PDA

View Full Version : Need some helps vs. the Dreaded DMPC railroading. -_-



EndlessWrath
2008-08-19, 03:30 PM
So a few days ago... we had a meeting..in one of the 3 games I'm currently in.

I have to summarize the world for you just for a sec.

Our game... consists of 2 player groups... an evil side...and a good side... that used to be on the same team. I unfortunately have been forced on the good side...even if my character has no tie to it whatsoever. I've been forced onto the good team...because well... its 3 people. 3 people (and a few walk-in-gamers) versus The DMPC, and 4 other players... oh and 5 NPCs...all of which are higher levels then us. So we've been speed leveling to get to this point...

anyways... so we've gained a little team... and we move (3 players + 4 npcs... all lower levels then us.) get railroaded across 2 continents, an ocean, and 5 islands... all so we can hand over one of the NPCs to the bad guys.. so they can steal her powers. We didn't want to do this mind you... it was just one of those:
DM: "He takes the girl"
PC#1: "I stop him"
DM: "He's too fast"
PC#2: "I attack him"
DM: "You miss"
PC#2: "I haven't even rolled yet!"

Right before he takes the girl... I got fed up with the railroading...I sent my guy away from the group and had him barter his way into a fancy restaurant...and eat Prime Rib Steak for the equivalent...of a Dollar.

The entire Saturday wasn't really a game... more of like watching a movie or something... just one really long cut-scene. I love the game... but i hate this railroading.. and he's about to have us on another mission. So i beg you playgrounders... Give me some helps.

So far I've got this...
1) leave the good guy team: this won't work to well.. unless I want to go on solo missions for the rest of the game -_-
2) continue to just give up and keep ordering steak.
3) Force the DM purple lightning bolt upon me... it deals 300000000000000d20 dmg... auto hit.
4) leave the game.

I hate all of those options, so please gimme a hand.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-19, 03:33 PM
talk to your gm about it?

Kyeudo
2008-08-19, 03:38 PM
Tell your GM that his DMPCs suck and you are tired of the railroading. You want to be able to do things and have an impact on the story instead of being stuck following a script.

If he refuses to discuss it, I recommend a hammergun.

Talic
2008-08-19, 03:51 PM
Reasonable discussion is the first step, as my predecessors have said.

If that fails... Play along. Be a good little player... Wait for the perfect moment, and pull a Watchmen.

"And the people of the world will cry out, 'Save us!'
...and I'll whisper, 'no.' "

Wait for that perfect moment. It always comes along. The DM has something integral to his plot, and it's fragile and easily disrupted, and BAM! It's just been stabbed in the chest. You're the bad guy, right? So right at that climactic battle? Shank your buddies.

When they ask why? You had to get this game off the tracks somehow, and talking didn't work.

mostlyharmful
2008-08-19, 04:03 PM
Its as true now as when Belkar showed us all the true path of adventuring, When in doubt, set something on fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0270.html)

BRC
2008-08-19, 04:33 PM
Reasonable discussion is the first step, as my predecessors have said.

If that fails... Play along. Be a good little player... Wait for the perfect moment, and pull a Watchmen.

"And the people of the world will cry out, 'Save us!'
...and I'll whisper, 'no.' "

Wait for that perfect moment. It always comes along. The DM has something integral to his plot, and it's fragile and easily disrupted, and BAM! It's just been stabbed in the chest. You're the bad guy, right? So right at that climactic battle? Shank your buddies.

When they ask why? You had to get this game off the tracks somehow, and talking didn't work.
I approve of this plan entierly. Maybe buy a single bead of fireball or a blast disk, stick it on your character sheet, and don't do anything with it. Then, when the DM least expects it, say "I pull out my blast disk and throw it at [NPC'S] Head."

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-19, 04:47 PM
I approve of this plan entierly. Maybe buy a single bead of fireball or a blast disk, stick it on your character sheet, and don't do anything with it. Then, when the DM least expects it, say "I pull out my blast disk and throw it at [NPC'S] Head."As do I, but I'd suggest shelling out the cash for a full Necklace of Fireballs VII and a Glove of Storing. It'll set you back 20,000 GP, but then you can do this. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=191) Only not centered on yourself. Just wait for the right moment, and even a DM like this couldn't rule that the McGuffin/BBEG/Plot Device/Paladin survives. You win.

