PDA

View Full Version : Plot Railroading: How much?



Indon
2007-08-23, 11:54 AM
What do you feel qualifies as 'plot railroading', and do you think it's good/neccessary, or evil/abusable? Provide your opinions!

Personally, I generally railroad my plots near the beginning of my campaigns, in order to join my typically disparate player characters towards a unified cause. I feel that's a good thing, and not, uh, bad.

But I don't imagine that's everyone's experience with plot railroading. So, share.

Ashtar
2007-08-23, 12:32 PM
Worst plot railroading that I ever had, one of the last games with that DM, StarWars setting.

We get to a part of some abandoned city which is domed off and has a door to enter. We try to force the door using technical skills (electronic bypass). Doesn't work. The jedi character then starts to melt the door (à la Episode 1) with his light saber. The door does't melt, the lightsaber doesn't scratch the surface. We look for another door, there is none. I suggest to dig under the wall, but we find an "impregnable force field" underneath. We try explosives, ship sized lasers, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, jedi mind powers on the walls and on the door and they are completely unharmed. I mean everything.

But no, we lost 4 hours of gameplay trying everything with the DM saying "No, doesn't work". Finally we give up, get up and leave, leaving the DM alone to cackle in his corner. I later learned that we were supposed to pick up a data slate somewhere in a hidden room in the ruins of the city and wave it in front of the door. Nothing else would of gotten the door open. Of course, there was his ultimate Killer Droid Of Doom Mark XIII waiting next to the data slate and we were supposed to fight it.

Techonce
2007-08-23, 12:47 PM
Depends on the campaign and the group.

Sometimes it is necessary to get a group that is stuck back on track.

Other times the DM needs to do it because that is all he has prepared. I have been in that bind a few times. The goal is to do it without them realizing it.

nagora
2007-08-23, 12:54 PM
What do you feel qualifies as 'plot railroading', and do you think it's good/neccessary, or evil/abusable? Provide your opinions!

Personally, I generally railroad my plots near the beginning of my campaigns, in order to join my typically disparate player characters towards a unified cause. I feel that's a good thing, and not, uh, bad.

But I don't imagine that's everyone's experience with plot railroading. So, share.

I think it's unavoidable at the start of a campaign, and not really a problem at the start of a scenario either, if you play in scenario format. Once the ball's rolling, though, the only railroading should be the logical progression of the antagonists' plans, if any.

Manave_E_Sulanul
2007-08-23, 12:54 PM
As a general rule I do my best not to railroad at all, unless it is necessary to keep things moving along and generally not boring.

That said, lately at least, I've found myself railroading my players in the begining of the game because they don't really enjoy the gradual 'get to know each other a bit' approach I prefer before delving into the dark dark dungeons or beginning their epic quest to discover why the Avatars of the Elements (TM). But then, maybe I am just weird for not indiscriminately trusting the first four other combat capable people I meet on the way to the Dark Dark Dungeon. :smallwink:

I also tend to railroad when its obvious to me the PCs will not be able to move forward on their own, owing to them being especially thick, such as when the last time we were in the dungeon, a door was in the way, locked, and no one thought to just smash the thing down. Hurray for warforged NPCs.

Evil DM Mark3
2007-08-23, 12:58 PM
Beware of the difference between railroading (only to ever be used to get the players to the first adventure) and Neting.

A hook is a plot event that you may respond to (ie the town starts to sink).

A net is a plot event that you have to respond to (ie town falls down a big hole into the underdark).

A railroad is a plot event that you have to respond to in a certain way (ie town falls down a hole and you are captured by drow slavers and fitted with collars that can't be tricked and kill you if you don't follow orders and are sent on missions.)

Nets are fine and are interesting, what do you do if the city you are running a guild in goes to war?

Railroads are no fun, but can be used vary sparingly. If you do railroad for whatever reason, put some points (ie simple choices, or at least the illusion of simple choices) to stop the players becoming dice rolling bots.

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 01:03 PM
Worst plot railroading that I ever had, one of the last games with that DM, StarWars setting.

Jesus, I'd never play with that DM again.

Railroading isn't all bad, as long as you are a skillful enough DM to manipulate your characters into thinking you are adapting the game to their decisions, something that's much harder than it sounds.

There's a great book on the subject called Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering (http://www.amazon.com/Robins-Laws-Good-Game-Mastering/dp/1556346298), which I'd advise anyone who has trouble DMing to pick up. Even if you don't, it's still really good; lots of ways to save time planning for eventualities and the like.

