Hm . . . I guess I've been doing this wrong for 20 + years then . . .
It almost reminds me of when I was told by WOTC that my players weren't having fun playing 3.5. If I find out my wife's been faking it too, I'm really going to have to question my assumptions about my abilities. ;)
I'm certainly not advocating that a GM lets the players read the adventure ahead of time, or even show the PCs the adventure after they have played through a section, but honestly, if you can't admit to the players once in a while that you want to do this or that because of lack of time or other reason coming up, I think you are trying to present an unrealistic "Superman" image.
I've thrown things into APs that people have no idea were my own ad libs, and the players have thought that these were exactly how the AP was suppose to play, and I take that as a compliment.
Also, I don't want to give the impression that the only reason to use an AP is because the GM doesn't have time or is trying to make things "easy" on himself. On the other hand, I don't think its insulting or unrealistic to say that one of the reasons that APs have become more popular is that people don't have as much time to create intricate campaigns. I also don't want to imply that the GM's job is suddenly easy just because he uses an AP, because its still a lot of work to run a successful, entertaining campaign.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
KnightErrant JR,
I see your point. I suppose my caveat would be in situations where "the next step" to get to the BBEG is not at all obvious. To my mind, "Savage Tide" had a fair number of these. (What if the players do decide to go after all the spheres on the Material Plane? Does that sound any tougher than "destroy the greatest of the demon-lords in his own home plane"?)
And a lot of DMs throw out interesting-sounding rumors just for flavor and verisimilitude. So, if there's no clear direction to go, and the castle of the nearby duke seems haunted by perpetual fog, then, sure, let's go! If it sounds like the most dire threat is countered, and the Drow seem a long-ways off, and Sajan really wants to find his sister, then, sure, let's go!
Another example of why I like "Red Hand of Doom": there's a serious problem that the PCs know about: the impending invasion of an irresistible army. And they have a time-limit. And there are a lot of options spelled out in the book about what to do during that time limit, but I've run it three times now, and my players always come up with some other ideas:
- Where can we go to find a lot of treasure to buy thousands more dwarven mercenaries?
- I'm a charismatic half-orc. Can I lead a tribe of my people against this army?
- Are there any legends of a powerful magic item anywhere that we could employ against the army?
- Are there any retired adventurers in Elsir Vale?
- I'm playing a Changeling telepath with a Spot of +15 and Gather Information of +13. What can I tell about the invading forces, and what happens when my Sorcerer teammate with Fly and Greater Invisibility casts Fireballs at the commanders' tents?
All of these are great adventure seeds, whipped up by the players' imaginations, which fit in just fine with the over-arching adventure. That's what makes it not a railroad, as I see it.
No, that's a good point. I'm not against the PCs wandering off the path for a while, as long as, when the GM throws them a really good clue as to where the "offramp back to the BBEG" is, they actually take the offramp once they resolve their side trips.
I'm not against the PCs adding their own bits to the AP, and I don't think the GM should never have to customize an adventure, I just don't think that the PCs should be offended when the GM actually has a campaign in mind and wants to follow it for the most part, or that the PCs should expect that GM to drop everything just because the player has a wild hair to do something completely unrelated to the AP.
I have to agree and disagree, Pax. To continue with your teacher's analogy, I've had several really good professors who were quite willing to say up front "I'm going to try something new now. I've never done this before in a classroom, but I think and hope it will accomplish X, Y, and Z. So, I just want to ask you all to bear with me and see where this experiment goes." I think GMs should be free to do the same thing. There needs to be communication between the players and the one running the game. They need to be able to say "I really like these combats/mysteries/social encounters/traps and puzzles/lemon cakes. Can we have more of them?" And the GM should be able to ask the players "What did you like most about this adventure? How were the lemon cakes?"
Also, the GM should be able to say, "Yes, a thieves guild campaign does sound good, but I'm so busy making lemon cakes, I don't know if I'd have the time to run such a thing. One of you could try running it, or we could play a more rascally AP like Savage Tide or Second Darkness (or any of the others cast in a seedier light, since rascals are certainly capable of playing AoW, CotCT, RotR, etc.). I'll even make sure there are lemon cakes."
On the other hand, you are right. The GM needs to know when to hold his tongue. A buddy of mine who is the group's co-DM is very willing to come forth with all the little details about the templates and statistics, his plans and where we derrivated from them and what he had to improve and how he got us back on track. He does all this almost as soon as the session is over, and it really breaks a lot of the magic for me. A GM should be hestitant to go, "Aw, crap, I screwed up." As on the stage, just play it cool and no one is likely to notice. Players may take pleasure in guessing a creature's AC by noticing which rolls miss and which succeed; and the GM has little way of stopping this. But by no means should he fall into that mentallity himself. There is a great deal of performance and showmanship which goes into the running of a successful game, and a big part of that is keeping the behind-the-scenes stuff mostly behind the scenes.
