Lately, my players have been accusing me of railroading at the drop of a hat. I think the term just entered their viocabulary, because they have been throwing it around almost as much as they do their dice lately. How does one deal with this?
Some examples:
- The PCs are chasing a telepoting fiend through their hometown as it burns down around them. The barbed devil, realizing they have spell buffs protecting them from fire, leads them on a wild goose chase, leading them into traps and hazards galore, forcing them to rescue victims of the fire (some of which were cleverly laid illusions), etc., all the while waiting for their reistances to wear off. Once it does, it lures them to the rubble of the PC sorcerer's collapsed tower for a final showdown. It was an unbelievable battle in which they fought not just the fiend, but also the encroachment of fire and choking smoke as well. Where did they cry foul? When I described that the town fires had spread all around (over the course of over two in-game hours), leaving them just one open path towards the tower. They acused me of resorting to obvious railroading. I simply explained to them that it was not railroading as they could still go through the fire itself, or attempt to fly over it through the clouds of smoke (they had access to fly, and could easily have cast resist fire again).
- The PCs are tasked with wiping out the goblins within the neighboring Goblinwood. I plan out a Tucker's kobolds type of scenario months in advance. Recognizing the scenario for what it was (and my getting a lot of flak for that alone) the players refused to go into the underground mines, even though that's what their Emperor and other military superiors tasked them to do (they were honrable military captains at the time). During their siege of the forest the goblins kidnapped a trusted NPC lietenant. The heroes reluctantly pursued, grumbling about railroading all the while as they went undergound afte rhim. A short way into the tunnels the NPC was found murdered. Even though they could have left the tunnels at any time (they had access to teleportation) they went on ahead, constantly throwing false accusations of rail-roading that me. I ask you this: If they can leave at ANY time, how is it possibly rail-roading?
- More recently, the Emperor's court mage teleported to the PC's location, informing them that he had recieved magical communicades from his brother in a small town far to the west. The town had been (successfully) fighting off incursions by gnoll bandits (the leader of which the PCs had already been tasked with assassinating). The communicade informed the court mage that the gnolls, after having suffered several indignant defeats at the hands of town defenders, abandoned the possibility of sacking it and instead infiltrated the village during the night and kidnapped over a dozen young children as a form of enacting their revenge for their losses. The court mage, worried for his young nephew, sought out the PCs (heroes of the Empire all) and handed them orders to come with him to the town and help recover the children (their top priority). So the party goes with him. As soon as they all teleport to the town, the wizard leaves them to the villagers, who summairly rushed them off into the forest to rescue the children, who had all dissapeared into the night not 10 minutes before. The party summoner, prior to teleporting, stated that he wasn't going to bring his eidolon along. He later claimed it was MY fault and the inevitable result of my "railroading ways." He claimed that he could not spare the time to summon his eidolon when children's lives were at risk. He also didn't think the court wizard would be able to bring the party AND a large eidolon. Bringing them seperately wasn't an option, he said, because the eidolon would be dismissed due to the range limitations. To say nothing of making more than one teleport trips (they never even asked if it was a possiblity) or taking the summoner and his eidolon at the same time so they never leave each other's range. The summoner didn't even think to cast unfetter eidolon, one of his known spells. I never even once declared that he couldn't being his eidolon. HE DID. And yet I'M the one accussed of railroading!
How do you all deal with this crap?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you could stop railroading them. ;-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, it became railroading at the point where the PCs said "Nope, not going in there" and then you changed the circumstances so they had to.
Although I think this discussion will be better suited between yourself and your players, rather than us random bozos.
Ask them what they think railroading to be. If they really are constantly being forced to do things they don't want, then it's railroading.
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?
He clearly has the ability to figure out where people are, and he can clearly teleport. Seems weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the descriptions available it seems that your players are just bad at taking initiative and blame you for their failure to be creative in their approach to their missions.
RD, I'm sure that you are an amazing GM. But all three examples you cited above strike me as classic railroading to one degree or another.
Every GM has to "railroad" to some degree, unless you simply wing the whole thing and make everything up on the fly.
When players complain about "railroading" in my experience, it's not so much that they are complaining about having constrained choices, it's more that they believe their characters are being manipulated unfairly to do what the GM wants.
I would sit down with the players and ask them why they think you have been railroading and what they would have preferred as options to direct their characters where the story needed to go.