Cowboy_ninja
2007-08-23, 01:11 PM
the mark of a good DM in my opinion is one that can railroad without anyone finding out about it.

what they dont know wont hurt them. i find that players' blief that they have a say in how the story turns out is very important to them.

but as a DM it is extremely hard to pull something out of your butt every single night; not everyone is a master improviser.

when you plan your dungeons keep somethings loosey goosey. for example if you dungeon is north and they go south relocate your dungeon south.

one time i had an npc run by my players with gurads chaseing him. the PC were suppose to intervein. they didnt. so i had the NPC circle around and practically beg for help and hide behind a PC and start talking crap to the guards how his new "friends" were going to beat them up. the PC were accused as accomplices and were arrested as well. (or rateher the guards tried to arrest them).

but we all know the general rule that if PC bite of more than they can chew go ahead and kill em. i had a group that was suppose to run from the advancing horde of lycans. they wanted to fight especially since one lycan had made lunch out of their gorillon. ( it was just trained exotic animal that the last DM gave them not an companion or something like that). i should have killed them but given it was my first time DM i didnt wanna party wipe when i should have.

you learn as you go. dont be afraid of screwing up. if the players are in fact your friends they should understand.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 01:18 PM
There should always be some things that are just beyond the character's control. Sometimes your players may perceive that as railroading.

if you're going to play in a story based campaign, a certain amount of it is necessary.

AKA_Bait
2007-08-23, 01:23 PM
Generally, railroading is when you limit PC actions to only one course. I try never, ever, to do that, even a the beginning of the campagin.

I've found a good way to avoid it is to set up several possible plot hooks early on and a plethora of NPC's, evil and otherwise, with their own motivations and interests. The PC's can choose which hook they want to take, or none at all. The NPC's do their thing, creating more hooks as their plans advance or not.

The PC's could let the Lich Lord kidnap the princess and sacrifice her to Vecna (not that I've ever used such a lame theme) if they wanted to. They might have to deal with the later reprocussions of that happening though, such as the lich being even more powerful and demanding tribute etc.

tainsouvra
2007-08-23, 02:38 PM
I tend to DM extremely open-ended campaigns--I give plot hooks and such, but the response is completely up to the players. This actually didn't work too well with my current group--I think they were so used to being railroaded that they honestly didn't know how to respond to "orcs are attacking" without "and you must do X, nothing else will work". It was really weird for me as a DM. I think they're getting the hang of it, though, our last session went great.

Ranis
2007-08-23, 02:48 PM
Plot Railroading is important to do at critical times in your campaign. When you want something to happen without the PCs destroying your five-week work in five minutes, use plot railroading.

However, don't overdo plot railroading. The PCs should have the freedom to do whatever they want when they want, but make sure that they know what plot railroading is when you do it. Like a cutscene in a video game.

Ruerl
2007-08-23, 02:54 PM
I tend to design my world and the starting session with as many possibilities as possible, the last game I DM'ed started by a five hundred years anniversary for a dynasty on a (relativedly speaking) small island, the queen ruler of the place holds a speech to the nation (wich was required to meet up or be fined) and ends up with thanking for "so many volunteers for the coming campaign" offcourse this means that since no one was directly forced to attend (they could pay the fine after all -it was only around a years pay for a normal person :smallwink: ), the players decided to accept and be enrolled, one of them worked for the army allready as it was, and none of them where forcibly placed on the boat, they where basically signed up and given free leash in wich time they could have made a run for it.

None of them did, they all decided to show up the next day after having spendt various ways to wich they could enjoy their last night, the party's sorcerer looked at his fineries and his son the final night, the rogue spendt the night at a bar with his *two* favorite pay-time-ladies, the priest of the seagod spendt the night praying that he would'nt get seasick and fall down from a mast and break his hip *again*. (yes, the priest for the goddess of the ocean had a tendency to be seasick).

Offcourse, after this they where on a boat and that limited what they could do quite a bit, point was however to not at any single time to force the players to do anything they did not want to do.

The job as a DM is to provide the setting, that setting can be with or withouth doors, however its either a brilliant or a stupid DM who does'nt place certain blockades in his campaign so that he can steer his players in the way he want the campaign to go on, I say stupid because most DM's simply can't improvise enough all the time for a fully free form campaign and brilliant for those that can, they have a gift I envy them.

