PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How do you hide your rails?



MonkeySage
2014-10-29, 10:58 PM
Sometimes, railroading in the grand scheme of things is unavoidable... if you have a story in mind, a sequence of events in your world... you try to find a way to involve your players. Your story has a definite plot. This is the case with my games.

But I try to involve my players without letting them see the rails, and making sure that the choices they make matter.

In practice, this is something I struggle with.

Talyn
2014-10-29, 11:07 PM
Make it so that, whenever the players are required to make a choice, it still leads to the same outcome - only the details change.

As an example: "Do we trust the Duke's map, or should we find another way?" Oops! The Duke has been betrayed by his evil advisor, and the map leads to a trap!

If the player's trust the map, they walk into the ambush! Cue combat encounter!

If the players don't trust the map, they make a couple of skill checks (appropriate to HOW they are finding another way) - if they succeed, they find a back way which lets them ambush their would-be ambushers. If they fail, they walk into the trap anyways - cue combat encounter!

Now, the combat encounter can end one of three ways: (1) the PCs are successful, in which case they find the clue incriminating the evil advisor on the body of one of the ambushers, (2) the PCs surrender, in which case they are captured, and the evil advisor comes to gloat about his evil plan to them, or (3) the PCs are forced to flee, in which case they are going to return to the Duke and report about their attack, which will lead him into directing them to investigate how his trusted advisor's information could be so wrong.

In this case, the PC's first "choice" doesn't change which encounter they have (though it might give them an advantage), and the second "choice" is basically three different ways for the PCs to learn what the main plot it for this adventure.

XionUnborn01
2014-10-29, 11:16 PM
There's a few ways to do it.

First, if you have an encounter set up to bait the plot hook, you can have it go off no matter where they go. For example, if there's supposed to be a corrupted kings guardsmen that's going around stealing from the populace, you can have the encounter happen in any town you want to which makes it immune to the whims of players. This is probably the most mundane and not jerk ways of railroading because you're forcing a plot hook to occur, not necessarily forcing the players to act on it.

You can also do what I consider the worst and make their actions not matter. This can seem similar to the above but it is more of a major thing than the above example. This is along the lines of the party passing by a cave mouth filled with bones and blood and they simply ignore it and then 10 minutes down the road they're invited into a cabin by a kind old man and he pulls a switch dropping them into the belly of the caves and they never encounter him again. Or they get no save no warning teleported to another plane because big magic guy said so and he threatens the party if they don't recover/kill/destroy X.

You want to do something closer to the first while avoiding the second. That being said, sometimes the party angers a BBEG or even a BBGG and they're teleported to be told they're in trouble and how to fix it. That makes sense if they like, drop an artifact tied to a god into a pit of lava or something. The god probably wouldn't be happy.

With all that said, sometimes no matter how well you think out the Cavern of Lost Ones, the Beaches of Szanddrakar, or the Elemental Plane of Friendship, Sometimes the players would rather go to the Hedge of No Significance.

Zarrgon
2014-10-30, 01:26 AM
1. Alter Reality: No matter what ''choices'' the players make, the plot just keeps rolling onward. This often works best if you don't tell the players your doing this as they like to think they are radically changing and altering the plot with every decision they make. So no matter what path they pick through the Dark Woods, it will lead to the Dark Tower...

2. The One: Just make something so important and intricate to the plot that the characters will have to go there sooner or later. Like when the character's catch a bad guy and he says ''I work for Dark Cloak, the lord of the Dark Tower''. And the players are all like ''We avoid the Dark Tower(and the plot)''. But then after like the 100th bad guy says ''I work for Dark Cloak'' the players might finally say ''well, ok, we go to the Dark Tower''.

3. Small World: There are not a lot of choices. There is only one Archmage within 1,000 miles, so you can go to him or go nowhere(or, of course, end the campaign if a player demands that they travel 10,000 miles and find some other Archmage somewhere).

4. Not So Unrelated Points: The Mayor hires the characters to ''get them pesky bandits in the Dark Wood'' and..surprise, that puts the characters in the Dark Wood right on plot. If done right, the players won't even see it coming.

