doing the unexpected

[tobian]

So I have a question for everyone. Well, chances are more DM's will answer this than players, but you never know.

DM Version: How often do your players do something totally unexpected from the plot you envisioned?
Do you railroad if need be? Have you ever had to railroad forcibly back on the main plot for the sake of your sanity?

Player Version: How often do you end up going off the plot the DM envisioned?

I dunno, but I was thinking (and i've talked to the DM recently) and I dont think our group has followed the plot that we were "supposed" to since we have started this campaign we are currently in. (Aside from the published adventure we seeded the campaign from, and even so) Our last few adventures have been definitely great however, partly from the fact that we did the totally unexpected, forcing new options to become opened to us.


And, IMO, making our DM think on the spot is kind of funny.

But, any stories about doing the unexpected/going off in a new direction? And, since it must be asked, did hilarity ensue?

[Skjaldbakka]

As a DM, that almost never happens to me. I don't tend to have a plot along the lines of "this is what the party is going to do". My plots tend to be more like "This is what is going on right now in the world, and this is how it should effect the players".


As a player, I tend to be DM plot-friendly, and try not to de-rail the plot. However, there was this one time, at bard camp . . .

. . . but seriously, the most harm I tend to do as a PC is skipping plot arcs because I see where something is going and try to cut it off early. I recently played in a local gaming league, and my group developed a reputation of killing the plot with our brain. We kind gypped ourselves on loot that way though, because we avoided a lot of fights, and thus loot.

[Piccamo]

In my current campaign its a player-driven, goal based campaign with no real overarching plot. Its the first group of adventurers in my hombrewed world so its being run like a sand-box. If they don't want to go off on an adventure, I won't make them.

[Indon]

My current campaign is relatively railroaded, in that the DMPC leads them around to places they need to be (He's a Sidereal exalt, wonderful for a plot device) and then I try to encourage them to solve the problem(s) I present for them.

To be honest, my group hasn't particularly minded being railroaded, probably because this is their first Exalted campaign and they're unfamiliar with the world. I expect they'll start to take more liberties in the future.

[Fixer]

I find my players work best in an independent world. Meaning the world will continue to do things even if the players distract themselves (setting up thieves' guilds, robbing entire cities, murdering nobles, etc.) from the overall events of the world. Usually the PCs catch on to trouble just before the point of no return and discover innovative ways of saving their characters' lives. Sometimes, they do not and the world ends/transforms into Hell. Either way, the players get entertainment out of it.

[SpikeFightwicky]

As a DM: All the damn time... I usually prepare some contingencies for any decisions the PCs have to make, so it doesn't look like I've been taken unawares. From my experience, whatever you think the PCs will do, they'll likely do the opposite, in a very destructive way. I never railroad, though. I'll make sure to leave some way to get the adventure back on course, but it's up to the players in the end. I believe in the 'Point, but don't prod' way.

As a PC: Depends on the DM. If I know my DM won't be able to think something up on the fly, I'll usually try to keep myself civilized, but if my DM is quick on their feet, I won't have any qualms over doing something that doesn't jive with the overall plot, as long as it's not disruptive or annoying to the other players.

[Dark Tira]

As a DM: My player's are impossible to predict so I've pretty much planning too much in advance. I do have semi-modular encounters which is kinda railroadish but the only things I consistently plan my players on doing is either something completely stupid or ingenious.

As a Player: I don't know if we've ever stayed with the plot the DM envisioned.

And as a note to players: When a switch summons a souleater between you and the door out of the room the solution is NOT to flip the switch another half dozen times. It really pisses DMs off when you force them to TPK you all.

[Spacefrog]

My players seem to have a habit of ignoring my overarching plots but taking adventures I'd intended as one-offs and turning making them into the focus of the campaign.

For example, as a distraction from the main storyline I had a nobleman send them on a mission to retrieve a magical cup from a vampire's castle. They killed the vampire, returned the cup -- and then set themselves up as masters of the castle and started conquering the nearby goblin tribes. (This is in Droaam, for those who know Eberron.) The rest of the campaign has been about how they've consolidated their power in the region, fought off other warlords, etc., and it's been enormous fun.

[lotofsnow]

Well, I'm pretty new to the DM thing, so I railroad a bit too much (we've only done two sessions, so not a ton has happened). I excuse my railroading saying that we have several folks that have never played before, and it is important to get them acclimated to the mechanics before I turn them loose. Starting today, though, the players will be able to make some decisions.