For me, part of the art of DMing is balancing these two things. One should know when it's okay, even appropriate or neccessary to speak candidly with the players. At the same time, one should know when it's best to remain silent and let things unfold on their own, or just remain a mystery. The former builds and maintains a report within the group, I find, making everyone feel like everyone else, the GM included, is one of the guys (or girls), part of the group, a friend, and someone who can be spoken with and trusted. I find it makes the game more fun. At the same time, the second is absolutely neccessary to build a secondary world, to suspend disbelief, and let the PCs really get into their characters and enjoy the game as heroes from the inside, instead of as geeks (a title I embrace) around a table looking in from the outside.
|
Hm . . . I guess I've been doing this wrong for 20 + years then . . .
It almost reminds me of when I was told by WOTC that my players weren't having fun playing 3.5. If I find out my wife's been faking it too, I'm really going to have to question my assumptions about my abilities. ;)
You said you were frustrated... you intimated you didn't understand why GM's have trouble getting buy-in on the APs.... You had set up a "ficticious gaming group" illustration, but it appears to have hit closer to home than just an example, eh?
Well, how's that workin' for ya Dr. Phil? Instead of responding with insults, you could have harvested the core of my message. Ohhhhhh, sorry, I guess I didn't give you the buy-in or the take the path you expected?
You've taken this so personally, perhaps your wife is faking it;)
Um . . . wow . . . I was kind of joking around . . . hence the ;) . . .
But, hey, feel free to continue to press the assault.
Hm...here's a question that your discussion is leading me to: is it bad dming then to have a close ended plot device? For example, supposing that you have created a plot device in which the pcs are supposed to be prisoners. Now we all know this is fair if the players know beforehand, as in "you are going to all start out as prisoners in the king's dungeon", but supposing the pcs start out as per many an old Dark Sun adventure, fat and happy, only to find themselves captured by slavers? No matter what? Is that railroading?
Hm...here's a question that your discussion is leading me to: is it bad dming then to have a close ended plot device? For example, supposing that you have created a plot device in which the pcs are supposed to be prisoners. Now we all know this is fair if the players know beforehand, as in "you are going to all start out as prisoners in the king's dungeon", but supposing the pcs start out as per many an old Dark Sun adventure, fat and happy, only to find themselves captured by slavers? No matter what? Is that railroading?
For me, the difference comes from DM to Player knowledge. If we're all fat and happy before the slavers swooped in to make us miserable, and we know going in this is how the campaign starts, no biggie. If we've been playing for a time, and then the DM says, "And you wake up surrounded and captured by slavers ..." and we had no chance to react in any way, I am going to feel somewhat railroaded. If I trust my GM, as I do currently, from long playtime, I'll forgive him for it, but will also make sure he understands that I am not thrilled with that kind of deus ex machina plat ;)
My best memory of a "you start captured" adventure beginning comes from Champions. Some of us were heroes, and were invited to the meeting with someone needing our help. Some of us were vigilante types, and needed "persuasion". The GM gave the vigilantes the option to just accept that he captured them, or actually run it ... and my brother, an electric speedster with a problem with water, decided to make the GM catch him :)
Using the character's disads very neatly, the speedster was herded through the city toward a trap. He was being chased by various vehicles that could barely keep up but all sported water canons and the like. The speedster tried to run up the buildings once he realized the trap, only to see more agents atop the buildings with firehoses! So he pushed the running to outstrip the chasers ... and failed a perception check to see the enormous wall of glass across his path! He was actually going so fast that he made it all the way though the wall, with a nice neat cartoon punch out of his racing form left behind -- and collapsed about 20 feet later when the damage caught up with him :)
Needless to say, the other players decided to just go with the "I'm captured" scenario ::laughing::
|
|
Hm...here's a question that your discussion is leading me to: is it bad dming then to have a close ended plot device? For example, supposing that you have created a plot device in which the pcs are supposed to be prisoners. Now we all know this is fair if the players know beforehand, as in "you are going to all start out as prisoners in the king's dungeon", but supposing the pcs start out as per many an old Dark Sun adventure, fat and happy, only to find themselves captured by slavers? No matter what? Is that railroading?
Hey Fish,
(Aside: I hope your waterbourne campaign is going well.)Its NOT "bad dming" to have a closed ended plot device. It is within the scope of the GMs game design and execution to create interesting and new game scenarios, stories, etc. I admit, the "you wake up as prisoners" is one of those overdone tropes that tend to be seen as cliche, so the GM should expect a ho-hum reaction to this one. The key to using this theme, despite its known over-use would be to: 1) present a fresh scenario/story surrounding it 2) ensure that as a GM you don't jump to extremes (if PCs were fat & happy, for example, they should return to a near state by the end of the adventure - that is, perhaps indemnity is the reward of the evening's adventure itself 3) keep it short. anything, truly any plot device works for a very short-time and 5) as a GM - don't ask, don't negotiate, don't hem and haw - just quickly present the device and quickly go about playing - the key however, is to NOT make this an entire campaign or drag out the suckyness of the situation.