5. The Moving Plot: If the players refuse to follow the plot, just have the plot come to them. Like when the players find out that Count Evil has the Cauldron of Darkness and at midnight on the full moon he will create and army of undead to take over the kingdom.....and the players decide to ignore it and hang out at the tavern. And what happens soon enough....an undead army attacks the town.

BWR
2014-10-30, 01:36 AM
IME, players are fine with rails as long as the scenery along the way is distracting.

Mastikator
2014-10-30, 02:06 AM
Be upfront about the rails and ask the players to stay on the rails.

gom jabbarwocky
2014-10-30, 02:17 AM
If my players ever notice the rails, I do a distracting dance. My salacious moves quickly lull them back into complacency. Then I strike.

Nagash
2014-10-30, 02:22 AM
best thing is dont write tight stories that need rails in the first place

Milodiah
2014-10-30, 02:29 AM
Personally I choose to size up the rails so massively that players don't even notice them. The biggest problem with "railroading" is that the GM doesn't exhibit enough patience, and does something drastic because he wants the party to be in THIS situation NOW. The trick is to plan very far ahead, but at the same time in such broad strokes that the rail line can be reconstructed easily to fit whatever shenanigans (forest fires and dragon-egg-napping in my case) the PCs happen to pull. My players just opted to wander off on a completely superfluous and self-assigned sidequest, which I was totally fine with. Because on the way I got to offhandedly mention passing that one tomb over there, which was highly salient to the plot, and they then knew the way to it when it did come up.

Yora
2014-10-30, 05:43 AM
Be upfront about the rails and ask the players to stay on the rails.
I think in practice it's even enough if the players agree to keep heading in the right direction. If the party has a goal for the adventure or campaign, the players should only do things that seem to be advancing towards that goal, not running off doing other things somewhere else. As long as the players want to continue with the adventure, there is few trouble with things going unexpected. If they do something that is completely different from what the GM planned for, it takes a bit of improvisation but the players will return back on track by themselves.

Cosmic Traveler
2014-10-30, 06:35 AM
First of all, I never GM'd yet, but I plan on to getting to do that at one point. Here's a screen cap I picked up from a GM Help/tips and tricks thread on the /tg/ board on 4chan. There is a lot of wisdom in this it's mind blowing and an eye opener

http://i.imgur.com/jPhFhuF.jpg

Kiero
2014-10-30, 07:02 AM
Make it so that, whenever the players are required to make a choice, it still leads to the same outcome - only the details change.


There's a name for this technique: illusionism. Where you create the illusion of there being a choice. Which can work, unless the players work out that's what you're doing, in which case they will often react badly.

DigoDragon
2014-10-30, 08:00 AM
The Node idea in the repost above is what I generally try to do with my campaigns. It does work out well when you can't predict your players.

prufock
2014-10-30, 08:06 AM
Don't.

When I start a game, I tell the players what kind of game I am planning to run, like "This is going to be high-heroism, good-guys-saving-the-world stuff." Then I stick plot in front of them, they make choices, and I play it as it goes. I trust my players to take the more interesting routes, but what they find interesting isn't always what I expect, so I improvise and the plot changes.

The things going on in the background that they ignore can still happen. If the kingdom is at war with a stronger nation, and the PCs have intel that could help but don't communicate it, the kingdom will fall. If cultists are trying to summon some hideous star-spawn to do their bidding and the PCs know about it but don't intervene, chances are some hideous star-spawn is going to appear at some point. The world should go on with or without the PCs.

If I can't come up with something to improv, I tell my players up front that they've gone right out the window of anything for which I was prepared, and either take a break to figure out what to do or call it a night and come back with new plot points next time. I think I've only ever had to do this once or twice.

NichG
2014-10-30, 09:34 AM
I guess I have three main techniques:

Build up a supply of handles, then turn them when you need to.

Generally when I set up and run a campaign, there's a build-up phase which centers around giving the PCs various tools, information, connections, etc for them to use later when things get bad. While this is going on, its also a good opportunity to get hooks into particular PCs. At some point during one of their projects they need something from an NPC, who agrees so long as one of them will do him a favor later. At another point, there's an overpowered magic item whose user slowly becomes mind-linked to an angel. Another time, one of the PCs picks up a strange journal that fills in with text describing events around the PCs (sometimes including things they don't know yet). A PC finds a wand that 'can make any one thing happen without limit and without being genied, but then someone somewhere else in the universe gets a true wish too'.