Trying to get a sense of what they are looking for in a game, I made a post on our group forums asking what type of adventures they want to do (hack n'slash or puzzles). One player responded:

"I actually want neither. I'd rather we go on a whistle-stop, barnstorming tour touting "Holden's Holistic Health Honey" and "Abradai's All-Be-Done Abrasive" to unwitting country folk and naive city dwellers. With enough beige linen suits, opalescent apothecary bottles, rosewood canes, and "Enron's Energizing Effervescent Edibles" we can become inter-national sensations, selling wares to prince and pauper alike."

Sigh. This could be a bumpy ride.

[valadil]

What I like about DMing is the improvisation. If my players did what I expected all the time I'd grow bored of them and have to get new players.

[YuanTi]

I let my group do what they like. Obviously they don't go and kill the King etc. but I've had myself making dungeons out of scratch when they decide to dovetail off somewhere. (Best one was when this happened then got praised for my clear good planning )

Seriously, you shouldn't need to railroad your characters. Most groups will try to stick to the plot, but if they go off on a tangent, let them. Obviously if it slows down, orders from superiors, and random attacks from the bad guys are reasonable, but sly(ish) ways of dealing with it.

[Diggorian]

As DM I encourage the players to surprise me. I figure with running the world the least they can do is create most of the plot with their characters. If I merely wanted to usher the protagonists from scenario A to B to C, I wouldnt even run. Unexpected imput is the fun of collaborative storytelling.

The world vaguely exists around the party and it gets richly detailed as they move through it. Two newly acquainted PC's are arguing about trusting each other as they walk down the corridor of a hostile alien ship. Tired of this, I mention they feel a rythmic pulsing in the deck, then they hear thuds accompanying them. They explain it as battle damage elsewhere until a cross between and ogre and a T-Rex rounds the corner and spots them.

The arguing stops and now they're grappling to get through a closed door in the corridor. One PC pulls out a stunner and stuns the other for several rounds, leaving them helpless to the curious monster slowly approaching. Then I cut to other PCs in another place, letting the suspense marinate.

My experience as a player has shaped my DMing. I HATE railroads. If my character cant act realistically according to how I've made them, they're not really my PC are they? Just a role.

[lotofsnow]

My experience as a player has shaped my DMing. I HATE railroads. If my character cant act realistically according to how I've made them, they're not really my PC are they? Just a role.

Maybe I'm confused about what railroading is then. I was under the impression that railroading is kind of ushering PCs in the right direction. Dropping clues and such that convince them that this is the right direction.

I would never consider telling a PC "you can't do that" if it is within the character's abilities to do whatever it is he's trying to do. I think that is entirely against the feeling of the game. The characters react realistically to what is presented to them.

The whole fake elixir thing my player proposed in half jest above, I actually encourage. I think it could make for a ton of great stories (getting chased out of town by customers wielding pitchforks and torches, etc.).

[barawn]

DM Version: How often do your players do something totally unexpected from the plot you envisioned?

Every single freaking session. My PCs are like cats. Dangle something in front of them, and they completely forget what they were doing a minute ago. There are umpteen half-completed plot threads dangling about.

Do you railroad if need be? Have you ever had to railroad forcibly back on the main plot for the sake of your sanity?

I don't railroad heavily, no. The 'loss of sanity' part comes in trying to keep track of the consequences of their actions, since I plan out the overarching plot pretty far out. Usually the plot itself forces the characters back somewhat, considering I generally assume if the PCs don't fix it, Bad Things Happen.

It also helps to plan stories based on contingencies, rather than timelines - i.e., when this happens, then this happens. That way if the story goes off track, if it gets back on track, you've still got (some) prep for it.

[The New Bruceski]

Well, I'm pretty new to the DM thing, so I railroad a bit too much (we've only done two sessions, so not a ton has happened). I excuse my railroading saying that we have several folks that have never played before, and it is important to get them acclimated to the mechanics before I turn them loose. Starting today, though, the players will be able to make some decisions.

Trying to get a sense of what they are looking for in a game, I made a post on our group forums asking what type of adventures they want to do (hack n'slash or puzzles). One player responded:

"I actually want neither. I'd rather we go on a whistle-stop, barnstorming tour touting "Holden's Holistic Health Honey" and "Abradai's All-Be-Done Abrasive" to unwitting country folk and naive city dwellers. With enough beige linen suits, opalescent apothecary bottles, rosewood canes, and "Enron's Energizing Effervescent Edibles" we can become inter-national sensations, selling wares to prince and pauper alike."

Sigh. This could be a bumpy ride.

That sounds quite amusing. I assume it was put forward by a Face (influencer, charisma-monkey, many names for it) hoping to use his talents?

