PDA

View Full Version : So... Is this still railroading??? TuT TuT!!!



Zephyros
2008-04-13, 05:15 AM
Well fellow playgrounders, I am running a new Campaign in the world of Disciples, but now not so involved in the Great Wars, yet.

STORYLINE, main plot hook:
In the far distant north-west provinces of the Nevendaar Empire, a wave of migration arrives causing severe strife between the new arrivals and the stressed from war-taxes and conscriptions. Which becomes even worse when the Theocratic and Magocratic (which shows signs of heresy) sects try (while competing) to solve this problems in the name of the Emperor. In the meanwhile the Elves start their own uprising as Gallean awakes.

With such a bulk of plot hooks one could think that the campaign would rather roll smoothly. BUT... I can't seem to be able to incorporate stuff about the character's goals.

The player's are complete newbies, very positive to role playing. Although they have extensive backrounds, I can't make them form any kind of a respectable team.

The roster consists of:
Human Fighter, former captain of the army, from the Nation that now leaks population into the Empire. Now a mercenary (boyfriend of ranger)
Elven druidess, abandoned to the forest, cuz her community thought she was cursed (my girlfriend)
Human Ranger (sister of my girlfriend) One of the victims of racism, as her mother was burned on the stake as a heretic (for being a foreigner and a sorceress)
Human Wizard, a low noble apprentice in a magic school, sent on the boarding school by his parents, lest that war reached their office-village. (buddy of mine)


Now some of u may point out that all of them could have a very goal of their own. They don't implement it in their actions. That leaves me to guide the storyline more strictly than I would like to... and do things such as abducting the rangers father etc. to force them into action.

What do u think about the situation? Is this railroading? Should I let them loose (though I fear this may cause the party to dissolve?)

Thank you for your time :smallbiggrin:

Dode
2008-04-13, 05:40 AM
Well yeah, but railroading is usually a good thing if you can pull it off well. This though sounds like mere direction. If you just say to the table "do whatever you feel like, this game is open ended" and then ensues a 3 hour debate over where the party wants to go because each player (all honestly intending to roleplay) is intent on meeting their characters' goals, ending in a compromise that spans weeks as each goal is met and isn't very satisfying as the actual intended storyline slows to a crawl.

Random stuff like "Abducting the ranger's father" though seems like a stop-gap solution at best. Once they save him, they'll be directionless again and you'll have to contrive of some new reason for them to all work together. The narrative you have in mind will start to degrade into a series of random mini-plots. However, if you can take that initial hook and weave in bits concerning all or at least most of the party's backgrounds, you can find that keeping the party "on the rails" isn't that hard at all.

Swordguy
2008-04-13, 06:02 AM
Technically, anything other than leaning back in your chair and saying "ok, we're starting the game now. What are you doing?" (and that being ALL you do) is railroading.

Dode is correct: there are acceptable degrees of railroading, and you're good by those standards. The important part is playing the game and having fun - and if the players are having fun and you aren't, then something needs to be done just as much as if you were having fun and the players aren't.

If they are newbies, then this is just the sort of thing you can do to give them a personal stake in an adventure and to engage their "how would your PC react to this?" muscles. You're good.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-13, 06:03 AM
Giving PCs a goal is not "railroading".

Roleplaying terminology isn't that difficult. Railroading refers, of course, to putting the players on tracks you've built and not letting them get off, at all, without "crashing the game".

It is never a good thing, because it by definition refers to unreasonable control and unreasoning obsession with sticking to your pre-planned plot, blocking all attempts by players to do something else.

Zephyros
2008-04-13, 07:34 AM
Well, to put it more forward, my problem...

(which might as well be only in my head. cuz they are all having a great time, as far as I can tell :smallbiggrin: )

...is that I am not satisfied by the fact that, once some minor annoyance occurs the general consensus (i think the players form) is the following:

"OK bears with lasers just burned the druids weed greenhouse. Let's kill those fcukers, cuz Sonya is a very good friend of ours IRL..."

And that's what really scares me: The fact that if I am to make them REALLY stick together (for whatever irrelevant reason) it will start stinking like a Train Depot. Of course someone could say that annoyances like these make the -to-be- band of heros form their friendship bonds.

ps: Yes, I hate railroading that much :smallsigh: (baaaaad experiences)

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-13, 07:44 AM
So the players actually don't want to stay together?

Why are you playing D&D, then? It's a game where a party of characters goes around doing stuff. Maybe try Risk or the OotS tabletop game or something instead?

Or, you know, talk to them, which is the only sensible solution to 99% of gaming group problems people ask help for on these boards. The premise of the game - of almost all RPGs - requires that the characters form a party and want to stick together. They have to actually play the game to enjoy it.