Choo Choo - The Fine Art of Railroading


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Do you prefer a game that is more on the rails (like modules) or completely free? Have you found that a middle ground approach works best? As a player do you snap at plot hooks or does it make you feel like you’re being led around by the nose?

There is this imaginary line in the sand between sandbox and railroading.? Does this line actually exist? if so what side are you on?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To me railroading can be summed up in one example.

We're a party of do-gooders. The BBEG that is to be the end boss in 5 levels comes to taunt us. The barb/paladin/etc... decides to charge in to what is most certainly instant death. (do you let him?) As he charges he's pulling out his scythe and miraculously scores a crit against the guy, doing enough damage to kill the guy. (does the BBEG die then and there?) If we didn't score a crit does the BBEG kill the fool who charged him? (does the paladin die for his stupid choice?)

if you answer, No, No, and No then you're railroading. I don't have any actual choice or influence on things.
If you answer Yes to them then I have freedom. I might not have just up and abandon the quest freedom, but my choices matter.
You're stuck doing the adventure/story, that's the element we can't control. But how we work within that story is the freedom.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Either way, I don't have a preference.

If the GM is good, the plotline is interesting, and the play group is fun, I'm fine with it.

I also don't agree with many people's interpretation of railroading. To me, railroading is when the GM doesn't allow me to make choices, not when he uses a little GM-ex-machina to keep (un)lucky dice rolls from negating an entire campaign.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

To me railroading can be summed up in one example.

We're a party of do-gooders. The BBEG that is to be the end boss in 5 levels comes to taunt us. The barb/paladin/etc... decides to charge in to what is most certainly instant death. (do you let him?) As he charges he's pulling out his scythe and miraculously scores a crit against the guy, doing enough damage to kill the guy. (does the BBEG die then and there?) If we didn't score a crit does the BBEG kill the fool who charged him? (does the paladin die for his stupid choice?)

if you answer, No, No, and No then you're railroading. I don't have any actual choice or influence on things.
If you answer Yes to them then I have freedom. I might not have just up and abandon the quest freedom, but my choices matter.
You're stuck doing the adventure/story, that's the element we can't control. But how we work within that story is the freedom.

I think the thing is extremes. Most people who talk about railroading think if there is a story, like say a module, that needs to be followed vaguely then you're railroading. They think anything that isnt total freedom for the character to choose to go this way or that or just sit at home and build a business than it is railroading.

Your example of No, No, No is more what I also think of as railroading, You can have a story to tell and still allow the player to make choices that effect that story. Throwing out the effect their actions have means the GM migth as well be writing a book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Railroading is not bad.

The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.

That has been said in every iteration of every DMG and it even persists into Pathfinder.

When I home build an adventure, I look at what my players are likely to do first.

So, here is an example (low level adventure) I ran:

Part 1:
The players have been told to meet up with a caravan that has an item that they have been asked to receive and bring to an official that they have been working for.

When the players reach the spot where the caravan is supposed to meet them, they find other people waiting for it. A rider, exhausted, arrives on horseback and explains that the caravan has been attacked.

So I look at this and I think, "What are the players likely to do?"

Likely Player Options:

Option 1:
They could ignore it altogether, at which point they will earn the ire of the person they were working with who will terminate their contract and refuse to pay them for the job.

Option 2:
They could return to him and ask him what he wants them to do, at which point he'll be irritated and tell them that they should have gone after it. He will not offer any pay, citing that the contract called for them to deliver the item from the Caravan, to him. If they cannot do that they will not receive payment.

Option 3:
They could go off to help the caravan, to potentially save them and retrieve the item.

Obviously you want the players to choose option 2 or option 3. Choosing option 1 can derail the campaign. The GM can do some things to prod the players into going with option 2 or 3 however. If they seem to ignore it, have someone make a Wisdom roll, DC 10, and remind them that without the item they won't get paid. If they decide to ignore that, and just kind of walk away, you can pull on the heartstrings of the players, have a child waiting at the part where the caravan was to arrive who is worried about his/her mother/father who was on the caravan. If none of this works, simply mark down that this will damage the party's reputation as heroes and adventurers and move on. If they want the session to be about something else, they can, just note that breaking a contract is bad for business.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Railroading is not bad.

The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.

That has been said in every iteration of every DMG and it even persists into Pathfinder.

When I home build an adventure, I look at what my players are likely to do first.

So, here is an example (low level adventure) I ran:

** spoiler omitted **

So I look at this and I think, "What are the players likely to do?"

Likely Player Options:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Obviously you want the players to choose option 2 or option 3. Choosing option 1 can derail the campaign. The GM can do some things to prod the players into going with option 2 or 3 however. If they seem to ignore it, have someone make a Wisdom roll, DC 10, and remind them that without the item they won't get paid. If they decide to ignore that, and just kind of walk away, you can pull on the heartstrings of the players, have a child waiting at the...

And that is very much the way I run things. The thing about many advocates (not all mind you but a vocal bunch) is they wouldn't even bother with your players are tasked with finding the caravan. They see anything that doesn't let the players choose as railroading. I don't agree but its a common argument across many RPG boards, reddits and pages. These GMs just ask what do you want to do not saying this happens what do you do about it.

For methods like the one you're outlining which is much how I do things I think the players also need to understand in the beginning they need to play along a little. Once you get the ball rolling it is far easier for the to take it and play with it and keep it moving. Occassionally though you get the player who is just like, "My character wouldn't go there." And that can be a problem.


Apupunchau wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Railroading is not bad.

The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.

That has been said in every iteration of every DMG and it even persists into Pathfinder.

When I home build an adventure, I look at what my players are likely to do first.

So, here is an example (low level adventure) I ran:

** spoiler omitted **

So I look at this and I think, "What are the players likely to do?"

Likely Player Options:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Obviously you want the players to choose option 2 or option 3. Choosing option 1 can derail the campaign. The GM can do some things to prod the players into going with option 2 or 3 however. If they seem to ignore it, have someone make a Wisdom roll, DC 10, and remind them that without the item they won't get paid. If they decide to ignore that, and just kind of walk away, you can pull on the heartstrings of the players, have a child waiting at the...

And that is very much the way I run things. The thing about many advocates (not all mind you but a vocal bunch) is they wouldn't even bother with your players are tasked with finding the caravan. They see anything that doesn't let the players choose as railroading. I don't agree but its a common argument across many RPG boards, reddits and pages. These GMs just ask what do you want to do not saying this happens what do you do about it.

For methods like the one you're outlining which is much how I do things I think the players also need to understand in the beginning they need to play along a little. Once you get the ball rolling it is far easier for the to take it and play with it and keep it moving. Occassionally though you get the player who is just like, "My character wouldn't go there." And that can be a problem.

My solution to that is actually really simple:

When players make their characters, I tell them, before they make them:

"You are making a character that is currently working for (insert person here) and has agreed to take a contract to (insert contract here)."

I always find DM's who say, "What do you do?"

To be annoying.

Usually because I'm playing Good characters who are largely reactive. I turn that around on the DM usually by saying, "I ask around and see if anyone in town needs anything done that my skills can be used for."

I don't play "Sandbox" games for that very reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Apupunchau wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Railroading is not bad.

The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.

That has been said in every iteration of every DMG and it even persists into Pathfinder.

When I home build an adventure, I look at what my players are likely to do first.

So, here is an example (low level adventure) I ran:

** spoiler omitted **

So I look at this and I think, "What are the players likely to do?"

Likely Player Options:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Obviously you want the players to choose option 2 or option 3. Choosing option 1 can derail the campaign. The GM can do some things to prod the players into going with option 2 or 3 however. If they seem to ignore it, have someone make a Wisdom roll, DC 10, and remind them that without the item they won't get paid. If they decide to ignore that, and just kind of walk away, you can pull on the heartstrings of the players, have a child waiting at the...

And that is very much the way I run things. The thing about many advocates (not all mind you but a vocal bunch) is they wouldn't even bother with your players are tasked with finding the caravan. They see anything that doesn't let the players choose as railroading. I don't agree but its a common argument across many RPG boards, reddits and pages. These GMs just ask what do you want to do not saying this happens what do you do about it.

For methods like the one you're outlining which is much how I do things I think the players also need to understand in the beginning they need to play along a little. Once you get the ball rolling it is far easier for the to take it and play with it and keep it moving. Occassionally though you get the player who is just like, "My character wouldn't go there." And that can be a problem.

My solution to that is actually really simple:

When players make their characters, I tell them, before they make them:

"You are making a character that is currently working for (insert person here) and has agreed to take a contract to (insert contract here)."

I always find DM's who say, "What do you do?"

To be annoying.

