Alot of talk on the boards about GM "railroading" and the accusations of APs being excessively railroady (usually opposed to an expressed desire for a greater "sandbox") has had me thinking, as it has others, for the past few weeks, so I thought I'd share something, for what it's worth.
It cast my mind back from the more recent days where I have been GMing more to my college days, when I was exclusively a player, and, let's face it, the star player in a campaign run by my (obsessive and talented) college DM that included a changing cast of other players whose characters ranged from cameo characters to regular support characters (some played by casual players and others by people who lived out of town). This campaign was set in a world that would seem very familiar to you if you ever read the Dray Prescott books. Just like in the books, there was a race of super beings (the Savanati or Star Lords became "the Magis Lords" in this game world) that were always interfering with my character's actions. While my character had his own desires and plans, they sometimes conflicted with the plans of the Magis Lords, or their demands that my character fulfill some mission. One can hardly imagine a greater railroad. The Magis Lords interfered with his personal and family life, his attempts to go home, and his hold on the throne that he eventually claimed. They'd teleport him hither and thither, naked and with no weapons, all the time, dropping him in foreign locations which invariably were a scene of confusion and danger. And it was some of the best gaming I've ever had.
But I never felt like I couldn't accomplish things, and I never felt like that world was not a real place. Now some of this, admittedly, is due to the fact that I played the character in a campaign whose storyline centered on my character, and this is different in an AP that assumes a party of more or less equal characters. But I was forced into situations all the time against my will. This was balanced not only by opportunities to pursue my own ends, but by my working to make choices within the limits that had been imposed on my character. And proportionate to how much railroading power the Magis Lords afforded my DM, was the beauty of the look on his face and the sound of his exhalation when I figured out a way to handle the situation that evaded all of his planning and power, forcing a DM time-out to regroup and proceed with the new line I had created.
I want to propose that one reason, the main reason, that this was so enjoyable was because the role-playing realistically reflected the way human life works: situations are forced upon us that constrain our choices. How creative we are in carving out freedom to act within those bounds will make a huge difference in how much we enjoy the play, and how sweet the outcome will be if, in spite of the limits, we overcome.
That sounds like you had a lot of fun, M :)
I've found many of the "accusations" of railroading in the APs to be curious. My own opinion of railroading is when the GM, regardless of the players actions or stated doings, progresses with his plot, and we, the players are just along for the ride. (Been there, done that, with four separate GMs over the years ;p Some worse than others)
Maybe my group is different, but we go into a campaign, specifically the first three APs, with notes from the GM on what is expected of us as characters and players. We design our characters for the AP based on the notes ... in my Crimson Throne campaign, I asked the players to be long term citizens of Korvosa, if not natives. My players complied beautifully, and not only worked up backgrounds but gave me families and friends to play around with <eg>.
They have their own lives (a Sable Marine, Apothecary with a family owned shop and priestess of Shelyn all have things outside the adventure to be worried about) that they deal with but also have a desire to protect "home" ...
I realize there are certain presumptions made in the APs, but all games have those ... if you, as player, are not going to bite at the plot hooks presented, why are you there? That's the point when a talk between players and GM needs to happen, to find out what folks are looking for in the game.
Just some random thoughts.
Yeah, DMs and players should talk about the campaign so there is an agreement about the goals and wishes of all the players (including the GM!). That way, everyone can play the same style game.
Also, GMs can cheat and have 4 or 5 different storylines, but have them all lead to the same deep dank dungeon in the forbidden forest. Sort of like an "all railroads lead to Rome" idea. And since the PCs didn't go down the other roads, they assume they made a significant choice. They don't have to know otherwise.
That sounds like you had a lot of fun, M :)
I've found many of the "accusations" of railroading in the APs to be curious. My own opinion of railroading is when the GM, regardless of the players actions or stated doings, progresses with his plot, and we, the players are just along for the ride. (Been there, done that, with four separate GMs over the years ;p Some worse than others)
Maybe my group is different, but we go into a campaign, specifically the first three APs, with notes from the GM on what is expected of us as characters and players. We design our characters for the AP based on the notes ... in my Crimson Throne campaign, I asked the players to be long term citizens of Korvosa, if not natives. My players complied beautifully, and not only worked up backgrounds but gave me families and friends to play around with <eg>.
They have their own lives (a Sable Marine, Apothecary with a family owned shop and priestess of Shelyn all have things outside the adventure to be worried about) that they deal with but also have a desire to protect "home" ...
I realize there are certain presumptions made in the APs, but all games have those ... if you, as player, are not going to bite at the plot hooks presented, why are you there? That's the point when a talk between players and GM needs to happen, to find out what folks are looking for in the game.
Just some random thoughts.
First, I want to say that I agree with most of what your're saying, and I'm in large part playing devils advocate in making this argument. So....
The fact that you make the players sync their back stories, and more importantly, give them fixed things to have as a part of their background, is railroading in every sense of the term.
OTOH, When I DM, I have a plot in mind, nothing more. I have encounters that will happen. How the players arrive at those is completely up to the ideas they come up with - and me to work those encounters in. As long as you know your players, you don't ever have to railroad.
The AP's, OTOH, seem to do that ALOT. I left the Savage Tide campaign my group was running, for example, becuase I find it to be the most railroading plot I have ever seen. "Go to A. Kill X. Go to B. Solve puzzle M. Then, Kill Y. Go to C. Solve puzzle N, which is only solved by killing Z." There is no roleplaying involved. You simply move from one interchangeable fighting encounter to another of the same type. BORING - and terribly railroading. I expect better of Paizo's writers, and was terribly disappointed.
If the term "railroading" applies to any constraint on player choice, then the term loses all significant meaning and the objection fails. Hopefully that is self-evident.
Just as a fun aside, determinists (a very real and sizable amount of thinkers) believe that human freedom IS an illusion. If they're right, people seem to enjoy (or suffer from) this illusion just as much as if it were not an illusion, so real does it seem. As a practical matter in the game, if players feel like they have freedom, and they desire the choices that they make, then what more do you want? And if choices are limited in the real world by things we do not desire, would not the game world feel phony if this were never the case in the game?
To apply some of this back to my original example, which I hoped might provide some context for this discussion, what is required for player buy-in? Did I have to buy-in to every time the Magis Lords jacked with my character's decicions? Or just the premise that there were Magis Lords in the game world who would sometimes interfere with my plans and actions?
The fact that you make the players sync their back stories, and more importantly, give them fixed things to have as a part of their background, is railroading in every sense of the term.OTOH, When I DM, I have a plot in mind, nothing more. I have encounters that will happen. How the players arrive at those is completely up to the ideas they come up with - and me to work those encounters in. As long as you know your players, you don't ever...
But isnt having encounters that WILL happen, encounters that you work in no matter the direction the players approach just the same?
I mean your players decide to do A or B or C either way you work in the same encounter. Isnt that railroading towards the same encounter but with the illusion of free choice?
I find the Railroad idea vs sandbox a bit odd. I mean as a player in a fantasy world playing a standard adventurer my motivations are likely to be loot, fame or doing the right thing (I know there are more I am generalising- and if the motivation for adventure is different the DM just makes the hook different). So say group composes of all three and lives in a town the DM says 'you hear word some bad humanoids have been raiding merchants and have captured the dukes favourite horse and he is offering a big reward for it's return (fame, loot, do the right thing)- Is the DM mentioning this to the party railroading?
they can ignore it and continue to hang out in town (in which case I tell them a couple of weeks pass and then some adventurers return to town with the Dukes horse, they are heroes, richly rewarded, feted by the Duke. One of them is an old class mate of the PC's who is only a second rate wizard really).
Say on the mission they find a treasure map. railroad?
Say upon returning the horse the duke offers a handsome commision if the party delivers a message to an ally. Railroad?
The ally has a magical disease and the cure is said to require a gem from X the horn of the beast of Y and to be created by the witch in the forest of Z . Railroad?
At any time the players can say stuff this I dont like the duke he is a pompous git I want to leave and explore something else- the result is that the adventure as planned doesnt proceed. The DM looks for some other adventure to insert for the players and looks to see if the players are ever prepared to go along for the ride.