Matthew
2007-08-24, 03:56 PM
Railroading is fine when the Players are fine with it. Railroading is bad when the Players are unhappy with it. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-24, 04:51 PM
Railroads have stations on which you can embark and disembark safely. The players, through their character actions create these stations. The problem really arises when they decide, about half way to the next station that they want to get off NOW. That is dangerous and can result in getting run over by the train.

Here's a fun trick if the players don't like getting railroaded. Start up a situation where its clear that they are about to be railroaded into doing something. Like say the king is explaining the dire need to do something and it become increasingly obvious that the PCs are the most suitable for the operation. Then as you're closing in on the end of the situation, have an NPC group step forward and declare. "We'll do it!" Then the king departs with that group and his advisors, dismissing the group.

Later on, point out the familiar looking group in the tavern. When approached, they'll say how smart the party was for not taking the job and how difficult it was. But then also point out the new shinies that group has as well. Maybe some of the local girls fawning over the barbarian's new scars or something.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-08-24, 10:14 PM
I have used blatant railroading on occasion, but never like that horrid Star Wars GM - although similar oddness has occured when particularly powerful and obnoxious villains are involved. One of my villains deliberately railroads the PCs for his own amusement (and ours, fortunately it's good fun for the players too). An epic-level wizard, he is into the habit of sending the party letters with instructions, and lately he hasn't even needed to specify any threats to get them following along, because the PCs simply assume he'll conjure up something bad.


Otherwise, if I really want something to happen, I work it out with the players. I do this most of the time anyway, since I'm horrible at planning, and what is 'in character' rules supreme in my games. Sometimes we have to jump through hoops to get things to work out correctly (or even just without a complete disaster occuring) without breaking character.


In general, I feel as a player that at least a little railroading is a good thing. Too much freedom at the expense of plot (or, horror of horror, no plot at all) is incredibly boring. However, that Star Wars GM... *shudder*

Rockphed
2007-08-24, 10:45 PM
Worst plot railroading that I ever had, one of the last games with that DM, StarWars setting.

We get to a part of some abandoned city which is domed off and has a door to enter. We try to force the door using technical skills (electronic bypass). Doesn't work. The jedi character then starts to melt the door (à la Episode 1) with his light saber. The door does't melt, the lightsaber doesn't scratch the surface. We look for another door, there is none. I suggest to dig under the wall, but we find an "impregnable force field" underneath. We try explosives, ship sized lasers, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, jedi mind powers on the walls and on the door and they are completely unharmed. I mean everything.

What he should have done was to give the city some half working defenses that restrict access to all but the carrier of the slate. When the Jedi started melting the door with his lightsaber, something should have made its presence known and politely asked him to desist while showing enough firepower to get you to back off. It might even have mentioned that only, "The bearers of the Box may enter," or some other cheesy line.

One of the hardest parts of DMing is to give players a reason to railroad themselves.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-08-24, 10:49 PM
One of the hardest parts of DMing is to give players a reason to railroad themselves.

May I sig that?

Dervag
2007-08-24, 11:13 PM
Plot Railroading is important to do at critical times in your campaign. When you want something to happen without the PCs destroying your five-week work in five minutes, use plot railroading.

However, don't overdo plot railroading. The PCs should have the freedom to do whatever they want when they want, but make sure that they know what plot railroading is when you do it. Like a cutscene in a video game.Also, you can make some kinds of railroading subtle. Often, the players will go 'off track' without knowing they have done so (say, by killing an important NPC that they didn't know was important, or by going to the 'wrong' city).

In that case, you can bring them back on track by delaying events and moving things around. So, for instance, if they were headed for Mechanicsburg and you had an planned for a friendly NPC spy to meet them and give them a message there, and they instead decide to go to Outer Slobbovia two days before they reach Mechanicsburg, fine.

What you do is, you have the NPC realize that the party isn't coming, freak out, hop on a horse, and ride after them. Eventually (preferably after a side quest of some sort) he catches up with them, commenting that "you're a hard bunch to find!" and delivers his message.