Recaiden
2008-08-19, 05:11 PM
Like everyone else says, talk it over with your DM, and explain that you want more control over what happens, and if the railroading continues, mess things up. Refuse to do adventures, necklace of fireballs, kill your entire party in their sleep, abuse any available game breaking things you know of, all the way up to "I cast awaken on this snake that i found and Wish that a Sarrukh would grant me manipulate form..."

BRC
2008-08-19, 05:16 PM
My explosive suggestion aside, talking it out should always be the first option. However, I don't have much hope. If you've got a railroader DM in the middle of his story it will be very difficult for him to sway from the path. Now, normally I would be careful to throw around a term like railroading, but from the looks of things there are actually more NPC's in the party than PC's, which means that the DM is effectively playing most of the game himself.

Swordguy
2008-08-19, 06:36 PM
My explosive suggestion aside, talking it out should always be the first option. However, I don't have much hope. If you've got a railroader DM in the middle of his story it will be very difficult for him to sway from the path. Now, normally I would be careful to throw around a term like railroading, but from the looks of things there are actually more NPC's in the party than PC's, which means that the DM is effectively playing most of the game himself.

must...resist...snark...overwhelming...

Ahh...screw it.

How is that unusual? Most gamers seem to spend a large amount of time playing with themselves.


(Psst! OP: Talk to your GM first, then blow up his campaign world.)

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-19, 07:58 PM
must...resist...snark...overwhelming...

Ahh...screw it.

How is that unusual? Most gamers seem to spend a large amount of time playing with themselves.


(Psst! OP: Talk to your GM first, then blow up his campaign world.)

O.o


this disturbs me greatly

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-20, 09:03 AM
Talk to the DM, and if he doesn't change his style, change DMs.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-20, 09:18 AM
Talk to the DM, and if he doesn't change his style, change DMs.

This is what I would suggest. Presumably, this fellow is also your friend. Although blowing up his campagin would be somewhat satisfying, it's not a good idea if you don't want there to be bad blood between you two. Better to just walk away and play another game.

Jimp
2008-08-20, 10:10 AM
I played in a game like this before. It was the usual IRL group of players but someone else was DM and I was a PC this time. It started off well but after an hour or two of trekking to reach a town it quickly devolved to 6+ hours of us talking to his interesting NPCs. Even the showdown with the bad guy we had been finding out about was like this. For a paraphrased reconstruction:
DM: "A magical field surrounds [bad guy] and [good guy] and they begin to duel."
PC 1: "Can we get through the field?"
DM: "No, you try but it shocks you and pushes you back."
PCs: *sigh* "Alright, we watch the duel."
Cue a lengthy description of the duel.
DM: ". . .and they vanish in a blinding flash!"
PC 2: "Any trace of where they went?"
PC 3: "Can my Detect Magic sense anything?"
DM "No and No."
Yeah, it wasn't the most action packed game. On the plus side we took our lack of influence to have nothing but fun at the NPC's expense. At one stage we were asked to deliver a message to an NPC at the other side of the city, so we summoned an orge, enlarged him, cast Tounges (I think) on him so he could speak a load of languages and rode him through the city, stamping on whatever we could as we went. Since the NPC was a wanted thief and the DM didn't want to guards to be lead to his door we got away scot free with everything :smallbiggrin:. Other similar activities included acting very inappropriately at an upper class ball, but we didn't get kicked out since we were to listen to an NPC's speech, and using Boots of Spider Climb to walk on walls and ceilings whenever possible, completely disregarding the floor and all those on it.
Tl;dr version: Let the DM run his railroad plot and make your own fun around it by doing ridiculous things and seeing what you can get away with.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-20, 11:25 AM
I played in a game like this before. It was the usual IRL group of players but someone else was DM and I was a PC this time. It started off well but after an hour or two of trekking to reach a town it quickly devolved to 6+ hours of us talking to his interesting NPCs. Even the showdown with the bad guy we had been finding out about was like this. For a paraphrased reconstruction:
DM: "A magical field surrounds [bad guy] and [good guy] and they begin to duel."
PC 1: "Can we get through the field?"
DM: "No, you try but it shocks you and pushes you back."
PCs: *sigh* "Alright, we watch the duel."
Cue a lengthy description of the duel.
DM: ". . .and they vanish in a blinding flash!"
PC 2: "Any trace of where they went?"
PC 3: "Can my Detect Magic sense anything?"
DM "No and No."
Yeah, it wasn't the most action packed game. On the plus side we took our lack of influence to have nothing but fun at the NPC's expense. At one stage we were asked to deliver a message to an NPC at the other side of the city, so we summoned an orge, enlarged him, cast Tounges (I think) on him so he could speak a load of languages and rode him through the city, stamping on whatever we could as we went. Since the NPC was a wanted thief and the DM didn't want to guards to be lead to his door we got away scot free with everything :smallbiggrin:. Other similar activities included acting very inappropriately at an upper class ball, but we didn't get kicked out since we were to listen to an NPC's speech, and using Boots of Spider Climb to walk on walls and ceilings whenever possible, completely disregarding the floor and all those on it.
Tl;dr version: Let the DM run his railroad plot and make your own fun around it by doing ridiculous things and seeing what you can get away with.