Usually because I'm playing Good characters who are largely reactive. I turn that around on the DM usually by saying, "I ask around and see if anyone in town needs anything done that my skills can be used for."

I don't play "Sandbox" games for that very reason.

This is a great point to which I've spoken about in another article Making A Character for the Game You're In. Its important to the game that players have fun characters but also that they have characters that fit into the story the group will be telling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I generally prefer somewhere in between. The GM has stuff in mind, preferably a large scale campaign outline - often defined as "Here is the current situation. Here are the major antagonists and what they're planning to do. Here are a bunch of hooks tailored to draw the PCs into the conflict. Go."

I prefer to avoid simplistic "You've been hired to ..." hooks. The players have the responsibility to create characters willing to bite on hooks.
One long running game started with our various characters all for personal reasons tracking down a group that had committed some mysterious thefts. My character had been on guard duty when a historical tome was stolen and felt personally responsible. This led us all into discovering an ancient conspiracy to usurp an elven throne.

Many of the hooks used for APs work pretty much this way. "Here's a reason for you to be/get involved when the plot starts. You should be self-motivated enough to continue after that."

After the initial hooks are set though, we generally have and want a lot of freedom in how to deal with the campaign's main plot. There's a thing going on and we're going to have to deal with it, but how is up to us. APs are far more linear than the games we usually play. Or at least it looks that way from the player end - It's possible I've mostly played with GMs who are really good at hiding the rails. Works for me either way. Often means we spend a lot of time chasing our tails, trying to figure out what's the best approach. Or sometimes even whose side we really wanted to be on.
Multiple leads to follow. Multiple ways to solve or avoid problems.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The best railroads are invisible.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I view railroading as a GM taking away choices they ought not to from the players. Often, this is due to an inexperienced GM, but sometimes its just a controlling individual that should be avoided. Railroading is the point a linear or structured adventure becomes too confining to enjoy. On the other hand, the general sandbox can also be too freeform and not provide enough boundaries for a sustainable game. That point in the sand is all over the place amongst gamers and only the individual or group can answer it for themselves.

For me I enjoy running modules and especially adventure paths. I think generally Paizo does a good job of allowing the GM to give their players adequate choices. Just because you have to resolve problems x,y,z doesn't mean you have no ability to choose how to resolve them, or in any particular order either.

Another benefit of the APs is the player's guide to the campaign. The guides give you a theme to base your character building around and an expectation of the type of game you will be playing. I know some folks want to build characters more organically, or even adventure where they feel like, but I find working inside a box can be just as enjoyable as working outside one.

Everything so far above is how I feel about fantasy gaming. When my group switches over to Traveller, a hard Sci-Fi setting, we engage in the opposite behaviors. We make very disparate characters with no link or set expectations whatsoever. The game grows organically and we enjoy the freedom to be proactive in our pursuits. Not sure if it is the system, or the setting, but we just like different lanes for different games. We even meet in the middle of sandbox and linear gaming when we choose Call of Cthulhu.

Ultimately, I don't put myself on either side of the sand because I like both. Miles vary greatly in my experience and there is no right or wrong way to play. Key is to figure out what you like and find a group that is similar.

-cheers


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Railroading is not bad.

The art of GM'ing has always been to manipulate the player into doing what you want them to do without the player realizing that they have been manipulated.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You haven't met my players.

I maintain a social contract with my players. They follow the story line as much as their player characters would tolerate and let me know their player's motivations so that I can plan for the deviations to the Paizo adventure path.

For example, in the fifth module, Tide of Honor, in the Jade Regent adventure path, the player characters are supposed to organize a rebellion against the evil government. The blurb for the module said, "Before the PCs can attempt to stand against the tyrant and liberate Minkai, they must first earn the trust of its people and recruit aid from across the beleaguered empire—all the while dodging murderous oni and deadly ninjas controlled by the Five Storms." It did not work that way. Recruiting aid by doing particular favors for particular factions was too railroady. No, they earned the trust of Minkai's people by becoming popular folk heroes. And they had already devised their own methods for fooling the murderous oni, because one party member was a master ninja herself. Fortunately, the module also worked as a campaign setting guide--Paizo writes good modules--and I could redesign half of the encounters in it as problems folk heroes would tackle and invented more fresh encounters rescuing people from murderous oni.

But let me use HWalsh's simple example, too.

"HWaslh wrote:

When players make their characters, I tell them, before they make them:

"You are making a character that is currently working for (insert person here) and has agreed to take a contract to (insert contract here)."

HWalsh's Part 1:

The players have been told to meet up with a caravan that has an item that they have been asked to receive and bring to an official that they have been working for.
When the players reach the spot where the caravan is supposed to meet them, they find other people waiting for it. A rider, exhausted, arrives on horseback and explains that the caravan has been attacked.

My players might come up with option 4.

Option 4:
They offer to escort the exhausted rider to the nearest military outpost to report the bandit attack. They leave matters in the hands of the outpost commander. They return to their employer to report the disappearance of the caravan. He'll be irritated and tell them that they should have gone after the lost item. They point out that they are inexperienced (first-level) and cannot tackle a bandit gang themselves, so they alerted authorities who can handle bandits much better. When the employer says that he won't pay until he has the item, they shrug and write off the errand as a bad job. Soon afterwards the players hear that the local cavalry has defeated the bandits. Their employer contacts them and tells them that the item was not in the stolen goods recovered from the bandit camp, and he is willing to hire them to track the few escaped bandits to retrieve it. The party negotiates for half their pay up front.

As a GM, I would have had to invent a few characters on the fly, such as the military commander, but I could recycle the key figure, the bandit leader, from my original plan. The player characters solved the initial problem in their own way but had a follow-up that continues the main storyline. It is no longer a true railroad, because party's decisions changed the plot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with the concept of railroading is that nobody can agree on what it is. Some people complain that any kind of coherent plot is a railroad and want their GM to sit there and just ask the players "So, what do your characters do today?"

I typically have had plots that are cohesive but things can be done differently or in different order. However, it's set up so that somehow, someway it all ties together. I'm not good at improv so I try to avoid improvising too many things. I don't consider that railroading but some others have complained that it is. I solved that problem by refusing to run games anymore. It's not worth the headache as far as I'm concerned.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
The best railroads are invisible.

The best GMs have figured out their players aren't blind.


HeHateMe wrote:

The problem with the concept of railroading is that nobody can agree on what it is. Some people complain that any kind of coherent plot is a railroad and want their GM to sit there and just ask the players "So, what do your characters do today?"

I typically have had plots that are cohesive but things can be done differently or in different order. However, it's set up so that somehow, someway it all ties together. I'm not good at improv so I try to avoid improvising too many things. I don't consider that railroading but some others have complained that it is. I solved that problem by refusing to run games anymore. It's not worth the headache as far as I'm concerned.

I think that's why I wrote this/ Before today whenever there was talk about railroading and sandboxing, it was as you say a chorus of sandboxers who think that anything more than asking the players what they do is railroading. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised today to see so many people who have a much more middle of the ground approach.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

As a player, I want some direction. I want an idea of what my goal is and where I might go to get things started. But once my character encounters something or has a question or whatever else, I want the freedom to act on the world in a manner that seems believable and in-character and then see the world react in a manner that also seems believable and in-character.

As a GM, I try to offer the same thing to my players that I look for when I'm playing (though I'd like to think I'd be flexible if my players asked for something different). That said, I've got quite a bit of growing to do when it comes to reacting to the players latching onto a piece of set-dressing and passing right by the hook. Gotta work on that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
The best railroads are invisible.

Indeed, the illusion of choice goes a long ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one other reason why this issue gets so contentious is that most ttrpg gamers have only been players, not GMs. So, they have no idea what is involved with running a game. That opens up alot of opportunities for misunderstandings.

For example, a number of posters on these boards complain about railroading as if it were something done by their GM purposely, out of spite. In some cases that's probably true, but in most cases I think GMs railroad because they're inexperienced and don't know what they're supposed to do. Or maybe like me, aren't comfortable with improv and prefer structure.

If you take what some people say on these boards literally though, you might think every possible instance of railroading is a malicious personal attack on the player. I would argue that's the case only a tiny percentage of the time. And people wonder why it's so difficult to find GMs. I wonder how many GMs gave up running games because they got tired of criticism and insults?


HeHateMe wrote:

I think one other reason why this issue gets so contentious is that most ttrpg gamers have only been players, not GMs. So, they have no idea what is involved with running a game. That opens up alot of opportunities for misunderstandings.

For example, a number of posters on these boards complain about railroading as if it were something done by their GM purposely, out of spite. In some cases that's probably true, but in most cases I think GMs railroad because they're inexperienced and don't know what they're supposed to do. Or maybe like me, aren't comfortable with improv and prefer structure.

