Choo Choo - The Fine Art of Railroading


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

the Lorax wrote:

In face-to-face home campaigns, railroads don't do it for me.

Not as a DM.

And certainly not as a player.

As a DM, you could suggest that providing the illusion of choice is what you what to do - to allow the players to choose the route you have plotted out for them.

Actually the way illusion of choice works is to know your players. You know your players, you know their characters, and you set up events that you know are likely to illicit the responses that you need them to.

Here is an example:

My current group I have a player named T. T has a thing with pretty much all of his characters. T will not accept food or drink from any character, if T is a spell caster he will always cast purify food and drink on any food he is given if he is able to do so. T will never enter into any side quest unless he has no "active quest" if his character is hired to, "Go here. Do this." then he will "Go there. Do that." and anything else that happens he will not raise a finger for because, "I already have a job."

I have watched T's character walk right past the wreckage of an overturned cart that had obviously been attacked by Goblins with dead bodies visible simply because, "It isn't my job."

Quote:

I would say that this is wrong. There does not need to be an illusion.

What you need is players/characters invested in the setting. You need bad guys with a plot.

Now, I have a bad guy with a plot. I want to introduce that plot. I know T. If T is in the middle of something then T will not go to anything that isn't directly in the scope of his current job.

This means if T is in the middle of something, I have to make sure either the resolution of his current task if complete, or that without going there the current task cannot be completed.

Now I also know something else about T. T gets upset if T isn't paid what he is promised from doing a job. T will always demand partial payment up front on any job that T begins because, T reasons, if it is dangerous enough to be life threatening then I want to at least get paid some of it.

So, if I want T to go to say, Magnimar, from say Sandpoint, and if T says he wants his character to start in Nybor then I need to find a way to get him to Sandpoint and then to Magnimar.

Quote:

Bad guys set their plots in motion,

That creates events/situations that act upon PCs or NPCs.
PCs decide how they will react.

Thus as I have mentioned, I have the information now to give T the illusion of choice.

T always checks to see if a town has a Job's board. So, starting in Nybor I have there be 2-3 small jobs on the board. 2 of them can be completed in Nybor (bonus quests) and one requires delivery of a package to Sandpoint.

If he accepts the package in Nybor and heads to Sandpoint the person that he is supposed to receive payment from on delivery in Sandpoint is kidnapped by the Big Bad or his minions in Sandpoint and taken to Magnimar.

I know T. He wants to get paid. The only way he will get paid is to go after the person. He won't be told the person was kidnapped, just that they saw him with someone who was headed toward Magnimar.

I don't have to do anything else. I have crafted a plot that will take T from Nybor to Sandpoint to Magnimar.

He has complete choice. I just know what he's going to do before he does it because I know him.

Quote:

There does not need to be an illusion of choice. If the characters decide to leave the area because bad stuff is happening, then they do.

They go somewhere else. The bad guys keep working on their plots.

That just means you don't know your players very well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
the Lorax wrote:

In face-to-face home campaigns, railroads don't do it for me.

Not as a DM.

And certainly not as a player.

As a DM, you could suggest that providing the illusion of choice is what you what to do - to allow the players to choose the route you have plotted out for them.

Actually the way illusion of choice works is to know your players. You know your players, you know their characters, and you set up events that you know are likely to illicit the responses that you need them to.

Here is an example:

My current group I have a player named T. T has a thing with pretty much all of his characters. T will not accept food or drink from any character, if T is a spell caster he will always cast purify food and drink on any food he is given if he is able to do so. T will never enter into any side quest unless he has no "active quest" if his character is hired to, "Go here. Do this." then he will "Go there. Do that." and anything else that happens he will not raise a finger for because, "I already have a job."

I have watched T's character walk right past the wreckage of an overturned cart that had obviously been attacked by Goblins with dead bodies visible simply because, "It isn't my job."

Quote:

I would say that this is wrong. There does not need to be an illusion.

What you need is players/characters invested in the setting. You need bad guys with a plot.

Now, I have a bad guy with a plot. I want to introduce that plot. I know T. If T is in the middle of something then T will not go to anything that isn't directly in the scope of his current job.

This means if T is in the middle of something, I have to make sure either the resolution of his current task if complete, or that without going there the current task cannot be completed.

Now I also know something else about T. T gets upset if T isn't paid what he is promised from doing a job. T will always demand partial payment up front on any job that T begins because, T reasons, if it is dangerous...

Would you say that you are a proponent of Batman Gambit GMing?


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Lastly, I off-load some of that creative burden onto my players. I'll even be blunt and tell them I don't have anything prepped. Then, when they ask me a question about an NPC, location, object, etc... I turn the question back around on them. I usually add something as well. For example:

Player: Is there a magic shop in town?
Me: Yes. You find it in a quiet part of town, something about the shop seems really off to you. What about the shop unnerves or creeps your character out?