And, of course, ya never know 'till ya try it.
The key to execution is to never tip your hand about closed-ended events. Execute them swiftly, and then quickly get to the business of subsequent adventuring. In the case of "closed-ended campaigns", save the big-finale for a singular event-day - like an extended session, letting the players only know that this is the "campaign finale" but reveal absolutely no information until just a week before the last session.
Sometimes exitement and anticipation can be mutually exclusive. Because familiarity breeds contempt, both creative new ideas and cliches can feel sucky to players if extended too long. Be swift, be sensible, and context and execution choices will determine effectiveness of plot devices, but we can't say wholesale that the devices themselves make for "bad dming," unless we hear that they are: overdone, too long, poorly executed, unrealisticly presented, not thought-through, or oddly placed in what is otherwise the context of the campaign.
So (Gamergrrl and Pax) you're both more or less saying that it's how you do it more than the actual plot device. If the players feel they have choices in general then a particular situation in which they don't isn't going to be too bad as long as it's executed in a fun way.
Here's a question--the OP is more or less saying that all of us dms railroad, and all of us who've ever been players at times railroad. (a good example is the online Twilight 2000 game I'm in--my character being dropped into the group was a gm decision that I just went along with. On the other hand it's also a fun game and there are lots of other kinds of choices)
Thanks Pax about my waterbourne game. Speaking of that--the pursuit of an enemy into the salt marshes and of a quest that leads from that is definitely plot driven, and definitely it's something I wanted the players to do. However I made sure that the hooks were ones the pc party would go for anyway. I have to admit that I didn't have another game plan, however well developed the setting is. Let's face it--what all of us do is MAKE the thing happen unless the players openly say to us that they hate the situation.
Sigh... I'm disappointed to read this thread. Because I realize that I'm one of the "not very good GM's". It's difficult to find the time to prepare properly, execute interestingly, and improvise creatively... :-(
Sigh... I'm disappointed to read this thread. Because I realize that I'm one of the "not very good GM's". It's difficult to find the time to prepare properly, execute interestingly, and improvise creatively... :-(
A good point, I think. I used to spend hours preparing for a ten-hour all day session of D and D in the school holidays. I couldnt afford more than one book a year so had to come up with most of it myself. Now I can buy everything I want, but sometimes can only get about 30 minutes during the week to prepare for at most a three hour game session that the players have had even less time to think about since last time we played.
Railroady APs are perfect for a group like ours. The alternative is a poorly run 'open-ended' campaign where the players can't remember what happened last week and the DM is ill-prepared to adjudicate what happens this week.
The others who DM our group have even less time than me - I'd much rather they run a railroady adventure out of the box than tell me they dont have time to 'do it properly' so therefore I don't get my fix. :(
|
|
Sigh... I'm disappointed to read this thread. Because I realize that I'm one of the "not very good GM's". It's difficult to find the time to prepare properly, execute interestingly, and improvise creatively... :-(
Tiger Tim is absolutely right on this. If you and your players are having a good time... a really good time consistently - then there is nothing to be disappointed about.
|
|
If, however, there are "issues" at the table, or there is frustration... there are some tried-and-true practices that most good GMs follow. None of these are rigid, and all of these must be contextually applied to the specific dynamic of your group.
For example, my good buddy M. asks a good question: whazzup with Railroading? At the same time, James Jacobs writes an excellent preface in Legacy of Fire about this same topic. The simple facts are, some folks buy APs to gut them and use widgets and bits, and some run them straight up. The tag line behind APs are, "Campaigns Have Evolved!" In principle, a wide angle lens should 'teach' new or experienced GMs 'how-to' run a campaign full of rich story, depth, and flowing arcs of interaction in a unique and challenging world. However, the AP is both a frame-work, and, for many who seek/need a coherent level of detail (for reasons of time, creativity, etc.), the APs provide what a GM needs to run a great campaign (defined here as a series of interconnected and progressive adventures/encounters).
Much of what the GM does is a learned skill. And competency does not come over night. There is both an art and a vocation to being a great GM.
Understanding how to execute the technique of the unseen railroad is an important skill to have, but it can be learned, and it can always be improved. (And, not all campaigns are run via railroad.) Mairkurion {tm}, the OP, is making the case that one type of railroad is the explicit adventure hook, or the "Given" and unavoidable situation presented to players by the GM. His point is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. And, I agree. A good GM, however, knows how to deliver the fiat in a compelling way. There are many effective ways to do this, however, some GMs resort instead to taking the easiest way out by outright asking the players for "buy-in" (this is extremely clunky and awkward, and should be avoided unless as a last resort). This ruins the mystery and disapates any electrical excitement at the table, kind of like stopping a moment of passion to technically describe the the act of copulation and holding in your hand signature forms (but as you might wildly imagine, there might even be an appropriate context for that too;)
Generally, if problems exist, the GM has not delivered the railroad well, and in cases where an obvious railroad cannot be hidden, the GM has not, over-time, created a table-wide mystique that provides the railroad some on-going concealment.