I have played with players who avoid adventure, they discover an evil cult is summoning something bad, and decide to leave town. Sure it's sensible, they will live (others may die) but why even play the game?
All of the examples I have given could be considered to be railroad but if properly presented they could be natural choices that the players take. Also each time the players deal with a problem the way they deal with it effects their world. Maybe when they rescue the horse a hobgoblin ranger escapes- he later turns up working for the sick ally, seeking to find a cure. How does the party react to this bump in the railroad?
I know I sound like I dont really believe there is a problem with railroading but this isnt true. I accept it can take the fun out of the exploration/discovery side of the game as it feels like whatever you do it will turn out the same. I have read but not played all the AP's so I dont have real first hand experience- but IMO what some call railroading is just another word for adventure hooks.
The AP's, OTOH, seem to do that ALOT. I left the Savage Tide campaign my group was running, for example, becuase I find it to be the most railroading plot I have ever seen. "Go to A. Kill X. Go to B. Solve puzzle M. Then, Kill Y. Go to C. Solve puzzle N, which is only solved by killing Z." There is no roleplaying involved. You simply move from one interchangeable fighting encounter to another of the same type. BORING - and terribly railroading. I expect better of Paizo's writers, and was terribly disappointed.
I am curious Lefric, did you read the adventures or was this your experience as a player only? I ask because what you describe of STAP is not what I have seen myself. I am wondering how much of what you are describing was poor DM presentation of the adventures rather than poor adventures.
I know that I have played with other players who HATE any pre-published adventure as they find them flat, boring and restrictive (unless I didn't tell him I was running a pre-published adventure, then it was the best adventure ever). I have also played under DM's who just couldn't bring the pre-published adventure to life at all for those of us playing and they did feel very much as you described (two side notes: 1) later reading the adventures I was able to see how great they could have been 2) the flat pre-published adventure was a step up from this guys literally random adventure design).
I guess my point is that in my experience the whole railroading thing seems to have far more to do with the DM than it does the adventure, pre-published or not.
Sean Mahoney
My players always say "as long as the choice presented is obviously the most beneficial and logical, we don't even think of it as railroad, we'd have done it anyway."
My group seems to be of a very similar mind. I finished running them through SCAP and am now running RotR for them. When I ask them if they have ever felt railroaded by the APs they say no and give me examples of how they were able to do whatever they wanted. However, with only one exception that I can think of, "what they wanted" was almost always to follow right along the path the adventure took.
Now, they might go and investigate differently than the adventure assumes, but knowing the world and what the bad guys are up to lets me improvise these parts easily and the plot keeps on going smoothly... I guess you could call it getting back on track, but I guess neither I nor my players ever feel like it is that way. It is more like a movie that has a plot and the plot makes sense.
I supposed I have had one exception to the above in groups before though (and not in my current group as we talked about it ahead of time) and that is the guy who always wants to go off on his own and have his own story. Typically this is the rogue or a nature focused character like a druid.
For some reason people seem to think that playing a rogue means sneaking off and doing your own thing all the time. The nature type may just never want to come in the city. In both cases the separation from the party and the story is what is causing issues. If one player wants to be off telling his own story, it might be a great story, but it isn't the story the group is telling together and the person should probably roll up a new character (unless they are really persuasive and convince the rest of the party to all roll up characters who are all interested in the story they want to tell).
Sean Mahoney
First, I want to say that I agree with most of what your're saying, and I'm in large part playing devils advocate in making this argument. So....The fact that you make the players sync their back stories, and more importantly, give them fixed things to have as a part of their background, is railroading in every sense of the term.
Hmmm ... I guess my response to this would be that life then is a railroad :)
Generally in a game, you're creating a life, and trying to imagine how little Jimmy became Sir James the Crusader. Sir James is the end product, and in years gone by, that would be the be-all and end-all of the creation process. But over time, players and GMs wanted more, and we gained rich, in depth worlds where it was unsatisfactory to have a two-dimensional hero wandering around in the three-dimensional world.
By asking my players to create characters that fit into the world, and be a part of the city, they are creating three-dimensional beings that have cause and reason to react in certain ways. They didn't live the day to day minutia of the characters they create, they are imagining what would happen, and I, as GM, set the guidelines of what can and would happen to them in the city they are beginning in. Korvosa has a very different flavor than Waterdeep from the Realms, and that needs to be taken into account when creating a character.
Gaming is a shared story, to me, which means it is not just the job of the GM to make things work. The players have a certain level of buy in, to help the game work and make things fun for all, not just themselves.
And back to the notion that life is a railroad. We live in a world with certain rules. We can't just DO anything we want, there are consequences that society has set into place. Rob a bank because you want money? Jailtime when you are caught. You are under a certain age? You better be in school then, or you and your folks are going to be in trouble with the authorities. You need money to survive, so you can't just spend your days doing anything you want and expect things to fall into your lap :)
If the Martians landed in battle mode in Farmer Bob's field just outside of your home town (home town being where you live, have put down roots and you care about someone) would you just go "Oh, well, let's move over here and see what's happening?" Or would you rally the locals and join in an attempt to repel the invaders, help hide the kiddies, do whatever you could to save the homestead?
My job as GM is to make the world feel as alive and real to the players as is possible. Their job as players is to fit into that world within the agreed upon parameters of the game system and our gaming groups desires. And I cannot accept the notion that setting up those rules and requirements are railroading -- that seems to me an unacceptable broadening of the definition :)
Sorry if this has been a long post, but I've been in situations that I consider railroads, and the creation process was never a part of it. In each occassion where I was being railroaded, it was that the GM had a specific story/plot that s/he was going to run, and it really didn't matter what I did, the story was going to progress along the lines s/he'd written and I was an extra along for the ride. (And I'm using the s/he business not for political correctness, but because twice the GM was male, and twice female :) )
Anywho, those are my way more than two cents :)
One final allegorical comment: the tune for which this thread was named has a different name in Texas: "The Eyes of Texas are upon You."
|
Hey M. Whazzzzup!?!
Okay - as long as you realize you're treading on sacred ground by holding this particular topic dicussion in public.... then I'll add a verse or two to it.
1) We probably shouldn't really discuss this in public.
2) Some might wonder why I would say #1 (above). Those that understand why I suggest reserving this discussion for mere whispers in shadows, already know the secret. Those who are confused by these statements - will likely benefit from this discussion, and are still growing to learn the secret.
Okay, that said... here are a few practicals then:
>DMs should do their homework, either to prepare for many many multiple paths, OR do their homework to prepare excellently in order to be spontaneous. I find both approaches to be ostensibly the same in many ways. And, unless the GM is naturally talented (and many are), I simply can't stand lack of preparation (or as an alternative, good flowing well-facilitated spontaneity).
>>Never, never drag your players around by the nose (unless you must - and in those cases, try to present some reason to the situation)
>>>Always, always be prepared to thow away hours of prepared ideas (or throw away written and purchased ideas), for something better that happens in-the-moment. This is an artform of GMing that is becomming more and more scarce these days.
More later.... its getting late, and I seem to have forgotten what this thread was about. And, as you can tell I am very tired today.............I'm also not sure what Texas has to do with Eyes are Watching You.... perhaps that is another name for the same song?
Pax, with everything you have alluded to regarding The Secret, I assumed you knew about the song. However, it is possible to know what the allegory refers to without understanding the allegory itself.
Oh, and for my pals north of the border, there's this version.
The Red River is the important divide. There's Okies on these boards. (hack, hack)Vaughan(hack, hack)
I think the OP seems to be missing the point of railroading. It's possible you never felt too contrainted or unable to do anything because, as you said, you were able to find ways out of situation.
The sad truth is, real, hard railroading doesn't allow that option. I've played in games were things were going to happen, regardless of whether or not the players put efforts to stop it (even if the realisticly should be able to). I can't count the number of NPC's who could do this and that for no reason other than "Just because". I've seen NPC's ignore the biggest drawbacks of their class/spells/races purely because the DM wanted to create a "Cool Scene". And the thing about most of these examples is that they never seem to apply to the PC's.