If you take what some people say on these boards literally though, you might think every possible instance of railroading is a malicious personal attack on the player. I would argue that's the case only a tiny percentage of the time. And people wonder why it's so difficult to find GMs. I wonder how many GMs gave up running games because they got tired of criticism and insults?

I have to say I've found the opposite. Some of the most heated arguments I see about this are from GMs. I'm on a GMs and DMs board on facebook and that's where most of the commentary about how hated railroading is comes from. Gms who say that's never the way we did it inthe old days, every thing was home brew, you built the adventure around the party and never used a modules. They thing GMs who use modules are lazy. I hardly ever hear complaints about railroading from players. I find players will flock to paizo's APs at the drop of a hat


Apupunchau wrote:
I have to say I've found the opposite. Some of the most heated arguments I see about this are from GMs. I'm on a GMs and DMs board on facebook and that's where most of the commentary about how hated railroading is comes from. Gms who say that's never the way we did it inthe old days, every thing was home brew, you built the adventure around the party and never used a modules. They thing GMs who use modules are lazy. I hardly ever hear complaints about railroading from players. I find players will flock to paizo's APs at the drop of a hat

This matches my experience as well. Players are much more comfortable with railroads now, some even demand them. There's one poster on here who said something to the effect of "I won't play in a completely homebrewed game." I'm sure he's not alone in that view.

I had one player in a f2f game that said he wanted all plot hooks handed directly to him (as in, describe an NPC as having an exclamation point over his head so the PC would know he could get a "quest" from him.)

Everyone plays for different reasons. Some simply enjoy rolling dice and moving their mini around. For these players a track is helpful.

Other players enjoy figuring things out, making decisions, acting as their character would, etc. For these players, obvious tracks are detrimental to their fun.

That's why I said the best tracks are invisible. I've yet to see a DM who is good enough to have absolutely zero tracks and still run a really good game.

But if the tracks are subtle enough to not be noticed, then all is well and good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Apupunchau wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

I think one other reason why this issue gets so contentious is that most ttrpg gamers have only been players, not GMs. So, they have no idea what is involved with running a game. That opens up alot of opportunities for misunderstandings.

For example, a number of posters on these boards complain about railroading as if it were something done by their GM purposely, out of spite. In some cases that's probably true, but in most cases I think GMs railroad because they're inexperienced and don't know what they're supposed to do. Or maybe like me, aren't comfortable with improv and prefer structure.

If you take what some people say on these boards literally though, you might think every possible instance of railroading is a malicious personal attack on the player. I would argue that's the case only a tiny percentage of the time. And people wonder why it's so difficult to find GMs. I wonder how many GMs gave up running games because they got tired of criticism and insults?

I have to say I've found the opposite. Some of the most heated arguments I see about this are from GMs. I'm on a GMs and DMs board on facebook and that's where most of the commentary about how hated railroading is comes from. Gms who say that's never the way we did it inthe old days, every thing was home brew, you built the adventure around the party and never used a modules. They thing GMs who use modules are lazy. I hardly ever hear complaints about railroading from players. I find players will flock to paizo's APs at the drop of a hat

I've complained about railroading as a player, but only in extreme cases. I also find a lot of the supposed sandbox GMs railroad just as much as the average GM - they just let the players pick which railroad scenario they're going to play.

More generally, there's a broad spectrum from railroad to sandbox. The vast majority of games are somewhere in between the most extreme cases. Depending on experiences and preferences, people draw the line in various places and may not acknowledge that there is a middle ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Apupunchau wrote:
I have to say I've found the opposite. Some of the most heated arguments I see about this are from GMs. I'm on a GMs and DMs board on facebook and that's where most of the commentary about how hated railroading is comes from. Gms who say that's never the way we did it inthe old days, every thing was home brew, you built the adventure around the party and never used a modules. They thing GMs who use modules are lazy. I hardly ever hear complaints about railroading from players. I find players will flock to paizo's APs at the drop of a hat

This matches my experience as well. Players are much more comfortable with railroads now, some even demand them. There's one poster on here who said something to the effect of "I won't play in a completely homebrewed game." I'm sure he's not alone in that view.

I had one player in a f2f game that said he wanted all plot hooks handed directly to him (as in, describe an NPC as having an exclamation point over his head so the PC would know he could get a "quest" from him.)

Everyone plays for different reasons. Some simply enjoy rolling dice and moving their mini around. For these players a track is helpful.

Other players enjoy figuring things out, making decisions, acting as their character would, etc. For these players, obvious tracks are detrimental to their fun.

That's why I said the best tracks are invisible. I've yet to see a DM who is good enough to have absolutely zero tracks and still run a really good game.

But if the tracks are subtle enough to not be noticed, then all is well and good.

And like any good railroad, there can be sidings and switches that can send you off in another direction. Or am I stretching the metaphor?

I'm not sure about "won't play in a completely homebrewed game". I know full well you can railroad very hard in a homebrewed campaign.

But generally I agree. Many players flounder in a completely wide-open sandbox. I do myself. I hate wandering around in a setting looking for adventuresome things to do. Throw some plot hooks out at me and I'll bite on them. Give me an villain who's got some secret plan to foil and I'll dig into figuring out what it is and how to foil it. Quite often, I'll come up with approaches the GM never expected.

But that's the thing. Having a plan isn't a railroad. It might not be a sandbox, but it requires a lot more to make a railroad than "This campaign is about a conflict between two factions fighting over an elven throne".
If the GM lays out all the steps you need to take along the way, then it's a railroad. Otherwise, there's an awful lot of space between the two.


Mathmuse wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

Your option 4 is option 1.

I believe in having consequences for actions. If they don't go after the item, and then claim that they are too inexperienced to have done it then the person isn't hiring them when the cavalry has done whatever it is they would do.

The item is lost. The PCs now find that anyone else they approach for a job is offering them 25% less for the job. A 25% reduction in the base price, something they can't diplomacy back. When asked why, it is because their reputation of adventurers has been tarnished.

They were adventurers who were not willing to adventure.

And yes, this is a hit to their WBL, which they would have to earn back by repairing their damaged reputation.

I would create a story path for them then, should they wish, to regain their reputation.

Basically the PC's reputation (at least in that area) would be:

"These guys were hired to retrieve an item. When the chance came to get the item they refused to do so and claimed that they were too inexperienced to do it. They weren't willing to take a risk. They are cowards."

And that reputation as cowards would stick until the PCs managed to prove otherwise.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

Your option 4 is option 1.

I believe in having consequences for actions. If they don't go after the item, and then claim that they are too inexperienced to have done it then the person isn't hiring them when the cavalry has done whatever it is they would do.

The item is lost. The PCs now find that anyone else they approach for a job is offering them 25% less for the job. A 25% reduction in the base price, something they can't diplomacy back. When asked why, it is because their reputation of adventurers has been tarnished.

They were adventurers who were not willing to adventure.

And yes, this is a hit to their WBL, which they would have to earn back by repairing their damaged reputation.

I would create a story path for them then, should they wish, to regain their reputation.

Basically the PC's reputation (at least in that area) would be:

"These guys were hired to retrieve an item. When the chance came to get the item they refused to do so and claimed that they were too inexperienced to do it. They weren't willing to take a risk. They are cowards."

And that reputation as cowards would stick until the PCs managed to prove otherwise.

While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:


While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV

Training them to weigh realistic consequences isn't a bad idea. Following the story shouldn't be frowned on.

As to not backing down... That is kind of the hallmark of an adventurer. Adventuring is super dangerous but super rewarding. It's not a job that suits the timid.

I mean, what would Lord of the Rings have been like if, at the council, the members of the Fellowship said, "Oh man. This is dangerous, forget this, hey Elrond, here's the Ring you can handle this one."

If Raistlin told Caramon, "Yeah. This Tower of High Sorcery test is super risky. I'm going to pass and become a farmer."

If Drizzt went to tell some Mercenaries about the Dragon in the mountain rather than go deal with it?

If Captain America (movie version) told Tommy Lee Jones, "Oh man, Bucky and a bunch of others are captured by Nazis? Sucks to be them! I've got a show to do!"

It's one thing to back down if you can't win. It's another to back down before you even try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Pan wrote:


While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV

Training them to weigh realistic consequences isn't a bad idea. Following the story shouldn't be frowned on.

As to not backing down... That is kind of the hallmark of an adventurer. Adventuring is super dangerous but super rewarding. It's not a job that suits the timid.

I mean, what would Lord of the Rings have been like if, at the council, the members of the Fellowship said, "Oh man. This is dangerous, forget this, hey Elrond, here's the Ring you can handle this one."