Hope that helps to further our discussion:)
-Pax-
If, however, there are "issues" at the table, or there is frustration... there are some tried-and-true practices that most good GMs follow. None of these are rigid, and all of these must be contextually applied to the specific dynamic of your group.
For example, my good buddy M. asks a good question: whazzup with Railroading? At the same time, James Jacobs writes an excellent preface in Legacy of Fire about this same topic. The simple facts are, some folks buy APs to gut them and use widgets and bits, and some run them straight up. The tag line behind APs are, "Campaigns Have Evolved!" In principle, a wide angle lens should 'teach' new or experienced GMs 'how-to' run a campaign full of rich story, depth, and flowing arcs of interaction in a unique and challenging world. However, the AP is both a frame-work, and, for many who seek/need a coherent level of detail (for reasons of time, creativity, etc.), the APs provide what a GM needs to run a great campaign (defined here as a series of interconnected and progressive adventures/encounters).
Much of what the GM does is a learned skill. And competency does not come over night. There is both an art and a vocation to being a great GM.
Understanding how to execute the technique of the unseen railroad is an important skill to have, but it can be learned, and it can always be improved. (And, not all campaigns are run via railroad.) Mairkurion {tm}, the OP, is making the case that one type of railroad is the explicit adventure hook, or the "Given" and unavoidable situation presented to players by the GM. His point is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. And, I agree. A good GM, however, knows how to deliver the fiat in a compelling way. There are many effective ways to do this, however, some GMs resort instead to taking the easiest way out by outright asking the players for "buy-in" (this is extremely clunky and awkward, and should be avoided unless as a last resort). This ruins the mystery and disapates any electrical excitement at the table, kind of...
Thanks Tim and Pax. And Mairkurion {tm} for starting this thread.
I didn't mean to side-track the conversations. I've played since 1st ed/2nd ed, but this is only my third or fourth time GMing, and my first after several years. I picked up our group's game from our "regular" GM, because he wanted to play. Plus, I felt that I could easily insert the Fortress of the Stone Giants into our game. I had grandiose notions of bringing great descriptions, fun flavor, and tighter rules to the game. But, I think that I've run it rather flatly and sloppily. Plus, I think that I've focus a little too much on just one of the characters (but he had an interesting storyline on which to focus). The group seems okay with me, but they're starting to get bored with the game, and feeling railroaded. To me that says that I'm not bringing something to the table. So, I guess I was just whining... sorry about that.
However, this thread has been exciting and informative to read. Some good and helpful suggestions. Keeping more "mystery" in my running style is something that I would love to try. I have a tendency to spill info when the group grumbles about "unfair" monsters or encounters. Plus, I'll probably need to be more practical/technical to come across more flexible (I don't think I'm the best GM when I'm totally improvising). So, it will be good to have some better notes and other possible encounters/modules on hand when the group decides to get off the tracks.
Thanks again and keep it going.
|
|
The best railroad is like a card trick.
(Anyone wishing to always just be a player and never GM, please stop reading here. Avoid reading this thread, and run away now while you still can!)
* * *
For GMs Only:
(Players Keep Out!)
* * *
1. Take any deck of cards, shuffle, pick a card (for example the Jack of Hearts) and place it on the top of the deck.
2. Ask someone to choose name the four suits.
3. Ask them to select two.
4. If Hears is among those selected say, "Good! Fantastic!" then move to #5; If not, say, "okay good pick - lets set those two aside, leving Harts and _____ to choose from. Ask them to pick one of those two. If Hearts is the selection, say, "Good! Fantastic." Then move to #5, otherwise say, "okay good pick - lets set that one aside, leaving Harts by process of elimination."
5. Ask them to select number cards or face cards as a category, doing the same as in #4, whereby you drive the selection ultimately to face cards.
6. Ask them to name four cards within the face card list, and throw away the remainder, unless the Jack is amongst their picks. If so, ask them to select two, then finally one, using the same "set aside" or "Good! Fantastic!" routine.
7. Once they have either selected the Jack of Hearts, or by process of elimination default-picked the Jack of Hearts, rather dramatically hold the deck to your forehead, mix up some of the deck, hide the deck behind your back or whatever, but then ask them to turn over the top card. The top card, like a well run adventure path, should be the Jack of Hearts.
The terrible secret of great GMing is that it is all smoke and mirrors, coupled with random but meaningful dice results, and fantastic and unpredictable spontaneity and improvisation. Gary Gygax knew that the art of GMing was a composite of both. And this card trick illustrates how that is achieved, without making for a very long post.
