| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One GM tactic that can rub players the wrong way is railroading, where the GM is overly controlling of the story. No matter what the players do, the story continues down the path the GM has laid out. All GMs in our group, myself included, are guilty of using this tactic at least once, if not constantly.
So in my next campaign I'd like to intentionally NOT railroad the group. My campaign is sandbox style, but that does not by definition prevent railroading. I think the true agony of being railroaded is that the players' decisions are meaningless and don't affect the outcome of the story. So I'm trying to brainstorm ways to make the players' decisions matter.
How else could a GM implement the opposite of railroading?
Something to avoid in Sandbox: Too many sidequests.
In a videogame, I like completing all the sidequests before proceeding down the main storyline, but in tabletop RPGs, I don't like it.
If there is a main quest, my characters usually care enough to take it seriously.
True non linear style games oughta have their encounters all based on different themes, rather than challenge ratings.
You have to be careful about the power levels of the players, because you will need a lot of stuff pre made at various levels to compensate for the lack of linearity.
Keep adventures simple and episodic.
You may be better off just having the players chose a level, or have a level cap so there is less book work. E6 or full blown level 20 adventures let the players enjoy their characters in whatever adventure they pick for that week.
It also means you can make encounters parallel in scope, and in difficulty, with the only variables being what weapons and gear you wanna use this week.
Promote generalization with the players.
I'm interested in this, too. I've been thinking about a player-driven campaign and I'd like some ideas.
I also like your token idea and I'll probably steal that :-D
Don't be afraid to kill the PCs.
In railroad games, you can't kill the PCs because you've put them into situations yourself - if you did, you're just being a dick.
In Sandbox games, they're where they are, when they are, of their own accord. If they didn't heed the warnings to avoid the Great Wyrm Red Dragon, then its their fault.
Your job as DM isn't to be their friend; it's to actively TRY to kill the players in as fair a way as possible.
This may seem counterintuitive, but trying to TPK the party makes for a more exciting and enjoyable time.
Narratives where conflict is the central driving force require a "Threat of Death," whether physical, spiritual, or metaphorical. The greater the threat, the greater the impact is the heroes succeed.
Since D&D/Pathfinder is an action-adventure game, the Threat of Death is most often physical. That means that the closer the party comes to nearly being killed off, the greater the thrill when they succeed.
Of course, try and keep that as a special thing; near-death-experiences become repetitive and annoying if they happen too often.
Generally, keep the "boss" CR encounters to APL+3, with only the rare occurrences of APL+4 or APL+5 (since those are more likely to cause TPKs)
|
Have a strong central location, somewhere the players like to come back to of their own accord. By all means have them travel for a while until something sticks, but build settlements with the goal of getting the players to like a place to set up as a base.
As master_marshmallow has already said, encourage players to generalize. Encourage them to have their character be able to speak multiple languages to read the journals lowly monsters, or invest ranks in Knowledge Nobility and Diplomacy so they can try wooing a baron's daughter, etc.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your job as DM isn't to be their friend; it's to actively TRY to kill the players in as fair a way as possible.
I disagree with this. The DM is neither friend nor enemy; the DM controls the enemies, but the two are not one and the same. The enemies are characters, and the DM is logical consequences for all.
Another thing would be not to over specialize the challenges.
Don't require too much investment into any particular skill set or specialization because these characters should be good in multiple scenarios.
I disagree with this. The DM is neither friend nor enemy; the DM controls the enemies, but the two are not one and the same. The enemies are characters, and the DM is logical consequences for all.
Your job as DM isn't to be their friend; it's to actively TRY to kill the players in as fair a way as possible.
Like I said, though, conflict fuels enjoyment.
When it comes to combat and conflicts, the DM can't really be "neutral" - they do actually have to try and win fights or else it won't really feel like the Party has really earned their victory.
I've had, and in many ways prefer, a backup DM (or, a better term, Combat DM) who handles the enemies and conducts the combat - there job literally IS to use whatever resources they have on hand to try and defeat the PCs, just as the PCs are supposed to use whatever resources are on-hand to defeat the enemies.
