| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are missing one important point, the players have taken a choice and they haven't taken the other one. They will never know what was down the other path. How will they ever know that the NPC they bumped into on the road going who was going to the same town would have been encountered in any event had they taken the other route?
They didn't make a choice. They were just fooled into thinking they did.
Sooner or later, the players realize what the GM is doing... That's when they start to feel indifference towards the "choices" the GM puts in their way. And the game becomes a lot less fun for everyone involved.
|
Any plot is on rails. Some might have a couple branches, but in the end, if you have a story you are trying to tell, with a defined endgame, that story has rails.
DMing when you have a plot is like being a magician. The goal is to have the players make a free choice, and yet have that choice be what you wanted. The way you do this is just like performing a free form magic trick, you have cutouts. Places where you can insert the plot without conflicting with the players choice.
Several ideas were presented in this thread.
The core of it is though, if you want to not be on rails, dont have a plot prepared.
Basically, I'm looking for tips on how to avoid railroading a plot that, at least for now, could be so easy to railroad by having the armies invading from all over. I want the situation to feel somewhat hopeless for now, while having player decisions still matter and impact the story.
I'll share a story from my current game. I'll skip most of the backstory.
After a long series of events, the players were presented with a choice. They had a god-killing dagger and there was a god who had been stabbed with it once and then imprisoned for eternity. They could use the dagger to finish the job, or they could destroy the dagger and free the god (they couldn't choose to do nothing, because that was the status quo and the Bad Guys were winning).
They had to travel to a small prison dimension where the god was. They chose to free the god, but that choice would have immediate and widespread effects on the material world. Not just because a god was brought back, but because of the desires and intentions of the mortals who did it. As they approached the threshold back to the material world, they saw the portal, but it was flitting between two versions of itself.
To make the transition they had to focus on one of the versions. Each player saw their own set of portals and it was a personal choice for each.
For example one player had to choose:
A) finding a permanent home for his nomadic and dispersed people who had long suffered at the hands of the nations they traveled between.
B) restoring an order of holy knights, of whom the player was the last surviving member.
In that decision, the player didn't just tell me what was important to his character, but what story he wanted to see in the game. What course of action he wanted to pursue in the sessions ahead.
You could easily do a similar thing with players via a fortune teller, or other in game device of similar nature. Or you could flat out ask the players what they're interested in. Perhaps even a set of questions about what their goals are and what sacrifices they're willing to make to achieve them. Then, as a cruel story writer, you make them sacrifice just a little bit more (done well, this makes for great and memorable story telling).
You have a big and open sounding game. That's awesome, because it has endless possibilities. Don't try to narrow it down yourself, see what your players want and let their decisions narrow it down for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any plot is on rails. Some might have a couple branches, but in the end, if you have a story you are trying to tell, with a defined endgame, that story has rails.
And that's one of the reasons I usually recommend against "having a story you are trying to tell." This is an RPG, not a novel, and not even a film. You're the game master, not the scriptwriter, and not the director.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On topic with illusion of choice, ever ponder the illusion of randomness with the dice...I mean, if the illusion of choice bothers you, perhaps dice aren't really your thing either, as the each die represents a spliting path with a number of possible outcomes based on the sides of that die.
"Illusion of Randomness" would be if every possible result of the die led to the same result... And yes, it'd be just as pointless.
It is possible to have both rails and a large amount of genuine choice in the same game. Just the same as either eliminating some options or limiting to some options in character creation removes some choices but doesn't remove choice. If you have an all halflings campaign, no you don't get the choice to be an Orc. But it doesn't mean you don't get genuine story influencing choices. Same with limited focused rails to lead to story nodes.
On the other hand, it definitely negates player agency. if I hate playing halflings, then you're giving me "genuine story influencing choices," but all the choices suck. (Similarly, if I have a seafood allergy, letting me pick whether we have trout, salmon or oysters for dinner may be a genuine choice, but I'm not going to like any of them.)
It's perhaps not as bad if we're all upfront about it at the beginning of the campaign. ("I want to run an all-halfling campaign." "Oh. Have fun. Call me when it crashes and burns.") But if you're negating my first and best choices without telling me up-front, it doesn't really matter whether there's twenty alternatives that suck or only one alternative that sucks. Because either way, it sucks.
It's not entirely just the illusion of choice. Just because both paths lead to the same place doesn't mean that going either direction will result in the same outcome.So, just dishonesty?If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.If they don't result in the same outcome, I don't have a problem with it... After all, the road is at least as important as the destination. But the proposed "fork in the road" does nothing. You go to the same place, see the same sights, meet the same people and face the save challenges no matter what you do, because that's what your GM wrote down on his notebook.
