Dealing with accusations of railroading

[Gnomezrule]

It sounds to me from reading this thread that the GM is running adventures in which the motivation is duty, honor and general good things for society as a whole. The players opted for military service because of posh living and personal gain. The players are crying railroad because their motivation does not feel priority. Yes there was talk of reward (10,000 gp is reward anyway you slice it), but there is a disconnect I am hearing from you and what you are saying they are communicating to you.

I would try a few things that would give them what they think is more control. Depending on the size of the empire perhaps there is a distant lawless region, perhaps that is even where the are now. They at least as one point were national heroes. Grant them authority and autonomy(this could be a reward or a punishment).

Reward: Because of your heroics and loyalty I am sending you as my agent to region such and such. You will be responsible for the region, sending back taxes and so forth, keeping general order and so forth.

Punishment: Because of your scorn for authority I am sending you to region such and such perhaps you will learn something of duty and responsibility. In this you will answer directly to me.

Once in said region let them deal or not deal with responsibility. Let them run things. Give them multiple reports, rumors and threats to respond to. Introduce them to a few NPC's that might be allies or enemies depending on how they play it. Do they start a mini-rebellion by taking out a potentially dangerous cult leader or do they provide him some degree of legitmacy and autonomy so as to get some degree of aid. Do they help one theives guild over others so as to "win the war on crime."

Make a few "different" NPC's (different in name and nuance). Connect them to a few different rumors or problems. Design one location let them pick which threat to face and run the adventure on their terms and with their movtives. If they want to come back later and see what is happening with the other concerns, perhaps their luitenants dealt with one, perhaps that other problem is getting worse. Let them again pick which is the issue that draws them.

I don't know if that helps, certainly it might up end your campaign.

[Theos Imarion]

fake choices that lead to the same end.

[Belle Mythix]

He made a new topic about the third part

[KaptainKrunch]

I don't plan anything anymore.

They make their decisions, and I google floor plans to use and pick traps and monsters from the CR/Terrain tables where they make sense.

It works pretty good if you're decent at improvising.

I do have a setting and "Goings ons" that I can use at any time, I even have an over arching story, but ultimately it's THEIR story so I can't really mess with that too much.

[FuelDrop]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Is player choice important or is it appearance of choice?

Perception is 90% of reality.

i thought it was only 80% (shadow evocation/conjuration reference)

[Gnomezrule]

Theos Imarion wrote:

fake choices that lead to the same end.

Not sure if this was in response to me or not I could see why you would think so on some level. But if they kill the cult leader the cultists respond with riots, or more sutle tactics. One enemy becomes many. Help one guild over another gain enemies and friends, help the other and things might reverse. If your only raiding one theives lair you only need one map, one set of traps and guards.

If there are reports of gnolls raiding caravans in the hills, orcs being led by a demonic sorceror have recently sacked a small village a few days south and rumors of a mastedone graveyard in a hidden valley to the south which might hold huge amounts of ivory. Now the PC's lean back and decide the gnolls are the largest threat because of trade concerns they ride out and deal with it. The PC's don't need to know that you only made one encounter location for the gnolls and the orcs. If they head out after the orcs the deal with the orcs, the can ride in headlong, they can scout it out their approach on their terms. When they deal with orcs where do they go next. They can face the gnolls next session after you have had the time to put together a new encounter, toss in a few curve balls or perhaps they learn that because they went after the orcs the gnolls have done somthing else or dealt with by other adventureres whatever, introduce a new hook. My point was more player freedom, same compelling encounters all at the same time.

[Steve Geddes]

FuelDrop wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Is player choice important or is it appearance of choice?

Perception is 90% of reality.

i thought it was only 80% (shadow evocation/conjuration reference)

Are you lost?

[Theos Imarion]

Gnomezrule wrote:

Theos Imarion wrote:

fake choices that lead to the same end.

Not sure if this was in response to me or not I could see why you would think so on some level. But if they kill the cult leader the cultists respond with riots, or more sutle tactics. One enemy becomes many. Help one guild over another gain enemies and friends, help the other and things might reverse. If your only raiding one theives lair you only need one map, one set of traps and guards.