Your job as DM isn't to be their friend; it's to actively TRY to kill the players in as fair a way as possible.
From my perspective, I think the DM's job is to try to tell a really memorable story; the kind that gets brought up years later : "Remember when Brother Marston destroyed that lich after all the other party members were down by hitting it with a Rod of Resurrection?".
Putting the PCs in mortal danger is just one tool in the box.
As to the original topic, I think that something that might be of benefit is to have the players either write up a little backstory or fill out a questionnaire for their characters. There are any number of resources online for these (I like the 3x3x3 system myself). That way, by weaving elements of the characters' backstories and their desires and fears into the game, you'll be sure that they are engaged in the game, even without an over-arching master plot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are too afraid of railroading for their own and the game's good.
Now, to explain what I mean. There are varied degrees of railroading, the difference in how much there is depends on what kind of game you play. But remember, more railroading doesn't equal a worse game.
Railroading is more or less unavoidable, as all DMs have a will and mind of their own, otherwise it's railroaded by the players instead.When railraoding gets bad is when it's noticeable. When action and consequence is not related. This mostly spawns because the DM had another outcome in mind and sticks to it, even when the players are clearly pulling the other way and acting in ways that cannot be met with the provided response.
I think you're working off a different definition of railroading than most people. Railroading is, by definition, the GM heavy-handedly forcing the party down a fixed path.
The GM providing flexible and subtle guidance to keep the game's plot more-or-less on track isn't railroading.
Everything in moderation. A railroad plot goes wrong when there's little to no choice in where the PCs are going. Conversely, a sandbox setting can go bad when there's no direction at all.
Every player needs something to strive for, either as a party or as individuals. I had a DM that used Dungeon a Day, and when they started he had slips of paper for the players to choose from, and on each was a personal goal for the PC. One had to search for a magical shirt, and another's was to purify the temple of his long forgotten goddess Glarius(which was a huge task in itself that continued for several dungeon levels). While the main focus was to explore the 20-level dungeon, each PC had something to strive for, instead of just being dragged along for the ride, and we had a large town for a base of operations that afforded us many more plotlines. It's one thing to be murderhobos, but what happens when they become homeowners? Shenanigans.
My character....... well, i came in at about episode 35 of their podcast game, so I didn't have a goal or even much of a backstory. But because of how well put together everything was, I was able to develop a personality and create goals of my own that played off the others. My PC started helping his rival/team member, the cleric of Glarius, to help free his goddess, but only because she might have the ability to free Nex from his demiplane. My PC was from that country, and Nex was his idol. All of this because it's was a great sandbox game that had things to strive for. Not sure if this helps, but I hope this gives you some inspiration for the game you want to happen.
It depends what the players want. If they just want to explore and mess with things, or want something more character based then it can be fun to let them do what they like and see where it ends up. But you have to be careful not to lose momentum or have players feel like they're not really going anywhere.
Individual goals makes a lot of sense, as long as they're not all opposed (unless this is what players want). You don't want to be constantly splitting the party while one player is looking for maguffin 3.0. It will help if players know their characters from the start.
Make sure you're catering to your players. If someone wants combat, let them have it. If someone else likes interacting with NPCs then go with it. This should just happen if it's sandboxy, but it depends if players are correctly reading situations. It also depends on your players. If you have 4 who are all about beign murder hobos and one who just wants to roleplay, it can lead to frustration if every session is about smashing things.
The karma idea is interesting, but may not need to be overly rigid. There should be consequences to actions, but if it feels contrived that the merchant you conned out of 3GP at level one organises a militia to destroy you years later, then it can derail the game.
Sounds like it coudl be very tricky, but awesome if you can pull it off.
Individual goals makes a lot of sense, as long as they're not all opposed (unless this is what players want). You don't want to be constantly splitting the party while one player is looking for maguffin 3.0. It will help if players know their characters from the start.