If Raistlin told Caramon, "Yeah. This Tower of High Sorcery test is super risky. I'm going to pass and become a farmer."

If Drizzt went to tell some Mercenaries about the Dragon in the mountain rather than go deal with it?

If Captain America (movie version) told Tommy Lee Jones, "Oh man, Bucky and a bunch of others are captured by Nazis? Sucks to be them! I've got a show to do!"

It's one thing to back down if you can't win. It's another to back down before you even try.

And sometimes an adventure that the DM envisioned just isn't interesting. Turning down anything until you get just what you want will cause a GM burnout, but having to accept every rat-killing and McGuffin fetching will do the same to the players, if they are penalized for turning down ANY assignment.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Pan wrote:


While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV

Training them to weigh realistic consequences isn't a bad idea. Following the story shouldn't be frowned on.

As to not backing down... That is kind of the hallmark of an adventurer. Adventuring is super dangerous but super rewarding. It's not a job that suits the timid.

I mean, what would Lord of the Rings have been like if, at the council, the members of the Fellowship said, "Oh man. This is dangerous, forget this, hey Elrond, here's the Ring you can handle this one."

If Raistlin told Caramon, "Yeah. This Tower of High Sorcery test is super risky. I'm going to pass and become a farmer."

If Drizzt went to tell some Mercenaries about the Dragon in the mountain rather than go deal with it?

If Captain America (movie version) told Tommy Lee Jones, "Oh man, Bucky and a bunch of others are captured by Nazis? Sucks to be them! I've got a show to do!"

It's one thing to back down if you can't win. It's another to back down before you even try.

And sometimes an adventure that the DM envisioned just isn't interesting. Turning down anything until you get just what you want will cause a GM burnout, but having to accept every rat-killing and McGuffin fetching will do the same to the players, if they are penalized for turning down ANY assignment.

This. Also, not every adventure is an epic save the world endeavor. Often, in a sandbox the adventures are much smaller in scope. The players can see them to conclusions or stop pursuing them as they see fit. I agree that consequences should have impact, however, if you do go with strict mechanical penalties, you may trap the players into every rat-killing McGuffin fetching quest that comes their way. Sounds like being on the rails to me. I tend to side with RP based reactions and leave mechanical penalties for rare occasions when they are really warranted. Its a balancing act not a binary process.


Pan wrote:
necromental wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Pan wrote:


While I agree that a lot of that makes thematic sense, Id be careful not train the players to act a certain way. If they feel like anytime they don't rise to the challenge they will be punished, they will never back down again. Eventually, choices evaporate and you have trained them to accept the railroad. YMMV

Training them to weigh realistic consequences isn't a bad idea. Following the story shouldn't be frowned on.

As to not backing down... That is kind of the hallmark of an adventurer. Adventuring is super dangerous but super rewarding. It's not a job that suits the timid.

I mean, what would Lord of the Rings have been like if, at the council, the members of the Fellowship said, "Oh man. This is dangerous, forget this, hey Elrond, here's the Ring you can handle this one."

If Raistlin told Caramon, "Yeah. This Tower of High Sorcery test is super risky. I'm going to pass and become a farmer."

If Drizzt went to tell some Mercenaries about the Dragon in the mountain rather than go deal with it?

If Captain America (movie version) told Tommy Lee Jones, "Oh man, Bucky and a bunch of others are captured by Nazis? Sucks to be them! I've got a show to do!"

It's one thing to back down if you can't win. It's another to back down before you even try.

And sometimes an adventure that the DM envisioned just isn't interesting. Turning down anything until you get just what you want will cause a GM burnout, but having to accept every rat-killing and McGuffin fetching will do the same to the players, if they are penalized for turning down ANY assignment.
This. Also, not every adventure is an epic save the world endeavor. Often, in a sandbox the adventures are much smaller in scope. The players can see them to conclusions or stop pursuing them as they see fit. I agree that consequences should have impact, however, if you do go with strict mechanical penalties, you may trap the players into every rat-killing McGuffin...

Which is exactly why I hate most Sandbox. I want an epic adventure. I don't want to just wander around aimlessly for place to place solving small problems. I want Lord of the Rings, not an the A-Team. A movie not an unconnected episodic TV show.


Apupunchau wrote:
Pan wrote:
necromental wrote:


And sometimes an adventure that the DM envisioned just isn't interesting. Turning down anything until you get just what you want will cause a GM burnout, but having to accept every rat-killing and McGuffin fetching will do the same to the players, if they are penalized for turning down ANY assignment.
This. Also, not every adventure is an epic save the world endeavor. Often, in a sandbox the adventures are much smaller in scope. The players can see them to conclusions or stop pursuing them as they see fit. I agree that consequences should have impact, however, if you do go with strict mechanical penalties, you may trap the players into every
Which is exactly why I hate most Sandbox. I want an epic adventure. I don't want to just wander around aimlessly for place to place solving small problems. I want Lord of the Rings, not an the A-Team. A movie not an unconnected episodic TV show.

It doesn't have to be full on save the world style, but I do like there to be a main thread and a main threat tying the whole campaign together. The Hobbit works just as well as LotR. The scope can be smaller, but it's still campaign scale. There's also plenty of room for side adventures and personal character bits. A TV series with an overarching main plot is fine.

Completely episodic adventures aren't my cup of hooch.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Apupunchau wrote:
Pan wrote:
necromental wrote:


And sometimes an adventure that the DM envisioned just isn't interesting. Turning down anything until you get just what you want will cause a GM burnout, but having to accept every rat-killing and McGuffin fetching will do the same to the players, if they are penalized for turning down ANY assignment.
This. Also, not every adventure is an epic save the world endeavor. Often, in a sandbox the adventures are much smaller in scope. The players can see them to conclusions or stop pursuing them as they see fit. I agree that consequences should have impact, however, if you do go with strict mechanical penalties, you may trap the players into every
Which is exactly why I hate most Sandbox. I want an epic adventure. I don't want to just wander around aimlessly for place to place solving small problems. I want Lord of the Rings, not an the A-Team. A movie not an unconnected episodic TV show.

It doesn't have to be full on save the world style, but I do like there to be a main thread and a main threat tying the whole campaign together. The Hobbit works just as well as LotR. The scope can be smaller, but it's still campaign scale. There's also plenty of room for side adventures and personal character bits. A TV series with an overarching main plot is fine.

Completely episodic adventures aren't my cup of hooch.

Right, there is an in between folks.


Sometimes it just has to be done. Though I prefer my railroad be well laid track at the start of the game, so the PCs at least know they are buying a ticket to ride that train!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

Your option 4 is option 1.

I believe in having consequences for actions. If they don't go after the item, and then claim that they are too inexperienced to have done it then the person isn't hiring them when the cavalry has done whatever it is they would do.

The GM's plot hook was running errands for a mysterious employer. Due to factors beyond the party's control, the party would instead face a bandit gang that had taken down a caravan. I would have taken "running errands" as a good opportunity to try out the Investigator hybrid class or sone other class designed for urban adventures. Not for battling bandits in the countryside.

HWalsh wrote:
They were adventurers who were not willing to adventure.

My players don't play people who adventure for a living. They play people with ordinary motivations yet extraordinary skills who stepped up and became heroes. They have enormous fun playing such characters.

For example, the initial PCs in my Rise of the Runelords campaign were a wizard scholar studying ancient Thassilonian lore, a treasure-hunting rogue who delved into ruins, a young gnome ranger out to see the world, an aimless dwarf fighter looking for easy work, an ambitious cleric of Pharasma hoping to establish a congregation, and a thieving rogue who attached herself to this heroic band to hide that she robbed cashboxes during the goblin raid. Rise of the Runelords is known to be a combat grind; however, in my players' hands it became archaeology and espionage.

The PCs in my Jade Regent campaign were a Minkaian ninja searching for Amatatsu heirs, a kitsune sorceress pretending to be male, a mysterious glory-seeking half-drow magus, a hot-headed Varisian caravan-master fighter of Minkaian heritage, and a samurai guard born in the Land of the Linnorm Kings. The NPCs in the party were the lost-heir bard aristocrat and her half-sister a time oracle employed as a glassblower. These are the people who derailed the fifth module by identifying with Minkaian people and culture. They regularly found ways to recruit the non-oni villains to their side and put the lost heir on the throne of Minkai peacefully, except for killing two hundred oni.

The PCs in my Iron Gods campaign are a young dwarf gunslinger more interested in redesigning her gun than using it, a half-elf magus who worked as a field agent for the missing wizard, a strix skald befriended by the magus, and a caravan guard assigned by his boss to help them. They invited a plot-hook NPC, the daughter of the missing wizard, into the party because she deserved to look for her father herself. The main villain of the first module, upon encountering them, exclaimed, "You are not adventurers, you are not Technic League agents, you are only townsfolk! What are you doing here? Just go away." They defeated her and saved the town from economic ruin.