Thus ends the spoiler. This is the stuff I warned against discussing in one of my first posts in this thread. There are many players who don't quite understand yet how this is achieved—so now that you know, please hold your cards close to your chest as they say, and keep this very much a 'trade secret' amongst good GMs.
justanartist, don't be too hard on yourself. You are concerned about your player's fun and are trying to learn to be a good GM. This to me is the sign of a good GM.
If you think railroading is a problem in your game, use this thread to hammer things out. It might be a good idea to try to get your players to post here too. That makes it easier to get to the problem because you get the information first hand.
Thank you for the encouragement. I didn't necessarily intend to shift the conversation over to me, or to shift it to "good" or "bad" GMing styles per se. But, railroading is a common complaint within my group (especially in our unfinished Savage Tide campaign). I thought that I could run better, and now I'm just eating some humble pie. It's not as easy as it looks. However, this thread has made for VERY interesting reading about GMing philosophy; not only on different ways to think about railroading, but on effective ways to utilize it. I'll probably read over it again, and plunder it's resources moving forward. Seriously, this could possibly use a sticky.
Thank you for the encouragement. I didn't necessarily intend to shift the conversation over to me, or to shift it to "good" or "bad" GMing styles per se. But, railroading is a common complaint within my group (especially in our unfinished Savage Tide campaign). I thought that I could run better, and now I'm just eating some humble pie. It's not as easy as it looks. However, this thread has made for VERY interesting reading about GMing philosophy; not only on different ways to think about railroading, but on effective ways to utilize it. I'll probably read over it again, and plunder it's resources moving forward. Seriously, this could possibly use a sticky.justanartist, don't be too hard on yourself. You are concerned about your player's fun and are trying to learn to be a good GM. This to me is the sign of a good GM.
If you think railroading is a problem in your game, use this thread to hammer things out. It might be a good idea to try to get your players to post here too. That makes it easier to get to the problem because you get the information first hand.
For myself, I have learned I run modules like a 9th grader does speeches. That is I read from the notes and then stop for a moment looking around and then go back to reading verbatim from the notes. It was pretty sad until I realized I was doing it. So now I just use bits and pieces and just improv the descriptions and the connections.
|
|
Ironically, I GMed a session this evening that relates to this thread...
Scenario: PCs are in a slaver town on a far-away shore, breaching the inside of the Palace of Skulls to find and slay an assassin leader, when they learn that the missing knights of their home realm are prisoners below the palace.
Issue: When the initial battle became too much for them, the PCs retreated out of the Palace and regrouped in town. With only three hours to spare before their ship sails, some PCs were advocating for abandoning the mission.
GM Behavior: I described their journey away from the the palace without any negative inflection in my voice, very matter-of-factly, trying not to act disappointed in any way. (I know that sometimes the appearance of a "railroad" can make players run away from the obvious path and not wish to come back.
Trying Not To Over-react: Because I spent many hours detailing the palace, drawing maps, selecting miniatures, reviewing stats, and literally carving the massive bridge across the underground chasm out of styrofoam and painting it, ... yeah, I really wanted them to stay in the palace and search beneath it.
What I relied upon: I had to trust that I had already established many mini-hooks and threads, putting them in place over several sessions to assure that the solution that made the most sense in the context of the PCs knowlege would make for a very compelling reason to continue adventuring and kill the bad guys, or die trying. What I had to remind myself was - even if the players walk away and regroup, they will be back for sure of their own accord, because they all have reasons to do that individually, and as an adventuring group. For example, hooks were established previously:
Main Hook: The PCs hired a sage to scry this location and wanted to hunt down this assassin.
Sub-hook1: A contingent of 'lost knights' of the Barony are suspected to be slaves here.
Sub-hook2: A poetic description of how to open a cooridore to Gehenna is discovered in the palace after initial battle with an alchemical double of the assassin.
Sub-hook3: The name of the mastermind villain behind this, matches the name of the mastermind suspected to be behind the previous adventure path the party completed.
Sub-hook4: The ship captain who brought the PCs to this far-away town, will leave port for a return voyage back to the PCs homeland this evening (adding a sense of urgency).
Individual PC hooks:
IPCH1: The fighter in the party finds a defiled fragmented bone of a legendary holy knight within the cornerstone of an evil altar.
IPCH2: The halfling of the group has committed to saving the lost knights below the palace.
IPCH3: The druid in the group has learned that the evil lumbering company defiling the woods of the PCs homeland is linked to the assassin and the enemy baron who makes most use of this slave-trading town.
IPCH4: The PCs have already lost their dear friend (another PC = RIP) on the dangerous voyage down to this shore, and the likely will not want to say his death was in vain.
Now, this list actually goes on longer, and I am trying to shorten this post - - - - however, the key point I'm trying to make here, is that the GM should have not one, or two, but many varied kinds of hooks in place in a good story to drive the player choices in the direction of the planned adventure (if a planned adventure exists).