That's railroading, but that's not my problem with it... Railroad adventures can still be fun. Railroading is not bad if the group is ok with it. My problem is with railroading while lying to your players that it's a sandbox campaign.
It's giving the lie that the players want. Most players want the illusion of freedom, but they don't want the burden or the responsibility of running the campaign themselves.
The key to good GM directorship is finesse. And knowing your players, in particular knowing the kind of game they want to play as opposed to the game you want to run. When groups fail its generally not because of railroading but of player/GM disconnect.
The ultimate goal is to railroad the players without them knowing they are being railroaded, it's a very delicate art. You need to have the world react to their actions in a reasonable way, but you can have a plot generally planned out for how you want things to go that can be largely agnostic of what the players do. You just need to plant the right clues and don't have things/people present in places if you don't want PCs to interact/kill it/them yet.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, you need to know what is at the locations the PCs may visit, and what are the motivations of the NPCs they may meet. Then you have those things change as events of the campaign occur. Rather than "The PCs will stop Dark Helmet from stealing all the air from Planet Druidia." you keep in mind "Dark Helmet is trying to steal all the air from Planet Druidia." and have him change course as needed. Rather than "The PCs go to Not-Stonehenge and disrupt the summoning ritual." you know that "The summoning ritual is in progress at Not-Stonehenge." and be prepared for either the PCs to show up or for the ritual to succeed, with that changing the state of Not-Stonehenge and possibly more.
It's giving the lie that the players want. Most players want the illusion of freedom, but they don't want the burden or the responsibility of running the campaign themselves.
The key to good GM directorship is finesse. And knowing your players, in particular knowing the kind of game they want to play as opposed to the game you want to run. When groups fail its generally not because of railroading but of player/GM disconnect.
Just because they don't want to GM, doesn't mean they don't want their characters' choices to matter. Like I said before, not everything has to be an open-ended choice with multiple possible results... But whatever few choices the players get should be actual choices, not a lie the GM tells.
Sure, you can go with the argument "if they don't like it, they can find another GM", but IMHO, "my way or the highway" is not something I'd like to say or hear from one of my friends.
And again... The players always eventually figure it out. And that leads to disappointment and apathy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not having every single thing in the campaign be an open choice doesnt mean they dont have agency.
Is this directed at me? Because I said the same thing in at least two of my posts (with the addendum that whatever choices the players do get should be real choices, not just a lie to cover the tracks of the railroad).
|
Basically, I'm looking for tips on how to avoid railroading a plot that, at least for now, could be so easy to railroad by having the armies invading from all over. I want the situation to feel somewhat hopeless for now, while having player decisions still matter and impact the story.
I recall the start of "Red Cliff". You are being push back by a bigger/stronger army, and have to flee.
But the "heroes" have a lot to do:- Save the wife and son of the king (only the son makes it)
- Cover the retreat of the peasants
- Convince the king of the "right" course of action
- Organize a retreat to avoid a rout
Make them feel like their efforts are the difference between "survive to fight another day" and "today is a good day to die".
I imagine an scene where a brave (and foolish) NPC decides to attack so they can witness, first hand, the result, and "decide" by themselves that trying to save as much as possible is the way to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I'm looking for tips on how to avoid railroading a plot that, at least for now, could be so easy to railroad by having the armies invading from all over. I want the situation to feel somewhat hopeless for now, while having player decisions still matter and impact the story.I recall the start of "Red Cliff". You are being push back by a bigger/stronger army, and have to flee.
But the "heroes" have a lot to do:
- Save the wife and son of the king (only the son makes it)
- Cover the retreat of the peasants
- Convince the king of the "right" course of action
- Organize a retreat to avoid a rout
Make them feel like their efforts are the difference between "survive to fight another day" and "today is a good day to die".
I imagine an scene where a brave (and foolish) NPC decides to attack so they can witness, first hand, the result, and "decide" by themselves that trying to save as much as possible is the way to go.
As half of the "Star Wars" cast so memorably said, "I have a bad feeling about this." This is exactly what I warned about (and what the Alexandrian articles cited upthread warned about as well) when I said that this is a game, not a movie.
Let me expand:
But the "heroes" have a lot to do:
- Save the wife and son of the king What if they don't?
- Cover the retreat of the peasants What if they don't?
- Convince the king of the "right" course of action What if they don't?
- Organize a retreat to avoid a rout What if they don't?
Any time you say the heroes "have to" do something, you are basically saying "my story demands that the players at the table follow an unwritten script that exists only in my head."
Similarly, any time you say "I imagine a scene where...," you are essentially playing film director and demanding that everyone else follow the choreography that only you know about.
What do you do if the entire party decides to go Leroy Jenkins on the opposing army?