You know, that sounds like a lot of fun!

Frosty
2008-08-20, 11:43 AM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.

Jimp
2008-08-20, 11:49 AM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.

I think in this context it's one who let's the PCs have little to no influence in how anything turns out. Like a Final Fantasy game with less combat and no unlockables.

kamikasei
2008-08-20, 11:51 AM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.

To my mind, more or less "some things happen, you have no opportunity to change how they happen, there are no rolls, you take no actions or I tell you what actions you take," and so on. The game becomes a cutscene, something that the DM has decided must happen will happen regardless of whether it makes sense or should be open to player interference. The world behaves in a way that doesn't make internal sense so as to enforce the DM's external vision.

Frosty
2008-08-20, 11:57 AM
Well, sometimes there might be a cut-scene or two involved in a session...but an entire game of cutscenes would be boring.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-20, 11:59 AM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.

Removing player agency in a scene or in the game overall. "Railroading" typically implies doing this with negative results. If the players don't notice they didn't have agency in a situation (which requires subtlety and sparing use), they won't mind, and it's not "really" railroading.

Jimp described a game that was the definition of railroading. No matter what the PCs did, the GM's plot went on.

A GM who accepts the old, true, and vital maxim, "no plot survives contact with the players", and adapts rather than resisting or forcing, will almost by definition not railroad the players.

Talic
2008-08-20, 12:16 PM
My general Def of a RR DM is when the DM cares more about telling his story than playing the game. Yes, there's a plot. Yes, he/she did work developing it.

But when the DM's gonna have his epic chase through the sewers of the city, and darn it, no PC roleplaying is gonna stop him... Even if 3 of them are claustrophobic and one's a germophobe.

That's when you have a Railroad DM.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-20, 12:31 PM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.

I think the OP's example is a good one--the DM let the players have NO influence on the scene, even when they should have had an opportunity to act. Rather than force the kidnapping, he should have had two story paths ready--one if they rescued the girl from the kidnapping, one if they failed to rescue her. Making it hard to rescue her but let them roll some dice would have been much better. Making the players feel helpless is doing it wrong, IMO.

Now, realistically and honestly, I'd chat with the GM about it and explain to him that the situation is frustrating and unfun and work with him on this. That's my genuine advice.

But if the GM's uncooperative and you can't get out of the game yet, the malicious side of me says I'd just say IC, "You know what? I hated her anyway. Let's go get ice cream," and lead the PC's directly away from the plot, and refuse to respond to any GM prodding from that point forward. If the GM says, "But, but, if you don't rescue her, the world will end!" Say, "Good. It's a lousy world anyway where the heroes are constantly helpless. Go and destroy it already, so we can go have ice cream in real life. I'm running the next D&D campaign, by the way. Problem?"

But I wouldn't actually do that--fun though it might be! :smallamused: I'd honestly just talk to him about it, and leave the game if it didn't improve.

Waspinator
2008-08-20, 01:19 PM
Any DM is going to "railroad" to some degree if nothing else because they're the one whose creating the setting and therefore have a lot of control over whether or not things exist or are physically possible. Usually, though, when people talk about railroading it's usually in the sense that the players want to do something and it seems reasonable in-world for them to be able to do it, but the DM says no because it messes up his plot. Things like the NPC who won't die no matter what is shot at him and conveniently dodges everything, the villain who teleports away right before death and doesn't let anything trace his destination, and even more blatant things like the DM telling the players what their characters decide to do instead of giving them free will.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-20, 01:59 PM
Any DM is going to "railroad" to some degree if nothing else because they're the one whose creating the setting and therefore have a lot of control over whether or not things exist or are physically possible.