As the player starts describing stuff, I take a moment to absorb what they're saying and prep an idea or two for myself. I once ran a 16 hour game over 3 days basically using that technique (combined with some generic prep and some other techniques), both players and I had a blast.

I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary.

I fall into the same category. If the GM puts me on the spot like that and asks me, as a player, to describe THEIR scenario/location/NPC, I immediately shut down and refuse to participate. It breaks immersion and is extremely frustrating to me.

That's why I refuse to play more narrative systems, I despise collaborative storytelling. I totally get why some people prefer it that way, but it doesn't work for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
...Batman Gambit...

There goes 3 hours of my life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
...Batman Gambit...
There goes 3 hours of my life.

I apologize for nothing!


Ventnor wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
...Batman Gambit...
There goes 3 hours of my life.
I apologize for nothing!

Nah, my villains never pull Batman gambits.

I always have a few contingency plans in place in case my players do something I didn't expect. That way I am never caught with my pants down as it were. Usually I have a backup B and C plot on hand in case I need it.

Nothing, for me, is worse than the party actually refusing the plot hook offered and the GM has nothing else. Always have something. It may not be as epic, it may be less polished, but always have something.

B plot is always something the players can do.

C plot, my emergency plot, is something that happens to them. They might get jumped by a group and find out there is a price on their heads. They might get jumped, for unclear reasons, by a third party. C plot though is when I can't be reactive anymore.

I think the last C plot I had to throw out was an assassination attempt on one of the party for reasons the party didn't understand. They killed the assassin, found on him his items, gold, and a piece of paper with one of the party's face on it. They spoke to his body and found out that he was an assassin who was assigned the mission from the guild in Magnimar.

If the players don't bite at *any* of that then... Well at that point I wrap session early because its pretty clear my players don't like my style or don't want to play. Either way, I am not going to waste my time. That has, so far, in 27 years as a GM/DM never happened.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I just had a master class in railroading this past weekend during Nic Logue's 'White Lotus' game. Loved every minute of it.


HWalsh wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
...Batman Gambit...
There goes 3 hours of my life.
I apologize for nothing!

Nah, my villains never pull Batman gambits.

I always have a few contingency plans in place in case my players do something I didn't expect. That way I am never caught with my pants down as it were. Usually I have a backup B and C plot on hand in case I need it.

Nothing, for me, is worse than the party actually refusing the plot hook offered and the GM has nothing else. Always have something. It may not be as epic, it may be less polished, but always have something.

B plot is always something the players can do.

C plot, my emergency plot, is something that happens to them. They might get jumped by a group and find out there is a price on their heads. They might get jumped, for unclear reasons, by a third party. C plot though is when I can't be reactive anymore.

I think the last C plot I had to throw out was an assassination attempt on one of the party for reasons the party didn't understand. They killed the assassin, found on him his items, gold, and a piece of paper with one of the party's face on it. They spoke to his body and found out that he was an assassin who was assigned the mission from the guild in Magnimar.

If the players don't bite at *any* of that then... Well at that point I wrap session early because its pretty clear my players don't like my style or don't want to play. Either way, I am not going to waste my time. That has, so far, in 27 years as a GM/DM never happened.

1) not the villains, but you as a GM/DM.

2) You never consider the players might:
a) not be interested in that kind of plot right now?
b) have something affecting their moods?
c) something, something bad "style" x plot combo...?
d) notice you forgot something, but you don't realize it until after the session ended and the players left?
e) etc?

3) You can tarnish PCs reputation in game, but it could tarnish your reputation as a DM/GM outside of the games.


HWalsh wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
...Batman Gambit...
There goes 3 hours of my life.
I apologize for nothing!
Nah, my villains never pull Batman gambits.

Who said anything about villains?

Let me use your example. One of your players is "T." You know that the character that T is playing in this campaign is motivated by, let's say, money. So the quest hooks you drop involve getting paid and not just helping out of the goodness of his heart.

The plot would derailed (as it were) if T refused an NPC's offer of a high-paying job, but you're fairly certain that T will take the job because his character enjoys being paid.

You've just employed a meta game Batman Gambit, my friend.


Using the Batman Gambit to describe meta actions is a bit too broad. Since it essentially starts to cover all authorial (PC, DM or writer) choices which are informed by knowledge of the characters personality or tendencies.

A Batman Gambit is something within the fiction, not outside of it.


Ventnor wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
...Batman Gambit...
There goes 3 hours of my life.
I apologize for nothing!
Nah, my villains never pull Batman gambits.