Then, when I need to make something happen, I can pull on those handles to nudge the PCs in that direction. The NPC comes back to call in the favor. The angel gets caught in a trap doing something unrelated, and the magic item that the PCs have been relying on starts to become corrupted, etc. When a PC uses the wand, the backlash sets up the new situation.

Make the rail out of candy.

PCs generally will jump at ways to become more powerful. Even if not all PCs are subject to that, there's usually one or two, and those tend to be the most pushy players. So if you make a road to obvious power, more often than not the PCs will follow it.

Put a train on the tracks behind the players and make sure they can see it coming

The trick here is to just make something exist in the world and get increasingly urgent until it can't be ignored. Have it just sit there for awhile, then have the players get information about how the problem is growing. Eventually if things are allowed to get bad enough, the players will have to deal with it to survive.

Its good to have one of these sitting around in any game that's predominantly sandbox. Essentially its a way to answer the sort of decision paralysis that groups can end up with in a sandbox campaign. It's always there in the wings, and if the game loses momentum and people can't figure out what to do next you can bring it to the front and give the players something concrete to deal with to get them back on track.

DireSickFish
2014-10-30, 09:38 AM
When I play I like to lay my rails as the plots develop. So I'll have a good idea of where I want the next session or two to go, but if the players suddenly decide they want to go to Chult to shut down the slavers I make new ideas for the next session. It really helps to be able to say "okay you can do that, but I'll take care of it nex/in a different session". They are usually understanding that a good adventure takes time.

That doesn't really address your issue of hiding the rails.

Give lots of hints and tips toward the directiont he rails are supposed to go. If the information they need is known by the local marshal then keep bringing him up. Oh there is a hole int he back of this sturdy building. Oh the bartender mentions there was a prison break and "Mad Margret" is on the lose. Oh I don't know where those creepy people went but the Marshal talked with them.

Let them down hat they want to do but everything(or most) they do is giving them hints towards where you want them to go. They feel like they are making progress because they "figured out" that the Marshal is the guy to talk to even though you would have been fine if he was literally the first person they talked to. Be patient with the players.

If they are being obstinate and don't want to go along with the rails or what have you, then figure out what they do want. They want a badass longsword? Well when they look for rumors a general in the BBEG's army just so happens to have one. Theyw ant ot be mercs? Well they keep getting undercut by a group and when they go to confront them it turns out they are secretly working for the BBEG. Undercutting jobs to make sure adventurers like you don't disrupt my plans!

This all may take more sessions than you want, and the badguys plans may have escalated by the time the PC's get there.

Mastikator
2014-10-30, 12:29 PM
I think in practice it's even enough if the players agree to keep heading in the right direction. If the party has a goal for the adventure or campaign, the players should only do things that seem to be advancing towards that goal, not running off doing other things somewhere else. As long as the players want to continue with the adventure, there is few trouble with things going unexpected. If they do something that is completely different from what the GM planned for, it takes a bit of improvisation but the players will return back on track by themselves.

Yeah but that's only if the players know that the DM has a specific narrative goal, which is not always the case. If the players don't know that there is a plot to assassinate the emperor and that they should play a vital role in that whole thing, but instead decide to go fishing for krakens believing there's a MacGuffin in the blowhole in the kraken in bottom of the sea.

ComaVision
2014-10-30, 01:47 PM
I have dungeons/towns/encounters that can be in multiple locations. Whichever way the PCs go, I drop it there. If they go back the other way I'll figure something else up. This also makes it less frustrating when they completely miss something I had planned, I can just put it somewhere else.

AceAwesome96
2014-10-30, 01:54 PM
If my players ever notice the rails, I do a distracting dance. My salacious moves quickly lull them back into complacency. Then I strike.

Do you mind if I sig this? I really do find this hilarious.