Presumably if one of the players loathes halflings that much you never started that particular campaign in the first place?It is possible to have both rails and a large amount of genuine choice in the same game. Just the same as either eliminating some options or limiting to some options in character creation removes some choices but doesn't remove choice. If you have an all halflings campaign, no you don't get the choice to be an Orc. But it doesn't mean you don't get genuine story influencing choices. Same with limited focused rails to lead to story nodes.On the other hand, it definitely negates player agency. if I hate playing halflings, then you're giving me "genuine story influencing choices," but all the choices suck. (Similarly, if I have a seafood allergy, letting me pick whether we have trout, salmon or oysters for dinner may be a genuine choice, but I'm not going to like any of them.)
It's perhaps not as bad if we're all upfront about it at the beginning of the campaign. ("I want to run an all-halfling campaign." "Oh. Have fun. Call me when it crashes and burns.") But if you're negating my first and best choices without telling me up-front, it doesn't really matter whether there's twenty alternatives that suck or only one alternative that sucks. Because either way, it sucks.
Yeah, I mentioned that. But most GM's don't tell you up front the script you are supposed to be following. No one told Frodo's player at the beginning that he was supposed to retreat from Caradhras, or that he was going to be separated from everyone except Sam for 2/3 of the campaign.
|
|
The it is a short and bloody game.
Yes, by all means, if the players want their characters fail their duty, abandon the innocent, let their king die and witness the rout of their army, after which they decide to let their characters go in a blaze of glory, let them.
It won't be a long game, but maybe they will enjoy it.
I can say I wouldn't. But that is just me.
The it is a short and bloody game. [...] It won't be a long game, but maybe they will enjoy it. I can say I wouldn't.
So, "I must do exactly what you want or the game ends"? I wouldn't enjoy that game either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's giving the lie thatthesome players want.
So it behooves the DM ask them first, instead of assuming he/she knows "what's best for them."
When groups fail its generally not because of railroading but of player/GM disconnect.
Yes, this.
How many gm's say, by the way, we are run ing a game but I won't tell you anything about it until you are in my clutches, mwa ha, mwa ha. Ha. Ha."
I generally avoid DMs who've previously demonstrated that they have not surpassed the mental age of 5.
How many gm's say, by the way, we are run ing a game but I won't tell you anything about it until you are in my clutches, mwa ha, mwa ha. Ha. Ha."
Very few.
But a larger number than those that actually share all the information with you that you need to make intelligent decisions about what to do. The "magician's force," for example, ("Do you turn left or right? Ah, that path takes you to the ogres' lair....") is used by at least 100% of game masters in my opinion.
But often to set them up with the opportunities to shine and make big important choices you have to steer or predetermine a number of minor choices.
... and the defense rests, m'lud.
How many gm's say, by the way, we are run ing a game but I won't tell you anything about it until you are in my clutches, mwa ha, mwa ha. Ha. Ha."
I rewrote all of Skull & Shackles to make it much more sandbox-y. When we decided to take a break from that for a few sessions, one of the players offered to DM.
The first thing he said to me? "The first session or so is going to be very rainroad-y, OK? If we can get past that, the campaign should be able to gradually open up: choice of quests for the next few adventures, and eventually you guys will be able to do what you want. But just play along for the first few sessions, OK?"
I can scarcely express how much I appreciated that simple heads-up. It made the difference between me being disgruntled vs. me having a ball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure most players would greater desire big important choices than mi or ones they likely don't even know they didn't make.
I'm sure that's true in the abstract. I have, however, no confidence at all in the GM's ability to infer telepathically which choices the players consider to be big and/or important.
Further to my own post, here's what the Alexandrian says about the GM making decisions for the players:
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.
|
|
Did the players sign up for characters that are duty-bound to the king? Or did you write that script out and forget to tell them?
Again, just talking about me, I like my players heroic, and try to tell them that before the game starts. I don't forget to tell them.
And yes, I expect them to save grandmas and kittens, try to avoid bloodshed and protect the innocent.And if by presenting them situations where I expect them to save the day, the princess, the world, is railroading, yes, I do that. A lot.
What I want them to surprise me with is the WAY they do it. Their ingenuity to solve the problems I face them with,
The voyage, not the destination, that's what I like.
So, "I must do exactly what you want or the game ends"? I wouldn't enjoy that game either.
More like: There are choices that cause the game to end. If the characters jump off a climb to their dead, yes, the game ends. Yes, because the GM says so. But is not like "Hey, my character should be able to jump off cliffs and survive if I want to, and the GM shouldn't say that is not possible!"
So yes, if the GM determines a course of action means the characters die/lose/get corrupted beyond redemption/etc. and the campaign ends, I would recommend the players not to do it if they want the campaign to continue.
The voyage, not the destination, that's what I like.
Great. Call me when your novel is published.