As long as your plots aren't excruciatingly closely timed, you can should be able to build a siding to your railroad track and accomodate the PCs' actions.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-08-25, 12:04 AM
I don't like railroading much, but depending on the campaign it can be a necessary evil. I try to steer my players towards particular ends, but this tends to be in conflict with my players' goals which typically have nothing to do with saving this town and setting off the next plot node I prepared. In fact, last time I did this, events got out of hand and they burned the whole town to the ground after murdering a whole bunch of guards and one little girl in cold blood. I swear to god, the only way to coax them to actually follow a plot is to offer them something they couldn't already/weren't already going to steal.

Icewalker
2007-08-25, 12:28 AM
IMO if you have good players who aren't actively trying to defeat the game for fun, your best solution is absolutely no railroading at all.

If the players actually play the characters instead of playing a game, then you just need to set up a plot that the characters would jump at, and the players should follow. The only problem with no railroading is oftentimes they will cunningly rip a hole in your plot with some in-character and unintentional trick, so you need to be able to come up with results on the spot, as well as get them back on track without forcing anything.

Dervag
2007-08-25, 01:46 AM
Those last two posts have made me think a little about mine.

I guess the 'railroading' I'm proposing is mostly just aimed at restoring situations where the PCs accidentally break the plot, or where they perform a plot-breaking action on purpose but not because they are actually trying to subvert the plot.

No amount of railroading can do a good job of bringing anti-plot players 'back into line.' If their instinctive reaction is to slaughter any NPC in their way, steal any prize they can lay their hands on, and generally act like a pack of bandits, then there's really nothing you can do without creating an adversarial DM-player relationship, which is bad.

On the other hand, there's no law saying you have to try to DM a group that's driving you bonkers by murdering all your NPCs out of hand as soon as it becomes convenient to do so.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-25, 03:37 AM
IMO if you have good players who aren't actively trying to defeat the game for fun, your best solution is absolutely no railroading at all.

QFT.

PCs can't in fact "break" the plot. They can simply cause the plot to head to a different direction. Players doing unexpected things is part of what makes GM'ing fun.

Also, read the DMOTR webcomic for extensive satire on railroading.

bosssmiley
2007-08-25, 06:42 AM
Worst plot railroading that I ever had, one of the last games with that DM, StarWars setting.

We get to a part of some abandoned city which is domed off and has a door to enter. We try to force the door using technical skills (electronic bypass). Doesn't work. The jedi character then starts to melt the door (à la Episode 1) with his light saber. The door does't melt, the lightsaber doesn't scratch the surface. We look for another door, there is none. I suggest to dig under the wall, but we find an "impregnable force field" underneath. We try explosives, ship sized lasers, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, jedi mind powers on the walls and on the door and they are completely unharmed. I mean everything.

But no, we lost 4 hours of gameplay trying everything with the DM saying "No, doesn't work". Finally we give up, get up and leave, leaving the DM alone to cackle in his corner. I later learned that we were supposed to pick up a data slate somewhere in a hidden room in the ruins of the city and wave it in front of the door. Nothing else would of gotten the door open. Of course, there was his ultimate Killer Droid Of Doom Mark XIII waiting next to the data slate and we were supposed to fight it.

Worst. DMing. Ever. :smallannoyed:

That man needs lessons in how to GM. He should be making the players feel good about their character, not choking back their ingenuity. I mean, when in any of the three "Star Wars" films do you see characters wasting hours of their time trying to get a door open?

If the door is closed you blow it up!
If there are guards in the way, you shoot 'em or sneak around them.
If there's a key it's usually situated right in the heart of the adventure, preferably right near the BBEG so you can overhear his evil plans.

Take that man's books off him, slap him on the nose and tell him "No! Bad GM" until he has watched the holy trilogy and understands the idea of frenetic, edge of your seat, frying pan to fire, cliffhanging high adventure.

As for me: railroading happens, but not in an obvious way. I plot multiple solutions to problems (there's never '1 single right answer', usually 3) and the plot generally manifests itself in whatever direction the PCs have wandered in anyway. If the worst comes to the worst I have an appropriate mook squad turn up, shout "That's them! Kill them!", and just start a running battle back in the direction of the storyline. :smallwink:

There are good ways of railroading and bad ways. The good ways don't even feel like railroading to the players; they just feel like the logical path of least resistance.

Stephen_E
2007-08-25, 07:44 AM
I have to say that most of what is getting called "railroading" isn't what I call railroading.

If you hold up carrots to lure them into the plot piece that you want them in, it's not railroading. It's bribery. That's ok.

If you try to scare them into jumping into something, but leave them the choice of not jumping, it's not railroading. It's intimidation. That's ok.