Truer words never spoken. The group stayed together for the most part, but when they were having a rest break back in town the zen archer monk decided to go down to the sewers to go searching for his quest item, and ended up getting murdered by a cabal of doppelgangers and replaced by one of them. A bit odd that he had become a hungry ghost monk instead by that time, but the others ran with it. By the time a magical effect revealed him to be a doppelganger, only one of the original party members was still alive. The monk successfully bluffed the alchemist into believing that he had always been a doppelganger, and was just too cautious to reveal that fact. Good times all around.
I am running a semi sandboxy campaign mixed with an AP and try to offer choices too...sometimes I do put them on the train, since fate is inevitable. However, when writing the story i go through these thoughts:
- General motive behind the scenario, so why, what and how..general
- Who is involved. Which NPC is behind this, and why?
- What outcome does this NPC want?
- What outcome are the PCs after. Can I offer several rewards/reasons? This is key for sandbox..to make characters weight differently on what they want to achieve from the plot/quest/encounter.
- Think what outcomes can happen. Factor in: PC goals, NPC goals, Environment.
- NPC; how exsctly will she react from (say you think pcs have 3 viable options or are likely to do one of three things) each possibolity. Will this conform with her goals?
- You can build a list of conditions to be met. If pcs do A but not B then Npc does X. This is a lot of work but it cant get more sandboxy.
- Plot what all these consequences mean in the immediate future. Are they relevant to anyone?
- Take a step bsck. Look over your storyboard and see if what you have is actually FUN. Go back and fill the details, give everyone or almost all something to be fullfilled about (puzzle for the rogue, a social determinative option for the Social monkey etc), plan the actual encounters.
- How does it tie to the future of the plot? Think of the outcomez and quickly skech what each could mean (consequences). You will have time to go over this the next time you prepare since the PC choice determines what this is, so having a general sketch is sufficient.
This is a very rough list of what I try to do, sometimes subsconsciously. The epitome of sandbox is "on the fly" but thats experience and mojo of the moment (for me happens only sometimes).
Really generaly, since I think in fluff and then figure what it means mechanically I like to take the plot/encounter apart to barebones and call things for what they are: challenge for John, results in change of alliance resulting in less pay. Moral dilema, they take the grey choice they get the reward anyway but future contact will know. Is the cleric feeling like he is doing the gods work? Insert deific motivation here.
Good thread hopefully we can learn from each other.
The essence of sandbox is to actually railroad your players and make them think they got there by their own choices.
While a tongue in cheek statement, if you're enough moves ahead and considered enough possibilities, it is fulfilled. You can also probably be bloody awesome in chess if you manage...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are too afraid of railroading for their own and the game's good.
Now, to explain what I mean. There are varied degrees of railroading, the difference in how much there is depends on what kind of game you play. But remember, more railroading doesn't equal a worse game.
Railroading is more or less unavoidable, as all DMs have a will and mind of their own, otherwise it's railroaded by the players instead.When railraoding gets bad is when it's noticeable. When action and consequence is not related. This mostly spawns because the DM had another outcome in mind and sticks to it, even when the players are clearly pulling the other way and acting in ways that cannot be met with the provided response.
I think there's something to be said for this sentiment.
Railroading can have its place as one of the many tools at the group's disposal for efficiently getting from one fun part to another.
There's a spectrum somewhere between GMs providing no interesting choices and ignoring PC contributions to the story by forcing the PCs to make only the "right" choice at one extreme, and on the other GMs providing no interesting choices and leaving uninterested PCs to wander aimlessly through a non-story where PC's have no "right" choices to make because it's all so much sand in the sand box. One of those extremes is railroading, the other probably doesn't have much of a name, but, speaking from experience, both extremes (and probably most if not all of the grey areas in between) are unlikely to be fun for most players.
"Railroading" can be useful for moving things along when there are no interesting choices that can be made, and both the players and the GM have nothing interesting to contribute to the story. In a way, "cold opens" are a form of railroading, and yet they can be an effective way of starting the game. Fast-forwarding between the end of one exciting adventure to the start of the other is another form of railroading, and it too can be an effective way of (for example) moving past downtime and talking to shopkeepers, if your group doesn't find that sort of thing interesting. One of the core assumptions of an adventuring group, that the PCs are all there for a reason and they willing to work together, is a form of railroading that again has its place in getting the game moving, and one which most players are willing to cooperate with on the understanding that finding reasons not to go on the adventure and spending time getting convinced to go is not as fun as getting to the dungeon to beat up monsters and take their stuff.