I'll give an example, I once played in a game were the party were on a town street, being attacked by foes we had upset previously. Their leader came at us, and an NPC jumped in the way. Your've probably already guessed what was to happen right? The DM just wanted these two NPC's to duel. This doesn't seem so bad just now right? Well, first he has one throw off an entangle spell at us to make sure we couldn't intervine (Oh, I should mention that one of these character's was a...well...I can't remember the class name, it was a base class the DM threw together for this one NPC, a sort of ranger/rogue hybrid, only more powerful). The spell affects us as normal, until one of us says "Um...didnt' you say we were right behind him? Won't he be affected as well?" He just said "No", and both NPC's were fine. Now, this situation was bad for a number of reasons
1. We really couldn't do anything. None of us were offensive spellcasters and our ranged combatant was out of arrows, so we couldn't do anything about this fight at all.
2. We were forced to sit in the background while the DM simply tells a story. If we just wanted a story told why not just watch a DVD instead?
3. The DM was breaking the internal consistancy of his world. Why should the entangle not affect those NPC's but affect us? (and I looked at the hybrid class before we started, no it did not have a class feature which negated it). Also, the characters seemed far more powerful during this fight than anything else we ever saw before, so why was one of them asking us to do dangerous jobs for him? It looks like he could do themn better/faster and he didn't actually have anything else to do.
I don't mind being forced against foes tougher than my character, or working against forces I know I can't take on in a straight fight, but I like knowing that if I come up with a good enough plan or an idea that should work, then it will.
And well...D'n'D isn't RL, it's a game, somthing thats intended for fun. One thing I've always loved about D'n'D is that you can do anything in it. Before D'n'D I played alot of fantasy games, and I remember thinking during certain games things like "Hold on, if I know theres a trap behind that door waiting for me, couldn't I enter via the window instead?" and finding that option unavalible because either the game designers didn't think of it, couldn't be bothered implimenting it, or just plain needed the character to do through the door. But in playing D'n'D your character has substantially more options, limited only by your creativity. So if I choose to go through a window instead, I don't want to be told "No, because I want you to go through the door instead".
|
|
Ah,... refreshing night's sleep.
Okay - one quick contribution this morning:
There are important times when brief hand waving should and must occur, but this artform (the manner and way of doing it) has been lost to most. And even where it is known by the GM, the players sometimes don't 'play along' nicely, often making the situation more awkward than it needs to be.
GM: Leans back in his chair and begins, "Okay, so this battle goes on for a while, and after the last bullywug falls..."
Player: "What? Its only round seven! What the...
GM: "Yes. The 53 bullywugs seemed to be a threat, and did cause you some grief. Each of you take about 5 more points of damage throughout the whole battle. But then after the last bullywug falls... a dark cloaked wizard rises from the bog, seemingly not wet at all and..."
Player: "Wait! Hold on! I'm still calculating my crit damage on the..."
GM: waiving hand mildly "Yeah. You do really well against the bullywugs." looks at the clock and sees there are three minutes left in the Monday night session, and knows that one of the players always needs to leave right on time due to the 50 minute drive back home "The bullywug battle is messy - and there's 53 Bullywug bodies strewn about the swamp. Your powerful (7th level) party decimated them, but now the evil wizard you have searched for for weeks finally arises from his..."
Player: "But we didn't finish the combat. And... exactly which sqare does this unwet wizard rise from, cause I've got a reach weapon. I would get an attack of opportunity. I would probably get him wet too!"
GM: "Well... the bullywugs are all dead. I'm moving forward a bit in time 'cause its really 10:00 and Chip needs to leave. So, the bullywugs die, and Zartigus pops up and..."
Player (Chip): "Hey,... I gotta go."
GM: "Okay... so Zartigus pops out and says...
Player: "Is speaking a swift action, can a creature just speak if its a victim of an attack of opportunity?"
Another Player: "I don't really think so. Chatting is a free action, but you can only say like... a short sentence... but if this guy is moving vertically from the water, he's probably also using a power to levitate too so..."
Chip: "I gotta go." puts on backpack and moves to door
GM: "Okay see ya, Chip. We'll end here with the group finding the wizard they've been seeking."
I think the OP seems to be missing the point of railroading. It's possible you never felt too contrainted or unable to do anything because, as you said, you were able to find ways out of situation.
The sad truth is, real, hard railroading doesn't allow that option. I've played in games were things were going to happen, regardless of whether or not the players put efforts to stop it (even if the realisticly should be able to). I can't count the number of NPC's who could do this and that for no reason other than "Just because". I've seen NPC's ignore the biggest drawbacks of their class/spells/races purely because the DM wanted to create a "Cool Scene". And the thing about most of these examples is that they never seem to apply to the PC's.
I'll give an example, I once played in a game were the party were on a town street, being attacked by foes we had upset previously. Their leader came at us, and an NPC jumped in the way. Your've probably already guessed what was to happen right? The DM just wanted these two NPC's to duel. This doesn't seem so bad just now right? Well, first he has one throw off an entangle spell at us to make sure we couldn't intervine (Oh, I should mention that one of these character's was a...well...I can't remember the class name, it was a base class the DM threw together for this one NPC, a sort of ranger/rogue hybrid, only more powerful). The spell affects us as normal, until one of us says "Um...didnt' you say we were right behind him? Won't he be affected as well?" He just said "No", and both NPC's were fine. Now, this situation was bad for a number of reasons
1. We really couldn't do anything. None of us were offensive spellcasters and our ranged combatant was out of arrows, so we couldn't do anything about this fight at all.
2. We were forced to sit in the background while the DM simply tells a story. If we just wanted a story told why not just watch a DVD instead?
3. The DM was breaking the internal consistancy of his world. Why should the entangle not affect those NPC's but affect us? (and I looked at the hybrid class before we started, no it did not have a class feature which negated it). Also, the characters seemed far more powerful during this fight than anything else we ever saw before, so why was one of them asking us to do dangerous jobs for him? It looks like he could do themn better/faster and he didn't actually have anything else to do.
I don't mind being forced against foes tougher than my character, or working against forces I know I can't take on in a straight fight, but I like knowing that if I come up with a good enough plan or an idea that should work, then it will.
And well...D'n'D isn't RL, it's a game, somthing thats intended for fun. One thing I've always loved about D'n'D is that you can do anything in it. Before D'n'D I played alot of fantasy games, and I remember thinking during certain games things like "Hold on, if I know theres a trap behind that door waiting for me, couldn't I enter via the window instead?" and finding that option unavalible because either the game designers didn't think of it, couldn't be bothered implimenting it, or just plain needed the character to do through the door. But in playing D'n'D your character has substantially more options, limited only by your creativity. So if I choose to go through a window instead, I don't want to be told "No, because I want you to go through the door instead".
Perhaps I am, but consider this.
You immediately had to qualify railroading and call it “hard railroading.” Perhaps there is railroading that is objectionable and some that is not. How does one tell the difference? Is it merely a matter of personal taste?If your objection is that “things are going to happen, regardless of PC's desires and actions,” then my thought continues along the same lines as before (and as I think GG has written): things happen in life regardless of my efforts as well. Ideally, this should contribute not only to a good story, but to the sense of the realness of the game world.
I bet your objection is not to a cool scene, but to larger, systemic problems with the GM's way of running the game, that make this cool scene stick out not as a cool scene in which you experience frustration, but as the jewel in a crown of frustration that is pretty much the entire gaming experience with “him.” (I'll just go with the male pronoun here.) You'll have to decide this problem for yourself. I know of one who got complaints about some of his early attempts at providing the players with “cool scenes,” heavily insulated from player interaction, and he learned from his mistakes. I know of another GM who never learned from his driving the players crazy with his one man show, and when they saw he would never be able to respond to their complaints, he stopped getting GM opportunities with that group. (By the way, I was in this group, and I complained before I walked. You bet I felt constrained.) If players never have any impact, if their actions never matter, then you have been welcomed into a small absurdist theater. If you have not been provided with rotten vegetables, I hope the exits are clearly marked.
I venture that your real issues are with the GM not constructing a world in which to play that has the strong, internal consistency of an independent reality—what Tolkien called a secondary creation. I know that it is possible I am guilty of going back to one of my favorite bailiwicks, but you use this language in number 3 above, so I feel that I am on solid ground here. If you love to hear me drone on and on about this and argue with a few folks about it, there's a wonderful thread where I did this. ; )
The tension I see in your post is a very important one: we enter secondary creations because we want to be heroes in a fantastic realm, dammit! If anything, we want our actions to count for more in our FRPGing. But if the world doesn't seem real, then it will either be a nightmare (such as yours above), or it will be a dream in which we cannot believe, because it all happens too easily. Stories need conflict, not simply wish-fulfillment, but they don't need torture (pure and simple). I don't mind getting stuck on a train, even a train going somewhere I don't want to go, if after the ride I say, damn, I didn't want to go there, but I'm sure glad I did.
M.
Perhaps I am, but consider this.
You immediately had to qualify railroading and call it “hard railroading.” Perhaps there is railroading that is objectionable and some that is not. How does one tell the difference? Is it merely a matter of personal taste?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think there's a qualitative difference between:
a) A DM who has a fairly well-detailed setting (like Rappan Athuk, say, which details a mega-dungeon and the surrounding area) and who tries to keep the PCs within that well-detailed area (as opposed to travelling halfway across the world, say).
and
b) A DM who has a specific set of adventures he wishes to run in a particular order, and no matter where the PCs go, they can't avoid the plot (even if they travel halfway across the world).
They're both "railroading" in a sense (one in space, and one in plot), but the second one is what I would call "hard railroading".
|
|
First, M. gets 75 Pax points for the Waiting for Godot reference.
Next, while I can agree that there are "shades" on the continuum of railroading as Hogarth points out, I think M. has made clear that he has not missed the point. In fact, M. is attempting to address the nature of rp itself.
For example, in the discussion above, let's say that the GM prepares a new campaign and spends an afternoon with a bottle of wine to determine whether his campaign shall be "open ended" or "closed ended."
Again - for those players who have never heard of these concepts, if you plan on only being players and not GM's, then I suggest you kindly run away from this thread as fast as you can. What we might end up discussing could very well burst your bubble about the "truth" of role-playing games.
So........ I would agree fully with M. - - - Campaigns could clearly be one big crazy train on a track - and just because it is does not mean that the "railroading" is a bad thing. In fact it might be a lot fun as the PCs go through the planned adventure and have an impact on the world. For many reasons this is why tabletop gaming is so superior to anything a computer will ever create—computer apps remain neutral or unaffected in general to facilitate continued play by the multitudes, whereas tabletop play is a grand one-shot primarily and the PC (no matter the degree of railroading) do indeed end up having a profound impact on the world, since they are heros, and that's what heroes do. Though, some PCs will die, and others become failures, on the whole, the campaign stories are the ones we tell precisely because they are stories worth telling. If it were a mere tactical "game" with little widget pieces and powercards, the heroes on-average could only aspire to Averagehood.
But we're talking heroes! Future kings and queens! Future ascended demi-gods! Future gods! Or future retired soldiers! Or future landed nobles! Or dead PCs who gave their life for another! Or future worm food because the trap was insidious and the 10 foot pole was left at home.
Railroading is in the eye of the beholder. A good GM is like a magician who makes the conventions of the game, and the deus ex machinus nowhere to be seen, though it be present all over.
|
Perhaps I am, but consider this.
You immediately had to qualify railroading and call it “hard railroading.” Perhaps there is railroading that is objectionable and some that is not. How does one tell the difference? Is it merely a matter of personal taste?If your objection is that “things are going to happen, regardless of PC's desires and actions,” then my thought continues along the same lines as before (and as I think GG has written): things happen in life regardless of my efforts as well. Ideally, this should contribute not only to a good story, but to the sense of the realness of the game world.
I bet your objection is not to a cool scene, but to larger, systemic problems with the GM's way of running the game, that make this cool scene stick out not as a cool scene in which you experience frustration, but as the jewel in a crown of frustration that is pretty much the entire gaming experience with “him.” (I'll just go with the male pronoun here.) You'll have to decide this problem for yourself. I know of one who got complaints about some of his early attempts at providing the players with “cool scenes,” heavily insulated from player interaction, and he learned from his mistakes. I know of another GM who never learned from his driving the players crazy with his one man show, and when they saw he would never be able to respond to their complaints, he stopped getting GM opportunities with that group. (By the way, I was in this group, and I complained before I walked. You bet I felt constrained.) If players never have any impact, if their actions never matter, then you have been welcomed into a small absurdist theater. If you have not been provided with rotten vegetables, I hope the exits are clearly marked.
I venture that your real issues are with the GM not constructing a world in which to play that has the strong, internal consistency of an independent reality—what Tolkien called a secondary creation. I know that it is possible I am guilty of going back to one of my favorite bailiwicks, but you use this language in number 3 above, so I feel that I am on solid ground here. If you love to hear me drone on and on about this and argue with a few folks about it, there's a wonderful thread where I did this. ; )
The tension I see in your post is a very important one: we enter secondary creations because we want to be heroes in a fantastic realm, dammit! If anything, we want our actions to count for more in our FRPGing. But if the world doesn't seem real, then it will either be a nightmare (such as yours above), or it will be a dream in which we cannot believe, because it all happens too easily. Stories need conflict, not simply wish-fulfillment, but they don't need torture (pure and simple). I don't mind getting stuck on a train, even a train going somewhere I don't want to go, if after the ride I say, damn, I didn't want to go there, but I'm sure glad I did.
M.
I was a player for this scene as well (If It is the one I think it is) And yes it was very frustrating we cant get through an entangle spell but the dwarfs twirl there axes like trimming edges and cut there way through (that was the actual description) All of this set up to introduce this character who in this scene is almost god like but a few weeks later is easily captured by simple henchmen. Admittedly it was more of bad D'ming than railroading but there where certainly incidents when that happened (Automaticly deciding such and such an NPC is automaticly dead when my character strikes them in town to advance the plot being an example)
There are two mistakes that define the crucial difference between planning ahead and railroading. The first common error is failing to maintain internal consistency and the second error is failing to respect the player characters' motivations.
If the NPCs' "rules" don't match the players expectations, the players will eventually get frustrated. If the DM tells them that all spellcasting in the City of Wizardsuckburg is punishable by death, but every NPC they meet does it anyway, they're going to expect they can do the same. If an NPC claims to hate elves, but he then allies with the elves to betray the party, they're likely to call "foul".
If the party is given a mission they wouldn't want to tackle, they generally shouldn't be forced to go. Unfortunately, not all players give their DMs effective "hooks" to build their adventures around. I've seen some deliberately dodge straightforward adventures as a means of taking center stage in the game.
I guess for me what you raise, Hogarth, is the issue of plot. A mega-dungeon, if it has a plot, tends to be very plot-lite. As you say, it focuses on place but in a certain way: a place of monsters, traps, and treasures, as opposed to a setting that supports a plot.
When you describe a DM who “has a specific set of adventures he wishes to run in a particular order, and no matter where the PCs go, they can't avoid the plot (even if they travel halfway across the world),” to me what you're really describing is a poor DM. Where is his understanding of the characters? (Their backgrounds, motivations, goals,etc.) Where is his consideration of his players as agents in the game? (Their desires, what they have to contribute to the story, and so forth.) I can easily imagine planning an adventure in which I as GM go into it knowing that a popular tavern is going to be blown up, the Lord Mayor' daughter is going to be kidnapped, one of the characters is going to find something they have long been looking for, and there is going to be a big battle in a swamp versus the minions of the Bullywug King. If I'm both prepared and in the zone, I may think I know generally how the party will proceed and what the connections are between these events, but I sit loose with them: the party may go at things in a different way. It may be that there is little to no game this time if I don't get the explosion, discovery, kidnapping, and battle. Are the characters really trying to run away from these things? Chances are, no. So I try to take their decisions and actions and trace a new route, but this new route will generally lead to the necessary events, if not all the events I had planned. They affect the plot, but it's still there. (Again, to me this reflects the objectivity of the external world, per GG, Pax, et al.)
Now, if they are running away from these things, the GM needs to ask herself, do I have a good in-world reason for forcing them, a means for doing so that does not break suspension of disbelief, and will they thank me later? The more doubtful the positive answers to these questions, the more the GM has to face the probable unhappy conclusion that her planning is for naught, and she has to start from scratch. If she admits as much to the players, there's one last chance to salvage the preparation. If there's no salvagation (heh), then it's time to figure out if you punt to a module, wander in the sandbox, try to construct something off the cuff, have a mini battle, give another GM a chance, rent a video, reschedule the game, what have you.
I think Pax and K-Mack both point to the same conclusion. Even the “certain incidents” where things were “automatically decided” sound like bad arbitrary decisions, as opposed to good arbitrary decisions. That I make this distinction points back to what Pax was saying:
|
|
Sir_Wulf makes a fine point.
My hot trigger is when the GM sets up a story, and for 100 reasons the NPCs should be moved and changed by current events, the GM just plays the same 2-dimensional NPC. It drives me nuts when the story arc builds a million reasons why an NPC should see the error of their ways and actually change their mind, but the GM just goes on unaffected. This, I guess is my biggest dislike in terms of railroading. I know it doesn't necessarily have to do with being force to go anywhere, or do anything, but in the games I play in, I expect there to be development on the part of the PCs AND the NPCs too.
|
|
Dude. You win another 125 Pax points for the most execellent statement that had me rotflol: Ideally, the GM knows what is important to the story, the characters, and the players. Use sparingly. Not recommended outside your home group. Offer void in the New Forgotten Realms.
What new realms? LOL.
I'm still partying like its 1373 D.R.
Yeah, B-a-b-y!!!
Sir Wulf takes the cake for describing The GM of Greater Suckitude. I am so tempted to name somebody...but I will be good. I was in a party that was thrown to the black dragon that was kept below some villain's hideout. After a huge, drawn out build-up (including a lot of terrified sneaking around in the dungeon, looking for a way out and trying to avoid the dragon), and probably a sudden realization on his part that there was no way to avoid the TPK, the black dragon turns out to be a polymorphed gnome. A. Polymorphed. Gnome. The DM barely escaped strangling from the three players, but he did not escape ongoing ridicule, nor relegation to "player only" status in perpetuity. He scored on Deus ex Machina, inexplicability, extreme improbability, total disconnect from plot, and arbitrariness in the highest degree. Disbelief resumed and the world dissolved.
Yes, Pax, I HATE a game populated with two dimensional NPCs. I mean, there are odd people out there who seem two-dimensional, so I can see the very occasional flat, odd major NPC who acts in inexplicable ways to further the plot. But if your games are full of them, hint: You either need to learn how to GM or you need to concentrate on enjoying being the best player you can be. Real worlds are populated with real characters.
Sir Wulf takes the cake for describing The GM of Greater Suckitude.
The DM of Greater Suckitude meets his foil in the player of Greater Suckitude. We've all encountered him: The one who deliberately provokes a brawl in the High King's feast hall instead of going on the adventure planned by the DM; the guy who wastes entire game sessions mugging random commoners in alleys; the one who pouts if he's not allowed to make grossly inappropriate characters ("A game of courtly intrigue? I'll be a beggar-thief. With leprosy."); the guy who refuses to use his magic to help the party or takes a completely useless spell mix ("Animate rope is my sorcerer's MAIN attack spell"); the bozo who argues about rules everyone else agrees about; the one who splits off from the party repeatedly, then complains when his character dies...
Is there some rule that keeps these two from being in the same gaming group, unless they are the same person? Maybe it's the principle that more games are screwed up if they are spread out across more groups.
|
|
Okay — you guys have me laughing uproarously. Please keep this thread going. This stuff is truly rich!
As for the points: So far the scores are:
M: 200
Saern: 75
But, I just started this game. And for any kind of steak dinner, the points need to be really high - like at Chuck E. Cheeses where the $8.00 battery powered coin bank costs 2000 points.
But really, though... what I like best are the stories.... Oh, the stories we could tell!
Perhaps the Suckmaster and the Suckcharacter can't be in the same game, er... like matter and anti-matter can't really co-exist. As a point of relativity, one would actually need to be a good GM to recognize sucky players, or need to be a good player to recognize a sucky GM. The corrilary would also be true, of course. A really good GM can recognize great playing talent, and great players appreciate good GMs.
Hence, my theory that the SuckMaster™ and SuckPlayer™ cannot exist in the same group except as the same person. And we've all been there (at least as kids) when they tried to be both at the same time. Sucktastic!
And I use bonus points in my college classes too, just like Drew Carey. Some kids love them and keep track, and others still ask me how they count towards their final grade...with a straight face.
Hence, my theory that the SuckMaster™ and SuckPlayer™ cannot exist in the same group except as the same person.
We actually have one of each in our group. The SuckMaster once ran an adventure where we were all guarding a caravan. The elven ranger with alertness specifically stated he was on top of a wagon with an arrow on the string ready for trouble, yet somehow never managed to get a single shot off before he was completely surrounded by orcs who had poured out of the forest, climbed the wagon, and had him in melee. We were getting caught by those orcs no matter what happened. He was also a master of inventing NPC-only classes with no drawbacks, and every BBEG we ever fought teleported out as soon as it looked like we might beat it. We don't let him DM anymore.
The SuckPlayer will deliberately run the other way from any plot hook that is introduced. No matter that he is first level, he always mouths off to any authority figure presented and gets angry when he can't beat them. In the very first adventure I DMed, he knocked on the door of the town mayor at dinnertime demanding an audience. When he was very politely told that the mayor was having dinner with his family but would be happy to see him first thing in the morning, he took offense and burned down half the town. Told "no evil characters," he'll show up with a necromancer whose goal is to turn the entire population undead and explain that he's not really evil because he thinks the world would be better off that way -- there will be no conflict because everyone will obey him and no one will ever die. We don't play without him because he's really lots of fun when he's not disruptive -- but when he's disruptive, we all want to strangle him.
Nooooooooooo!
Joana, you have a duty to tell us all where you live, because I'm pretty sure this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, and we deserve a head start.
Seriously, at least it's good that you have a functional group that can handle these special customers.
We don't have much choice cuz we're all family. So we can "pretty much" keep it under control.
Javell is my husband and the reason I'm related to both of these guys. However, they're also the reason I'm playing D&D in the first place as they introduced me to gaming, so I have to cut them some slack. :)
Nooooooooooo!
Joana, you have a duty to tell us all where you live, because I'm pretty sure this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, and we deserve a head start.
You're already doomed, Mairkurion, because I believe I recall that you reside, as do we, in DFW, the home of the Apocalypse. ;)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That's what I get. I'll begin warding the premises after this post. Unfortunately, our stock of canned goods is running pretty low.
Anyway, I didn't know you guys were among the ever-growing crowd of Metroplex Pathfinders. I keep thinking after I turn in my dissertation (and maybe after a move across the Trinity), some time in the summer, I want to see how many people will get together for a beer and see who's who.
And I think family gaming is great! (Sweet ghost of Tom Landry, you're related to both of the Suckers.) My daughter is a player, and now my nephew is, with his two younger brothers beating on the door. Now if we can convince my wife to give it a try...
So, just for the sake of furthering the discussion (and relating an at least tangentially related story), I'll throw out a recent expirment I tried which resulted in railroading on my part. I started up a campaign with a "new" group. I use quotes because one of the members has actually been playing with me since high school and is quite well versed in 3.5 D&D. Two of the other players had been playing for six months, but (as the astute reader of Saernic posts will already know) seem to have an unconscious aversion to actually learning any of the rules of the game. Another player had played once or twice the previous summer, the same time as the aforementioned two; but for scheduling reasons had been unable to continue playing until this point. So he was even more of a novice than the others.
I decided to try orienting the front end of the campaign around their quest for some powerful items, located in the tomb of an ancient elven warrior. The way I structured it (in my mind), each of the characters had an independent backstory (which I worked with them to create) leading to their quest for said items. This would draw them together into their first few adventures, and the fallout from those adventures would theoretically continue to bind them together.
Further, they couldn't just set out for this ancient tomb. No, it was hidden. Finding it would require a combination of skills, which oddly enough, ended up being evenly divided amongst the party. Gee, how did that happen? Since I'd found a way to make them all interdependent upon each other to find their trinkets, I felt my plan would go very well.
I knew there was a lot of complexity, and reducing it down for the players would be important. So, I took the background I developed with them, and wrote it up as succintly as possible (a challenge for someone afflicted with such chronic verbosity as I), no more than two brief paragraphs; plus another paragraph relating each PC to the others characters they had "stumbled across;" and then, to cap it all off, no more than one or two sentences (set off by themselves for emphasis) which stated explicitely what it was they needed to solve the bit of the puzzle they possessed, which would lead them to their magical doodad.
Being college students, I shared this write up with them via facebook and we discussed it lightly for about a week, with the intent from my end being that they knew what was going on and would come together in the first adventure and go "Aha! These are the guys I need to team up with!"
So, it begins.
"Wait, what is my character looking for again?"
"Why do I need this person?"
"How did I come to this city?"
"So I need X to find Y?" No, you need X to find A, which leads to C. "Oh. ... wait, what?"
"So... uhm..." Did you read what I sent you online? "... no."
This struggles on for about 30 minutes before they decide to go hunt goblins. I try to drop some subtle hints, including the old standby which should be a dead give away the DM wants you to change course: "Wait, are you sure you want to do that?" Yep, they're sure.
At this point, several incidents of railroading occured on my part, with an attempt to make them as subtle as possible; but I essentially tackled them with my plot and forced them back onto the path I had planned.
So, should I have rolled with them and let them go hunt goblins, trying to improve in a way to loop them back into the plot (or perhaps just letting them roam and kill for a session and give myself until next session to plan on how to get them back into things); or was the plot-hammer justified?
You know, that orc campaign needs detailing for posterity's sake. Not to mention that it makes me feel better to vent. So, forthcoming is the map to my own particular branch of the D&D railroad:
The PCs were 3 half-orcs (barbarian, bard & fighter) and an elf ranger. We started off in some sort of town with a military keep in it. No matter how well my bard rolled, the DM ruled that she couldn't earn more than a few coppers in a day, but, lo and behold, there was a sign up on the local messageboard advertising for caravan guards. Not really what we were interested in, but the only apparent option was starving in the streets.
We go to sign up for the caravan guard position and find that everyone has to pass inspection by the, I don't know, general or whatever he was. The DM went far to impress us with how many rings and amulets and medallions he was wearing, but when my bard, waiting in line back in the crowd, tried to cast detect magic, she was informed she couldn't. They would not permit anyone to cast any spells. How they knew she was casting a spell in the crowd was never explained, nor was it clear how they stopped her. But her spell wouldn't go off. (Not an anti-magic zone, as they were casting know alignment and such on the applicants.)
After talking down to us for quite a while about what grunts we were and how powerful they themselves were, the authorities explained that this was the third such caravan to be sent to a neighboring town in the past month and that all of the previous shipments had been intercepted and their guards slaughtered. For accepting this suicide mission, we were to be paid the princely sum of 10 gold -- when we returned to the fort. The obviously way-more-powerful-than-us authorities apparently preferred to keep sending 1st-level characters to their deaths rather than escort the caravan themselves, as they had very important yet never explained business to take care of at the keep.
Then followed the business with the attack on the caravan, in which we were surrounded and in melee before any of us had a chance to get off a ranged attack or spell. Having not been favorably impressed with our treatment by the humans at the keep, the half-orc PCs volunteered to switch sides and help the orcs. The orcs, however, refused to consider our offer, as we were obviously The Enemy. They demanded that we throw down our weapons and surrender. The half-orc fighter and barbarian explained that they were a half-orc fighter and barbarian and would rather go down fighting. After a long back-and-forth in which the DM kept insisting that we were all "supposed to surrender," the figher and barbarian eventually went down fighting, but there suddenly appeared a cleric among the captives who was able to heal them once we were all locked in a cage.
After having conveniently overheard the orc leader's plan to attack the town to which the caravan was heading on such-and-such an upcoming day, we escaped from the cage in a rescue operated by the DM. We went on the town and told them that a horde of orcs was coming to attack them. Rather than being hailed as heroes, our PCs were immediately expected to mount a defense of the town. Going to the weapon shop, we intended to gear up, but rather than offering us a healthy discount since we were all that stood between the town and certain destruction, the shopkeeper refused to lower his prices at all, preferring his magical weapons and armor to sit in his shop window while the town was overrun by orcs and his family was slaughtered rather than lend them out to volunteer defenders. (It bears mentioning that we never got that 10 gold.)
This was the point at which I quit. My bard told the humans that the only money she would spend in their town was on popcorn so she could take it up a nearby hill and enjoy watching the bloodbath when the orcs showed up. In a post-mortem, the DM told us that we were "supposed to" find the uberpowerful epic-level NPC wizard that lived in the town and beg him to go defend his own town. (Apparently, unless we buttered him up enough, he was just going to let his own home be destroyed.) Then he could have gone and stopped the advancing horde of orcs on his own. The only combat in which we engaged in the campaign was of the "random encounter" variety. Bascially, he had written a story in his head of how everything was going to happen, and the PCs just had the privilege of watching it unfold.
I don't think some people are using the term "Railroading" in the way it is usually used. Instead they are using it as what I might call "Highwaying". What I mean by that is if you had to go from New York to Los Angeles by car, you would have a lot of choices. You could go South or West initially, you could stop by some scenic locations and landmarks. You have a lot of freedom, just as long as eventually you end up at Los Angeles. If on the other hand, you are riding a train,, you don't get to make choices, you go where the train goes on its tracks. Want to stop by the Arch in St. Louis, too bad. Want to spend a few days in visiting the Grand Canyon, out of luck.
That is the way the term "railroading" is generally used. To describe situations where the PCs do not have choices, now there may be degrees of this, sometimes it is horribly obvious, other times it maybe well hidden behind illusions.
Now railroading is a tool, and as such it need not be "bad" or "wrong" or "badong". But it is often a tool used (abused?) by badong DMs, just as DMPCs can be, or metagaming can be for certain players/DMs.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What an interesting topic!
I think we have to make a distinction between a product being a railroad, and a GM giving players no options. The original question concerns products (the APs), and a lot of people are focussing on GMs and their styles. A good GM allows either player choice or the appearance of player choice. Otherwise, the players are just gathering each week to be the GM's dice-rolling team, and that's not fun.
But there's a difference between a good GM who lets the party veer away --sometimes far away-- from the prepared plot, and a product that offers multiple encounters or developments to give the GM flexibility within the prepared plot.
A couple of illustrations: I don't think it's fair to ask whether a product like "World of Greyhawk" or Chris West's "Lands of Mystery" is a railroad, because it doesn't have a plot at all. Settings and gazetteers that include "adventure seeds", or thumbnail descriptions of intrigue and excitement in each locale, are almost entirely sandboxes.
It might be possible to publish a world that implies an adventure goal without providing a clear linear adventure to achieve that goal; Midnight and perhaps the Scarred Lands product line do this: they provide a setting, a manifest villain, and a variety of ways to defeat (or at least address) the villain.
To an extent, "The Red Hand of Doom" does a pretty good job of this, too, providing several more-or-less optional encounters, that could be taken out of order, between the initial report of armed humanoids and the climactic encounters. As written, it's not very linear, which is what I understand people to mean when they fume about railroads.
(To reiterate, it's still possible that an inflexible GM would force her party to move through RHoD encounter-by-encounter, and it's still very likely that an inventive party would require a good GM to invent entirely new scenarios on the way to defend Brindol and pursue the villains of the piece. We're talking about products, not GMing style.)
The other extreme, I imagine, would be something like "Survival Margin" for Mega-Traveller, which was actually a very similar product to the World of Greyhawk. It's a gazetteer, disguised to look like an adventure. The hypothetical PCs are given a powerful ship, and a mission, and an empire to explore. And they go from pre-programmed spots A to B to C, each time finding out what's going on politically and militarily in each area. And then they return home to report. couldn't imagine actually playing that "adventure," but it's a framing sequence to let readers know how the factions in the great civil war are getting on. It's 100% railroad.
(And to reiterate, a good GM could well adapt chunks out of that to allow his players to have a grand, free-wheeling time. But that's not how the written adventure is presented.)
I'd like to bring my post back around to the Adventure Paths. Are the AP's necessarily railroads? And, is that bad?
By the nature of the product, yes, I have to note that they're railroads. If I'm ready to run Savage Tide, and one of my players announces "I'm playing the forgotten scion of the Sea Princes, forced to flee the islands when I was but a lad of four, and now ready to wrest my throne from the usurpers," I look through the module, and there's nothing there about the Sea Princes. I can either set the Savage Tide aside, or else inform the player "I'm sorry, but we're not playing that story."
(Likewise, my condolences to Paizo's iconic monk. Sajan, you claim that you desire to search for your sister, but you will likely spend your entire adventuring career in the Second Darkness and retire a mighty Master among monks, never making any progress towards your driving goal. As well, desire goes against the Buddha-nature anyways.)
Railroads in D&D products are fine, as long as the players know what they're signing up for. "I just bought six volumes of this AP, and we're going to work through this here storyline. If you're not up for that, say so now." That way, when the DM drops clues that the party ought to pursue the stone giants, or investigate the jungle island instead of repairing their ship, or ask the elves for advice, the players can nod to themselves that this is what their characters "ought to" be doing, to get to the next chapter in the pre-written adventure.d
(And I continue to reiterate: this kind of product allows for both inflexible GMs as well as GMs who allow their parties to wander off the page.)
If it's not apparent from my tone of voice, I try to allow my players as much flexibility as possible, which is why I won't dare try to run an AP until I have all the volumes in my hand. The first Golarion AP is notorious for this. There really was information about Sandpoint in issues 4 and 5 that the GM would need if she were allowing the party free reign to explore the community as low-level characters.
... "bad" or "wrong" or "badong"....
Was that a "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" reference? If so, you just got yourself 100 bonus XP, mister!
The AP's, OTOH, seem to do that ALOT. I left the Savage Tide campaign my group was running, for example, becuase I find it to be the most railroading plot I have ever seen. "Go to A. Kill X. Go to B. Solve puzzle M. Then, Kill Y. Go to C. Solve puzzle N, which is only solved by killing Z." There is no roleplaying involved. You simply move from one interchangeable fighting encounter to another of the same type. BORING - and terribly railroading. I expect better of Paizo's writers, and was terribly disappointed.I am curious Lefric, did you read the adventures or was this your experience as a player only? I ask because what you describe of STAP is not what I have seen myself. I am wondering how much of what you are describing was poor DM presentation of the adventures rather than poor adventures.
I know that I have played with other players who HATE any pre-published adventure as they find them flat, boring and restrictive (unless I didn't tell him I was running a pre-published adventure, then it was the best adventure ever). I have also played under DM's who just couldn't bring the pre-published adventure to life at all for those of us playing and they did feel very much as you described (two side notes: 1) later reading the adventures I was able to see how great they could have been 2) the flat pre-published adventure was a step up from this guys literally random adventure design).
I guess my point is that in my experience the whole railroading thing seems to have far more to do with the DM than it does the adventure, pre-published or not.
Sean Mahoney
My experience with Savage Tide is solely as a player. I haven't read the AP as I don't enjoy the AP's enough to subscribr to Pathfinder, but I will admit that the DM's inablilty to bring the adventure to life may be a large part of the problem. There were several examples of bad role playing in the campaign - whatever the pirate queen's name was? We killed her, only finding out later she was supposed to help us. Why my wizard and my buddy's rouge/fighter felt that "We will kill your employer _AND ALL HER FAMILY_" was evil and left us no option other than to fight. Funny that. That screwed up the whole plotline as the DM simply dropped the plotline rather than retrofit.
Heh. One example of a time when a little railroading would have been good, me thinks.
By the nature of the product, yes, I have to note that they're railroads.
Railroad might be too strong a word for AP's and the like. Theres a big difference between an adventure where say...the party have to defeat a group of goblins, but the adventure relies on the partie's exact actions following a specific route, than say...an similer adventure, but with plenty of options placed in for the PC's to be flexable and the possiblity of PC's doing somthing completely out of the ordinary is considiered.
When I DM, I admit I don't always think of every possible plan the player's might think of. But if during a game the players think of a good plan which really should work, I'd considier it railroading if I disallowed it purely because I didn't see it comming.
If I'm ready to run Savage Tide, and one of my players announces "I'm playing the forgotten scion of the Sea Princes, forced to flee the islands when I was but a lad of four, and now ready to wrest my throne from the usurpers," I look through the module, and there's nothing there about the Sea Princes. I can either set the Savage Tide aside, or else inform the player "I'm sorry, but we're not playing that story."
Again, I wouldn't really call this railroading. This particular character background is pretty specific, relaying on certain elements definately existing. It's usally a good idea to run idea's like this past a DM before putting too much thought into them.
Something that I think Mairkuion pointed out upthread is that "railroading" can actually be a problematic term because of its ambiguous definition. To paraphrase, are we talking about any limits on player actions at all? There will always be some. If the term doesn't apply to any regulations, but just "excessive" ones, what then constitutes excess? Is asking the players to make a specific kind of character for a campaign (such as an AP) railroading? For some, yes; it's an absolute violation of player freedom. For others, such as myself, I think it's just fine. The players still have an infinite number of options, but this infinity is more focused (the fact that some infitinites are larger than others is a totally unrelated topic). Further, it's like an additional extension to the social contract which all players and DMs agree upon, explicitely or implicitely, when they sit down to play the game.
Further, discussing good or bad campaigns in terms of "railroading" doesn't necessarily give advice about how to avoid it. So, with these things in mind, I make the following statements:
I find that DMs can avoid a lot of the frustration, on both sides of the DM screen, and accusations of railroading, based on how they phrase and orient their "mission objectives" the party is supposed to achieve in a given adventure. For example, if the objective is "find out who killed Whatshisfutzit," then the DM can let the players pursue any options which seem theoretically possible and not be frustrated; and the PCs get to be creative. He should definitely think of some likely paths for them to follow (talk to Jimbob who leads to Bobjim; cast speak with dead; etc.). However, if they go in a totally different direction, that's fine, too.
The problem arises when the DM wants the PCs to immediately cast speak with dead, then interpret the clues and go speak to Jimbob and ask the precise question which will lead to Bobjim, and on and on. That's clearly a deprivation of PC freedom and what I think everyone would call a classic example of railroading. But really, even just assuming/requiring the PCs to cast speak with dead is the exact same problem. It may be likely that the party does this right of the bat; but if the DM needs them to do this specific thing (say, perhaps, the only thing leading to Jimbob is the corpse's cryptic message), that's just as much a deprivation of freedom. Rather, the DM should assign the goal of "finding the link to Jimbob." This allows the party to pursue whatever means they wish to achieve that end; some the DM will certainly see and anticipate, and perhaps prepare more for than others. In the end, though, anything the party comes up with which seems logical should be given an equal chance of working.
The same holds for "get the doohicky" and "kill the moustache-twirler." The DM should try to state his mission objectives for the PCs, at least to himself in preparation, in as general terms as possible. This seems, to me, to be most in keeping with the "spirit of the game" (which, I know, is a dangerous term to use) and will reduce frustration (and hopefully, conversely increase fun). So there's my thoughts about where railroading comes from, and how DMs can design adventures to avoid slipping into that bad habit.
There is a difference between hand-holding a group through an adventure and railroading them through. If a group has no ideas on how to procede it is not railroading to give them some. It is railroading when they have their own ideas and you disallow them and force the group to go your way.
|
|
I agree with the difference expressed by pres man.
In general, I often find that many (NOT ALL) players who grew up on the 3.x system of the 90's, as well as more recent players, tend to lack experience and comfort with taking the initiative (if you'll pardon the pun).
With these, gentle coaxing, dropping of clues, and other intimiations suffice to bring the party around to some form of forward momentum. Its the old school players that can really tear up a story in a good way. I find that with experience, comes refinement, confidence, sense of characterization/role-play, and DRIVE to move the story forward through a variety of means of their own.
Many of the new modules, including Pathfinder, assumes that players generally still possess a drive to move the story forward (and this should include the ability to drive the story as a player through the actions of other players). But unfortunately, there seems to be a gap between those that understand the "art" of being a good player in this regard.
In sum: it is not railroading to guide the game where static PCs are not moving forward or don't know what to do. This, entirely different to be sure, from railroading imo.
In general, I often find that many (NOT ALL) players who grew up on the 3.x system of the 90's, as well as more recent players, tend to lack experience and comfort with taking the initiative (if you'll pardon the pun).
With these, gentle coaxing, dropping of clues, and other intimiations suffice to bring the party around to some form of forward momentum. Its the old school players that can really tear up a story in a good way. I find that with experience, comes refinement, confidence, sense of characterization/role-play, and DRIVE to move the story forward through a variety of means of their own.
I understand what you're saying, I think, but just want to throw this out there as an aside. I'm one of those young players introduced to the game via 3e; my high school group was, of course, the same. They could also tear through a story, pouring over rule books to find divinations or, for two players in particular, just coming up with a way to sneak in and spy on people, steal the required plot device, or whatever. They were very self-motivating in the game, and very out of the box thinkers (sometimes too much so, but that's another matter). This new group, comprised wholly of college undergrads (myself included), just has a different dynamic which doesn't seem to lend itself to such activity. Trying to figure out my group's dynamic is actually a big question for me right now. I think I know what they like, but why they like it remains a mystery to me. They themselves can't provide any direct insight into their tastes because they are so inexperienced with RPGs that they still don't know what they are (and have no concept of the illustrious history of D&D and related tabletop games).
Just an anecdotal two coppers.
You know, I've read a bit about people not liking railroading in adventure paths and what players expect of their GM and why their character would be motivated to do this or that, and I have to say that it kind of rubs me the wrong way after a while.
Why?
Okay, this is going to assume a little bit, but lets create a fictional gaming group. The GM of this fictional group comes to the group and says, "hey, I do a lot of work, but it will be easier on me if I use this AP, and on top of that, its got a really great storyline. I'll still put in the time to run a great game for you guys, but this will let me put that energy into some aspects of the game I may not have been able to focus on making the whole thing up myself."
Players say, "Hey, sure, that sounds great, as long as I can play the character a character I want to play, more or less how I want to play it."
GM says, "Sure, within reason. You have to be willing to be an adventurer, and work with the rest of the party reasonably well."
Player says, "Hey, no problem."
Now, once the above is established, the GM wants to follow the AP, but he doesn't mind if the PCs get creative in how they move through the AP. Maybe they hire henchmen in some parts. Maybe they scout ahead and skip half a dungeon here or there. Maybe they figure out how to use the terrain to kill a BBEG in a way that the adventure doesn't assume. The GM facilitates all of the above, and roleplays characters to the hilt to interact with the PCs, and they even have some secondary plotlines going on for them.
Now, what I read from time to time on various boards goes something like this:
"Even though I know the GM is running an AP, and part of that means that the prep time assumes that the GM already has X, Y, and Z done, and he's focusing on A, B, and C, I'm having player ADD and I want to abandon the AP and go explore this randomly named island on the map, even though I know that there is a major villain running around the campaign right now."
GM replies, "well, I guess you can explore there, but the BBEG is about to start a war, and you guys are the only ones that really know what he's up to at this point."
ADD Player says, "You, Sir, are railroading me, even though I agreed to play in an AP. I now demand that you improvise a whole new campaign on the fly to entertain me, even though its painfully obvious that there is something important to do here."
Equally frustrating for me to read is something like this:
"Yes, I want to play the AP, and I don't want to go off the map or anything, but I don't really have any motivation to do what I'm doing. Forget that I'm playing a good aligned character, or even a neutral one that grew up in the threatened region, or that I've been offered 10 times as much gold as most of the people around me will see in their entire lives. I want the GM to have his NPCs beg me to save them, and offer me more than the entire kingdom of Taldor has in its coffers to take on a ogre or a dire weasel, or whatever, and forget the BBEG . . . the GM is going to have to dangle godhood in front of me to fight that guy, because I'm not motivated by the fact that he's the biggest evil this region has seen in a thousand years and even if I'm neutral I might not want to see all of my childhood friends and neighbors slaughtered."
GM beats his head on the table and says, "Sorry, I thought that your motivation was . . . I don't know, being an adventurer? That maybe given that we're playing a heroic fantasy RPG that you might want to play a . . . hero? That maybe even when he was at his most morally ambiguous, guys like Conan still didn't want to spend their lives sitting on their asses waiting for someone to beg them to put themselves at even minimal risk, because they were men of action?"
What I'm saying is not that PCs should never get to go on side treks off the main AP. In fact, that's a really good sign that the GM is making the world come alive, when little, unrelated details trigger the PCs attention enough that they want to explore those details. But what kills me in this scenario isn't that the PCs wander off the beaten path once in a while to explore, its when they resist all attempts to get them back on the path when they know that they are playing in a campaign that might have something other than their wanderings as its main focus.
Also, I'm not saying that the reluctant hero isn't a valid character to play, but once you establish that the PC is the reluctant hero, work with the GM to get the story moving. Its not the GM's fault that you want to play the reluctant hero. That was your choice. Once you make that choice, and you say "I don't want to do X because it might break one of my nails," and then the GM goes out of his way to say, "but if you don't go on this mission, your favorite manicurist might die," work with him. You were reluctant, he gave you your reason, quit trying to be the center of attention and move on. You established your personality type, now get back to the game.
I guess it boils down to a bit of frustration at the attitude that there isn't at least a bit of buy in from the players to want to be adventurers, and as such, want to play the AP.
I just see a huge difference between expecting the GM to allow a player some freedom in the order they do things and the kind of solutions they come up with, and the feeling that the GM should be able to improvise a campaign wholesale based on the whims of the players.
Many good things :)
Beautifully said sir!
|
|
You know, I've read a bit about people not liking railroading in adventure paths and what players expect of their GM and why their character would be motivated to do this or that, and I have to say that it kind of rubs me the wrong way after a while.
Why?
Okay, this is going to assume a little bit, but lets create a fictional gaming group. The GM of this fictional group comes to the group and says, "hey, I do a lot of work, but it will be easier on me if I use this AP, and on top of that, its got a really great storyline. I'll still put in the time to run a great game for you guys, but this will let me put that energy into some aspects of the game I may not have been able to focus on making the whole thing up myself."
COMMENT: At this point the GM has already erred, and set into motion a series of meta-game discussions that can only end badly. A good GM should NEVER: 1) complain or whine about the amount of work she does 2) suggest that she is making a choice because it is 'easier' 3) intimate to players that this 'bargain' is some how a 'sub-optimal' compromise.'
A good GM should leave the players guessing. The players might see PAIZO materials at the table, but always be thinking that the GM is running the game her own way. This keeps them enchanted whether the path follows James Jacobs excellent path ideas, or whether the story drifts a bit - but as the late co-inventor of the game once said, 'the players should never master the game.' I believe the very premise of discussing this 'bargain' kind of shoots the excitements and "UNSPOKEN" agreements right in the foot - tearing away most of the fun, and setting up a kind of 'sub-optimal' feel that is destined to be challenged whether consciously or not.
The GM shares something similar with a teacher, professor, or business instructor insomuchas, the GM should never come out and say certain things. These things include but are not limited to: 1) This is my first time 2) This stuff is really hard to learn 3) This stuff is boring 4) You don't have any choice in what we learn today 5) I will be doing all the lecture so you must follow my path through the material and don't deviate with any questions or different paths you may wish to go down.
The key point here is that a good instructor, as well as a good GM should provide a feeling that EVERYTHING is unknown. For example, even though I am sitting behind my home-made Pathfinder Beta GM screen and holding Legacy of Fire, and using in the game - my players HAVE NO FLIPPING IDEA whether they are on a path that was pre-determined or whether things are being made up spontaneously as we go. This, my friends, is the ART of good GMing. The GM is the master of the game, not the players - who must be left guessing all the time, even in the face of compelling appearance that the GM is running a module or a mighty adventure path. This is the veil, the screen, the mystery that should be present at a well-run table.
A good GM is defined by as much of what she does NOT say, as anything else she does say. The great art of GM-mystery may have been lost or forgotten in the face of the 2000s where publishers (and the coastal sorcerers know who they are) decided that they would put everything in-front of all players as a way to sell more product. The true bottom line goes back to something E.G.G. said in ALL CAPS in the 1e DMG. He said, "Do not let your players master the game."