The Opposite of Railroading

[Cap. Darling]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

@kyrt

Thanks for answering. I agree this is a interesting way to play. But i dont think it allow for more roleplay with Independent motivations for the characters. Even if it let the players have more control of the game on the meta level.

You're correct in one respect. It doesn't 'allow for more roleplay,' roleplayers will roleplay even on the rails.

What it does, however, is break the chains that constrict players. Weak players with limited immersion may struggle a bit at first, though in my experience they pick it up and fly quickly.

I know both as a player and a GM-watching-players I've always found it far more fulfilling to be in a Character-Driven campaign than a Plot-Driven one. [There is Plot in both, its just a matter of whether the Plot drives the characters or the Characters drive the Plot.]

I have tryed this several times but it allways end up with me doing the All roads lead to Rome model when the players get a bit up in level. I will keep this in mind.

[kyrt-ryder]

Cap. Darling wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

@kyrt

Thanks for answering. I agree this is a interesting way to play. But i dont think it allow for more roleplay with Independent motivations for the characters. Even if it let the players have more control of the game on the meta level.

You're correct in one respect. It doesn't 'allow for more roleplay,' roleplayers will roleplay even on the rails.

What it does, however, is break the chains that constrict players. Weak players with limited immersion may struggle a bit at first, though in my experience they pick it up and fly quickly.

I know both as a player and a GM-watching-players I've always found it far more fulfilling to be in a Character-Driven campaign than a Plot-Driven one. [There is Plot in both, its just a matter of whether the Plot drives the characters or the Characters drive the Plot.]

I have tryed this several times but it allways end up with me doing the All roads lead to Rome model when the players get a bit up in level. I will keep this in mind.

How much backstory and motivation do your players tend to invest in their characters?

I will confess many of my players come from a Play-By-Post roleplaying background with a tendency towards significant character investment.

The best results usually come from the most 'complete' characters so to speak, those which are fully fleshed out as individuals.

[Cap. Darling]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

@kyrt

Thanks for answering. I agree this is a interesting way to play. But i dont think it allow for more roleplay with Independent motivations for the characters. Even if it let the players have more control of the game on the meta level.

You're correct in one respect. It doesn't 'allow for more roleplay,' roleplayers will roleplay even on the rails.

What it does, however, is break the chains that constrict players. Weak players with limited immersion may struggle a bit at first, though in my experience they pick it up and fly quickly.

I know both as a player and a GM-watching-players I've always found it far more fulfilling to be in a Character-Driven campaign than a Plot-Driven one. [There is Plot in both, its just a matter of whether the Plot drives the characters or the Characters drive the Plot.]

I have tryed this several times but it allways end up with me doing the All roads lead to Rome model when the players get a bit up in level. I will keep this in mind.

How much backstory and motivation do your players tend to invest in their characters?

I will confess many of my players come from a Play-By-Post roleplaying background with a tendency towards significant character investment.

The best results usually come from the most 'complete' characters so to speak, those which are fully fleshed out as individuals.

this is very different from player to player. And from campaign to campaign.

[LazarX]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Rub-Eta wrote:

I think some people are too afraid of railroading for their own and the game's good.

Now, to explain what I mean. There are varied degrees of railroading, the difference in how much there is depends on what kind of game you play. But remember, more railroading doesn't equal a worse game.
Railroading is more or less unavoidable, as all DMs have a will and mind of their own, otherwise it's railroaded by the players instead.

When railraoding gets bad is when it's noticeable. When action and consequence is not related. This mostly spawns because the DM had another outcome in mind and sticks to it, even when the players are clearly pulling the other way and acting in ways that cannot be met with the provided response.

I think you're working off a different definition of railroading than most people. Railroading is, by definition, the GM heavy-handedly forcing the party down a fixed path.

The GM providing flexible and subtle guidance to keep the game's plot more-or-less on track isn't railroading.

The thing is everyone has different standards for what defines "heavy-handed railroading". Some folks like Kyrt have extremely little tolerance for interacting with a set story or plot. and won't touch with an eleven foot pole, anything resembling a "campaign arc". Others come to a game ESPECIALLY to interact with a story that will engage them. Those are the folks who with a GM decide they want to play a Paizo Adventure Path, such as Reign of Winter or Iron Gods. There's a fairly wide spectrum in between, which complicates the issue.

[Thanael]

For lots of good Dungeons to hook players with/sprinkle across the map use/adapt onepagedungeon entries.

Some interesting threads:
Handling player problems in a sandbox
how to do scheming villains in a sandbox campaign

Requiring players to create interwoven back stories and plot hooks in their backgrounds helps. Investment in backstory and the campaign world is crucial for players developing initiative.

Sharing the worldbuilding is also great. Let players develop a town/organization whatever.

Adding random twists (like from random encounter tables) and the connecting the dots to create connections and some plot is a great technique.

[yronimos]

I think it's probably worth noting as well that a lot of players (and GMs!) probably aren't used to having options and choices, because they have been trained away from making their own options by video games (even "sand box" video games - there's really only so much freedom you can program into a game that relies on... well... a program), and even by RPG modules (there's really only so much freedom you can write into an adventure module).

For these players (and GMs!), the transition from railroading to wide-open sandbox can be a somewhat jarring and bewildering experience.

Perhaps something a little more gradual works better?

I've found that leaving wide-open problems to solve for the end of a session, so that players can think about their options between game nights without pressure, can work wonders for getting players to think up some outside-the-box ideas by the start of the next game session.

Railroading is one of the cliches of RPGs, and the time to start breaking cliches and letting the players know they aren't at a railroad station in Kansas anymore is as early in a new campaign as possible - I've found that players tend to be more likely to think outside the box when it's quite clear that they aren't playing a game that's inside the box:

Spoiler:

Are your players used to killing monsters on sight? Let the first monster the players see be the friendly NPC that gives them a quest.

Is the first real challenge the PCs usually face a combat in a dungeon? Make the first real challenge something completely different: the PCs and the quest-giver don't know the way to the dungeon... do the PCs have any trusted contacts listed on their character sheets that they can go to for help finding the dungeon?

Are your players used to a standard, cliche quest given to them in a tavern by a wizard who wants them to kill giant rats in the cellar or fight the usual bunch of goblins or kobolds? Try to think of three off-the-wall ways to stand that cliche on its head, and use the most outlandish of the three, especially if it's an option that relies on something other than the combat stats on the character sheets.

Most RPG players are familiar with the Baby Orc cliche: the cliched way to introduce the Baby Orc cliche is after a cliche'd fight with cliched Orcs, when a cliched Paladin is in the party, and the usual resolution is a cliche. What happens if you introduce those Baby Orcs in the opening scene of your campaign, to an Evil Party, when a wounded Lawful Good Paladin NPC brings the Baby Orcs to the Evil PCs and begs them to help protect the Baby Orcs while the Paladin buys the PCs time by fighting some mysterious pursuers, so that the PCs can take the Baby Orcs to Blackhand the Sinister, who will explain everything - but the PCs have no idea who Blackhand the Sinister even is or where to find him?

Let your PCs know immediately and unambiguously that they are definitely starting a completely different game than they are used to, and now anything goes!

Edit to add: And, as other replies above mentioned, getting the players involved in world-building before the adventure officially begins helps a lot, too.