Depending one the feelings of the rest of the party, there's certainly opportunities for puzzles (That "shortcut" around customs got you lost; that was bad enough before the ground collapsed, dropping you in some musty tomb) and combat (the sellers of Bartholemew's Boundless Beneficent Balm prefer to eliminate the competition without undercutting their prices.) so the other players aren't bored.

[lotofsnow]

That sounds quite amusing. I assume it was put forward by a Face (influencer, charisma-monkey, many names for it) hoping to use his talents?

Depending one the feelings of the rest of the party, there's certainly opportunities for puzzles (That "shortcut" around customs got you lost; that was bad enough before the ground collapsed, dropping you in some musty tomb) and combat (the sellers of Bartholemew's Boundless Beneficent Balm prefer to eliminate the competition without undercutting their prices.) so the other players aren't bored.

Oh, we'll have fun with it. The character proposing it, Abradai, is a Swashbuckler, and he definitely has the highest Charisma in the group.

[Diggorian]

Maybe I'm confused about what railroading is then. I was under the impression that railroading is kind of ushering PCs in the right direction. Dropping clues and such that convince them that this is the right direction.

Railroading is called that cause a train cant leave it's tracks without wrecking. I've seen it take passive and active forms.

The plot hook is in the tavern, as usual, but my paladin is new in town and wants to visit the local temple. The DM forced to improvise, and bad at it from railroading, gives a lackluster description because that part of his world is undetailed (passive). I had some say point blank, "I need you to go to the tavern." Town militia come to me and conscript me as a warrior of order, since paladin is stamped on my armor, to quell a bar fight at the tavern (active). If I say no, or in a moment, I'm made to feel my god frowning.

The passive form is more forgiveable, active is a form of bullying. My fighter is offered 50gp, none upfront, to destroy a band of goblins nearby. I ask for more, NPC says no, the fighter declines the offer. He steps outside the tavern and is suddenly assailed by three goblin commando fighter/rogues each several levels higher than me. They kidnap me if not outright murder me.

What you and I do Snow is lure PCs to adventure. They can do what they want without wrecking the story. A huge advantage tabletop has over computer RPGs is that you're supposed to be free.

[CrazedGoblin]

in the last issue of the campaign i ran they managed to go in a direction i would never of imagined it, instead of going through the door infront they decided to run back to a gypsy camp

[Jonesh]

I think i've been a GM for 4 sessions now or maybe three and my first three (or perhaps two) sessions were very railroaded, I just planned module encounters (that's right huh?) with few choices on how to solve them and find the next encounter. I also had a group of guards make like the Spanish Inquisition and arrest them very quickly and suddenly. Well, they had slaughtered the guards' colleagues and the guards' themselves wereonly next door, but they were very good at quickly opening doors and such :P

Last time (the day before yesterday) however, I improvised nearly the whole adventure. I knew what was going on and such, I just filled in the details and such. I'm pretty happy with my improvisation and the session in general, but my players seem to be metagaming (if I understand that word correctly) a whole deal and I don't like it.
But hey, 's fun anyways =3

As a player, I think I do try to hold myself to the "plot". It's mostly enjoyable anyways so why not?

[Green Bean]

My group has left the rails a couple of times, but it's only really been a disaster once or twice. Of course, the problem is that when our group deviates, we really deviate. Like that time the sorcerer made an NPC eat a fireball. Good times, but it's things like that when we just tell the DM; "You know what, you can just retcon that."

[lotofsnow]

What you and I do Snow is lure PCs to adventure. They can do what they want without wrecking the story. A huge advantage tabletop has over computer RPGs is that you're supposed to be free.

Ok. I see we are on the same page.

Yeah, I think bullying is a good name for that other stuff.

Luckily, my old DM was very open. He'd encourage us to stick to the story, but he was very relaxed. Actually, I'm not even sure if he'd encourage us to stick to the story. I think we'd just run amok until it lost some of it's flavor, and then we'd return to the adventure.

I fondly remember my Changeling Favored Soul of the Traveler using a combination of diplomacy and shape-shifting to get access to the library of the local Church of the Silver Flame in our Eberron Campaign. I actually had a long talk with the head librarian there, completely improvised by our DM. He could have totally fudged a diplomacy roll or whatever to get me hauled off by the guards, but he liked what I was trying to do: nothing malicious, just trying to get information. That librarian actually became my chief source of Knowledge check type info in that town. The DM would actually skew the information I would get to have a more Lawful Good religious feeling to it. Fantastic. I miss that guy.

[Ravyn]

My players.....