In my case, I had basically outlined my own adventure path. It is not by virtue that an adventure path exists that the appearance of railroading occurs, but rather it is by inability of the GM to deliver enough varied hooks (incentives, reasons, directives, missions, quests, needs, requests, motivations, etc.)
What happened in the end?:
It was like clockwork. They returned to the palace just as soon as their dear friends' various curses, insanities, poisons or injuries could be addressed.
Did I nearly crap my pants in the mean time?:
You betch-ya! I had to keep a poker face for a while, and run things just as smoothly as when things were going the way I intended. I had to resist the knee-jerk reaction to prompt, prod, or otherwise explicitly drive the players back to the palace.
And, honestly, I'm glad this all happened because they got a chance to test their boundaries and re-committed to the adventure on their own, not by fiat, not by twisting their arms, and not by meta-game agreement that this was the adventure path I was running. To sum up: if the GM is constantly building mini-purposes, incentives, and hooks to drive player choices, than in a pinch, there will be many reasons to lead PCs to conclude on following central adventure paths without any additional coersion. In fact, once the PCs go off-the-beaten-path (pun intended), its probably too late to begin providing reasons for staying on it.
In other words, Pax, you're saying that a good game is a constant blend of pc motivation with the dm dangling good hooks constantly. I like you mentioning the poker face element because I've definitely had to do that--I'm sure many of us have been shocked at least once by a new player thinking outside the box and using some dumb low level spell to take out the BBEG.
I have tried writing this post before, but it didn't take, so I figure I can try again. Also, I am glad I did; sometimes the mind needs time to taste something for a while. Here goes.
Railroading is a common complaint, and while it's usually concerned with pen and paper roleplaying, I think computer games make for better examples. Specifically, I'll use two really good ones: Morrowind and Planescape: Torment. These two are very different in just the area of railroading vs sandbox mentality. Morrowind has been likened to a huge map, attractive and interesting, with a million little things to do, and only a vestigial "main storyline". There is much to do, many different ways to play, and the game makes no assumptions on how you play it. Torment, on the other hand, follows a tightly written main storyline, makes a whole lot of assumptions regarding how you play the game, and while it allows you to deviate for doing various quests and even lets you choose whether to play as evil or good, those choices matter little as the battering ram that is the storyline barges on.
However, the games are also very similar in some respects. First, as I said, both have elements of sandbox and railroad. In Morrowind, you can spend all your energy in following the main storyline, and probably finish the game in only a few hours. In Torment, the various side quests do give you much freedom in what to do, and you can spend considerable time trying to become a member of various (non-essential) factions. I suppose it's hard to make a game that's at the end of the scale in either direction. Or perhaps it's because they are both great games that they have both elements.
Now, one of these games I have played to completion three times, the other I have lost interest in every time I have tried it. Yes, Torment is one of my favourite games, while Morrowind never became one. Why is this? More freedom should be better, right? I think not. Creativity comes with restrained choices. When we devote our time to something, we expect to GET something for that time. And one of the things RPGs can give us is a good storyline. It's like the difference between getting a good novel from someone, or getting an empty book; you certainly have more freedom with the empty book.
Thus, there needs to be both a storyline, sometimes called an arc, and freedom to roam. The difference is perhaps as simple as the amount of time dedicated to reaching storyline goals and not doing so.
Regarding DMing and the relationship between sandbox and railroad, there is one theory that states that you're either a referee DM or a guide DM. The referee DM watchword is "let the dice fall where they may". Such a DM makes a setting, and lets you find your own way there. To some, even the suggestion of a major goal is breaking the principles of DMing. A referee DM will happily let you attack a much too powerful monster, thereby making for a sure TPK. The guide DM is the flip side of that coin. He wants you to experience the story he's created, and if he has to fudge a die roll or two to make for a good story, so be it. These two extreme points correspond directly to the sandbox and railroad mentalities above, but each DM is somewhere in between. In truth, no style taken to the extreme is good. Players for a diehard referee DM often act very cautiously, knowing that no challenge has been adapted to their power level, meaning a trap could wipe them out instantly. A guide DM makes for players who lose investment and thrill in the game since character death is extremely rare. Fudging makes for players who expect it.
Another corollary is with the scenarios you play. If your goal should be a balance between the above styles, you need to make scenarios that allow for it. One relevant fact is that the storyline is what MUST happen, or otherwise put, the stuff the players do that aims to further their current storyline goal. These things must always be properly exciting and adapted to the abilities of the characters. If the PCs fight the final battle against the BBEG, they must be of a proper level to do so. The sandbox elements, however, have less of this restriction. By definition, they are optional, and while every challenge the PCs face must give them a chance to succeed, at lower levels, that success might be getting away alive. You can see this mechanism very clearly in the Final Fantasy games, where those things along the beaten path of the storyline adapt to the PCs' level, but the optional fights have set difficulties.