When you don't want them to go through a door until they've gone elsewhere, and you simply say "you can't go through" no matter what they try, and how well they do things, that's railroading. It sucks.


When they chasing a villian and he appears to have gone through a portal that you want them to go through and they say "I guess we've lost him, cause we're sure as hell not jumping blind through his portal" and you frown and say "tough, the portal suddenly expands and sucks you in". That's railroading. It sucks. I've run into both these situations (yes I know the 1st sounds very reminicient of the star wars player's experiance. What can I say, poor minds think alike).

Basically if you refuse to let the players avoid something, or do something, no matter what, you're railroading.

Why does it happen? When you've put some effort into this lovely scenario and the players refuse to go into it, it's very tempting to make them appreciate it, goddamn it!

By the same token, if it's a story based campaign, and the players know this when they start the game, they're somewhat obliged to take broad hints, so long as the DM does make an effort to provide the PCs some reason suitable to the PCs to follow the path.

Stephen

Kiero
2007-08-25, 08:20 AM
Depends on the campaign and the group.

Precisely. Some people like strong direction, some prefer to take the lead. My own preference is to get buy-in for stuff, rather than forcing the issue.

Classic one is the beginning. Rather than trying to work the game into convoluted paroxysms to justify why these disparate people happen to be in the same place and time, and find a reason to work together, I just ask the players to tell me why they're there. And why they're working together.

Stephen_E
2007-08-25, 11:31 AM
Classic one is the beginning. Rather than trying to work the game into convoluted paroxysms to justify why these disparate people happen to be in the same place and time, and find a reason to work together, I just ask the players to tell me why they're there. And why they're working together.

I agree. As a player working out at game start with the other players why we're hanging out together provides a much better game experiance immersion wise rather than having to twist my PCs motivations to get him to hang out with the other party members.

Stephen

Diggorian
2007-08-25, 01:18 PM
Plot Railroading: noun -- the GM technique of leaving only one or a few possible ways to overcome a given obstacle in the narrative of a story despite the ability of other options to accomplish the same goal.

In my experience it's a practice of lazy/hostile/insecure GMs, like the Star Wars one above, or just inexperienced gamemasters learning the ropes -- sort of the "training wheels" of storytelling. The former type I dont deal with, the latter I can sympathize with and forgive.

Open-ended collaborative story telling is the very heart of RPing to me, and the one thing video games cant really attain yet that keeps the hobby alive.

As the GM matures in their art I'd expect the railroads to get more and more subtle or evolve into the intimidating and incentivizing (bribery) Stephen mentions, which show a lot of versimulatude.

Ideally the plot of a game should be the interaction of character-driven PC actions within a GM-created setting with enough creativity that something entertaining happens no matter how the story progresses.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-25, 01:35 PM
Its relatively easy to avoid railroading (as a DM). For each plot line, just figure out what will happen if the PC's do not affect it, affect it in a bad way and affect it in a good way. That way you don't feel the need to force them in one direction or the other because you don't have the other routes mapped out.

Crow
2007-08-25, 01:35 PM
Ok, hypothetical situation;

Let's say in our next session, the group has decided they want to go back to their "home" city, and try and get some work from the lord of the place. When they get there though, the gates have been jammed, barring entrance. If they talk to one of the gate guards, he suggests that if they want in, it will be a week before the engineer can fix the gates, or they could try and take the sewers...

Is this railroading? Could an argument be made both for and against the above scenario? I ask only because it is my experience that some players view any challenge to automatically be railroading. Is there someway to diffuse the "railroad switch" in players like this?

grinner666
2007-08-25, 01:41 PM
Ok, hypothetical situation;

Let's say in our next session, the group has decided they want to go back to their "home" city, and try and get some work from the lord of the place. When they get there though, the gates have been jammed, barring entrance. If they talk to one of the gate guards, he suggests that if they want in, it will be a week before the engineer can fix the gates, or they could try and take the sewers...

Is this railroading? Could an argument be made both for and against the above scenario? I ask only because it is my experience that some players view any challenge to automatically be railroading. Is there someway to diffuse the "railroad switch" in players like this?

Not railroading unless nobody in town has the ability to toss down a rope or lower a ladder from the top of the walls. The guard doesn't even have to suggest it; he just has to allow it to happen if the players think it up.

There. Three answers (assuming nobody in the party can climb or fly): rope, ladder, sewers.