HWalsh wrote:

The item is lost. The PCs now find that anyone else they approach for a job is offering them 25% less for the job. A 25% reduction in the base price, something they can't diplomacy back. When asked why, it is because their reputation of adventurers has been tarnished.

And yes, this is a hit to their WBL, which they would have to earn back by repairing their damaged reputation.

I would create a story path for them then, should they wish, to regain their reputation.

Basically the PC's reputation (at least in that area) would be:

"These guys were hired to retrieve an item. When the chance came to get the item they refused to do so and claimed that they were too inexperienced to do it. They weren't willing to take a risk. They are cowards."

And that reputation as cowards would stick until the PCs managed to prove otherwise.

And the characters created by my players would not care. Wealth is not a priority. In Jade Regent and Iron Gods the parties returned loot to its original owners or the owners' heirs. Through sensible strategy and practiced teamwork the party functions beyond its level with only a quarter of the usual wealth by level.

And their many friends among the locals would hear their view, "We weren't willing to take an unexpected suicidal risk without extra pay." To have the locals take their hard-hearted employer's side would be railroading: the GM would punish the characters for not following his plot, even though his plot would not make sense for those characters!

Perhaps that is the definition of railroading: the plot does not respond to the characters. Standard adventurers sticking to a standard adventure is not a railroad because that is what adventurers do. But when the player characters engage in serious roleplaying, such as gathering information and recruiting allies and avoiding abusive situations, and the GM refuses reflect that in the story, then the railroad is a burden.


Mathmuse wrote:

And the characters created by my players would not care. Wealth is not a priority. In Jade Regent and Iron Gods the parties returned loot to its original owners or the owners' heirs. Through sensible strategy and practiced teamwork the party functions beyond its level with only a quarter of the usual wealth by level.

And their many friends among the locals would hear their view, "We weren't willing to take an unexpected suicidal risk without extra pay." To have the locals take their hard-hearted employer's side would be railroading: the GM would punish the characters for not following his plot, even though his plot would not make sense for those characters!

Perhaps that is the definition of railroading: the plot does not respond to the characters. Standard adventurers sticking to a standard adventure is not a railroad because that is what adventurers do. But when the player characters engage in serious roleplaying, such as gathering information and recruiting allies and avoiding abusive situations, and the GM refuses reflect that in the story, then the railroad is a burden.

That is fine and dandy, for your group. If they don't care then the logical consequences wouldn't bother them. Though if they tried, even considered, trying to say that it was a "suicidal risk" before even trying, even seeing how many bandits, even ATTEMPTING action my townsfolk would call them on the blatant lie.

The plot is the plot. The characters can influence the plot, but the plot doesn't revolve around them.

If the players find out about a ritual that could spell damage for a town, then they choose not to stop the ritual, and that frees a powerful demon that lays waste to the town... Then... Well... That happens.

If the players choose not to go after the item, then the item is lost. If it was beneficial for them later, well, they didn't get it. They can win over the townsfolk, they can choose to spend their adventuring days running a noodle shop...

I write events. If the players choose not to engage in them, that is up to them. There are benefits and penalties to every action. It isn't always beneficial to perform an offered quest. Most of the time it is, but not always.

Regardless. You know your group and what works for your group works for your group. Mine works for my groups.

I do take exception though with what you seem to be implying:

"But when the player characters engage in serious roleplaying, such as gathering information and recruiting allies and avoiding abusive situations"

You can be a traditional adventurer and engage in just as, if not more serious, roleplaying. You can be the most beat-em-up smack-down head-cracking team in existence and still be among the best roleplayers ever.

Gathering information and recruiting allies and avoiding "abusive situations" is not any more "serious roleplaying" than a group discussing why they choose to help people, or what they think about before a battle. How they prepare themselves for what is to come. What drives them and what urges them onward to be heroic.

Some of my best, most memorable, RP moments have come from characters sitting around a campfire talking about why they do what they do.

To look down on characters who are bold, and brave, and heroic and assume that they are poor, or less serious, roleplayers is not cool at all.

Character actions, character consequences. What you are describing to me are careful and calculating people. They are not what I could call brave and bold, but they aren't inept. Yes, in a fantasy setting where there are brave and bold heroes, they would be accused of cowardly actions if they do things like not attempt rescues, etc. They would not get the fame, they would not get the wealth. They also are more likely to live longer, so there is that. Those are different styles of games.

You are more sandbox, and that is fine. I'm not.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that the big thing about railroading is player buy-in. Ran a railroady module a week or two ago, and I told the players beforehand. It ended up being one of the best games I've had for awhile, despite the lackluster components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
The plot is the plot. The characters can influence the plot, but the plot doesn't revolve around them.

What a marvelous paragraph! It summarizes the essence of railroads.

But let me wax theoretical for a moment. One issue in computerized roleplaying games is the illusion of agency. The players of these games like to make choices, but each choice creates a branch, and each branch requires more setting, art, and voice acting. The number of branches has to be limited. That means that the choices are limited. A few choices might matter, but most of them don't. That is the illusion.

Limiting choices can lead to railroading. The game Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is full of choices (most of them short-term side quests), but one moment in the Dawnguard expansion is especially railroady: the player character encounters a mysterious vampire woman Serana and has to help her. At this point, the player character is a fledgling vampire hunter, so helping a vampire is either a turning point where the character decides that not all vampires are bad, or it is a railroad that has to be endured to set up the plot for more vampire killing. The plot is the plot.

If the character decides that helping certain vampires is okay, then the railroad is invisible. The one choice that is allowed is the choice that the character would have made. The player is happy because the game did not deny his or her choice. We can achieve that in Pathfinder, setting up incentives and clear solutions that lead the party down the path that has been plotted for them. The players follow that path by choice and are happy with their choice.

Tormsskull wrote:

The best railroads are invisible.

...
I've yet to see a DM who is good enough to have absolutely zero tracks and still run a really good game. But if the tracks are subtle enough to not be noticed, then all is well and good.

Another great summary.

HWalsh wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
But when the player characters engage in serious roleplaying, such as gathering information and recruiting allies and avoiding abusive situations,...
You can be a traditional adventurer and engage in just as, if not more serious, roleplaying. You can be the most beat-em-up smack-down head-cracking team in existence and still be among the best roleplayers ever.

I spoke with my foot in my mouth here. I apologize for suggesting that not gathering information would not be serious roleplaying. To clarify, my players decided to not play a smack-down head-cracking team and instead play a team that acts like highly-skilled people in a scary situation. In their style of serious roleplaying, they engage in gathering information and recruiting allies and avoiding abusive situations.

HWalsh wrote:
That is fine and dandy, for your group. If they don't care then the logical consequences wouldn't bother them. Though if they tried, even considered, trying to say that it was a "suicidal risk" before even trying, even seeing how many bandits, even ATTEMPTING action my townsfolk would call them on the blatant lie.

In your scenario, you mentioned that the party finds other people waiting for the missing caravan. Why didn't those other people go off and try to find the bandits? I assume they didn't because they were only ordinary townsfolk, not professional adventurers. My players know that first-level characters are not professional adventurers either. First-level characters lack the skills necessary for it. They are clumsy, amateur adventurers.

As Tormsskull and TriOmegaZero pointed out, the players need buy-in to an implicit promise. The GM promises that if they follow the plot hook, then they will encounter a level-appropriate adventure. A bandit gang that raided a caravan is too much for a first-level party to handle, but the implicit promise means that somehow the bandit gang will be impaired and be a first-level challenge when the party encounters them. The railroad protects the party.

Thus, the railroad helps keep the adventure moving. We have a lot of railroad conventions in tabletop roleplaying games. For example, if the party has to wipe out a camp of orcs, they are not going to find innocent orc children in the camp. Nope, it will be a raiding camp without innocents in it, so that the party does not have to stop and sort innocent from guilty. Such conventions keep the game going at a fun pace.

HWalsh wrote:
Character actions, character consequences. What you are describing to me are careful and calculating people. They are not what I could call brave and bold, but they aren't inept. Yes, in a fantasy setting where there are brave and bold heroes, they would be accused of cowardly actions if they do things like not attempt rescues, etc. They would not get the fame, they would not get the wealth. They also are more likely to live longer, so there is that. Those are different styles of games.

Exactly.