SiuiS
2014-10-30, 01:54 PM
Sometimes, railroading in the grand scheme of things is unavoidable... if you have a story in mind, a sequence of events in your world... you try to find a way to involve your players. Your story has a definite plot. This is the case with my games.

But I try to involve my players without letting them see the rails, and making sure that the choices they make matter.

In practice, this is something I struggle with.

You allow the train to jump the tracks, and just present the circumstances honestly, twisted metal, bristled corpses and all.


Specifically; railroading is not having a plot or story, it's forcing the players to play the parts in that story you want them to despite their own desires. It's an intentional pejorative. Having a story that continues with or without the PCs is not railroading. Having the bad guy's plans continue moving forward day by day is not railroading. Having the players confront a big issue and be told 'you could have stopped this' is not railroading (although it can be, if done wrong).

It is up to the characters to keep up with the world around them. If they do not, they cannot complain that the world moved on; they should have known time doesn't stop just because you're browsing your menu screen.

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-30, 02:18 PM
I don't think illusionism or the magician's choice is a good idea. Eventually, they'll figure it out and get upset. Maybe I have a very bad pokerface? Honestly, I just have nodes of what villians/antagonists/events are up to, and advance that in the story, giving them the information as they would figure it out.

Often I just ask the players what their plans are and run with that. I find it more satisfying and easier in a way, to think of what their actions will do as opposed to trying to throw out countless hooks and hope I can reel something in. I admit, I have changed stories based on player's plans. Sometimes they come up with better ideas then I do and I just sneak them in.

I don't think having a story continue regardless of them is railroading, it is having an actual world that...Functions. Rather then simply being stuck in time when they are not around. Hrm...That sounds like an interesting plot, where for some reason only 5 or so people are not frozen in time, and exude some sort of aura that causes others around them to also not be stuck in time...

Of course they'll just loot and set fire to everything, but I can dream.

Roxxy
2014-10-30, 02:22 PM
I don't think there is a right way. It all depends on the group, and what works for one won't work for another. Personally, my setting revolves around military police constables who serve as elite monster hunters. The rails here are blatant. Captain tells the PCs what the problem is, and they go take care of it, because soldiers don't just say no to a superior officer. That approach won't work for most groups.

Strigon
2014-10-30, 02:29 PM
Personally, I've kept things reasonably fluid.
I tend to plan the ending, the plot, and then build a few encounters that I know they'll have to go through to finish the campaign.
Then, I make a few encounters/dungeons which can be slapped anywhere I want, along with a few that are themed to whatever I think they might encounter.
I'll give them obvious leads as to what their next step should be, but it's up to them how and when to do it.

As long as you keep the entire plot fuzzy, you can fill in the details as you go along; you're going to be forced to sometime, as a GM. Might as well use it to make a good game!

Edit:
Another strategy I often use, with specific encounters, is this:
You know that one encounter your players will have to complete?
Yeah, that one.
You know how you're trying to find a way for them to beat it?

Don't bother. They're not going to use your way, anyway.
Just give them the scenario, and let them handle it. Whatever they do, roll with it.

Alent
2014-10-30, 02:56 PM
There's a name for this technique: illusionism. Where you create the illusion of there being a choice. Which can work, unless the players work out that's what you're doing, in which case they will often react badly.

I thought this was called Railschroding? The railroad isn't observed until after the players make a decision?

I'm a Simulationist who prefers sandboxes, so the way I keep them on the plot is by having the plot advance with or without them. They want to ignore the king's evil adviser? Start advancing the evil adviser's agenda until they decide he's dangerous enough to want to take him down. Even then with my players there's a 50/50 chance they'll want to help the evil adviser, which is okay, the king is now the villain and they have to watch their backs. ('cause the evil adviser wanted to get rid of him for a reason besides greed and lust for power.)

Then when they actually want to deal with him, what little I have planned gets inserted or railschroded in no matter how they actually work on getting to him. I try to only build non-specific details for things, such as the Adviser's lieutenant's abilities, not his location, base, mooks, etc. That way I'm able to more freely have him just show up where he needs to in order to stop the adventurers. (Or help if they decide the evil adviser is the questgiver.)

gom jabbarwocky
2014-10-30, 03:37 PM
Do you mind if I sig this? I really do find this hilarious.