Who said anything about villains?

Let me use your example. One of your players is "T." You know that the character that T is playing in this campaign is motivated by, let's say, money. So the quest hooks you drop involve getting paid and not just helping out of the goodness of his heart.

The plot would derailed (as it were) if T refused an NPC's offer of a high-paying job, but you're fairly certain that T will take the job because his character enjoys being paid.

You've just employed a meta game Batman Gambit, my friend.

The Batman gambit calls for a character doing it. The GM is supposed to know his/her players.

The difference is I always have a plan B and C. Been doing this long enough now that I've never had a group not jump at least at one plot.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Ah, missed that this thread went on....

HWalsh wrote:
Actually the way illusion of choice works is to know your players. You know your players, you know their characters, and you set up events ...

I understand how illusion works, and most the people I play with I've been gaming with for 20+ years, which is how I CAN offer them more than the illusion of choice. Them knowing me allows them to understand that if they go some strange place off the rails, that the world moves on.

As for your problems with T, well some playing characters the same every time is problematic. It sounds like T is not becoming invested in his environment - it certainly sounds like every character he plays is CN.

The reason I say that providing the Illusion of Choice is the wrong goal is not because it is ineffective, it is effective, and when you have to use it, you do so, and methods you indicate in your example are ways that work. Understanding the players/characters can let you get away with that trick undetected if needed. I say it is the wrong approach, because without the ability to make a choice it is really just a railroad with a pretty bow tied on to it. As a DM you use all the tools you can, sometimes it's Illusion of Choice, I just don't feel that Illusion of Choice should be your Plan A.

Knowing your players and their characters is an important thing.
Manipulating your players to go where you want them too to keep the campaign moving is something that DMs have to do all of the time, but without ACTUAL choice, the rubberbands are still in place around the rail road. If as a player I detect that railroad, I'm half inclined to lean on the side and let it go, like T does, or leave the character sheet with the DM and have him tell me how the campaign turns out. Especially when I'm legitimately working towards the resolution of whatever the current problem is.

Now if you are fishing for advice for what to do about T, that's probably a different topic.


HWalsh wrote:
Actually the way illusion of choice works is to know your players. You know your players, you know their characters, and you set up events that you know are likely to illicit the responses that you need them to.

Actually, that is not the illusion of choice. That is giving the players an honest-to-goodness choice, but keeping the game manageable by anticipating their most likely choices to save effort. Adding a little visible in-game incentive for the characters, such as an old friend of the PCs begging a favor or a rich patron paying them, can better the odds of guessing their choice, but following the plot hook is still a choice the players make.

HWalsh wrote:
I have watched T's character walk right past the wreckage of an overturned cart that had obviously been attacked by Goblins with dead bodies visible simply because, "It isn't my job."

Remember the Hungry Storm spoiler in my Sat, May 21, 2016, 05:59 pm posting in this thread? The party passed up the plot of the second section of The Hungry Storm module. And I could predict that the party would do so, because the module could not fully develop the need for that mission without spoiling the mystery, so the mission looked like an unnecessary distraction from their true quest. Instead, I let them solve the mystery (why had no caravan successfully crossed the Crown of the World in the last year?) the hard way before they accepted the quest to stop the caravan killer.

This was the kind of consequence that I believe HWalsh favors: the party ignored the side quest to stop evil and later the evil attacked them. And the consequence put them back on the plot predetermined by the module. Nevertheless, I gave the players one important and real choice about priorities. I believe they had more fun that way.

the Lorax wrote:
Manipulating your players to go where you want them too to keep the campaign moving is something that DMs have to do all of the time, but without ACTUAL choice, the rubberbands are still in place around the rail road. If as a player I detect that railroad, I'm half inclined to lean on the side and let it go, like T does, or leave the character sheet with the DM and have him tell me how the campaign turns out. Especially when I'm legitimately working towards the resolution of whatever the current problem is.

The "resolution of whatever the current problem is" is the real game. The set of preplanned enounters that will resolve the current problem in a railroad is only a tool, a tool that the players can chose to use or chose to discard. However, to discard it and have it fly back like it bounced off an invisible wall of rubberbands is no fun.

I believe that the true essence of a tabletop roleplaying game is making choices, such as designing characters and chosing how to tackle an in-game problem, and seeing the natural consequences of the choice. But for the consquences to be that the farther the players stray from the railroad the more the rubberbands pull them back is not natural. It invalidates the choices.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
I believe that the true essence of a tabletop roleplaying game is making choices, such as designing characters and chosing how to tackle an in-game problem, and seeing the natural consequences of the choice. But for the consquences to be that the farther the players stray from the railroad the more the rubberbands pull them back is not natural. It invalidates the choices.