... just gotta say... that Kobold thing... I would probably have said something and I almost never question the GM. I mean you killed the NPC that you used to drag their asses into the lair after they made it clear they had no desire to play Tucker's Kobolds? Seriously? That would have really made my jaws clench...
I think your players will mostly only feel like they are being railroaded if they expect and want the game to go in one direction and then you make it go in another direction with no choice in the matter.
I would just ask them at the end of each game night what they expect from next time you play, then try to blend your story with what they want to do.
Also be prepared to let them turn down a mission, only for it to be completed by another group who get some kind of huge reward and or recognition for completing the task. If you are gonna do this, make sure that they are given more than one opertunity to get involved themselves.
The first one could be. You might call it firepathing them though.
The second one is their own fault for metagaming and deciding not to do their jobs a "honorable military captains" and following their superior's oders.
The third one was partially the player's fault in my opinion. He assumed this would be a rescue mission and not one that would end finding a big pot of kid stew. Having the villagers push them into the rescue immediately instead of letting them ask some questions seems a bit railroady though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having the players under military orders does not absolve the GM from all accusations of railroading. The railroading accusations in the Tucker's Kobolds situation almost certainly was due to the players realization that RD wanted to run Tuckers Kobolds, and THAT was why the orders had been issued to enter the lair. And that's a completely fair way to view it.
Read DM of the Rings. Don’t be that DM.
You don’t seem to be that DM, note that every DM has to don the Conductors hat once in a while. And you have a great imagination, clearly.
BUT!
You seem to delight in doing frustrating encounters. Frustrating is not Fun, just the opposite. Tucker’s freaken Kolbolds? Shame on you. Esp the way you forced them into it. Apologize for that. Bad DM, no cookie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's talk about working for the Emperor first; was that your choice, or theirs? I fully realize that as a DM, you develop a game or campaign or world, or whatever you want to call it. When you're doing that, you might say to yourself, the party should be working for the emperor! That's how they get together and why they go adventuring! They're his agents! Okay, when you do that, you're railroading.
IMO, it became railroading at the point where the PCs said "Nope, not going in there" and then you changed the circumstances so they had to.
And then there is this; Cheapy is spot on. The players didn't want to do this and so you contrived a way to make them do it.
/ Speaking for myself, as a player, I want the illusion of choice. I don't care if all roads lead to China, but I do want to choose the path. I think a lot players might agree with that.
The barbed devil incident wasn't railroading. It was just using tactics. When buildings burn, of course there will be smoke and fire, and if the party has the resources of circumvent the hazards, and decide not to, that's just poor decision-making on their part.
The Tucker's kobold scenario: Were the PCs conscripted into the military or did they join of their own accord? If they joined, then following orders (following the rails) is going to be a natural consequence of their decision to enlist. Otherwise, conscripts = railroad.
The last scenario: Could the NPC wizard have accomplished the mission himself? Even if he could but was otherwise inclined not to, the summoner's gripes are baseless. He didn't ask the wizard if the eidolon couldn't be transported and he probably forgot about his spell. Just sour grapes.
------
True railroading is more along these lines: Each PC has been conscripted into the nation's military for a period of two years. If you desert, you will be hunted and imprisoned. You have to recover 12 artifacts in order to defeat the Big Bad. Each artifact will have directions to the next. You have a year to complete the quest before the Big Bad appears.
So, the characters, because the obviously knew about Tucker's Kobolds, choose not to go in and eradicate the goblins?
Not a chance. The players knew about them, not the characters. Don't apologize.
I don't think the issue is railroading, tbh i think a certain amount of railraoding is required, you need it for story, you need it to make the CR system work, you really need it if running APs.
The issue is how to avoid players complaining about it, and that can be done by either running a story that they like and want to play in, or it can be done by providing the illusion of choice.
It comes down to either the GM or the players or both need to be a little more creative or a little more on the same page as far as the story you want to be involved in.
To pick an example from the OP:
Eidolon not there, well maybe a villager sugests how usefull it would be in they had some hounds to track the gnolls, Boom! summon 1d4+1 dogs with your SLA because your eidolon is not there, sudenly that character is the boss, feels like a hero, gets the job done and loves his class a little more.
So, the characters, because the obviously knew about Tucker's Kobolds, choose not to go in and eradicate the goblins?
Not a chance. The players knew about them, not the characters. Don't apologize.