That's not removing player agency in a scene.

"I want a jetpack!"
"There are no jetpacks in Faerūn."

This is not railroading.

Again, Jimp's description is a better example of railroading than anything I could think of. It's such outrageous railroading there's not even an illusion of agency, and the importance of the PCs is nil. There is, however, a qualitative difference to what you describe in the above quote.

BRC
2008-08-20, 02:02 PM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.
My metaphore is a Railroad versus a Road Trip, a good DM makes his campaigns a road trip, a bad one puts his PC's on the railroad.

In both cases the DM decides where it's going and more or less whats inbetween. The difference is, with a Railroad there is no choice as to how you get there, when you get there, or what happens along the way. With a Road trip the PC's are getting there on their own, choosing their own path and all that. The point is that on the roadtrip, the players are the ones driving.

Chronos
2008-08-20, 02:42 PM
What *is* the definition of a railroad DM anyways? Sometimes, the DM's gotta advance the plot.The wonderful thing about a role-playing game is that the DM doesn't have a monopoly on plot. Plot is just what happens, and while the DM certainly has a greater degree of influence on what happens, everyone else has some influence as well.

EndlessWrath
2008-08-20, 03:06 PM
Reading all of this....

ok...
done.
-------
A lot of you gave me some good ideas! I can't help but notice the "talk to the GM about it" solution continues to pop up. I talked to him yesterday... his response "well the other team is gonna have some trouble with him too! don't worry!"

-_-

I don't mind pushes into the direction of a major plot twist... but this is way out of line. He was expecting me to do something about it..but 'twould have been out of character. Due to a backstory (that was basically handed to me by the GM) My guy's clan has been eradicated by his older brother... all that remains is 4 people. Him, his brother, and 2 others. So he's become Aspect of Wrath basically... Machiavelli of vengeance. My recent plan was to leave my group because its not advancing me anywhere toward killing the NPC brother... in fact its leading me away from doing that. I have to hunt down other people while not being able to pursue own goals. I can't kill any team members... and the other players are too difficult to find. Not that I would know... I'm not allowed a spot/search/gather info checks to even attempt to locate them... my spot check is +42 on bad days...

I also must note.. that I can't just go around screwing up the world...He'll either force me to stay in with DM purple lightning bolt (I would agree to letting him, if I hadn't already invested a year and a half into this game, I at least want the climactic duel between brother and me.) or I end up making it un-fun for the other players, particularly the other team...which his "co-GM" is on.

I will attempt for the Screwing around with npc's. I dun really care about our LG fanatic paladin's opinion anyways =P... he's the reason I'm on this stupid team. (CN character + LG + NE PCs on good team -_-)
-------------
Thanks for the help so far, don't hesitate to give more suggestions

Lochar
2008-08-20, 03:07 PM
The wonderful thing about a role-playing game is that the DM doesn't have a monopoly on plot. Plot is just what happens, and while the DM certainly has a greater degree of influence on what happens, everyone else has some influence as well.

Game I'm running here on the boards, I had a minor encounter with several NPCs. That night, two of them snuck back to attack, kill, and loot the PCs.

One, a rogue, died. The other, a conjurer, escaped. Nothing else would have happened (the conjurer would have never been seen again), except the players made such a fuss over his motives and such that he all of a sudden got a bigger position in the spotlight.

Therefore, Mr. Conjurer coincidentally managed to make a pact with a demon lord that's trying to subtly take over the world, and now the players have a relatively big plot device staring at them.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-20, 03:08 PM
A lot of you gave me some good ideas! I can't help but notice the "talk to the GM about it" solution continues to pop up. I talked to him yesterday... his response "well the other team is gonna have some trouble with him too! don't worry!"

Yes, this is why it's paired with "If that doesn't work, switch DMs."

How long did this discussion last? Doesn't sound like it was much of a one.

EndlessWrath
2008-08-20, 03:12 PM
Yes, this is why it's paired with "If that doesn't work, switch DMs."

I've already stated I don't want to swap GMs.. cause I don't wanna quit the game, and the game won't run unless he runs it (can't swap GMs within the group. nobody wants to).