Another interesting observation: In the Second Darkness AP, Paizo introduced shorter, unrelated scenarios in their books, along with the main AP installation. They are precisely what I mean by sandbox content. A less railroady AP would have less storyline (main adventure) and more smaller, unrelated modules. I guess the reception these smaller adventures got is proof enough that not everyone likes less railroading.
In short: You need to have something to GIVE the players for investing their time in your campaign, and this is usually some sort of storyline. Everyone thinks they love absolute freedom in RPGs, very few do so in practice. And if you want to make people happy, give them a good storyline AND unrelated, optional content.
I just want to give kudos to Sissyl for bringing in the oft over-maligned realm of video games to make some very good points in a well-worded and thoughtful post. So, kudos to Sissyl. There, it's done, that's all.
|
Really the only adventure I had to massively railroad players on was the Kobold Trilogy, but the reason I had to railroad them...was because they were an evil party...they had a blast, I had aneurysms...
usually when you present options to characters of a good origin, they choose the right path...sometimes they don't...then you have to improvise...same as when they kill a character who is supposed to be alive in a later adventure.
|
|
... Everyone thinks they love absolute freedom in RPGs, very few do so in practice. And if you want to make people happy, give them a good storyline AND unrelated, optional content.Hey Sissyl - very nicely written, and interesting points. Thank you.
And exciting combat, where they feel they might die at any moment...
Like the end encounter in Grasp of the Emerald Claw...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And exciting combat, where they feel they might die at any moment...Like the end encounter in Grasp of the Emerald Claw...
Gods, I wish.
And exciting combat, where they feel they might die at any moment...Like the end encounter in Grasp of the Emerald Claw...
Gods, I wish.
** spoiler omitted **
wasn't that the first adventure? shadows of the last war or something? grasp of the emerald claw was down on xendrik, and had the giant warforged IIRC?
This is a little bit of a digression again, but I would like some sage advice from the posters on this GM forum.
The situation is probably an all too familiar one: My players are literally standing at the door to the BBEG's room. However, they've been fighting through a good portion of the dungeon. I think that the group is fully healed, but the two casters (a cleric and a druid/wizard/arcane hierophant) have used a decent amount of spells (especially the cleric).
I'm known to be a rules lawyer (sorry), but I also like story and "realistic" reactions from characters and npc's. However, if I let them just walk in, it very well could be a TPK. No group likes that. I think that metagaming or railroading the group will be a necessity. Some will probably see it as catering to the group, and breaking the "illusion" of the game/story/realistic outcome. But that's the lesser of the two evils.
Advice?
Thank you.
This is a little bit of a digression again, but I would like some sage advice from the posters on this GM forum.
The situation is probably an all too familiar one: My players are literally standing at the door to the BBEG's room. However, they've been fighting through a good portion of the dungeon. I think that the group is fully healed, but the two casters (a cleric and a druid/wizard/arcane hierophant) have used a decent amount of spells (especially the cleric).
I'm known to be a rules lawyer (sorry), but I also like story and "realistic" reactions from characters and npc's. However, if I let them just walk in, it very well could be a TPK. No group likes that. I think that metagaming or railroading the group will be a necessity. Some will probably see it as catering to the group, and breaking the "illusion" of the game/story/realistic outcome. But that's the lesser of the two evils.
Advice?
Thank you.
Personally, I'd let the party walk in if that is their plan. To me, it is the party's job to be keeping an eye on their resources, and if they feel the need to take a break before continuing, to do so in whatever manner they can contrive.
They may not be thinking of that, but they should, and they may surprise you with whatever plan they've thought up for taking out the big baddy ... and if they are doing story wise very well, you can always "fudge" a die roll or two to aid them for the fun of the game :)
This is a little bit of a digression again, but I would like some sage advice from the posters on this GM forum.
The situation is probably an all too familiar one: My players are literally standing at the door to the BBEG's room. However, they've been fighting through a good portion of the dungeon. I think that the group is fully healed, but the two casters (a cleric and a druid/wizard/arcane hierophant) have used a decent amount of spells (especially the cleric).
I'm known to be a rules lawyer (sorry), but I also like story and "realistic" reactions from characters and npc's. However, if I let them just walk in, it very well could be a TPK. No group likes that. I think that metagaming or railroading the group will be a necessity. Some will probably see it as catering to the group, and breaking the "illusion" of the game/story/realistic outcome. But that's the lesser of the two evils.
Advice?
Thank you.
I would have the boss a little worn out as well. if the boss has had to deal with other adventurers he could still be nursing some minor wounds or even lost a peice of equipment due to a lucky sunder. Though this works under the assumption that the boss will have been fending off other adventurers, so might not fit in certain cases.
If he's not expecting the PC's they could easily catch him or her off-guard. If they catch him whilst changing he might not have armour on or a spell component pouch, which could limit his options.
Though if your group has a fair number of careful thinkers in it, they might realize they're outmatched after a round or so or call a tactical retreat. In which case you don't need to really do anything, other than have a few extra tricks or traps when the party return buffed out the wazoo.
|
|
This is a little bit of a digression again, but I would like some sage advice from the posters on this GM forum.