Absolutely this.

Well put Mathmuse.


the Lorax wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I believe that the true essence of a tabletop roleplaying game is making choices, such as designing characters and chosing how to tackle an in-game problem, and seeing the natural consequences of the choice. But for the consquences to be that the farther the players stray from the railroad the more the rubberbands pull them back is not natural. It invalidates the choices.

Absolutely this.

Well put Mathmuse.

The "rubber bands pulling them back" really got me thinking about another analogy... DM'ing is sort of like being a GPS with the players driving a car; when the players go off of the routed path, a good GPS can quickly reroute and still get the players to the destination(if the destination is still even a goal at that point). I liken railroading to being like a GPS forcing the driver back on to the previous routed path, not bending to reroute, maybe even going as far as invalidating the current situation a retconning to force the original route into place.

Also, after some thought, I think I made the mistake of likening linear AP's with railroading. Linear adventures are not railroads; they simply provide a structure for adventuring. It's when the players do something the adventure didn't account for(like killing an "essential" npc) and the DM refuses to "reroute," does it become a railroad.

I've seen this firsthand, and it sucks the fun right out of a game. My group was doing an AP, and at some point we just got tired of being dragged along by the DM. Half of the game was us metagaming and just trying to do what the book says we should do, not what we actually would do. At one point, we were supposed to sneak into a heavily guarded city, that was populated with intelligent magical beasts. Instead of sneaking in, we simply attacked the front gate. After killing multiple powerful spellcasters and magical beasts, we eventually fell back and retreated. Our faces were well-known, and we should've had a massive army hunting for our heads, but instead, the DM forced us back onto the route and had us sneak in just like we were "supposed to" initially. That felt railroady as all be.


A form of ’magicians force' which works is that when someone avoids a lot element without knowing it - choosing the wrong city, etcetera - just move the plot element to the new location and move on. You aren't invalidating a choice if they didn't know about the plot element to avoid it in the first place.


RDM42 wrote:
A form of ’magicians force' which works is that when someone avoids a lot element without knowing it - choosing the wrong city, etcetera - just move the plot element to the new location and move on. You aren't invalidating a choice if they didn't know about the plot element to avoid it in the first place.

I happen to agree (in some contexts), and at least 2 very well known and respected online GMs have provided this as a recommendation to new GMs. When you put a bunch of work into an encounter that doesn't get used...recycle it to later.

I'm sure there will be some one thinking "using a quantum ogre" is negating player choice, and that's bad DMing!" so -

In context, if my players specified "We're not going to investigate or aren't interested in helping x with that, we're off to do Y." I wouldn't push my plot point X back infront of them (at least maybe not until a ways down the plot arc). However, its a dynamic world, and that decision will have consequences, that plot arc will continue to develop as it should. For me that adds to the game, when a few months down the road they hear about something, findout it was as a result of plot hook X, and realize....we could have stopped all of this. While at the same time, knowing instead they did Y (maybe heroic, or maybe just a selfish delve into a lost ruins for a magic sword for the fighter).

On the otherhand, if I'm trying to put a cool story arc or info about the world in front of them and they skip that encounter/room, etc and I know the players would be disappointed and the story isn't going to be as good. Yes I will 100% of the time, quantum ogre that encounter back in front of them.

For new DMs this is one of the best ways to use their time. Instead of fleshing out a whole kingdome, you can in the short term flesh out 3 or 4 villages and then which ever direction the group travels, those are the villages they hit. Put them on the map -after- the party reaches them. They'l never know the difference, and you won't have to spend months trying to map out 1000's of square miles with all the towns, NPCs, and encounters wondering which way they go.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil to each other, thank you!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil to each other, thank you!

Hey, stop railroading me into being civil!


DM's Block pod-cast two weeks ago is -excellent- regarding plot hook, and discussing how linear story lines have gotten a bad rap and sometimes are presumed to be "railroads". What are the differences? Why do books, movies, and video games successfully use linear story arcs?

Also good discussion about player agency and the difference between:
a. I try to smash the door down with my war-hammer <rolls nat-20>. GM: Nothing happens <because I planned for you to open it via the hidden switch, which also stops the trap from going off and never thought you would just smash the door open>

b. I try to smash the door down with my war-hammer <rolls nat-20>. GM: You shatter the wood, Roll a reflex save, as a metal blade comes slashing out from the ceiling.

Podbean link (also available on iTunes):
http://dungeonmasterblock.podbean.com/e/ep-81-creation-inspiration-v-plot-i s-not-a-dirty-word/
Plot is not a dirty word

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Choo Choo - The Fine Art of Railroading All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion