Advice for a New GM: Is this Railroading?

[TurianShadow]

Hi all, I've got a question I'd like some opinions on. I am going to start GMing (for the first time, ever) a Pathfinder game in the near future, and I have an idea for a plot arc. It would be a big test to gain a certification similar to the Hunters in the anime Hunter X Hunter. I'm going my best not to rip it off whole-cloth, but to add my own spin to it and integrate it into my world. Problem is, I'm not too sure if my players would be super into it. They've never played before, so I'm planning on getting them acclimated to the game before introducing this element, but I'm not sure if this is something they would want to pursue. I've tried getting some feelers out, but I'm currently in another country so I can only email them. These are also my little brother's friends, so there is a bit of a divide between all of us we haven't moved through yet, so communicating is slow at best. If I told them about this plot element and said this is something their characters are pursuing, and let them create their own reasons for trying to become a "Hunter," would this be railroading? If it is, does anyone have a recommendation on how to introduce this element?

Thanks in advance for any and all advice!

[Dravda]

It's absolutely reasonable to let people know that this will be the concept of the game, so they can plan accordingly. If you don't let them know, then spring it on them, it might feel railroad-y (especially if someone made a character based around social skills and intrigue, for example!)

That said, these issues are very much about reading your table. Some groups like a very structured experience and will respond well to you steering the direction of the campaign; others chafe at the slightest attempt to control them. Most fall somewhere in the middle. You're already keeping an eye out for potential problems in your style, though, which means you're already doing better than you give yourself credit for.

Happy gaming!

[Mystral]

Hi all, I've got a question I'd like some opinions on. I am going to start GMing (for the first time, ever) a Pathfinder game in the near future, and I have an idea for a plot arc. It would be a big test to gain a certification similar to the Hunters in the anime Hunter X Hunter. I'm going my best not to rip it off whole-cloth, but to add my own spin to it and integrate it into my world. Problem is, I'm not too sure if my players would be super into it. They've never played before, so I'm planning on getting them acclimated to the game before introducing this element, but I'm not sure if this is something they would want to pursue. I've tried getting some feelers out, but I'm currently in another country so I can only email them. These are also my little brother's friends, so there is a bit of a divide between all of us we haven't moved through yet, so communicating is slow at best. If I told them about this plot element and said this is something their characters are pursuing, and let them create their own reasons for trying to become a "Hunter," would this be railroading? If it is, does anyone have a recommendation on how to introduce this element?

Thanks in advance for any and all advice!

It's okay to talk with your players about the campaign expectations before you start. In fact, it's very advisable.

On the other hand, if you players are not into your idea, it is not okay to still cram them down this path. Either change the game to fit their ideals or ask them to modify. Don't threaten them with expulsion, you don't want to create too much tension. But if they just can't warm up to the idea of your player, either one of you has got to give or they have to sit the game out.

[Strigon]

First off, railroading isn't the root of all evil, as you may be led to believe by some of the discussions here. The truth is, nearly every GM is going to have to utilize some level of railroading; the trick is keeping it down to a reasonable level. Without railroading, it would be a matter of whatever the players feel like doing, which would in many cases lead them to being completely clueless as to what they should - or even can - do. A small amount of railroading helps prevent this.

Now, of course, there are those who take this too far. When you start forcing them down a particular path, as opposed to deliberately leaving a few obvious choices open, then you should reconsider your choices. As I said, some railroading is often important, but it's important to know where the line is. If it's simply giving the players some direction; a goal, an endgame, a choice, then chances are it's okay. If you're shutting down player agency by telling them how to approach the goal, or not giving them a choice, then you've got a problem.

As it stands, this sounds fine. You're giving your players a clear goal; a starting objective. Most games tend to be somewhat railroady at the beginning, anyway, and even more so if it's a new GM. Just make sure that you're ready and willing to consider alternate paths on a basis of how realistic they are, not how badly they screw up your plot.