The situation is probably an all too familiar one: My players are literally standing at the door to the BBEG's room. However, they've been fighting through a good portion of the dungeon. I think that the group is fully healed, but the two casters (a cleric and a druid/wizard/arcane hierophant) have used a decent amount of spells (especially the cleric).
I'm known to be a rules lawyer (sorry), but I also like story and "realistic" reactions from characters and npc's. However, if I let them just walk in, it very well could be a TPK. No group likes that. I think that metagaming or railroading the group will be a necessity. Some will probably see it as catering to the group, and breaking the "illusion" of the game/story/realistic outcome. But that's the lesser of the two evils.
Advice?
Thank you.
Thank you for asking for advice; I am happy to provide some. Perhaps you will find 1 or two things amongs these you can use...
1) Learn to embrace that knowing all the rules, and preferring to run a game that coherently follows all the rules (and is both internally consistent, as well as adherant to a system ruleset) does not necessarily make you a rules lawyer. A group can have fun, in fast-paced, rule-breaking games, even when there are 'rules experts' at the table. The difference is they remember to play their characters and keep out of the GM's business. These are expert, but respectful players, who don't constantly interrupt flow and the suspension of disbelief with quips about rules, page numbers, sourcebooks, and arguments. This is a key difference. The fact that you are asking this question implies you are not a "rules laywer" but are someone who knows the rules well. You can remain proud of yourself, and no apology is necessary. IF, however, you make it a point to interrupt play to hand out violations whenever your fellow-players break a rule - then you have certainly set yourself up for having problems.2) Avoid thinking that every aspect of fantasy role-playing should be executed 100% gamist or simulationist fashion. Though there are some disagreements about GNS theory, a role-playing game generally consists of different players who enjoy different kinds of play. Inherent in the tradition and history of the game is simulationist play (counting squares, measuring line of sight, etc.), gamist play (allowing players to roll for success, receive reward commensurate with play choices, etc.) and narrativist play (description, story-telling, co-creation of story content, collaboration of all players, backgrounds, visual detail, histories, foreshadowing, and high levels of character development, conflict, drama, and resolution, etc.). You should not feel that your narrativist play component equals "catering to the group". Part of what makes a story flow and fun are the oft-overlooked narrativeist bits. Simply put you cannot, and need not simulate or game everything. A good GM knows this, and it should not "break the illusion of the game/story/realistic outcome" as you put it. This is not the lesser of ANY evil. This is an inherent and necessary part of the game, however, to-taste has varying degrees depending on the GM and the dynamic of the group. Key point: you are well within good practices to just say, "... the evil ogre you have long searched for can be heard in the room beyond, his voice resounding in the chamber as he scolds his lacky Jarmfogst, the goblin sneak that outran you yesterday." Although it is tempting to be gamist or simulationist here, I try to remind myself that my goal is not to let a dice roll suck the drama out of a situation.
3) Well executed encounters are what glue the the "illusion" of the game/story/realistic outcomes together. Dice rolls, perception checks, etc., are not the substance that make adventures memorable (except for those miracle saves from death, or well-timed crits, but I digress). Remember that when experienced GM talk about the verisimilitude, the mileux, the immersion and suspension of disbelief that makes players feel like they are there.... we are generally not necessarily saying that accuracy of measurement and adherence to all possible perception check rules make for great games. The rules are just one part of the game. (And this fact moreso than ever, seems to be getting lost - but enough about disappearing .pdfs and 4e.) The key point here is: whenever you truly paint an illusion, and whenever you really "have" your audience, are those precious times when they're all looking at you with jaws open, almost frozen in their thoughts, - those are the moments when their imaginations are terribly free to transport them to your realm. And in over 25+ years, nobody has ever come back and said, "well, your adventure would have been believable if you had just had us open the door, and gotten killed without hearing that haunting, echoing voice of the ogre, or given us any description." Its kind of like that song by The Birds (and biblical verse): To everything there is a time and a season, etc. As a GM, purposefully refrain from "using the rules" sometimes, even though you know them - just ask any jazz musicain about this, and they will tell you the same.
Take what you can and leave the rest. As always, I appreciate differences of opinion, but since your were kind enough to directly ask, I've given some of my best thoughts on the subject. Hope that helps.
Though if your group has a fair number of careful thinkers in it, they might realize they're outmatched after a round or so or call a tactical retreat. In which case you don't need to really do anything, other than have a few extra tricks or traps when the party return buffed out the wazoo.
Indeed. Sometimes parties need to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run.
Thank you Gamer Girrl, Nero, Pax and Hogarth. I've recently been very impressed with the assistance and the responses I find on these messageboards. Much of your advice is quite useful for the various aspects of my GMing conundrum. Pax, you've given me plenty to digest and consider, and I can already see applying certain of your points to the situation.
Thanks again everyone!