Lochar
2008-08-20, 03:16 PM
Go with what's been said. When you can look down and see the tracks, paint 'em polkadots.

Since you're apparently looking for this NPC brother of yours (Itachi, where are you!!!), stop and ask literally every NPC you see if they know him, where to find him, etc.

Make sure to ask the DM if you're on a very busy street/town/whatever. "At least 50?" and then "I want to roleplay through talking to every one of them looking for my brother."

EndlessWrath
2008-08-20, 03:26 PM
Go with what's been said. When you can look down and see the tracks, paint 'em polkadots.

Since you're apparently looking for this NPC brother of yours (Itachi, where are you!!!), stop and ask literally every NPC you see if they know him, where to find him, etc.

Make sure to ask the DM if you're on a very busy street/town/whatever. "At least 50?" and then "I want to roleplay through talking to every one of them looking for my brother."

Thanks, and yes... he's basing all of it on itachi... except for the fact I'm a Hyuuga.

Paint em polkadots you say? then I shall. thanks for the advice.

Dervag
2008-08-20, 03:42 PM
That's not removing player agency in a scene.

"I want a jetpack!"
"There are no jetpacks in Faerūn."

This is not railroading.Yes, but something like, say, making the king unkillable is. However, it's usallyforgivable, because:

1)It's plausible that the king's personal defenses are so good the PCs have no chance of breaking them, and

2)It's very hard for the DM to create fun for the entire group unless the players follow some semipredictable rules. This is the flip side of railroading. I can't make an exciting adventure for the PCs unless I have at least a vague idea of how they will react to a given situation. I may not need to build railroad tracks, but I do need to put up guard rails here and there.

The reason is simple: I can't create enough content to cover everything the PCs might do. I can improvise to a point, but if the PCs are consistent enough about breaking my adventure hooks I'm just plain out of luck. Therefore, I may occasionally need to present the PCs with an unbreakable hook. If I don't, and they do break my hook, that is the end of this week's session because I have literally no idea how to give everyone a good time without the hook.

It happens to most DMs, I think. Ideally, you should give your PCs enough agency that they don't want to break your plot hooks, which is the mistake most railroaders make. But there will be moments when the quality of the overall cooperative storytelling exercise is improved by (briefly) suspending (some) PC agency.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-20, 04:28 PM
Yes, but something like, say, making the king unkillable is.

That depends. Does the king have stats that put him way out of the PCs' league, or are you just saying "No, you can't kill him. Nope. Your spell doesn't work. You miss. His armor deflects it" ?

The first isn't railroading, and the second is the very heart of it.

Jayabalard
2008-08-20, 04:38 PM
That depends. Does the king have stats that put him way out of the PCs' league, or are you just saying "No, you can't kill him. Nope. Your spell doesn't work. You miss. His armor deflects it" ?

The first isn't railroading, and the second is the very heart of it.THey're both equally railroading. The latter is obvious DM fiat and the former is DM fiat disguised by a thin veneer of rules.

Mewtarthio
2008-08-20, 04:42 PM
Only if it doesn't make any logical sense that the PCs shouldn't be able to kill the king. If you're playing in a high-powered world where you expect the king to be around level 15 while the PCs are still level 3, then they deserve what they get for trying to attack him. If, on the other hand, the PCs are level 15 and the king looks like an ordinary guy, then making him invincible counts as railroading.

What Tsotha-lanti probably meant was that, in the former case, you've already statted out the king, and therefore he's probably supposed to be incredibly powerful. In the latter case, you've likely arbitrarily made him invincible just because the PCs did something unexpected.

BRC
2008-08-20, 04:45 PM
In terms of Killing the King, that's different depending on the situation, if the premise of the campaign was that the PC's were an order of knights serving said king, the DM told the PC's this before character creation, and already had several adventures planned out, I would say the DM would be justified in saying a player couldn't kill the king, even if he reason was "How would you have gotten into this order of knights if you were the type who would just up and kill the king". In most cases however, I would go with a three-warning system in terms of plot derailment like that


Part One: Wait, are you sure you want to do that?
If the answer is Yes, go on
Part Two: I've already got things planned out for the next few adventures, you'd kinda be messing things up for me. Are you sure,
If the answer is STILL yes, then let the PC try (maybe other PC's will try to stop them, or the King's guards will try, or something) and just see what you can do with it if they succeed. In some cases, I would put it to a vote for the rest of the group, say something like this
"Alright, Player A wants to kill the king, and considering he's a wizard who prepped quickened disintegrate, he could probably pull it off before anybody had a chance to stop him. This would take things in a very different direction from what I have planned and what you expected from this Campaign, so let's put it to a vote, if you guys agree, the king gets dusted and I see what I can do, if you disagree, we go on with what I had planned and Player A can suck it up."