Curmudgeon
2007-08-25, 02:01 PM
I think the only railroading should be handled out-of-game. That is, explain to the players that you're only going to reward full experience for undertaking the offered mission. Then let events unfold in the game world without any undue pressure. So the PCs can refuse an experience-only mission ("rescue the kidnapped orphans") and wait for some rich philanthropist to pony up a reward. Or they can let the ophans die, knowing they'll get no mission XP rewards for instead just fighting random wandering monsters, and earn sucky reputations among the townfolk.

Diggorian
2007-08-25, 02:05 PM
Crow, that's not a railroad until every single plausible option to overcome the jammed gates unreasonably fails and the sewers are choked with one fiendish double hit die otyugh per 15 ft.

Player protest may come from the lameness of this obstacle, as there's a bunch of ways to overcome jammed gates that even NPCs can devise. A better one is "the Noble is busy right now with important business". It's realistic, it's the reason you cant meet with your state governor on a whim. Yet, it may still be possible toget an audience with some creativity.

Drider
2007-08-25, 02:43 PM
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 <-- that is railroading.
I had a DM who would'nt stat out "social" npcs until we fought them, like
at level 1 DM: roll a bluff check
Me: natural 20+6
DM: *makes a blacksmith that blows every skill point on sense motive,skill focus sense motive, 18 wisdom* and visibly rolls a 5
DM: he does'nt believe you

Dervag
2007-08-25, 03:03 PM
Precisely. Some people like strong direction, some prefer to take the lead. My own preference is to get buy-in for stuff, rather than forcing the issue.

Classic one is the beginning. Rather than trying to work the game into convoluted paroxysms to justify why these disparate people happen to be in the same place and time, and find a reason to work together, I just ask the players to tell me why they're there. And why they're working together.My favorite is to work the characters together one at a time. That way, the party has a pre-existing social dynamic and you don't have to put in quite so much coincidence. It's easier to explain how four or five people came together one at a time along the road to a destination than how they all spontaneously met at that destination and "became friends."


Ok, hypothetical situation;

Let's say in our next session, the group has decided they want to go back to their "home" city, and try and get some work from the lord of the place. When they get there though, the gates have been jammed, barring entrance. If they talk to one of the gate guards, he suggests that if they want in, it will be a week before the engineer can fix the gates, or they could try and take the sewers...

Is this railroading? Could an argument be made both for and against the above scenario? I ask only because it is my experience that some players view any challenge to automatically be railroading. Is there someway to diffuse the "railroad switch" in players like this?As long as the PCs are allowed to pursue any other course of action they can think of instead (like flying over the walls, climbing them, convincing someone inside the city to let down a rope, or camping outside the city until the gates are fixed), it's not a railroad. The key is not to ban alternate courses of action, especially the option of "do nothing." It isn't railroading unless the party is unable to not react to the situation.

Another thing that makes for bad and annoying railroading is when this sort of challenge appears out of nowhere and doesn't fit into the larger universe. For instance, if the only gate into town is jammed and can't be opened for a week, the townsfolk are going to be worried, even frantic, unless they have a large food supply laid in already. There will be a big traffic jam and/or tent city around the gate from all the people who wanted to go into town and decided to wait rather than crawl through the sewers.

If those things aren't there- if there's nobody parked outside the gate and if the townsfolk appear to be quite happy with their current predicament- then it's obvious to the players that you constructed this challenge purely to inconvenience them and to force them to do something difficult where they should have been able to get through easily. They will resent this, and may consider it railroading.

If, on the other hand, the jammed gate is part of a larger world where disasters happen and have normal, predictable consequences, they may be less inclined to take it badly.


http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 <-- that is railroading.
I had a DM who would'nt stat out "social" npcs until we fought them, like
at level 1 DM: roll a bluff check
Me: natural 20+6
DM: *makes a blacksmith that blows every skill point on sense motive,skill focus sense motive, 18 wisdom* and visibly rolls a 5
DM: he does'nt believe youWhat were you trying to convince the blacksmith of?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-08-25, 03:20 PM
I ocassionally do that with social situations if what they're trying to convince the NPC of is completely stupid beyond belief, like when, say, they witness the PC commit murder and they say "Okay, I roll a bluff check to say 'I didn't do that'". That really does come up about four times per session for me, and I've stopped allowing it happen because it makes no sense. Regardless of how high his bluff check is.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-25, 03:22 PM
How about "A wizard dominated my mind and made me kill that man! There he is!" *Points into crowd*

1d20+46 = 56.