Be honest about it when you are using "railroading", though: the "illusion" of having interesting choices is possibly even more demoralizing for players than being told outright "hey, I'm going to assume everyone is going to enter the dungeon together, so when you open the door, here's what you see... there's a red door hanging off its hinges on the left, a locked blue door on the right, a bookshelf covered in cobwebs in the middle, and what looks like gems mounted in some strange carvings on the wall behind you... what do you do next?" A quick, unobtrusive, honest railroad at the beginning, and then a (hopefully) meaningful choice. Chances are, your players aren't going to mind noticing that they didn't have a choice about starting the adventure, especially if they have an interesting choice... at least, as a player, I never minded the occasional railroad, when it gets used to give the game some structure and direction between the decisions.
But, nobody likes being told, "you stand outside the dungeon, what do you do?" "I, um, don't go in?" "Wrong, guess again." "I go to town to talk to a shopkeeper?" "Wrong, guess again." "I... listen at the door?" "You can't do that." "I guess I just walk into the dungeon?" "Good choice! Now, there's an orc with a box of treasure standing in front of you, and one door behind him. What do you do? No, you can't open the door yet, you have to fight the orc, but not until he taunts you first...." Railroad station after railroad station, with no opportunity to get off the rails, dressed up to look like a choice the player doesn't really have: I'm pretty sure these are the moments where most players notice railroading, and object!
In the end, those moments when players provide clear goals and meaningful choices of their own, and those moments where they speak up, add to the story and move it in the directions they enjoy, and make it the GROUP's story are, at least to me, the most fun part of this hobby.
And so here, I think, is the opposite of railroading: Both with and without a sandbox environment, you benefit from giving your players clear goals and meaningful choices, from providing just enough information for them to make informed decisions and to set the mood without info-dumping on them, and from making room in your plot for those wonderful moments when your players do things you didn't expect and direct "your" story off the path you expected or thought you wanted them to take.
Reserve the railroading for those dull moments when there's no other way to get to those moments where the PCs are able to contribute something meaningful and fun to the game.
And then, there's my old friend, the Sandbox Ancient Red Dragon:
Don't be afraid to kill the PCs.
In railroad games, you can't kill the PCs because you've put them into situations yourself - if you did, you're just being a dick.
In Sandbox games, they're where they are, when they are, of their own accord. If they didn't heed the warnings to avoid the Great Wyrm Red Dragon, then its their fault.
Your job as DM isn't to be their friend; it's to actively TRY to kill the players in as fair a way as possible.
This may seem counterintuitive, but trying to TPK the party makes for a more exciting and enjoyable time.
We have a wide-open sandbox, and yet here, of all the things that we could do, the "meaningful" choice boils down to "either do something safe, or get eaten by a dragon... what do you do next?"
Your job as the DM should not simply be to actively TRY to kill the PCs.
Your job as the DM, especially in a sandbox environment, is to provide the players with interesting choices.
Have the players got it into their heads that they want to visit a dragon? Make it interesting.
They COULD get in a fight with the dragon, and probably get eaten, and that's fine, as long as they have enough information to know what the outcome of getting in a fight with a dragon before they are ready is going to be.
But, as a DM, you could, for example, have a dragon that has other goals besides eating PCs: the dragon can offer the PCs a job, the dragon can trade with the PCs, the dragon could do any number of other things besides kill on sight. And that's just fine, too. (As part of your sandbox design, you did plan motives and personalities for the characters?)
The PCs can have a choice between walking right in the dragon's front door, or sneaking in through a back way, and maybe having a chance of catching the dragon off-guard and maybe having a fighting chance - after leveling up in optional dungeons found along the hidden way. (As part of the sandbox design, you did plan more than one railroad track into and through all the dungeons, including the dragon's lair?)