FoE
2008-08-20, 04:50 PM
I would say the DM would be justified in saying a player couldn't kill the king, even if he reason was "How would you have gotten into this order of knights if you were the type who would just up and kill the king"

"Two words: Jaime Lannister." :smallamused:

Actually, there is one thing you can do to communicate to the DM that his cutscenes are boring: act bored.

I'm totally serious. Pull out a PSP, start texting friends, start flipping through a magazine, fall asleep ... whatever. It might seem rude, but it might also work. :smalltongue:

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-20, 04:50 PM
THey're both equally railroading. The latter is obvious DM fiat and the former is DM fiat disguised by a thin veneer of rules.

Not really. Another old RPG maxim applies here: "If it has stats, it can be killed." (cf. D&D deities having stats.)

Lochar
2008-08-20, 04:52 PM
Not really. Another old RPG maxim applies here: "If it has stats, it can be killed." (cf. D&D deities having stats.)

This would be where I would link to the RPG Motivational Thread monster, if I could access the pic from work.

Aquillion
2008-08-20, 05:29 PM
THey're both equally railroading. The latter is obvious DM fiat and the former is DM fiat disguised by a thin veneer of rules.There's a huge difference between the two, though. The best DMs can railroad the players without ever letting them realize they're being railroaded -- in fact, they can set it up so the players will think they're pulling one over on the DM, when they're actually playing along.


The reason is simple: I can't create enough content to cover everything the PCs might do. I can improvise to a point, but if the PCs are consistent enough about breaking my adventure hooks I'm just plain out of luck. Therefore, I may occasionally need to present the PCs with an unbreakable hook. If I don't, and they do break my hook, that is the end of this week's session because I have literally no idea how to give everyone a good time without the hook.There are ways around this. One of the most important tricks to good DMing is to make things in a modular fashion, so you can rapidly switch them around to suit the circumstances.

The players want to defect from the empire and join the rebels that you'd intended to have as the villains (or vice-versa?) No problem! Just switch the scenarios around a little, and have the big bad you'd intended to have as a rebel show up as an out-of-line Imperial commander or whatever.

The thing is, it's important for the DM to not get too caught up with telling a story. Stories can be fun, but when the players want to change something, if you focus purely on preserving the mechanical things you prepared and accept that the story is up to the players now, you can usually salvage quite a lot.

Basically, it's not possible for players to go into the wrong dungeon, or to save the wrong princess, or whatever, because (although you should never tell them this) you're going to use the same notes regardless, with the serial numbers filed off.

Of course, cutscenes are harder to salvage. But if you're the DM who regularly goes into carefully-scripted cutscenes (like this one), you deserve to have your cutscenes ruined. Jerk. If I wanted to watch Final Fantasy 17 playing itself, I'd be playing Final Fantasy 17, not D&D.

Jayabalard
2008-08-20, 05:34 PM
There's a huge difference between the two, though. The best DMs can railroad the players without ever letting them realize they're being railroaded -- in fact, they can set it up so the players will think they're pulling one over on the DM, when they're actually playing along.They're both still railroading, even though one is often more palatable than the other to some people.

Knaight
2008-08-20, 05:41 PM
Yeah, so? The goal isn't to model reality, its to create an acceptable illusion, the same thing applies to choice. That said, if you just don't railroad, the players can't find out. I'm thinking you don't GM much Jaybalard, since odds are your GM does that to you without you knowing it, and you enjoy the game(if you don't why are you playing it?).

Jayabalard
2008-08-20, 05:49 PM
The goal varies depending on the game system and the group; in some cases modeling reality is indeed one of the goals.

Keep in mind that I didn't say anything about whether railroading is good or bad. Just that I don't see a difference between the types of GM railroading mentioned; it doesn't matter whether you do that by making the NPC ridiculously powerful, or by just adjudicating the game in such a way that the NPC doesn't get killed.