[Theobod]

Never watched the series in question (or film or game or whatever) but an Adventurer Guild with entry requirements is actually a pretty common theme in DnD games. It doesn't even strictly need to be passed by them either, consider the following setup:

Party exists and is roaming the world being big damn heroes, saving damsels and righting wrongs etc etc when they come across a town with a noticeboard with a few jobs on and a recruiting poster for the local adventuring guild offering stable jobs and discount amenities for members as well as harder more lucrative jobs for guildmates only. The party then may go 'Nah sounds too formal' and nab one of the other jobs or breeze past or whatever or may inquire further about membership, leading to a triel if they persue to fruition. This in no way restricts player agency and doesn't need to be discussed beforehand like any other plot point.

Ofc there is nothing wrong with giving a heads up OC or even asking them OC if they may be interested but not doing so is only railroading if the players have no other reasonable choice.

Hope that helps.

[Honest Tiefling]

Railroading to me is when you decide not only the exit they'll get off at, but you also decide the stops they go through and they can only interact with it via looking out the window. Very dull in my opinion.

I would more describe this as a scenario. The DM gives the group a loose goal and the players figure out how to achieve it, with an emphasis on creative planning, plots and encounters. You might be going towards that goal (at least, until it catches on fire), but there's a lot of paths to go long. Perhaps for clarity this approach to starting a game as Closed World, as opposed to an Open World? Not all options are available and you're expected to pursue that goal, but it's not as absolute as a rail road which can never change course.

[Segev]

It's not really railroading when you tell them, "This game will be about people with Hunter's licenses. To get those requires passing a test. Please make characters who will pursue getting said licenses, as we will be working towards getting into the test as the first major plot arc. If you're not interested in taking the test, you won't be in the game once it goes there."

If they're not interested, then don't run that game.

The problem with railroading is when it shatters verisimilitude and player investment. Knowing where the roads are and what might lie down them is necessary for players.

Now, if in playing the game, they all discover that going into this test is very much antithetical to their PCs' goals, then a) something probably went wrong to change their goals that badly, and b) you shouldn't force them unless the players are "in on it."

That's another way railroading can work: if the players want to railroad their PCs to force their PCs to do something they'd otherwise balk at. Then it's fine, because everybody who matters (the players of the game) are choosing it. "I want my guy to be forced to work with the party on this plot point that he'd object to strenuously. Can we have him get blackmailed into it?"

[Dousedinoil]

It's okay to talk with your players about the campaign expectations before you start. In fact, it's very advisable.

On the other hand, if you players are not into your idea, it is not okay to still cram them down this path. Either change the game to fit their ideals or ask them to modify. Don't threaten them with expulsion, you don't want to create too much tension. But if they just can't warm up to the idea of your player, either one of you has got to give or they have to sit the game out.

100 times this. Give your players what they want. The last thing a player wants is for someone else to create their PC for them. It's one thing to be "railroaded" by making them walk down a certain path or even play an entire adventure path. The are still able to control everything about their character. I'm not so sure they can do that if they are forced into a homebrew world. It's not really "railroading" them to create a hunterxhunter world but it isn't Classic D&D. Personally, I wouldn't want to be apart of that world. Make sure your players are up for it but don't force them to do something they won't find fun.

The way I see it, if you made a story arc where everyone came from a wizarding school, it would be really awkward for a rogue or barbarian to have their own unique back story and create their character to their liking. Forcing them to be hunters is IMO the same kind of thing. Still if you are going to force it on them, be creative and come up with a way to fit their character in the story.

[Honest Tiefling]

I also forgot to mention: Be prepared for them to cheat. Don't shut it down, just make it interesting and difficult.

[Seto]

I've also been inspired by HxH (rather the tournament arc) in my D&D game, and also have played in a HxH campaign (with a rules-light system). Cool 'verse :smallsmile:
Problems you might run into are those:
- The Hunter Exam is a series of tasks that pit the contestants against each other. The tasks can be a bit specific (for example the cooking test in the series): make sure any build they make is reasonably capable of facing the tasks you create. (For example, if these require - as they often do - physical skills, let the players know that, or make them somehow bypassable by physically weak characters).
- The Hunter Exam is a series of tasks that pit the contestants against each other. Do you foresee a cooperation between them? Or competition? Let them know in advance whether it's a team game, a competitive game or a bit of both.
- Most importantly, what happens if some of them fail a task and are eliminated? You need a backup plan for that. Don't let them idly sit by while the other characters go on with the tasks.