Make your sense motive check :smallwink:

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-08-25, 03:25 PM
Now, that would sound nifty if that wasn't about what they say every single time. It actually hampers my ability to make any realistic NPC encounter since they habitually kill all of them and use the bluff skill as a catch-all for getting around anything they can't immediately stab and/or light on fire. Either several guards in the city are assumed to have extremely high level sense motive checks or they will literally wipe the town out in the next day or so like evil locusts.

Evil DM Mark3
2007-08-25, 03:27 PM
Ok, hypothetical situation;

Let's say in our next session, the group has decided they want to go back to their "home" city, and try and get some work from the lord of the place. When they get there though, the gates have been jammed, barring entrance. If they talk to one of the gate guards, he suggests that if they want in, it will be a week before the engineer can fix the gates, or they could try and take the sewers...

Is this railroading? Could an argument be made both for and against the above scenario? I ask only because it is my experience that some players view any challenge to automatically be railroading. Is there someway to diffuse the "railroad switch" in players like this?

Nope. In fact this does not even qualify as a net. The PCs could just go home. Or the wizard could say "cool 1 week downtime, time to replenish my scrolls."

If the players knee jerk "railroad plot!!!!" you can deal with it in or out of game.

In game it goes "produce apparent railroad with several less obvious options" (above they could find out that there is a gnome with a blimp who wants to earn some cash. suddenly we have a taxi service for everyone for a week.). Out of game it is the same thing but often involves saying "I am not railroading, you aren't trying to find other solutions." followed by a list.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-25, 03:32 PM
Damn, ok. My bard generally doesn't kill people and try to get away with it anyways :smallbiggrin:

Glibness: You believe me.

Wow, crazy players.

Hmmm... I need a more imaginative lie. Ummmm....
Let's see. There's blood on my weapon, they just saw me stab someone, and he's now dead. I wasn't dominated, I was...

We can do the same thing with a variety of mind-affecting spells, but that's no fun.

"A wizard created an illusion of me stabbing that man, and then killed him with a fell needle of force."

Noo... the answer isn't "A wizard did it".

"This is Commander Sindar. *Flashes fake ID*. That man was a threat to the nation, as a deadly lycanthrope. We had to elimanate him. I'm sorry."

"I'm not the murderer you're looking for. Move along." (Must... beat... sense motive by 50+)

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-08-25, 03:45 PM
My players are... unique. They'd probably drive any other DM insane, but they're good buddies of mine so I'm fully aware that they're actively trying to beat me. Then along comes a new player that hasn't been given the memo yet and he's shocked to see how often they kill or try to kill NPC's and can't understand why their WBL by level 5 is around 400g each while the CR's per battle is about a level or two higher. Oh yes, I do have my vengeance. If they're gonna try to get away with everyone, I make sure it actually requires quick thinking and clever plans just to survive :smallwink:

Kiero
2007-08-25, 05:27 PM
My favorite is to work the characters together one at a time. That way, the party has a pre-existing social dynamic and you don't have to put in quite so much coincidence. It's easier to explain how four or five people came together one at a time along the road to a destination than how they all spontaneously met at that destination and "became friends."

For me I don't see the point in wasting the time to contrive it. We're all sitting down here to play a game, which is facilitated by working together. So skip the "getting to know you" and get on with the playing. If it really matters, we can make up some of that "how we met" stuff as we go, preferably as some amusing IC banter.

Dervag
2007-08-25, 06:47 PM
For me I don't see the point in wasting the time to contrive it. We're all sitting down here to play a game, which is facilitated by working together. So skip the "getting to know you" and get on with the playing. If it really matters, we can make up some of that "how we met" stuff as we go, preferably as some amusing IC banter.Well, what I describe is a personal preference, not a universal prescription. I guess it depends on how transparent you want to make the assumptions that "the party meets." If you're happy with "you all meet in a tavern," great. If you don't bother to describe the bit where you all meet and just assume that you've already met, that's cool. If you're in a tearing great hurry and don't want to waste time working out a one-by-one meetup, OK.

Diggorian
2007-08-26, 05:40 AM
I like to do the party forming like Dervag myself. New characters show who they are IC through initial description and I use that to find threads to weave them together. Although other times to get things going the players may just include each other in their backstories.