BRC
2008-08-20, 05:52 PM
I think the point is that there needs to be an understanding between the DM and the players. It's pretty much impossible to DM without railroading the players in SOME way, even if it's just rolling on a chart to see which monster is living in the cave the PC's randomly decided to turn into a stronghold, your still deciding that they will fight a monster. The only way to not railroad at all whatsoever would be like this:

DM: so, what do you guys want to do.
Player: I want to fight a juvenile red dragon that randomly attacks us on the road!
DM: okay, your on the road and a Juvenile red dragon sweeps down and attacks you.

Also, railroading works at varying levels for varying groups. A group of newbies may need a few tracks to guide them, maybe a few obvious hints. On the other hand, a group of more creative or experienced players may need nothing more than hearing a rumor of something going on in the graveyard, ten minutes investigating, and then the DM listens to his Ipod for half and hour while the players concoct "Operation Hide ourselves in coffins with bottles of air so when the necromancers come we can jump out and surprise them."

The point is, a game works best when the DM correctly judges the amount of railroading the group needs, and the group obligingly grabs the DM's plothooks.

Knaight
2008-08-20, 05:57 PM
If you have an acceptable illusion, thats as close as you need. What constitutes an acceptable illusion varies dramatically between person, and between genres and games, but thats all a GM really needs. And railroading is an extremely loaded term, thats like comparing someone to Hitler, but not explicitly stating that you dislike Hitler(I know that I just invoked Godwins law here, but I can't think of anyone else as famous and universally reviled). Somewhat less severe, granted, but its the same thing. Adjucating that the NPC doesn't get killed when the players kill it is also an entirely different thing than making them ridiculously powerful. Said NPC can be avoided, ditched, and probably killed indirectly. Railroading would be when said NPC always seemed to be there despite reasons not to be, and the people couldn't kill them indirectly, where there was just nothing that could be done and the PCs were going to be dragged kicking and screaming along with the plot.

chiasaur11
2008-08-20, 06:03 PM
If you have an acceptable illusion, thats as close as you need. What constitutes an acceptable illusion varies dramatically between person, and between genres and games, but thats all a GM really needs. And railroading is an extremely loaded term, thats like comparing someone to Hitler, but not explicitly stating that you dislike Hitler(I know that I just invoked Godwins law here, but I can't think of anyone else as famous and universally reviled). Somewhat less severe, granted, but its the same thing. Adjucating that the NPC doesn't get killed when the players kill it is also an entirely different thing than making them ridiculously powerful. Said NPC can be avoided, ditched, and probably killed indirectly. Railroading would be when said NPC always seemed to be there despite reasons not to be, and the people couldn't kill them indirectly, where there was just nothing that could be done and the PCs were going to be dragged kicking and screaming along with the plot.

You could have used Stalin. He's almost as good as Hitler. Plus, he got a robotic duplicate built by alternate universe Disney in an issue of Fantastic Four!

Jayabalard
2008-08-20, 06:04 PM
I think the point is that there needs to be an understanding between the DM and the players. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing generalities, I'm disagreeing with a specific case:

That depends. Does the king have stats that put him way out of the PCs' league, or are you just saying "No, you can't kill him. Nope. Your spell doesn't work. You miss. His armor deflects it" ?

The first isn't railroading, and the second is the very heart of it.THey're both equally railroading. The latter is obvious DM fiat and the former is DM fiat disguised by a thin veneer of rules.To make sure that I'm being clear, I find that both of these are railroading, and that I don't see any fundamental difference between doing so by ranking the kings power up through the rules or doing it by adjudication. I'm talking about this specific case, and not generalities.


If you have an acceptable illusion, thats as close as you need. As I've been saying, I find neither of the cases that I've been talking about to be acceptable illusion; I don't see any fundamental difference in them.


Railroading would be when said NPC always seemed to be there despite reasons not to be, and the people couldn't kill them indirectly, where there was just nothing that could be done and the PCs were going to be dragged kicking and screaming along with the plot.Sorry, but I disagree; railroading is forcing players down a specific path, not just the extreme cases that you're talking about. Some people like it, some people like it to a degree, and some people really hate it when you try to add a plot to the game.

