your players may complain of railroading when you do things like this, but that is because, as in many anecdotes you submit, your players are actively trolling you. It's not because they're right.

[Theomniadept]

That's not bad at all. It's railroading but light enough to keep things moving; it would have been much worse. They still had a say in the matter.

[Ettina]

So wait, how is it not Railroading?

The DM picked an adventure: there is a anti vampire magic item somewhere on the island that you must find to save your home city....and that is what you will do. But that is not Railroading....why?

The players did not have a choice. The DM said ''there is a plot over there'', set down the railroad tracks, and the players got on the train.

They did have a choice. They could have decided 'screw it, we can fight the vampire without the artifact', or even made up some third option to do. It would be railroading if the GM told them that they couldn't go fight the vampire without getting the artifact first, but he didn't. He just told them there was an artifact, and they decided to go and get it.

Having a plot hook is not the same as railroading.

[Traab]

They did have a choice. They could have decided 'screw it, we can fight the vampire without the artifact', or even made up some third option to do. It would be railroading if the GM told them that they couldn't go fight the vampire without getting the artifact first, but he didn't. He just told them there was an artifact, and they decided to go and get it.

Having a plot hook is not the same as railroading.

Exactly, the DM was prepared to go with either option, the problem was the players couldnt decide which to pick, so he rolled the dice to settle it. Its not railroading. Had they risen up as one and said, "No way! We hate the dm deciding!" and gone to the city instead, so be it. Its not like he said, "And suddenly a massive hurricane appears! Oddly it doesnt move inland, but its clear any attempt to leave the island right now will be met with swift and painful death!" Railroading is forcing the players to go your way, plot hooks are letting them know something interesting is that way and letting them decide if its worth it or not.

[daremetoidareyo]

Next time, let them argue for a bit. And then do both of those options. That way the choices are more well defined, there are more options for the PCs to use... or even possibly use those options as a foil to derive a novel 3rd option out of it.

[Dapifer]

...It was up to them whether they wanted back in, had things gone differently they could very well have decided to start their own kingdom with blackjack, and hookers and decided to...


:biggrin:

I am sorry, I just needed to quote this for lulz.

Carry on now...

[Arbane]

So, your saying that it is only a Railroad if the players Know it's a Railroad?

A railroad isn't necessarily bad, if the players want to go where the tracks lead.



How about what i would have done: The players talk for five minutes....then assassins attack!. And the last assassin would say something like ''you will never find the Cup of Alzera!''. And the players would uncover the plot of: the vampire king knows about the cup and knows it is on the island...and he assumes that is what the characters are doing there: looking for the cup to destroy him. So the players then decide to do that plot....they will find the Cup of Alzera and destroy the vampire king.

So is what I would have done Railroading?

I would not want to play in your games. Which is fine, as I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me as a player.


you must face the Clickclicks down the hall which can only be beaten with their secret weakness,

Shouting "November"? If so, WOW, that's an obscure reference...




Yea, maybe five minutes at the maximum. And that is for ''players talking in character, but just going around in circles and not doing anything''.

My threshold of tolerance for OOC stuff is about three seconds:

DM: ''You walk along the rocky badlands moving west ward----"

Player Josh "Oh, wait! Way cool! You guyz gotta see this awesome you tube video about this guy and a gas can!'' ** leaps up, gets his phone and starts to 'search' for the video** , **two other 'problem players' also leap up all wide eyes and excited to watch the awesome video**

DM "A red dragon swoops down from the sky and breathes!''

Jedipotter, I can believe that your players may complain of railroading when you do things like this, but that is because, as in many anecdotes you submit, your players are actively trolling you. It's not because they're right.

I strongly suspect that Jedipotter's accounts of his players are just as big a bunch of exaggeratedly grotesque caricatures as his rephrasing of other people's arguments tend to be.

[prufock]

I'll go against the grain here and say I don't like the way this was handled. I agree that something had to be done to move the game along, but it could have been handled by the DM rolling behind the screen without telling the players, or making an arbitrary choice. The tacked-on "Oh yeah, you remember this old story about a vampire-slaying artifact" could have been better integrated.

For example, they're standing/walking around for 2 hours arguing (though I wouldn't have let it go on that long before doing something), cue random encounter, random encounter leads to clues about an anti-vampire artifact, they discuss whether they should try to retrieve it.

Heck, they're in a town, their argument could easily be overheard by someone with information to point them toward whichever plot hook you decided on.

[Jay R]

you must face the Clickclicks down the hall which can only be beaten with their secret weakness,

Shouting "November"?

Of course. But I won't let you look it up during the game.

Edit: And by the way, congratulations on catching it.


If so, WOW, that's an obscure reference...

I do my best.