If the players are indeed metagaming, is it better to resolve that in game (by forcing their characters into doing something the players don't want to do), or by discussing their general dissatisfaction outside of the gaming session? I err towards the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a lot of posts you have made which indicate to me that you do a lot of helping your players create super-cool optimised characters that many GM's wouldn't know how to create balanced encounters for. For that reason alone, I don't think your players have much to complain about, no matter how sinister the challenges you throw at them.
Those 3 scenarios sound awesome and cinematic, and if you have to do some un-subtle prodding to lead them into such devious encounters, I couldn't blame you. If I were a player at your table, I would have such a blast! The most memorable nights of pathfinder I have had have been when we have had to use every resource we could think of, and still almost fail before succeeding by the skin of our teeth. Sounds like you specialise in providing just that for your players.
If you are anywhere near NYC, I may have to crash one of your games one of these days.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't get hung up on whether you did railroad them or didn't - you probably mean different things by the word than they do so who cares? They're not accusing you of what you think the word means.
I think the best way to respond to players declaring a dislike for some aspect of the game is to ask them what they would have preferred to happen. It seems to me they may be objecting to the style of adventure, or alternatively (as you remark) maybe they've just learnt what railroad means, so now they see it every time their choice is constrained.
I don't know about you, but early on in my rpg career, I went through a phase of imagining a "perfect" game world where tumultuous events happened all over the place, irrespective of PC involvement. I pictured the party picking and choosing which plots to get involved in whilst the others resolved "off camera". It sounds good enough, but probably requires a full time DM or two to pull off. If none of them DM, perhaps they are unaware of how much work goes into creating a campaign. (I think it's very poor form to discuss perceived weaknesses of the game during the session. I'm presuming they're not really aware of what it's like to wear the DMs mantle).
I used to be really bad at railroading my PCs, as I was a young and inexperienced DM playing with much older (and experienced) players. I was also naive enough to let them play Neutral alignments..
The one big thing I learned is that if you give the PCs enough reason to DO something, they will do it. They need to feel their character is going to be rewarded.
First scenario.. Reward is the death of that pesky devil. You gave them enough reason to want to kill him, and to me was done well.
Second scenario is definitely railroading. You want them to do something, they say no, and then you force them to do it. Instead you could have given them incentive. Maybe their squad captain was captured, or the military has told them to retrieve an important item and they can keep anything else they find. Maybe the goblins have been terrorizing a nearby area and killed somebody important to the party. They should either want to wipe out ALL the goblins, or want to get the item at the end of the dungeon.
Third scenario is still railroading.. The party was told they had to drop everything and take on new orders immediately. The NPC could simply have told them about the orders, and that he is to take them as soon as they are ready. But the longer they take, he fears that not all of the captives will survive.. And if the party DOES take their time in going to where they need to go, slowly kill off the 10 people that were captured. No, they don't have to go immediately. But if they don't there will be story and world repercussions.
If the PCs don't want to do something to advance the plot (stop an army, kill a bad guy, go to a certain place), have events unfold anyways. You're suggesting they need to be somewhere for a reason. If they're not where they are needed, then story things will happen without them.
And if your players are just being whiney, sit down like many others have suggested. If you aren't providing the type of campaign they want to play, ask what they want and adapt accordingly. Or let somebody else take over.
Just to be clear, the lieutenant wasn't the first to dissapear. The party (who were the bosses of that particular military campaign) CHOSE tomake camp smack in the middle of enemy territory, completely surrounded by the enemy. The PCs, being well known to the goblins due to their having single-handedly ahnihilate 3 tribesa yar earlier (part of why they were chosen to lead this mission) were the only thing keeping them alive. The goblins didn't dare take them on directly, despite their superior numbers, and instead made lots of noise in the night, in order to cause the party and their troops to loose sleep, waste valuable resources on worthless skirmishes, and ake mistakes in their exhaustion.
Several NPC patrol members dissapeared during the night, having fallen into spiked pit traps, into goblin infested burrows, or outright kidnapped and murdered. It wasn't until the lietenant dissapeared that the PCs THEMSELVES decided to act.
It was THEIR decision to go after him. They, being the leaders, didn't have to do anything of the sort if they didn't want to (and they almost didn't, they nearly gave him up as a casualty of war).