If there are reports of gnolls raiding caravans in the hills, orcs being led by a demonic sorceror have recently sacked a small village a few days south and rumors of a mastedone graveyard in a hidden valley to the south which might hold huge amounts of ivory. Now the PC's lean back and decide the gnolls are the largest threat because of trade concerns they ride out and deal with it. The PC's don't need to know that you only made one encounter location for the gnolls and the orcs. If they head out after the orcs the deal with the orcs, the can ride in headlong, they can scout it out their approach on their terms. When they deal with orcs where do they go next. They can face the gnolls next session after you have had the time to put together a new encounter, toss in a few curve balls or perhaps they learn that because they went after the orcs the gnolls have done somthing else or dealt with by other adventureres whatever, introduce a new hook. My point was more player freedom, same compelling encounters all at the same time.

It wasn't it's something of learned DM's do.

[sirmattdusty]

In my experience, you tell a group of players what they want to do without setting something up first you will get a resounding 'uh....we dunno!' sigh....ok, so a wizards summons you.......

[slacks]

IMO the players and DM have an equal responsibility when it comes to accepting adventure hooks. Good adventure hooks make it easy for the players to justify their character going along. DM's that ignore character motivation are not doing a good job. Likewise, players that refuse to take hooks are not doing a good job.

It sounds to me like the players are not doing their part to make the session enjoyable for everyone.

[Gnomezrule]

sirmattdusty wrote:

In my experience, you tell a group of players what they want to do without setting something up first you will get a resounding 'uh....we dunno!' sigh....ok, so a wizards summons you.......

These sound suspiciously like players with very little back story when they made their characters or characters that are only given adventure details rather than world details. I know some of my players are the same. Heck I have been guilty of it myself.

The GM of our most recent campaign gave our team basically a day off. The rogue went to the brothel, drug den, casio section. So did one of the fighters and the witch all separately. The wizard ran some errands and learned more about some item we found. I was not there so my character did something however had I been there I would have gone and visited the orphans we rescued and made sure they were treated well. This was after we had struck off into the wild to investigate a temple based on an unknown holy symbol.

Every town, city or area needs rumors, long term problems and a mystery. None of these need to be related to the campaign directly.

[pipedreamsam]

I saw your tuckers goblins thread, and I even favorited several of the posts because you had a lot of good ideas. The "problem" I see is that you like to plan, a lot. Try just making a few bullet points of what you what accomplished and how likely it is to come up/get accomplished. Your players aren't all innocent in this either.

[Ravingdork]

pipedreamsam wrote:

I saw your tuckers goblins thread, and I even favorited several of the posts because you had a lot of good ideas. The "problem" I see is that you like to plan, a lot. Try just making a few bullet points of what you what accomplished and how likely it is to come up/get accomplished. Your players aren't all innocent in this either.

Though I do come up with a lot of fun ideas, I actually play very loosely, treating the ideas like they were cards in a deck to be shuffled. The order doesn't matter, oly the starting points and end points.

[Crysknife]

I would have loved to play your tucker's kobolds.

That said, what you did does not scream of railroading to me: you plan a lot, alright, but the results seem good enough to more than justify it.
You could let them loose and make random session about them going around without anything complex happening: if they find it boring point out that you are not "railroading" them anymore since they dislike it so much.

[FuelDrop]

i actually like being railroaded occasionally. too much choice can just leave my group spinning round and round trying to work out what to do. our indicision is more legendary than our heroic deeds.

[peterrco]

If the players think your railroading them, then you need to find different ways to motivate them. Clearly your players aren't motivated by a jingoistic country right or wrong sort of attitude that gets excited by "Imperial Orders".

From what your saying they aren't actually being railroaded along specific line in each and every adventure, they just have a bad case of feeling conscripted into doing stuff that they don't really care about, and that your attempts to bully them along are just forcing their conscript status down their throats.