The plot hook for Fires of Creation, the first module in the Iron Gods adventure path, is that the town of Torch has offered a reward to go down into caves to find a wizard who has been missing for four days on an urgent mission (later, the party will have to finish the mission, too, but they need to reach 3rd level first). My players decided to not create adventurers who follow that plot hook. They instead created friends of the wizard ("Local Ties" campaign trait). Some of those friends had been in town all along, but were too scared to go into the deadly caves. When other friends returned from out of town, they gathered the nerve to go into the caves together.

Not that these friends were helpless. They just had oddball skills. The wizard was also a scientist, and they were the wizard's lab assistants. To quote Mark Watney from The Martian, "In the face of overwhelming odds, I'm left with only one option, I'm gonna have to science the s#!+ out of this."

This was so much more exciting than the original plot in Fires of Creation, which they derailed on day one. I love my players. (I'm even married to one.)

HWalsh wrote:
If the players choose not to go after the item, then the item is lost. If it was beneficial for them later, well, they didn't get it. They can win over the townsfolk, they can choose to spend their adventuring days running a noodle shop...

I added the Ruby Phoenix Tournament module to the Jade Regent adventure path. Four of the party entered the tournament. The other members of the party enlisted a noodle shop as their base of operations for the fan club for their team, the betting on the games, and the behind-the-scenes skullduggery. Sometimes, noodle shops are important.

HWalsh wrote:
You are more sandbox, and that is fine.

My PCs want to take time to hang out in the noodle shops of the world while saving the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of railroading, but a lot of people I play with are. The main group I gamed with for years used to homebrew campaigns in different campaign settings, but for the past few years they just do PF AP's, which are very railroady. Well written and beautifully illustrated, but still railroady as hell.

The convenience of a pre-built campaign is nice, but I find it extremely boring as a player. Knowing that my PC's influence in the game will have zero effect on the outcome of the game, sucks the creativity right out. Some ready-made campaigns out there do actually take the time to plot out variations on the adventures and different possible outcomes(Drow Wars was really good at this), but, these are few and far between. Most modules and AP's I've seen are terribly linear.

I prefer homebrewed campaigns, where the overall direction is a mix of player actions and DM resolutions, where anything can potentially happen. I loved being surprised, especially as the DM. I like to use a variety of one-shot modules mixed with homebrewed adventures and plot points, to build an overall narrative with the players.

Not everybody has the time for that, and sometimes I goof stuff up, but it just feels like a more satisfying game experience, if we all contributed to the story. AP's lately just feel like "go here, do this, turn to page 23 and read the grey box."


Jandrem wrote:

I'm not a fan of railroading, but a lot of people I play with are. The main group I gamed with for years used to homebrew campaigns in different campaign settings, but for the past few years they just do PF AP's, which are very railroady. Well written and beautifully illustrated, but still railroady as hell.

The convenience of a pre-built campaign is nice, but I find it extremely boring as a player. Knowing that my PC's influence in the game will have zero effect on the outcome of the game, sucks the creativity right out. Some ready-made campaigns out there do actually take the time to plot out variations on the adventures and different possible outcomes(Drow Wars was really good at this), but, these are few and far between. Most modules and AP's I've seen are terribly linear.

I prefer homebrewed campaigns, where the overall direction is a mix of player actions and DM resolutions, where anything can potentially happen. I loved being surprised, especially as the DM. I like to use a variety of one-shot modules mixed with homebrewed adventures and plot points, to build an overall narrative with the players.

Not everybody has the time for that, and sometimes I goof stuff up, but it just feels like a more satisfying game experience, if we all contributed to the story. AP's lately just feel like "go here, do this, turn to page 23 and read the grey box."

It's really hard to put too much in the way of options in a published adventure - especially in a campaign length one. Far too easy to spiral out of control or have to build in dozens of different sections by the end of the campaign, only one of which gets used by each group.

Using individual, unconnected modules can avoid at least some of that, but at the expense of having much less cohesion to the narrative.

Homebrew's always worked best for me too, but it's a lot more work. It's also certainly possible to have homebrews even more strongly railroaded than most APs - or just badly done in other ways.


thejeff wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

I'm not a fan of railroading, but a lot of people I play with are. The main group I gamed with for years used to homebrew campaigns in different campaign settings, but for the past few years they just do PF AP's, which are very railroady. Well written and beautifully illustrated, but still railroady as hell.

The convenience of a pre-built campaign is nice, but I find it extremely boring as a player. Knowing that my PC's influence in the game will have zero effect on the outcome of the game, sucks the creativity right out. Some ready-made campaigns out there do actually take the time to plot out variations on the adventures and different possible outcomes(Drow Wars was really good at this), but, these are few and far between. Most modules and AP's I've seen are terribly linear.

I prefer homebrewed campaigns, where the overall direction is a mix of player actions and DM resolutions, where anything can potentially happen. I loved being surprised, especially as the DM. I like to use a variety of one-shot modules mixed with homebrewed adventures and plot points, to build an overall narrative with the players.

Not everybody has the time for that, and sometimes I goof stuff up, but it just feels like a more satisfying game experience, if we all contributed to the story. AP's lately just feel like "go here, do this, turn to page 23 and read the grey box."

It's really hard to put too much in the way of options in a published adventure - especially in a campaign length one. Far too easy to spiral out of control or have to build in dozens of different sections by the end of the campaign, only one of which gets used by each group.

Using individual, unconnected modules can avoid at least some of that, but at the expense of having much less cohesion to the narrative.

Homebrew's always worked best for me too, but it's a lot more work. It's also certainly possible to have homebrews even more strongly railroaded than most APs - or just badly done in other ways.

I agree, and I've been in some seriously heavy-handed homebrew, railroad campaigns. I quit one that involved an actual train, like it was a sign of things to come, lol.

Different groups have different wants and needs. I'm in no way saying AP's are wrong, they just don't tickle my fancy. The guys I know who do nothing but AP's, all they really want to do is hang out with friends and roll some dice. Not every DM needs to satisfy creative expression and amateur acting hour through a glorified board game, lol.


Mathmuse wrote:
As Tormsskull and TriOmegaZero pointed out, the players need buy-in to an implicit promise. The GM promises that if they follow the plot hook, then they will encounter a level-appropriate adventure. A bandit gang that raided a caravan is too much for a first-level party to handle, but the implicit promise means that somehow the bandit gang will be impaired and be a first-level challenge when the party encounters them. The railroad protects the party.

Uh...

I mean, your statement that a group of 1st levels not being able to handle it is kind of silly, as well, they handled it.

Encounter 1:
The adventurers (5 PCs, a Slayer (henceforth referred to here as the Archer), a Wizard, an Oracle (henceforth referred to as the Healer), an Un. Rogue (referred to as just the Rogue), and a Paladin) managed to make it to the caravan too late to save it, but did encounter 3 level 1 Bandits who were still there poking the scraps.

3 unoptimized level 1 rogues, vs 5 average-competent level 1's is hardly suicide. The PCs prevailed and managed to make the last bandit surrender. (He surrendered once his two companions were down.)

The Paladin appealed to his better nature (read: used his high diplomacy check) to convince the Rogue to see the error of his ways. He revealed to the party the number of Bandits in the group (9) and told them that he could take them to where their camp was.

Encounter 2:
The players chose to accept the Bandit's offer of showing them where the camp was and the Bandit lead them to a checkpoint. At this time the party attempted to bluff their way through the checkpoint and failed. They found themselves facing 2 level 1 enemies. One bandit was a Rogue, one bandit was a Fighter. They were dispatched rather easily when the Wizard managed to catch both of them in a color spray in the first round of combat.

Encounter 3:
The player characters now held the numeric advantage. The Bandits had only 9 members to begin with. 5 of them had been taken out. Now it was simple 5 to 4 odds. The problem was that before the Wizard had gone, the Rogue Bandit guard at the checkpoint had run a warning bell. The bandits knew something was coming. The players decided, with the numbers being in their favor, that a frontal attack was warranted. Especially since they knew the Bandits had captives.

The last battle was fairly easy however. The enemy was in position. The final battle consisted of 2 level 1 Rogues with shortbows on elevated positions overlooking the main camp combined with 1 level 2 Rogue (the leader), and 1 level 1 Fighter on the ground.

The Paladin Smite Evil'ed the Bandit leader and dropped him in 1 shot. (The Bandit leader only had 10 HP vs a Great Sword a +4 base Strength, and +1 from the Smite, and Power Attack.) One of the two Archers got picked off from the party Archer (7 damage), and the other one the Wizard used his last spell (from his Arcane Bond) on to Magic Missile in the first round (4 damage) and then he was finished by the Archer in the second round. The party Fighter dispatched the enemy Fighter in the 2nd round as well.

The players managed to find the locked shed the captives were in, as well as the stolen loot. The Rogue managed to pick the lock with disable device, though without him there was a key that could have been found on the body of the bandit leader.

So... You see... Hardly out of the grasp of a 1st level party, hardly suicide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest, either style (Railroad or Sandbox) can work just fine, there's no right or wrong way to play. The issues come up when the GM wants to run one way and the players want to play a different way. Or even worse, when the group is split right down the middle with regards to style preferences. That's a no win situation right there.


Using HWalsh's example:
From a GM's viewpoint if the group took the opening game plot-hook to the point of going to the wait for the caravan, and then upon hearing it had been ambushed decided to just go back and tell their employer the item never made it, and didn't plan on investigating, I would be wondering what the players (not the PCs) were doing. Its one thing to ignore or not pursue every shiny object once you're on a story arc, but it isn't realistic to expect your GM to prepare multiple opening game options, and have them fleshed out so you can pick any one and execute the session.

You're there supposedly to play the game, there are lots of ways you can deal with the caravan issue. It's one thing if the horseman said it was ambushed by stone giants - ok, 1st level I'm not going to mess with that. But either you're experienced players who should expect this particular plot-hook is not really just a grocery run (thus the ambush is the next logical point in the adventure); or you're new and the NPCs might have to prompt you a little that perhaps you should go see if there are survivors. I wouldn't hesitate to send a couple town-guards along if the group went to them either. Ignore it if you want, but what do you expect your GM to do then, they probably put in 30-60 minutes of prep for every hour the session was going to run, if you don't want to work through that particular story arc, then you may end up not playing that night depending on how much spare material they have prepped.

Similar for an AP. It would be like running to the sheriff rather than fighting in the opening segment of RotRL; or refusing to take Aldern up on his offer of a boar-hunt (which for the record almost got our party killed, just as I had warned it would); or telling the sheriff you're not interested in checking out the problem down at the cemetery; etc. Its the story arc, play it how you want, solve the problems in your own way, that's your freedom of choice, but the problems themselves have to be created, fleshed out and prepared in advance.

Plot hooks that likely have danger involved is inherently part of the game. That doesn't mean I expect them to follow every single nugget I put out there, in fact that's dangerous in a sand-box or they'll never work through any story arc. - in my current homebrew campaign there are at least 5 or 6 hanging chad side-quest options the group didn't go after because they stayed focused on their main antagonist and his group. However, those are out there for future use.

Whether you're playing an AP or home-brewed campaign, part of the social contract is the GM is going to put things out there for the players to interact with, if you're not going to do anything with your PC why play?


GM 1990 wrote:

Using HWalsh's example:

From a GM's viewpoint if the group took the opening game plot-hook to the point of going to the wait for the caravan, and then upon hearing it had been ambushed decided to just go back and tell their employer the item never made it, and didn't plan on investigating, I would be wondering what the players (not the PCs) were doing. Its one thing to ignore or not pursue every shiny object once you're on a story arc, but it isn't realistic to expect your GM to prepare multiple opening game options, and have them fleshed out so you can pick any one and execute the session.

You're there supposedly to play the game, there are lots of ways you can deal with the caravan issue. It's one thing if the horseman said it was ambushed by stone giants - ok, 1st level I'm not going to mess with that. But either you're experienced players who should expect this particular plot-hook is not really just a grocery run (thus the ambush is the next logical point in the adventure); or you're new and the NPCs might have to prompt you a little that perhaps you should go see if there are survivors. I wouldn't hesitate to send a couple town-guards along if the group went to them either. Ignore it if you want, but what do you expect your GM to do then, they probably put in 30-60 minutes of prep for every hour the session was going to run, if you don't want to work through that particular story arc, then you may end up not playing that night depending on how much spare material they have prepped.

Similar for an AP. It would be like running to the sheriff rather than fighting in the opening segment of RotRL; or refusing to take Aldern up on his offer of a boar-hunt (which for the record almost got our party killed, just as I had warned it would); or telling the sheriff you're not interested in checking out the problem down at the cemetery; etc. Its the story arc, play it how you want, solve the problems in your own way, that's your freedom of choice, but the problems themselves have to be created,...

100% this.

The point of D&D/Pathfinder is to be an adventurer. You are not a normal person. If someone DOES want to be a normal person, I am likely to say, "Hey, sure. Make a commoner class."

But if you have a class, then you aren't just some ordinary guy.

An Oracle, Rogue, or Sorcerer - The classes that have the least amount of training - have (using the human value) a minimum of 1-4 years of training.

Bards, cavaliers, fighters, gunslingers, paladins, rangers, summoners, etc. have between 1-6 years of training.

Alchemists, clerics, druids, inquisitors, magi, monks, and wizards have between 2-12 years of training.

That is if you are human. The race that learns the fastest. Heaven forbid that you are an Elven Monk then you are looking at 10-60 years of training.

Sovereign Court

where are the years of training per class listed?


Pan wrote:
where are the years of training per class listed?

Starting ages.

Technically they're not necessarily training, but some level of preparation is strongly implied. OTOH, it's not necessarily any kind of formal "Adventurer" training.

More generally, the Reluctant Hero is a perfectly fine trope. It probably works best in large-scale overarching threat kind of games, so you don't have to keep staging reasons to get Bilbo involved. It does require the player to cooperate with GM to make sure there are reasons for his character to be involved.


Pan wrote:
where are the years of training per class listed?

It is under the starting ages:

Starting Ages

They are broken up into 3 categories:

Intuitive
Self-Taught
Trained

Intuitive classes include barbarians, oracles, rogues, and sorcerers.

Self-Taught classes are bards, cavaliers, fighters, gunslingers, paladins, rangers, summoners, and witches.

While trained classes are alchemists, clerics, druids, inquisitors, magi, monks, and wizards.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group has been playing a lot of modules recently, where in the past we mostly played homebrew adventures. I have to say that I prefer the freeform stuff.

My experience is that modules tend to make the GM - and the players too, to a certain extent - forget to leave time for roleplaying. The focus relies too heavily on getting from one plot point to the next. When we played homebrew adventures, we could often go an entire session without rolling any dice. We would have long in-character conversations and talk about things our characters were doing that had nothing to do with the adventure. The GM would just set us free to do whatever we wanted, as long as we hadn't picked up the session in the middle of a combat.

It's possible to insert that kind of thing into a module, but it seems to be a lot harder to do than it is for a homebrew. Not being a GM myself, I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it's because the homebrew adventures were telling a story that we were all writing together, while modules are more like actors working from a script.


Dire Elf wrote:
It's possible to insert that kind of thing into a module, but it seems to be a lot harder to do than it is for a homebrew. Not being a GM myself, I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it's because the homebrew adventures were telling a story that we were all writing together, while modules are more like actors working from a script.

Its not so much that they have to be inserted.

How do I put it, those often happen, and the fact is that they need to be instigated by the PCs. Players often do this when they are finishing something up, and they don't feel that they have anything pressing to do. In modules there is usually a "thing to do" that is often "time sensitive" and as such that creates urgency.

So, for example, if you are preparing to go stop a ritual that, if completed, would attack a town then you aren't likely to stop for a full day and just relax.

I have been running games for well on 27 years at this point. I've had those kinds of things happen in modules as well as in my homebrew. They do happen more often in "sandbox" but also, and I can tell you from experience that sometimes these are good, for the GM and the players, and sometimes they are boring.

It depends. As long as everyone is having fun, these are good, if you have players who aren't having fun though? These are bad.

Not all characters, for example, are talkative. I once played Thorag the Barbarian. Thorag wasn't very articulate with his words. He was actually very quiet. He had things he liked (Thorag actually liked fishing and watching birds) but when it came to extended, dialogue-heavy, scenes he would often fade into the background.

Gwyn the Paladin loved to talk, and boast, and laugh and joke. He was very fun in extended, dialogue-heavy, scenes.

In that group with Thorag, entire sessions where dice weren't rolled, weren't a bad thing. I liked listening to people talk. However the game became a podcast for me. Thorag wasn't the talkative type.

I liken it to the old WoD chats where you would have nothing but player characters sitting around in bars talking all night. It is fine, if you are the type of character who would do that, if you aren't then it isn't fun at all.

-----
Actual Thorag Dialogue:

GM: "So what is Thorag doing while all of this is going on?"

Me: "Well, Thorag is going to take his fishing pole, and you said there was a lake near the edge of town?"

GM: "Sure was."

Me: "Cool. Thorag is going to take his fishing pole, look over at Daenara (our Bard), and say, "Daenara, sing pretty, Thorag like. Thorag think since we no have thing do, Thorag go fish, is okay?"

Daenara: "Sure. Would you like some company?"

Thorag: "You know Fish?"

Daenara: "Not really."

Thorag: "Hrm. Thorag willing to show if want. It easy. Put bait on hook. Throw hook in water. Relax, lay down, listen to birds. If pole get tug, then pull in, sometimes you get fish, sometimes you no get fish. It make Thorag feel calm."

Daenara: "Oh, well. I am going to see if I can gather some information from the local pubs first."

Thorag: "Okay. You do. Thorag go fish. Maybe see you. Bye."

-----

5 hours later, the session ended, after they went looking for information. Thorag did manage to catch a few fish though.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Elf wrote:

My group has been playing a lot of modules recently, where in the past we mostly played homebrew adventures. I have to say that I prefer the freeform stuff.

My experience is that modules tend to make the GM - and the players too, to a certain extent - forget to leave time for roleplaying. The focus relies too heavily on getting from one plot point to the next. When we played homebrew adventures, we could often go an entire session without rolling any dice. We would have long in-character conversations and talk about things our characters were doing that had nothing to do with the adventure. The GM would just set us free to do whatever we wanted, as long as we hadn't picked up the session in the middle of a combat.

It's possible to insert that kind of thing into a module, but it seems to be a lot harder to do than it is for a homebrew. Not being a GM myself, I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it's because the homebrew adventures were telling a story that we were all writing together, while modules are more like actors working from a script.

I find the first half of an AP to be very open and encouraging of RP. Unfortunately, this fails to continue into the second half. I think high level being an utter PITA to write for doesnt help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

The point of D&D/Pathfinder is to be an adventurer. You are not a normal person. If someone DOES

want to be a normal person, I am likely to say, "Hey, sure. Make a commoner class."

My players don't play normal adventurers. The glory-and-wealth motives of stereotypical adventurers are pretty dull. Individual motivations males railroads more obvious, because the PCs pass up the usual incentives to stay on the plot.

HWalsh wrote:
I mean, your statement that a group of 1st levels not being able to handle it is kind of silly, as well, they handled it.

Presuming that the nine unoptimized bandits were CR 1/2 like the low-level bandits from the NPC gallery, that would be a total of 1800 xp, about CR 5. Thus, if the party had encountered 8 or 9 of them together, the bandit gang would have likely killed a party member or two. And encountering the bandits together was the most likely outcome of tracking them down. Why would a band of adventurers risk losing one member for the low payment, perhaps 10 gold, appropriate for picking up a package? I could understand a paladin wanting to rescue the caravan, but why did a paladin accept a menial job of picking up a package?

If the bandits were even weaker than CR 1/2. then they could have been defeated by four shopkeepers with kitchen knives. Do caravans typically travel unarmed in that setting?

I asked my wife for a sanity check. She says that for a one-time three-hour game at a game store or a convention her character would follow the plot hook and chase the bandits. That kind of session is a race through a maze of opponents, rather than a story. But when she carefully makes a character to contribute to the story of a full-scale adventure, that character won't run off on unrelated heroics. The bandits look like a distraction. Notice that in Encounters 1, 2, and 3, HWalsh did not say that the party found the item.

We went over whether my wife's characters would have pursued the bandits. Boffin the young dwarf gunslinger motivated by gadgteering would not have gone because that would send an unproven youngster into danger. Ebony Blosson the human Minkaian ninja motivated by clan duties would have not gone because it was not her mission. Zigania the human cleric of Desna motivated by doctrine would have searched for the caravan but not gone after the bandits because she is a pacifist healer. Wealday the halfling sorceress of abberant bloodline motivated by whim and survival might or might not have gone because she was insane, Sir Guy the halfling cavalier motivated by honor would have gone because he is heroic. Black Angus the human bard motivated by curiosity would have gone because he never backed down from a challenge. Moonrider the lyrakien bard motivated by divine mission would not have been on the prime material plane at first level.

My wife said that sometimes a railroad needs a bigger piece of cheese to lure her character. The threat of ruining her local reputation means little to an adventurer traveling from town to town. If the town needed the adventurers, well, too bad for the town that they snubbed them.

One lesson for the fine art of railroading: Punishing PCs for leaving the railroad would make the railroad even more annoying. The best way to return them to the railroad is to invisibly splice their new path back into the railroad. The fastest way is with a good carrot to lure them back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, can we clear something up real quick, because some people seem to be applying the word "railroad" to things that aren't inherently railroady. It would help if we could unambiguously define how the term is being used.

I would seriously recommend that people refer to this. It gives a really concise definition and discusses the issue in depth.

Some useful quotes

spoilered for length:

The most important bit:
Quote:

Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome.

Quote:


Note, however, that both parts of this equation are important: The choice must be negated and the reason it’s being negated is because the GM is trying to create a specific outcome. The players must try to get off the train and the GM has to lock the doors.

A simple failure to achieve a desired outcome is not railroading
...

It’s also not railroading if the GM has a preconceived outcome, but doesn’t negate player choices in order to make it happen.
...
Finally, choices having consequences is also not railroading.
...
In fact, choices having consequences is the exact opposite of a railroad. Railroading makes a choice meaningless. Consequences make a choice meaningful.
...
Railroading, in the purest sense of the term, is something that happens at the gaming table: It is the precise moment at which the GM negates a player’s choice.

In practice, of course, the term has bled over into scenario prep. We talk about “railroaded adventures” all the time, by which we generally mean linear scenarios which are designed around the assumption that the PCs will make specific choices at specific points in order to reach the next part of the scenario. If the PCs don’t make those choices, then the GM has to railroad them in order to continue using the scenario as it was designed..
...
the more specific and unlikely the necessary outcome, the more fragile your scenario becomes: It will break if the PCs deviate even slightly from your predetermined sequence. Once the scenario breaks, you’ll have to resort to railroading in order to fix it. This is why I often refer to railroading as a broken technique seeking to fix a broken scenario.

It’s fairly typical, for example, to hear someone say, “I only railroad my players if it’s really important.” And when you delve a little deeper, you virtually always discover that “really important” is a synonym for the GM making sure their predetermined outcome happens. These are literally people saying that they need to railroad because they designed a railroad.

Another common rationalization for railroading is that GMs have to use it in order to keep problem players in line. However, if your relationship with your players is that they’re naughty children who are testing their limits and you’re a parental figure that somehow needs to keep them in line, then your relationship with your players is fundamentally broken. More generally, what you’re talking about are issues outside of the game. Attempting to handle those issues with in-game behavior modifications is simply dysfunctional. It’s no different than if a player at your table was cheating or if they poured a drink over the head of another player: These are all problems which require intercession. But none of them are going to be solved through railroading.

One specific example of this is often cited as an exception, however: Behavior which is deliberately disruptive through the agency of the game world.
...
Either the guy involved is a jackass (which is a problem that needs to be solved outside of the game) or this is really only a “problem” insofar as it disrupts your preconceived notion of how {the scenario} was supposed to play out (which means we’ve arrived back at “I need to railroad them in order to maintain my railroad”).

(Note, too, how often these “problems” can quickly be solved by having the game world respond naturally to the circumstances)
...

[title]Nobody minds the railroad if the destination is Awesome Town![/title]

The theory here is that if you offer a big enough carrot, nobody will mind being hit by the stick a few times.

There’s a fair amount of truth to that, but what always strikes me about this popular meme is the extraordinary amount of hubris it demonstrates. See, any time that a player chooses to do something, that implicitly means that it’s something that they want. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they should automatically succeed at everything they attempt, but if you’re artificially negating their choice in order to enforce your preconceived outcome, what you’re saying is, “I know what you want better than you do.”

Which might be true. But I’m willing to bet that 99 times out of 100, it isn’t.

[title]The railroad creates specific situations. The goal is to see how the PCs react to those specific situations.[/title]

This is a more nuanced and deliberate application of railroading techniques. The idea is that the choices you’re interested in are those made in specific moments. The methods by which individual moments are reached are of less interest, and, in fact, it’s more important to create specific moments of particular effectiveness than it is to enable choice outside of those moments. You’re basically stripping out the strategic choices of the players in order to create intense tactical experiences.

In practice, however, railroads warp the decision-making process of the players. When you systematically strip meaningful choice from them, they stop making choices and instead start looking for the railroad tracks.

So railroading PCs into a situation to see what choice they’ll make doesn’t actually work: Having robbed them of free agency in order to get them there, you’ve fundamentally altered the dynamic of the situation itself. You’ll no longer see what their reaction is; you’ll only see what they think you want their reaction to be.

I suspect that GMs who habitually railroad have difficulty seeing this warping of the decision-making process because it’s the only thing they’re used to. But it becomes glaringly obvious whenever I get the players they’ve screwed up: Nothing is more incoherent than a player trying to figure out where the railroad is when there’s no railroad to be found.
...

1 to 50 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.