Well, it all started in the second session of the first real Exalted campaign I'd ever run. I'd set them up for their first encounter with a subset of the Abyssal NPCs who were supposed to be running antagonists, and two escorts (I was new, they were new, having expositionary mouthpieces seemed like a good idea). Perfect setup for some nice epic clashing. Original idea was to do a parallel enemies thing for the tension it sets up.

.....and what do they do? They recruit them.

...then again, this is also the group that tells people who are way too strong for them they know things that should get them killed (approximate "how do I get them out of this?" time: at least half an hour), yells at gods in confrontational manners, and includes one member who will cheerfully negotiate with Primordials and another who once referred to one of the Neverborn as "the poor thing" despite the fact that the main reason they were talking about it was it having taken control of one of his allies.

Which... has actually done amazing things for the plot (okay, the bits of plot that I fished out of the rubble and pieced together something new from, when I wasn't making things up as I went along). Besides, living well is the best revenge: I give them enough twists and surprises to match that one of my players once commented that "In most games, when you meet with the Big Bads of the setting you're going to fight with them. In this game, you're probably going to sit down and get some tea."

And of course, I give as good as I get when I'm playing, generally involving alternate paths, unlikely questions that somehow fit into the local magical physics, and plans that shouldn't possibly work but do anyway. It's fun, and they seem to enjoy it.

[Saph]

So I have a question for everyone. Well, chances are more DM's will answer this than players, but you never know.

DM Version: How often do your players do something totally unexpected from the plot you envisioned?
Do you railroad if need be? Have you ever had to railroad forcibly back on the main plot for the sake of your sanity?

I think I'm a bit unusual as a DM in that I never have any problems with players not doing what I envisioned.

The reason is that I don't have any guidelines for how the PCs are supposed to do things. I just tell them what they have to do. How they do it is up to them. Since there are only a finite number of approaches that have the smallest chance of working without getting them all killed, this kind of puts a limit on their freedom of action.

At the moment, I'm running a campaign which is fairly strictly railroaded. I based it off an old console RPG I used to love playing, and the PCs are mostly following the same track the characters from the game did. However, the reason they're following the track is that there really isn't any other way of doing things that has much of a chance at working. Choosing to follow the overarching plot isn't an issue, either, since if they don't complete mission X by time Y, their world's climate control systems will break down and everyone on the planet will die, including them. So I haven't had much issue with them not wanting to do the quest. Of course, it helps that the plot generally leads them through interesting things, rewards them with lots of gold and XP, and allows for shopping trips, sidequests, etc.

I also made this clear to the players from the start. I actually sent around a campaign quiz where I asked: "How much railroading vs. freedom of action do you want? The two extremes are railroaded (Your mission is to do X, there is no alternative) and open (Here's a map of the world, go find something to do, it's not my job to keep you busy)." They picked the railroaded option.

That said, I've also ran a campaign with no plot whatsoever. The PCs were a group of mercenaries, and they could take missions, avoid missions, go exploring, or basically do whatever the hell they wanted. And that worked fine too.

- Saph

[Raum]

I've GMed more Shadowrun than D&D but I don't remember any plot going completely as initially conceived without deviation. However, once I learned to expect the deviations most of my plot lines were planned as decision trees rather than linear stories. So even when the PCs' actions weren't what I'd expected it was relatively easy to deviate down the nearest decision branch. Usually.

As for railroading, I've tried to avoid it. Can't say I've always been successful, but I dislike it as player and prefer not to inflict it on others. The world is a "living" world though, not static. The environment and NPCs will react appropriately to PC actions. In other words, issuing a warrant for PCs suspected of criminal activity should be expected...doing so isn't something I consider railroading.

[DArva]

I've only run one long campaign, a Vampire:TM game, lasting around 2 years or so. There was absolutely no railroading though. ::laughs:: Generally the plot formed itself around the characters, I would look back at snap decisions that lead to intricate plot details and interesting balances of power, wondering how I'd managed to pull things together so well, patting myself on the back, before i remembered that it was all the players doing.

Though, it's hard to have an overarching plot when you have no notes of any kind, and start every session off with no planning, just "Ok guys, last game you were here... what're you going to do?" and riffing off what the players do.

I did have characters that blew up what we were doing currently, like the mage who tried to absorb quintessence while in a part of the umbra that was evil and sentient..... The only thing I could even remotely think to do to him was basically have him possessed, which obviously totally changed the direction things were going in.

[banjo1985]

I suppose I may be a little guilty of some railroading as a GM, I always try to have an overarching story as the back drop to my campaigns and have the characters central to that story. I never say to a player "you can't do that" or similar, but if I have certain things in the plot that need to happen or a place i need the characters to be, then my god they're gonna end up there, though probably not in the way I originally planned!

The story acts as a backdrop and overarching plot, whilst the character develop how the players want them and do whta they want within he fairly relaxed limits I set. While I know this isn't the ideal way to GM, I've always thpught of my strength as story creation, so I like to have that kind of backbone in place.

As a player I'm a complete hypocrite, I love going off on tangents and developing my character in ways the GM didn't expect. I suppose I'm lucky in that my friend who GM's is much more experienced than I and mor ecapable of dealing with rogue players like me!

[Kurald Galain]

DM Version: How often do your players do something totally unexpected from the plot you envisioned?

Frequently. I like surprises, actually. That includes people travelling off the prepared map, killing an important ally, and so forth.

Do you railroad if need be? Have you ever had to railroad forcibly back on the main plot for the sake of your sanity?

Rarely. I've been known to fudge the map a little so that the location I want them to travel to happens to be in the (arbitrary) direction they travel in. But in general if the players want to do something, let them, and on their head be the consequences. In my opinion, improvisation is the hallmark of any good DM.

Player Version: How often do you end up going off the plot the DM envisioned?

I have a tendency of unenvisioned ideas as a player, but unfortunately I've had several DMs with a strong penchant of railroading (of the kind of "hey, a wizard appears and teleports you all!")


Hilarity. Let's see. Apart from the usual, like needlessly antagonizing NPCs, stealing from jewelers, and getting in trouble with the city guards...
* after the party found a treasure map, two PCs decided that splitting the treasure in two was better, so they stole all the party's food and ran off into the night; the rest eventually caught up with them
* a character used a powerful water-controlling artifact to cause a huge whirlpool, while on board of a ship himself, sinking it and barely saving himself because the same artifact could confer water breathing powers
* one character went on a peasant killing spree for no good reason, until the rest of the party decided to put him down
* getting access to the astral plane, the players decided they wanted to travel to the (rather messed up by now) world from the previous campaign
* travelling through a lengthy cave complex without bringing any food (and a severe lack of light sources), eventually forcing them to kill cave critters in order to eat them

[PaladinBoy]

As a DM, I'd say that my players come up with something new every session. Unfortunately, it's pushed me to railroad before, and once, for a rather long section of a campaign, I gave the party cleric an item that basically allowed him to communicate with his god. And introduced an NPC that was basically this cleric's superior. Thus allowing me to say, "This is your next mission, here's the plan, let's go." I've never quite had the nerve to ask my players how bad that was for them, if it was at all. Of course, all of them post on this forum, so I suppose I might get an answer at some point.

I don't railroad so blatantly anymore. However, I'm still perfectly willing to have an NPC tell the players what he/she thinks should be done (which naturally works out to what I think should be done).

As a player, the DM's plot means nothing to me. I do what I think my character would do, and hang the DM. Well, at least to an extent. In our recent adventure, the DM told me later that we'd ruined his plans. Apparently we weren't supposed to establish an artillery post on the plateau to menace the enemy army with. Then again, I suppose I could have used control weather (from a dragonmark, for those that know Eberron) and brought enough of a storm to make army fighting or even movement well-nigh impossible. So I guess I did display a little mercy for the DM's adventure.

[Emperor Tippy]

As a DM I don't make an overreaching plot. I make a world and let the PC's do what they will in it. They can change what happens in the world but they don't get quests like "Go stop the evil wizard from becoming a god", the epic NPCs deal with those kinds of problems.

As a PC I derail the plot all the time. "Why the hell am I going to stop the evil tyrant, its not like much will change for me. I will still adventure and make money." Now depending on the character he may stop the tyrant not because the guy is an evil bastard but for some Deadpool like thing. One time I brought down an entire empire because the emperor insulted my character (and it was an unintentional insult that was utterly meaningless).

[Neon Knight]

DM Version: How often do your players do something totally unexpected from the plot you envisioned?
Do you railroad if need be? Have you ever had to railroad forcibly back on the main plot for the sake of your sanity?

All the time. Sometimes I really enjoy their deviations. Other times it annoys me slightly.

One moment of enjoyment was when they were to face off with a demon possessed janitor. The party medic defeated him by asking him to clean up the kitchen, thus doging the fight.

I thought it was very funny.

Player Version: How often do you end up going off the plot the DM envisioned?

Eh, I usually follow along. Unless my character would really oppose to the course of action, I usually just shrug and go along with it.