You need to make motivations personal to the players. You have to know your players and which buttons to press, a few ideas might include:

Option 1: A seniour officer comes to visit the players, the top brass has noticed how "tired" and "fatigued" the players are. They are really sorry. The players orders are rescinded and another adventuring party has been given the job. The party is recalled to the capital, where everyone treats them as "past" heroes who have done their bit. Nice desk jobs are offered. You place a few interesting events off screen, but tell the players that they "need their rest" and should not get involved.... won't be long before the players are fuming to get their old status back by beating on the bad guys.

Option 2: A nice "Star Wars" we just destroyed the Death Star rewards and recognition ceremony. After a couple of hours having their ego's buffed a lot of players will just want more, and will not care how much blood they have to wade through to get it.

Option 3: There is a whispering campaign about how the players have lost it. People snigger behind their backs. They no longer get a respectful space at the bar. Small children poke fun at them etc etc. The players will not like this.

Option 4: Instead of killing an NPC....only the GM cares about NPC's anyway...... have the Kobolds steal an important player item. Leave a taunting note. You have to choose the player carefully. Some players will be a little bit annoyed and irritated, others will throw a major strop, and will do anything to get their stuff back. Naturally you want to choose the second type of player to pull this stunt on :)

Option 5: Player gets back after a few months...the girlfriend/wife has a half Kobold baby... (warning make sure that there is nothing breakable in the room when you do this, I once played a variation of this and a glass coffee table got smashed the player was that mad.... but it did really motivate him to do the adventure)

At the end of the day, you just have to find ways to make your players want to do the adventure, even if means manipulating them a bit. You have to learn what each of your players really cares about, whether its social status, personal items, fear of being mocked, and then start pressing those buttons when you want them to do something that no sane character would do in a million years, such as go down a mine to meet Tuckers Kobolds.

[Chobemaster]

IMO, whether or not any of the scenarios actually are, or to what degree they are, railroading isn't REALLY the point. The players apparently FEEL railroaded. That's impacting the fun of the game. The fun's the objective, I presume.

Talk OOG about what they want. Ask them to recognize, as players, that your ability to have detailed an entire world of interesting stuff is limited and they will in general have more fun if they act as your partners in creating the game environment. That can call for them to find ways for their character motivations to lead their characters to areas in which you are prepared to run a game.

HOWEVER, relying on that metagame indulgence on the part of the players comes w/ a responsibility to provide the kind of game they want, as well.

I think it's pretty helpful to preview what's coming up. BEFORE you design a Tucker's Goblin lair, find out if that's what they want to do, or WHAT they in fact want to do. Let them respond to the adventure seeds/hook for the next adventure as the conclusion of the prior adventure.

This also can create a cliffhanger, w/ your players thinking about the game between sessions, which is fun.

[voska66]

Doesn't sound like Railroading to me.

The first example is tactics, the devil was using the fire to control the battlefield.

The second example could be railroading if you were forcing them to to follow orders, giving them no opportunity to disobey. Doesn't sound like that though. Sounds like you dangled the carrot and this is where it went. The player could say screw it a dessert their post, leading to different adventure as they are hunted down and shamed.

The third example again the players are given a choice I'm assuming. Do they help or not. What happens if they refuse? If you don't allow them to refuse then you are railroading if they can refuse they deal with the consequences and that isn't railroading. The consequences known before hand might influence their choice but that is not railroading.

I've played some heavy railroaded games. These tend to give the illusion of choice but reguardless of the choice you always end up at the dungeon. That's the clever way of railroading. The bad way is where this is no illusion of choice and everything the players do to try and avoid the path puts them on the path.

I remember one game where we were supposed to take a particular ship to this location. We all thought that was trap so we proceeded to look for a different ship. Suddenly the there were no other ships in dock and would be for weeks, it's major port city. So we decided to make 2 day journey to the next city up the coast. We get there and no ships but the one we were supposed to take arrives shortly. So we decided screw it we aren't doing this adventure and they can find other suckers. Well we wake up the next morning at sea on the ship. We were drugged and pressed into service and ship wrecked on this island. This could have been better with the same results. The rail road was getting us ship wrecked on this island.

[Azten]

Crysknife wrote:

I would have loved to play your tucker's kobolds.

Run a game on the boards, RD! We wants kobolds!

[Bryan Stiltz]

Railroading by it's very definition is where the plot is like a train track. Start at the first station, stop at the next, have an encounter, then the next and repeat until you reach the end of the line.

This doesn't sound like that. This sounds like lots of little IF>THENs wherein the players really wish that their choices didn't have the results you decided they should.

[sirmattdusty]

FuelDrop wrote:

i actually like being railroaded occasionally. too much choice can just leave my group spinning round and round trying to work out what to do. our indicision is more legendary than our heroic deeds.

This is exactly how my group feels. I have had campaigns come to a screeching halt that had no 'plot', as in 'what the heck are we doing again? I dunno, what do you want to do? I dunno what do you want to do....?' (I'm looking at you Kingmaker). Heck, we can't even decide what type of pizza to order on game nights...IF we can even decide on pizza in the first place. About 1030 or so someone will finally give in and just order a bunch of pepperoni.

PS: New players and Kingmaker campaign has gotten much better with the players actually picking up the plot like they should....Mostly....I still have to get the stick out and prod them a few times a session still.

[TriOmegaZero]

I have had my players look at me and say 'we're out of ideas, where is the next train station?' in the middle of the session. It's all about how much you want in your game.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I have read some, but not all of the posts in this thread so if this is a repeat, so sad.

It is a little hard for me to tell. Obviously we weren't there and have to go off your descriptions. Sometimes your descriptions of an event sound like they were railroaded and sometimes your description of the exact same event don't sound like it. To me that implies a middle ground. There was some railroading, but not too excessive.

In my opinion, that is not bad. You have to do some of that or you can't prepare for the game and have to make everything up on the fly. Unless you are truly gifted, that is usually enjoyable for noone.

If they are genuinely upset, ask them how they would have done it differently and the situation still make sense (not just easier for the players). If you really feel like they are just being whiney, I'd suggest taking a GM break. Say it is someone else's turn for a while. See what he does and if it is better received by the group.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, have to point out different groups require different amounts of railroading. I have played in groups that do very well with alot of freedom. We made plans and pursued them. Hoever, my current group gets absolutely nothing done if I don't use a fairly heavy hand to force things along.

Example 1: A minor 3 day ship voyage from 1 place to another (4th level characters). I had planned for the voyage to take about 10 minutes of game time. Just to keep the ongoing war in their minds I had them notice that their ship was being followed by unusual animals and a military ship. Immediately after boarding they were trying to find if any of the other passengers had anything worth stealing. they interogated many of the crew and passengers on everything they could think of except their mission. They spent quite a while trying to kill the animals following the ship (I admit this was interesting and amusing). Then they were discussing charming the cargo ship captian to get him to attack the military vessel following them. At that point I got fed up and said the ship arrives at the next port. They killed almost the entire game night on the voyage and it was my fault they were bored and didn't make any progress. Apparently I should have just said your ship was followed by animals and another ship but nothing happened before you arrived at the next city.

Example 2: In describing the city the ship arrived at, I mentioned in passing that the city had an area for gladiator contests. Immediately launched into a detailed planning session to enter the games and fix the results to make a fortune (including the paladin). I tried to discourage the plan by mentioning it would delay them at least several days on the mission they had accepted, they insisted so I made up some rules and fights to proceed with. They tried to talk one of their PC entrants into throwing a fight. He refused. The others decided he would lose anyway and bet against him. When he won his first round fight and they lost a few gold, they attacked that PC for 'betraying them.' Again, it was my fault for mentioning that their was an arena. Apparently I wasn't supposed to mention anything in the city that might have distracted them.

[DrDeth]

One thing that DM's got to get out of "I spent a lot of time designing this, thus my players MUST run in it" The Tucker's Kolbolds example here being relevant. Sometimes you do spend a lot of time, but sometimes the players don;t want to.

Mind you since Tuckers Kolbolds is designed to frustrate the players, and being frustrated is not fun, they were right.

[Mike Schneider]

"RavingDork wrote:

it lures them to the rubble of the PC sorcerer's collapsed tower for a final showdown....

Was it a penultimate (i.e., campaign-ending) showdown? Did the grumbling start after the sorc lost his tower?

-- Few things annoy players more than the destruction of achievements (e.g, a tower/castle/ale-house/etc) they spent a long time planning toward.

Cheapy wrote:

I do find it odd, however, that a mage who is able to, within 10 minutes of the event happening, know of it, find the PCs, teleport to them, and send them to the location...is not able to solve the issue by himself. Why couldn't he just scry on the nephew, teleport there, and teleport out?

This is a very important point: "believability" must be scrupulously maintained at all times.

[Mabven the OP healer]

Mike Schneider wrote:

"RavingDork wrote:

it lures them to the rubble of the PC sorcerer's collapsed tower for a final showdown....

Was it a penultimate (i.e., campaign-ending) showdown? Did the grumbling start after the sorc lost his tower?

-- Few things annoy players more than the destruction of achievements (e.g, a tower/castle/ale-house/etc) they spent a long time planning toward.

Cheapy wrote:

I do find it odd, however, that a mage who is able to, within 10 minutes of the event happening, know of it, find the PCs, teleport to them, and send them to the location...is not able to solve the issue by himself. Why couldn't he just scry on the nephew, teleport there, and teleport out?

This is a very important point: "believability" must be scrupulously maintained at all times.

Umm, the heir to the Empire is in this small town, and you don't think the Court Wizard is keeping a close eye on it?

[Ravingdork]

The tower was part of the sorcerer's back story and was not "earned" in any real sense of the word. It wasn't even asked for by the player.

It makes perfect sense for a court mage to know that four of his Emperor's military captains can be found in the capitol city's barracks. Knowing the exact location of renegade bandits hiding out in the wild (with spellcasters of their own) is another matter entirely.

Court mage is only 9th-level. As such his abilities are limited. Better to enlist four 10th-level heroes WHOSE JOB IT IS to protect the Empire rather than go it alone. Furthermore, the court mage cannot leave the Emperor for long, as that is where his duties lay.

The nephew of the court mage is not an heir to anything.

[Mabven the OP healer]

Ahh, sorry, the thread is so long, what began as the Court Mage's nephew became the Emperor's son in my mind. Still, makes sense that he would keep an eye on his nephew through magical means, or be sent long-range communication spells from other mildly magical relatives when the nephew is kidnapped.

[Belle Mythix]

Ravingdork wrote:

Court mage is only 9th-level.

Did he have an Item to help him teleport everyone?

[Ravingdork]

Belle Mythix wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Court mage is only 9th-level.

Did he have an Item to help him teleport everyone?

No, he simply cast the spell. At 9th-level he was able to take himself plus three medium creatures...

...In hindsight, I guess that means he would have needed to cast it a few times...

[Belle Mythix]

Needing five uses in total.

[Ravingdork]

Belle Mythix wrote:

Needing five uses in total.

Why is that? At CL 9th he can take himself plus three medium creatures.

There's only four people in the party, plus the large eidolon.

1st casting gets himself, the eidolon, and one other character to the town.
2nd casting gets himself back.
3rd casting gets the remaining three players to the town.
4th casting takes him home again.

[Finn Kveldulfr]

Long thread... made a lot of the necessary comments on the other one, but, quick thoughts on this and railroading in general:

Seems to me like some railroading is necessary, if the players want to have a fun, enjoyable, complex, challenging game... because I haven't known any GM who's really been able to be ready for anything. IMO, RPGs involve cooperative storytelling-- that doesn't just mean the GM cooperating with the player's ideas, that also means to some extent the players going along with the scenario the GM has prepared.

I'd suggest more dialogue between players and GM, let the players give some input on what they want to do... maybe let the players make a decision (a few games in advance) on what their next step is going to be-- but then the players must accept that what they've decided on is what the GM's going to prepare, so they do not get to balk on being presented with that adventure.

Also, in general, there's a whole world around the PCs, with all kinds of different things happening, at different rates-- and other actors (especially BBEGs) are going to be doing things that affect the PCs and present them with situations that should be dealt with. I don't think it's railroading for the PCs to be presented with emergency situations that they ought to want to deal with, because of a villian's actions-- in game, that's on the villain... it's ridiculous to blame the GM for giving you some solid motivations, unless he's literally twisting your arm to go.

Regarding the three specific examples used:

1. If the demon is making the fires to channel the PCs towards him... that's cunning planning by the demon. If it so happens that's the way the wind and weather blows, well darn, that's the wind and weather... if the players are whining because they don't want to go fight the demon, and they're too dense and/or stupid to realize they have other options besides being 'channeled' by the fires, that's on them. Those players whining about 'being railroaded' are IMO out of line.

2&3. Per other posts, these PCs willingly joined the Empire's military. Railroaded? What the f*** did they expect? They joined the Army-- receiving orders and following them, is part of the package deal. They have no reasonable complaint about this-- if they didn't want a certain level of mandatory railroading, they really should have thought more about what being in the military means before accepting the Emperor's offer.

I guess I might like to hear from some of RD's players, but if the situation is largely as RD describes, I just don't have any sympathy for their whining.

Further thought-- if the players continue whining and crying and causing problems with the GM's efforts to construct adventures and run a good campaign-- I'd say the GM should quit running and let someone else take over (for at least a while). I don't agree with the thought about letting someone else run and deliberately becoming 'the fly in the ointment' (that someone else mentioned on this thread)-- but letting someone else run for a while while you take a break from GMing is a reasonable answer. The GM is not obligated to keep running the game for ungrateful players.

Furthermore-- it's not just about the players having fun-- it's about everyone, players and the GM, having fun.... if the GM isn't having fun, especially if it's because his player's attitudes and complaints are making the runs miserable for him, or he's finding it impossible to run the games he'd like to run because the players are always circumventing and ignoring every plan he makes and every hook he throws out there-- he's well within his rights to quit, even if all the players are having a great time (just as the players are well within their rights to quit if they're not enjoying the game, while the GM is). It's a cooperative effort, and there needs to be a solid understanding between GM and players, so that everyone is playing the same game and all are enjoying it. Mismatched games and game-styles aren't just bad for the players, it's bad for the GM too.

[Ragnarok Aeon]

RD, I've said this many times already, but just in case you missed them all. You need to learn your players. What I can tell from your two threads is that they seem kind of dense. They'll miss any hidden opportunities that might be possible because they feel they have to follow the path. They expect from you to put more than one path and claim railroad because you didn't put more paths (lay down more tracks man). If you don't make it obvious they will miss it, from what I've gathered.

Also you should take a look at the rule of 3 which talks a lot about leading your players to what you feel should be obvious.

While you may like thought games and coming up with clever solutions, I'm getting the strong vibe that they don't. Give them multiple choice missions and plots, don't keep putting out complications if they consistently miss the extra options and get frustrated all the while.

[Ravingdork]

To those who say I should let someone else GM for a while: I don't GM often, once every three or four months at the most. My friends host more often than not.

There was a time where I hosted almost exclusively. I was certainly the first among my friends. If I'm not mistaken, many of them consider(ed) me to be the best GM in the group.

Perhaps it's because I let so many new GMs take the reigns for so long that they act the way they do? Who knows?

[Finn Kveldulfr]

Ravingdork wrote:

To those who say I should let someone else GM for a while: I don't GM often, once every three or four months at the most. My friends host more often than not.

Was a thought, if either you or your players weren't having fun in your runs.... however, suggestion is misplaced if you and the players are still having fun. :)

I think I might well enjoy being in one of your games... I don't identify with your players who are complaining about the adventures you present them with.

[LazarX]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

That is merely the most extreme form of railroading.

My definition of railroading is 'lack of player choice'. If the players have a choice of where to go, that's not railroading.

Then by your definition, every printed module is a railroad.

For me the important difference is the degree subtlety and finesse. Are you being prodded from behind with a pitchfork, or do you have sufficient illusion of choice?

[TriOmegaZero]

LazarX wrote:

Then by your definition, every printed module is a railroad.

Only if they are unable to leave the module behind if they so choose.

[MicMan]

I think that you like to outwit and outpace your players.

The examples you gave here and in other threads lead me to believe that you are one of these guys that approach a gaming session as a test of wits in a rat race.

This can feel like railroading because while you do not forbid any actions of them they simply have no idea what they could do except the one obvious thing that you present them and present them while time is critical and choices need to be made fast.

So tune it down. Give them some situations where they have a chance to outwit and outpace the NPCs and I guess that will appease them.

[GRU]

Ravingdork wrote:

Lately, my players have been accusing me of...

Hi Ravingdork,

I remember you describing a situation with Gnolls and children on a bridge.
When I read that I thought "what a railroady situation" and I could understand the players reaction (bombing gnolls and kids). that seemed like a reaction caused by frustration.

People see these things differently, but have you considered that your players MAY be right? Are you willing to listen to them with an open mind?

best of gaming to you and your players,
GRU

[Belle Mythix]

Ravingdork wrote:

Belle Mythix wrote:

Needing five uses in total.

Why is that? At CL 9th he can take himself plus three medium creatures.

There's only four people in the party, plus the large eidolon.

1st casting gets himself, the eidolon, and one other character to the town.
2nd casting gets himself back.
3rd casting gets the remaining three players to the town.
4th casting takes him home again.

Nope:

1st casting to get to the PC.
2nd casting gets himself, the eidolon, and one other character to the town.
3rd casting gets himself back.
4th casting gets the remaining three players to the town.
5th casting takes him home again.

[DrDeth]

When do you t-port the goose, fox and bag of grain, then?

[dkonen]

After all of this, it sounds like you have a problem with player burn out sponsored metagamery.

All of the options they could have taken could have just as easily been used to disrupt the PCs and it sounds like they were expecting it to be used in such a way.

Ex:
1-players fly over fire, then get told that because of the smoke they can now see nothing. They fail, town burns to the ground.

2-players run through the fire, to get paralyzed in it and die/get ambushed while they're still burning and die.

3-players go out to find goblin menace and are subjected to constant LOS issues and concealed traps. They die.

4-players agree to be teleported in groups. Mage never transports second group or group ends up seperated and they get attacked..and die.

It honestly sounds like it's not your fault (unless you're the DM who primed them to expect such things at every turning point), nor is it entirely theirs. It sounds like they've been kicked around by a DM who wasn't cooperative, but rather punishing and competitive.

I'd suggest sitting down and talking to them. Letting them know that unless it's a major point, you're going to let things slide a bit. Killing them over and over again is no fun except for the most sadistic and insecure of GMs, and from the previous posts I've seen of yours, you seem neither.

(with the amendment that is this is a prestated victim campaign, well...players don't always understand that victim campaign are named such for a reason)

[freeAgent]

I do not think you have generally railroaded your PCs any more than is necessary for there to be some sort of story unfolding in your campaign.

You played an enemy character with intelligence and tactics. That's not railroading.

You declared that a fire left only one path to approach the enemy via land. That's the environment, not railroading.

Your players for some reason used OOC knowledge to choose their characters' behavior instead of doing what the characters would do. You did railroad them a bit there, but your players are partially at fault due to their metagaming.

You again set up a scenario and your players didn't like the way it played out. That's not railroading. I assume that had your players wanted to they could have hurt their reputations and/or faced repercussions by refusing to start searching for the children immediately.

[peterrco]

RD, i read this and other posts that you've made,and it sounds like you come up with great adventure ideas have great storylines and have created a fun world.

It also sounds like your playing a sandbox where the players have different orders which they can follow at different times.

I don't see anything in what you have written that suggests that you are rail roading, in the classic sense that the story is on tracks and the players have no room for deviation.

So the big question is, why aren't your players enjoying themselves?

And the answer seems to be that you haven't made it personal to them and engaged their emotions in the world and the plot.

Roleplaying is, in many ways a bit of improvised amateur dramatics, with the GM as the director, and like all drama and art, the key to getting it right is to effectively communicate emotion.

You have to know your players, what makes them tick, what makes them angry, what makes them excited, what they take pride in etc etc.

The best way to get players emotionally involved in a plot is to get them angry. People will do a lot of mad things when they are angry.

When they have completed something, rub up their ego's make them proud of what they have done, and then they will be motivated to protect it.

Anger and Pride may be dark side emotions and deadly sins but they work wonders when making a party engage in your game. And once their engaged and feel ownership of their characters and their little bit of the world you can throw anything you want at them.