Sig away! I'm flattered, really.


I thought this was called Railschroding? The railroad isn't observed until after the players make a decision?I thought this was called Railschroding? The railroad isn't observed until after the players make a decision?

The term I've heard used to describe this is "The Quantum Ogre Problem." But I like the term "Railschroding" much more. Way catchier.

On a more serious note, I actually find that as long as my goals as the GM and the players' goals are the same, railroading is not an issue. In fact, I find that without some direction, my players will flounder without a clear goal and the game will suffer. I tried to run a sandbox game once, but eventually the all players were begging me for some rails. It was very awkward for everyone.

The Insanity
2014-10-30, 03:46 PM
You don't.

Bulhakov
2014-10-30, 04:27 PM
Tempt them with the right rewards and/or have them fear punishment.

Use authority figures to advise them (or order them) on the appropriate course of action.

Think of multiple paths leading to the same "scene". This is actually how I design campaign scenarios - not a linear plot, but a sequence of loosely connected scenes/encounters with a lot of improvisation between them.

One mechanism I use as a last resort is prophetic dreams/visions. When a player purposefully tried to see what would happen if he strongly went off the rails, I explained his character kept having nightmares about the demise of his friends and an apocalypse that befell the land.

jedipotter
2014-10-30, 07:55 PM
I don't think illusionism or the magician's choice is a good idea. Eventually, they'll figure it out and get upset.

You just never let the players figure it out. It's easy enough. Only the bad players ever complain about Railroading, the good ones just play the game.

NichG
2014-10-30, 07:55 PM
In my experience, the only thing that advice and orders from authority figures in games is good for is encouraging PCs to do the opposite. Maybe that's just my group though.

It always seems to work better when you have something where you can point out 'you knew this was coming' or 'you bought into this earlier on'. E.g. you're just reminding them of something they had previously decided to do.

If its just 'the king demands your service!' then suddenly the problem has two solutions: 'just do what the king says', or 'get rid of the tyrannical king who is drafting us'

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-30, 07:59 PM
In my experience, the only thing that advice and order from authority figures in games is good for is encouraging PCs to do the opposite. Maybe that's just my group though.

No, no, this is my group as well.

And maybe I suck at hiding the rails, but they do get suspicious when some threads die or keep leading them to something they ignored earlier. And I disagree that playing the game must involve no input from the players on where the plot goes, so no, I don't think good players just go with the game. Complaining about having no choice (i.e., bad rails) is perfectly fine in my book. Dead or comatose players go with the rails.

Amphetryon
2014-10-30, 08:05 PM
There's a name for this technique: illusionism. Where you create the illusion of there being a choice. Which can work, unless the players work out that's what you're doing, in which case they will often react badly.

From personal experience, the 'All roads lead to Rome' style of maintaining rails while providing the illusion of (false) choice rapidly leads to rebellious players who react to plot hooks by running vigorously away.

Jay R
2014-10-30, 08:10 PM
They will go where the most loot and most interesting adventure is. Put them on the rails.

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-30, 08:13 PM
Now I worry about the sort of people I have partied with, as they would not only refuse hooks but murder the hook regardless of wealth that might result from the hook.

Thrudd
2014-10-30, 08:31 PM
Start with character creation. Make sure your planned story lines up with the characters' goals and motives, or really vice versa: make sure the characters are created together and have goals and motives which make sense for your story. This is a version of the "make the rails out of candy" advice. If the story is about rescuing the princess, one of the players should be the betrothed prince, another one his loyal bodyguard, etc.
How well this works depends on your players. Can you count on your players to role play motives and pay attention to in-world connections? Knowing your players is a big part of running a successful game. If you want it to be about the story, the players hopefully are the sort to get immersed in their characters and the game world, and by guiding character creation you can make sure you have the appropriate dramatis personae to move your plot forward.

Some players want and expect a dramatic plot and want to follow along with it, just give them the right motives and set the scene. Other players want and expect a sandbox where they can do anything they want. Don't try to confine them to rails, give them a world they can explore and adapt to their actions. With a mixed group it can be hard to give everyone what they want, so it's best to be upfront about whether you are running a story or a sandbox.

gom jabbarwocky
2014-10-30, 09:24 PM
Now I worry about the sort of people I have partied with, as they would not only refuse hooks but murder the hook regardless of wealth that might result from the hook.

That's a tad baffling. How else are adventurers supposed to adventure if they murder everyone who offers them an incentive to go adventuring?

The way I see it, as a GM and as a PC, there's a certain recognition that there are some contrivances that we need to accept in order for a game to go anywhere. Some are rather concrete, like Hit Points - yeah, its not realistic, but they are just a game construct to keep things simple and focused. And some are more abstract, like, unless they really deserved it, don't murder the quest-giver. Or, if you do, at least hear them out first. It's common courtesy.

jedipotter
2014-10-30, 09:42 PM
From personal experience, the 'All roads lead to Rome' style of maintaining rails while providing the illusion of (false) choice rapidly leads to rebellious players who react to plot hooks by running vigorously away.

I've had the opposite experience. The best games are where the players just play the game by immersing themselves in their characters. So they are not sitting back and analyzing everything through the eye of the game rules, logic and reality. They just play the game as their characters.

So when the werewolf tracks lead to the Dark Tower: The out-of-gamer players jump um ''Aww man we are being Railroaded...the DM is forcing us to go to the Dark Tower! That is so wrong! We should be able to spontaneously create everything our way all the time!''. And the immersed gamers just say ''Eh, the evil werewolf has something to do with evil count Von Doom...who would have thought? We go to the tower."




And maybe I suck at hiding the rails, but they do get suspicious when some threads die or keep leading them to something they ignored earlier. And I disagree that playing the game must involve no input from the players on where the plot goes, so no, I don't think good players just go with the game. Complaining about having no choice (i.e., bad rails) is perfectly fine in my book. Dead or comatose players go with the rails.

Eh, a lot of player input can be bad.

For example: So small isolated town of 100 folks or so. Evil Baron Von Doom takes over the town and country side with his Ogre Thugs. High taxes, harsh laws, and evil all around. So the town sends for help: enter the player characters. Now the goal is simple enough: get rid of the evil baron. And sure, they can come up with all sorts of wacky plans...but they kinda just have to attack the Dark Tower no matter what.

So in trying to ''make their own plot'' players have tried:

1.Set the town on fire, and somehow thinking the evil baron and all his guards and followers would rush over to town to put out the fire and leave the Dark Tower unguarded.

2.Looking for a army. The group wanders around in the wilderness hopping to find an elf or dwarf army that is just standing around that they can use to attack the Dark Tower.

3.Have the town folk attack. They get all the low level commoners and experts to attack the Dark Tower.

None of the plans worked, and the more out-of-game players complained about Railroading...''it's not fair nothing worked''. And that was Group 1.

Group 2, just stayed on the rails. Enter town, got directions to the Dark Tower, attacked the Dark Tower, killed the evil baron and ended the game in just three hours of endless fun. All by staying on the rails.

Tengu_temp
2014-10-30, 09:54 PM
Tell the players the kind of story they're interested in and most of the time they will stay on the rails on their own, just to see where it leads.

Do note that some players are rebels for rebellion's sake, and will purposely ignore plot hooks you give them "because they don't like to be railroaded". If you have a story-based approach to DMing, it's honestly best not to play with such people.


Now I worry about the sort of people I have partied with, as they would not only refuse hooks but murder the hook regardless of wealth that might result from the hook.

Without beating around the bush, you played with bad players. My condolences.

Dimers
2014-10-31, 12:20 AM
I don't hide rails. I recruit players who like a whole group to have fun (DM included) and are willing to work together for that. Then if they start to go very far off the intended series of plot-related areas and I don't feel capable of improvising quickly, I just say, "I'm sorry but there's no plot there, can you come up with an IC reason to do plot instead?" And they do. Cuz it ain't no thang.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2014-10-31, 12:56 AM
I'm with Thrudd here. A little railroading in chargen is worth a lot of railroading afterwards. PCs built with the plot in mind are drawn to the plot already. IME players want flexibility in how they accomplish goals, not what goals to accomplish.