Knaight
2008-08-20, 06:09 PM
Those particular cases really aren't an acceptable illusion. Because you know of them. If regardless of where the players go, they run into a castle eventually its not railroading. The players never know, so its typically an acceptable illusion. Railroading would be forcing them to enter for the plots sake, since thats the specific path. The other lets the players do what they want, and builds the world as the GM wanted anyways, within reason.

Jayabalard
2008-08-20, 06:10 PM
Those particular cases really aren't an acceptable illusion.Correct, that's what I said.


TIf regardless of where the players go, they run into a castle eventually its not railroading. Quantum castles/dungeons (which is what you seem to be talking about) are indeed railroading. You might find them to be acceptable, but some people do not.

Aquillion
2008-08-20, 06:21 PM
Quantum castles/dungeons (which is what you seem to be talking about) are indeed railroading. You might find them to be acceptable, but some people do not.How... how is it possible to DM without using 'quantum' features at least occasionally? I always assumed it was one of the most basic techniques there is, and I always keep a handful of generic encounters on hand that can quickly be pulled out if something is needed.

Without using the occasional quantum component, you'd have to either constantly invent complicated things on the fly (which would slow the game down massively), perfectly predict everything the players do, or generate an absolutely massive quantity of stuff that never gets used.

When I put a lot of time into preparing something, yes, of course I'm going to find a way to use it eventually... maybe not the same way I originally intended, maybe with small or dramatic changes to fit what the players have done since, but I can't imagine simply crumpling it up and tossing it in the trash because the players decided to turn left instead of right.

If the players make a conscious effort to reject something, that's a bit different (although I'd still see what I could salvage.)

But suggesting that a DM should simply discard a portion of the adventure that the players never saw, and never try to use it again, simply because the players didn't happen to go down that particular corridor? That's silly. There's no purpose to that. It makes the game less fun for both the DM (who wastes perfectly good effort) and for the players (who end up with a world and an adventure that has less effective time put into playing it.)

If I put time and effort into making a special magical item, the players will encounter it eventually, at least. If they want to immediately turn around and sell it, that's up to them, but throwing the work and concept away forever just because someone failed their search check in the original place I intended for them to find it makes no sense at all to me.

Obviously I would never actually admit this to the players, because it breaks immersion. But it's common sense.

Dervag
2008-08-20, 06:30 PM
Only if it doesn't make any logical sense that the PCs shouldn't be able to kill the king. If you're playing in a high-powered world where you expect the king to be around level 15 while the PCs are still level 3, then they deserve what they get for trying to attack him. If, on the other hand, the PCs are level 15 and the king looks like an ordinary guy, then making him invincible counts as railroading.

What Tsotha-lanti probably meant was that, in the former case, you've already statted out the king, and therefore he's probably supposed to be incredibly powerful. In the latter case, you've likely arbitrarily made him invincible just because the PCs did something unexpected.I understand.

The PCs should not be deprived of their ability to influence events, but the DM shouldn't either. A sufficiently determined group of PCs can make it impossible for the DM to create anything or have any perceptible effect on the PCs' actions, and that takes the principle a little too far.

Obviously, in such a case, the game isn't going to work, because it's adversarial. But in less extreme cases, the PCs may very well casually commit acts that cause enormous difficulty for the DM. If those actions are reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances (trying to fight a hostile monster the DM wanted them to talk to), it's the DM's own fault for not planning. But sometimes those actions are inappropriate or inadequately thought out. It happens.

In those situations, I can't blame a DM for rushing some kind of arbitrary patch into the game to keep the PCs from forcing him to completely rethink the entire setup. If the PCs want to assassinate a friendly king, fine, but that's a major shift in the kind of story the group is involved in. It shouldn't be done lightly or willfully.

Which, again, is not to say I approve of games that are nothing but an endless cutscene with scripted fights.

Jayabalard
2008-08-20, 06:45 PM
But suggesting that a DM should simply discard a portion of the adventure that the players never saw, and never try to use it again, simply because the players didn't happen to go down that particular corridor?If you'll note, I didn't actually suggest this.

I realize that the "some people" might be misleading; I don't include myself in that group. I'm saying that I think it's always railroading, not that it's always bad railroading or bad GMing (only when badly done). As long as it's well done (you don't force players into it after they reject it), it's a really useful tool for a GM and only a very small minority are going to have problems with it.