For uber-glibness, I've found it handy to use the party against itself. Bluffy Bardstein spins a great tale of how he didnt kill the guy he's standing over as the victim's blood drips from his unsheathed blade. Guard turns to his friend Fytor Social-Dumpstat and asks "What did you see?"

He rolls the bluff of a five year old with a crumb-smeared face standing next to the broken cookiee jar. :smallbiggrin:

Kiero
2007-08-26, 07:51 AM
Well, what I describe is a personal preference, not a universal prescription.

Likewise, which is precisely why my post was prefixed by "for me".


I guess it depends on how transparent you want to make the assumptions that "the party meets." If you're happy with "you all meet in a tavern," great. If you don't bother to describe the bit where you all meet and just assume that you've already met, that's cool. If you're in a tearing great hurry and don't want to waste time working out a one-by-one meetup, OK.

Er, I don't use that hackneyed device of "you all meet in a tavern" at all. I prefer, "you're watching guard on the caravan you were hired to protect, when..." or "you're on the path through the forest of Thingamabob, and..." or whatever else. In media res, right where it's all happening right at once is my preference. Either way, IMO the one-by-one meetup is less tiresome as IC discussion while other stuff is going on, or not at all if the players aren't interested.

Matthew
2007-08-26, 04:23 PM
Yeah, I have to admit I don't roleplay the actual meeting of the Characters. Invariably they know each other beforehand and something is thought up during the precampaign Character Creation Session/Hour/Whatever.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-08-27, 04:34 AM
Ok, hypothetical situation;

Let's say in our next session, the group has decided they want to go back to their "home" city, and try and get some work from the lord of the place. When they get there though, the gates have been jammed, barring entrance. If they talk to one of the gate guards, he suggests that if they want in, it will be a week before the engineer can fix the gates, or they could try and take the sewers...

Is this railroading? Could an argument be made both for and against the above scenario? I ask only because it is my experience that some players view any challenge to automatically be railroading. Is there someway to diffuse the "railroad switch" in players like this?


That's not rail roading that is the player's giving the DM a carrot. So much depends on the dynamics between the players and the DM. Maybe the DM is unprepared to run a city based adventure with his local Lord out of the blue.

Maybe the player's are just confused about the current adventure and what the plot is. Is it an exception to a normal hack and slay adventure?

What did the PCs do with the information from the guard? It tells a lot about the players.

Did they check out the walls (6' or 40') for any holes or weaknesses to circumvent the obstacle, talk to other NPCs, go home, go someplace else, bribe the guard or ask the guard where the sewers entrances are?

The players may just want a simple action game. They figure the Lord will know where the problem is in game. Some players really enjoy messing with their DMs and this is their idea of having fun messing with the general dynamics of the planned adventure.

The DM could have them Role play the week delay day by day. After a week or so they could be turned away by one of the Lord's staff for not making an appointment.

Does the wizard leave his very valuable spell book unguarded at the inn routinely? Does the fighter clank around in heavy armor everywhere when he isn't sleeping? Don't let him into inns or taverns or other establishments with dress codes? Is there a druid in the party? Does he have an animal companion? What does he do with it in town? People don't like having dangerous animals wandering around loose in town. Have the militia enforce the leash laws on animal companion pets.

The DM could have the party wait for a few hours kicking their heels to make an appointment because the Lord's secratary is busy while observing others being whisked right in probably all better dressed than the PCs (Hint hint Courtier's attire or better for the group).

When finally commented on someone could inform them it takes a week or two after you make an appointment for a good reason but is generally quicker from reliable sources with real problems or emergencies, not vagabonds looking for work.

This could be the players asking the Lord where the problem is so they can handle it. They may just want directions to the dungeon/problem so they kill monsters and get some treasure.

Marstead
2007-08-27, 04:50 AM
Although it's railroading, I like the "Prison Breakout" origin myself. If you have a villainous government somewhere in your world, you can have your players explain why they might be imprisoned (even if it's wrongful).

It makes a for a dynamic and exciting first adventure.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-27, 07:04 AM
I think the only railroading should be handled out-of-game. That is, explain to the players that you're only going to reward full experience for undertaking the offered mission.

That sounds like something not everybody would appreciate... in effect the DM is saying "follow my plot or I'll punish you (by not giving XP)". If you have halfway-decent players it's not that hard to motivate their characters to do something.