As to joining the Emperor's service: The entire party joined willingly with the exception of the party fighter (whose half-elf spent a human life time in one of the Emperor's prisons for banditry and has no love of the military). He ended up joining anyways for the power it gave him, for the opportunity to bring his snark to those who punished him, and to stick witht he rest of the party. He has done a great job roleplaying the reluctant soldier, a Wolverine-type character who is just barely controlled by his peers.
There is also the party paladin who died before the others joined and was brought back after the fact. He, technically, is not a member of the military, but chooses to follow his comrades nonetheless.
All the PCs were exiled from their hometown after the fiend burned it down (they were thought to have been the cause) and had precious few places to go. Despite having absolute power, the Emperor treats his men quite well and people in the military lead lives of luxery. The party got wind of this and, for the most part, opted to join of their own free will. For their troubles in the Goblinwood, each character was awared 10,000gp and made national heroes for their services to the Emperor. Only the fighter had any qualms about the decision.
IMO someone else should run a few games.
It sounds like the players do not appreciate the work it takes to run a game. Possibly they do not understand that you (the DM) get to enjoy the game as well, which sometimes means compromise on their part.
I don't see the above scenarios as railroading, so much as guiding or baiting. Like you said, they can teleport, and they can fly. They have access to all kinds of shortcuts and workarounds, yet they choose to ignore them. They can take the path which you guide them to, or they can wander off the grid and force you to ad-lib a sandbox game.
Anyhow (looking at the NPC hostage in the goblin cave bit), if the group wants to defy your guidance, don't push them back. That is a bit obvious, manipulative and warrants some heckling. Yes they could have left after the NPC was found dead, but I'll wager they would (understandably) claim that you'd find some other fiat motivation to convince them back into the goblin cave. They can't read your mind, but they were convinced that you were hell-bent on getting them into that cave, as observed by you using orders, then (failing that) guilt bait.
If the group wants ad-lib sandbox, so be it. There's no need to throw away what you prepped either, because you can always just (without them knowing) place that dungeon wherever they choose to explore, and just shuffle around the details around it. BBEGs they manage to avoid, you can just place in other situations. Think of them like your bucket full of miscellaneous Lego pieces, and build as you go.
One thing to note, however. When they disobey orders, or go AWOL, and innocents die as a result, then your sandbox game suddenly becomes deliciously complicated as their clients and mourning villagers decide to be the hands of karma. The PCs, neglecting the lives of others and descending into selfishness (or evil), will find themselves to be the sort of enemies they were meant to hunt... and then hated at every turn, every city. Nobody will trade with them, and eventually they are hunted by Paladins and other heroes.
I appreciate the desire to rush to RD's defense here and accuse the players of being at fault, but I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that there are two sides to everything and it might be time to listen to what they have to say.
The whole "railroading" thing is more about perception than reality. In reality virtually all campaigns are "railroaded" to one degree or another. Geez, I'm building out a cavern right now using Hirst blocks and painting them, do you think I'm going to railroad my players into going into that beautiful cavern with the exquisitely hand-painted stalagmites and boulders, with the boiling lava pit and the pile of bones in the corner alongside the magical fountain with beads of water flowing into a pool of magical healing waters?
Damn right I am.
But I'm going to do my best to make them think it was all their idea.
Players are allowed to choose when encounters take place? Oh bother...
Railroading is not an accusation that happens because the players realize the GM is controlling the action.
Railroading is an accusation that happens when the Wizard of Oz's curtain slips and the players see the little old man pulling the levers and blowing the smoke.
It's the GM's job to keep that curtain in place. When it slips the players stop thinking "OMG, I have to do so-and-so" and start thinking "Crap, this is something Joe Schmoe the GM just wants us to do."
It's really that simple.
Players are allowed to choose when encounters take place? Oh bother...
We choose all the time. It's called keeping watch...
Railroading is an accusation that happens when the Wizard of Oz's curtain slips and the players see the little old man pulling the levers and blowing the smoke.
Like I said in an earlier post, I don't really care that we're probably headed towards some preordained event or ending. I just want to feel like I'm driving the boat on the way. It's an illusion, of course.
It's not an illusion if the DM lays down a railroad network and lets the players pick where to go.
I submit that once you see the tracks, then the illusion is over. And that's pretty much unintentionally paraphrasing Adamantine Dragon.
You see, just because you're playing in a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the party is not a part of a larger set of events that are moving at the same time. A good DM lets the party play, while maintaining invisible forward progress within the overall story of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always try to remind myself when I am GMing that the goal of the endeavor is not for the GM to construct and implement a "great story" but instead the goal of the endeavor is for the GM and the party to construct a great story TOGETHER.