[LazarX]

Railroading is in the eyes of the beholder.

For someone like Cartigan, if your game isn't totally sandbox, it's a railroad. Others that are a bit more reasonable may allow for the fact that you're running a module, in which case railroading may be more of a measure of the subtlety in which pc's are moved from chapter to chapter.

"Railroading" isn't usually a problem if it's done with lack of subtlety. If you can make your choices the PC's choices, then for most people, you're doing okay.

In other words, the illusion of choice is generally a good enough standard.

[gnomersy]

I'd say at the very least the giant swath of fire with only one open path is pretty blatantly railroading. Now that being said sometimes this is necessary but it really depends on your players.

In our group the general idea is we'll poke around, if we find something interesting we pursue it because maybe there'll be something fun or shiny at the end of the dark ominous tunnel and swaths of monsters also because our characters all love gold well 4 out the 5 are pretty obsessed about it for varied reasons one just being a basic obsession with wealth for the purpose of gaining power, one for satisfying his various appetites, one in order to found a new chapter of her church in the wilderness, and one just because he's a greedy little jerk.

Anyways that wasn't really necessary but the point is with our group you don't need the goad, in fact if our GM said the local constable walks up to you(we're nominally sherrif's deputies) and demands you investigate something we'd probably tell the sherrif to stick it where the sun don't shine.

But if he tells us "You hear rumors of a cult of devil worshipers and children gone missing in the hills and as you pass by the jail you see a posting of a reward for any information gathered regarding the problem and a bonus if somebody takes care of things" toss up 2 or three lead ins for potential adventures like that and we'd probably look at each other make some silly jokes and go running off chatting about what we're going to spend our shares on.

But it's also absolutely true that if you don't want to deal with making multiple possible adventures for whatever reason that it isn't the presence of choice it is the illusion. For example it doesn't matter if your horde of murderous mountain orcs turns into a band of human cutthroats essentially the only difference would have to be a change of creature type and a different set of minis but giving them the choice makes all the difference to some people.

As for the tucker's kobolds thing if they didn't want to play it you should have just accepted that and let them go and run them through something else instead because yes it might be metagaming that they know but the fact of the matter is that they have as much right to enjoy the game as you do and if the scenario is something they know will just piss them off you're all better off not going through with it because it will maintain a healthier and frendlier relationship between you and the players.

[LazarX]

LazarX wrote:

Railroading is in the eyes of the beholder.

For someone like Cartigan, if your game isn't totally sandbox, it's a railroad. Others that are a bit more reasonable may allow for the fact that you're running a module, in which case railroading may be more of a measure of the subtlety in which pc's are moved from chapter to chapter.

"Railroading" isn't usually a problem if it's done with **** subtlety. If you can make your choices the PC's choices, then for most people, you're doing okay.

In other words, the illusion of choice is generally a good enough standard.

fixed my bad text.

[DrDeth]

freeAgent wrote:

Your players for some reason used OOC knowledge to choose their characters' behavior instead of doing what the characters would do. You did railroad them a bit there, but your players are partially at fault due to their metagaming.

What is D&D? A Game. What is the object of a game? To have fun. Tuckers Kolbolds is a exercise in frustration, and definitely “NOT FUN”. The players had every right to put their foot down.

[Finn Kveldulfr]

DrDeth wrote:

What is D&D? A Game. What is the object of a game? To have fun. Tuckers Kolbolds is a exercise in frustration, and definitely “NOT FUN”. The players had every right to put their foot down.

And now someone's popped up to enlighten us all with the ONE TRUE WAY to play Pathfinder-- telling us, that according to the Holy Book of Adventure Ideas "Tucker's Kobolds" must always be an "exercise in frustration" and "NOT FUN".

This may well be the opinion of the particular player-group that RD is running for... but it is not true for all groups and all versions of the "Tucker's Kobolds" style scenario. While I agree with the poster that the prime directive for D&D is for everyone to have fun... the rest of the post is expressed in absolutist terms that remind me a little too much of religious fanaticism and suppression of perceived "heresy" in gaming.