SiuiS
2014-10-31, 01:24 AM
I've had the opposite experience. The best games are where the players just play the game by immersing themselves in their characters. So they are not sitting back and analyzing everything through the eye of the game rules, logic and reality. They just play the game as their characters.

Yup!


So when the werewolf tracks lead to the Dark Tower: The out-of-gamer players jump um ''Aww man we are being Railroaded...the DM is forcing us to go to the Dark Tower! That is so wrong! We should be able to spontaneously create everything our way all the time!''

What? No. That's terrible. That's beyond parody terrible.


For example: So small isolated town of 100 folks or so. Evil Baron Von Doom takes over the town and country side with his Ogre Thugs. High taxes, harsh laws, and evil all around. So the town sends for help: enter the player characters. Now the goal is simple enough: get rid of the evil baron. And sure, they can come up with all sorts of wacky plans...but they kinda just have to attack the Dark Tower no matter what.

So in trying to ''make their own plot'' players have tried:

1.Set the town on fire, and somehow thinking the evil baron and all his guards and followers would rush over to town to put out the fire and leave the Dark Tower unguarded.

2.Looking for a army. The group wanders around in the wilderness hopping to find an elf or dwarf army that is just standing around that they can use to attack the Dark Tower.

3.Have the town folk attack. They get all the low level commoners and experts to attack the Dark Tower.

Are... Are these things actual player attempts from your history? :smalleek:

I still stand by the position that if the game is "you were hired to defeat the evil count" then having that as the end point is not railroading. There is no rail. There is no road. You're not forcing certain behaviors. You are just waiting for them to trigger the Win Condition.

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-31, 01:59 AM
I'd believe all of those. I've seen players stroll up to what essentially amounted to bandits expecting to hire some scholars among them.

Jay R
2014-10-31, 07:58 AM
Now I worry about the sort of people I have partied with, as they would not only refuse hooks but murder the hook regardless of wealth that might result from the hook.

They're that predictable? What a wonderful tool for keeping them on the rails. Just disguise everything else as the hook.

NichG
2014-10-31, 08:08 AM
Rails should never be about methodology anyhow, because they're something to invoke due to the need for something to be coherent overall. If the PCs want to take down the Baron by playing Black Company rather than by playing Avengers, that shouldn't really matter because the end result (the Baron is taken down) is the same. That doesn't mean that stupid ideas should just work because a player came up with them, but getting overly concerned about how the PCs do something rather than the big picture is an easy way to over-use rails where they really aren't needed.

The Insanity
2014-10-31, 09:47 AM
To expand on my earlier post:
You don't hide the rails, you let the players buy tickets out of their own free will. And you can menage that by presenting them with a destination that they'll like.

ElenionAncalima
2014-10-31, 10:44 AM
The best time to control your railroading is during campaign planning and prep. I agree with those saying node based design is the way to go. Create a few key plot destinations. Adjust as your players move closer to a node or resolve events they skip entirely.

However, it can pretty difficult to build a campaign without making at least a few assumptions about how players will act. In my experience, good players won't try to throw your game of track, just for the hell of it. When things go off track it is usually symptomatic of something else, such as:

Making too many assumptions in your campaign design.
Players not feeling invested in the plot.
DM and players not being on the same page.


Sometimes its best to fight the urge to immediately course correct. Your players may accidently be showing you parts of the game they are more interested in. Once you can figure that out, nudging them in the direction you want becomes much easier.

mephnick
2014-10-31, 04:06 PM
You just do the Bioware approach from their RPGs. (Before EA ruined them), which is a good example of "node design."

The first Dragon Age, first Mass Effect and the NWN's all had the same basic structure. Intro -> interchangeable 3 main missions -> conclusion, with sidequests scattered in between.

You had to explore the Elves, Dwarves and Mages in DA, but it didn't matter when you did them, or what order, other than a few dialogue/character changes.

Same with the 3 planets in Mass Effect.

Or the 3 races to ally with in Hordes of the Underdark.

If you went off the rails for hours it didn't matter. You still hit the main plot points and had a semblance of freedom, while still telling the basic story the writer had in mind.