Thus I always try to leave openings for the players to drive critical plot points and redirect the story on one of multiple paths.
I literally have it written on my GM screen. "Collaboration!" The players write part of the story.
|
You see, just because you're playing in a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the party is not a part of a larger set of events that are moving at the same time. A good DM lets the party play, while maintaining invisible forward progress within the overall story of the game.
I've always understood railroading to be Final Fantasy XIII. One path with no deviations.
You see, just because you're playing in a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the party is not a part of a larger set of events that are moving at the same time. A good DM lets the party play, while maintaining invisible forward progress within the overall story of the game.I've always understood railroading to be Final Fantasy XIII. One path with no deviations.
That is merely the most extreme form of railroading.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players are like water. They go everywhere.
So you need to cut the channels that direct them where you want them to go.
If they try to skip the channel, let them. Cut another one ahead of them.
Eventually, they'll take the channel. They'll even think it was entirely their own idea.
When you try to build a dam, that's when they resent you.
Players are like water. They go everywhere.
So you need to cut the channels that direct them where you want them to go.
If they try to skip the channel, let them. Cut another one ahead of them.
Eventually, they'll take the channel. They'll even think it was entirely their own idea.
When you try to build a dam, that's when they resent you.
This is how I try to do it. This is the way I've found to keep the curtain in place.
I literally have it written on my GM screen. "Collaboration!" The players write part of the story.
^This, a thousand times, for the win. The game is the best when everyone at the table is invested and working together.
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.
I'm curious how you would consider a situation where players could go to the ruined tower, the crumbling monastery or the decrepit manor - and (unbeknownst to them) the DM had the same adventure planned out no matter the choice, with appropriate cosmetic changes.
Is player choice important or is it appearance of choice?
If you want to check out a sandbox with a well disguised railroad system, then look no further than the Kingmaker AP. Oh yeah, sure, the players make all the kingdom decisions and pursue whatever quests they like, in whatever order suits them.
But...
Brevoy looms to the north and Mivon to the south. War is brewing and their little nation is right in the middle. There are larger events that are happening while PC's are doing their thing.
/ as a player in the Kingmaker AP, I've made it a point not to issue any major spoilers.
IMO someone else should run a few games.
It sounds like the players do not appreciate the work it takes to run a game. Possibly they do not understand that you (the DM) get to enjoy the game as well, which sometimes means compromise on their part.
This...If they don't want to play in your game, let them run one, and you can be the fly in the ointment.
There's almost always a bit of railroading, it's adventure design 101, you have to give them options, they choose an option or not, if they don't choose an option are they just going to wander around the city waiting for stuff to happen? Are they going to go research lost artifacts? Or, when you ask, are they going to say...uh...I dunno
This...If they don't want to play in your game, let them run one, and you can be the fly in the ointment.
Ugh - the gamer equivalent of "I'm gonna take my ball and go home." That's not the answer, or at least not a very constructive one.
Perception is 90% of reality.
I dont see it like that.
Perception is 90% of reality.I dont see it like that.
I see what you did there, Steve.
I see what you did there, Steve.Perception is 90% of reality.I dont see it like that.
I saw 90% of it.
This...If they don't want to play in your game, let them run one, and you can be the fly in the ointment.Ugh - the gamer equivalent of "I'm gonna take my ball and go home." That's not the answer, or at least not a very constructive one.
More like changing out the pitcher in baseball. Constantly being accused of Railroading isn't conducive to WANTING to continue running a game. I personally ask my players what they thought of each session, I wish I got to play more often than I do, but I typically run games.
I only have so much time to design encounters that A) are the proper challenge for the given group, and B) provide the proper rewards. Just grabbing a Bestiary and picking something in there doesn't always work, just grabbing the GameMastery Guide and using an NPC doesn't always work. Pathfinder is especially complex when it comes to running games.
A lot of times it seems like players don't understand how much work goes into running a game, even running an AP requires lots of work. Hours and Hours goes into every game, so if my game isn't appreciated, I will let someone else do the work...
Just to be clear, they weren't ordered by anyone to go into the tunnels. Their orders consisted of "wipe out the goblin menace inhabiting the Goblinwood." They had completely free reign on how to pull it off, and were even given a small army to do so. Had they come up with a clever way to do that without entering any bunkers, then more power to them.