The PCs might come across NPCs on the road to the Dragon's hideout, who can explain the dangers of fighting a dragon, and offer to raise a mercenary army to help, for a price. The PCs might come across NPCs who can offer to help raise an army, if the PCs can help them reclaim their rightful thrones, rescue the heir to the Wacky Wayside Tribe from a Goblin horde, defend the Baby Orcs from the fanatical Dwarf Paladins, or any number of other opportunities for adventure that would be more easily in the reach of lower-level PCs. (You do have multiple factions with their own independent goals moving around autonomously through your sandbox where they can interact in meaningful ways with the PCs?)
The PCs might come across scheming younger wyrmlings well within their CR who offer to help conspire with the PCs against the Great Wyrm and/or each other, or choose to work against the PCs if diplomacy rolls go bad, or, either way, provide a way for PCs to safely scratch their dragon-fighting itch with a fairer opponent. It's up to the PCs and their dice how to deal with the wyrmlings, and, if it comes to fighting, it's up to you to make sure the wyrmlings give the PCs a good, old-fashioned, dangerous fight. (You have populated the sandbox with NPCs capable of filling a number of different roles, from useful pawns, to useful partners, to trusted allies, to competition, to trouble-making enemies, to immediate threats, depending on how things like skill roles and PC choices drive the plot?)
And, if the PCs want to, in addition to all the other things they could have done, they still have that choice of marching right through the dragon's front door and picking a fight with it - in which case, your job as a DM is to make it as fair, as fun, as exciting, as memorable, and as rewarding a TPK as you can. And, there's nothing wrong with that: give the audience what they want, and make it as interesting as you can... if the players aren't talking fondly years from now about that time their low-level PCs chose to pick a fight to the death with a Great Wyrm and got royally, hilariously, gloriously, and quite fairly curb-stomped, then you have not done your job as a GM.
the loyalty system from unchained really makes fleshing out characters easy and simple. make someone loyal to their family over the crown, and he'd a guard? now that guard just might take a bribe.
If you want the players to have Lots of choices it is important that they undestand what they are chosing between.
I like to use a GM approch that could be called "All roads lead to Rome" here the PCs get options and what they decide to do form the story. But i stear the general story towards narrative fix points that help me shape the story.
So if it is important that the PCs get a special information i dont nessesarely decide who will give it to them or what it will cost but i know they will get it. This is different from railroading because, if it works, the players never see the rails.
Running a sandbox game can be tough since you need to be prepared for whatever the players decide to do or really good at improvising. Sometimes I'll take a bunch of prefab adventures such as those from old Dungeon magazines and sprinkle them around the countryside for the PCs to find. Other times if I find I'm unprepared (which I often do) I'll block the party's progress with a Dungeon adventure (often slightly modified to fit the current setting), a simple dungeon crawl of my own design, or even just a few tough wilderness encounters.
I need to run a semi-sandbox game on Wednesday. The PCs are currently on an island, so their options are a little limited. There are at least 3 dungeons on the island though, and I have only the top levels of two of them prepared along with one other mini-dungeon with 2 encounters. I'll have a lot of work to do before now and then if I want to be sure that I can respond to whatever direction the PCs decide on with something detailed and prepared rather than by just throwing out some area appropriate monsters to keep them tied up for a while.
On the other hand, I'm also a player in a game based on We Be Goblins which sometimes has pretty blatant adventure hooks but other times turns into a sandbox environment. Last session the goblins suddenly decided that they should attack Sandpoint's shipping, and the DM was soon running an almost certainly unplanned set of encounters with sailors from the NPC Gallery. Having a ship under the party's control will likely lead to other unexpected adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few words of wisdom:
- As the GM, you are God. Not small "g", as in "there are multiple gods", but capital "G" as in, "there can be only one!" God controls the entire universe, but he or she gives people their own agency; their own choices. You control the up, the down, the horizontal, the vertical, the weather... You role-play the environment, and everything in it that doesn't happen to be the PCs. Your players do not get to role-play those listed features and determine what happens. That's all you, God.
- Actions have consequences. While I understand that some people may feel that this is "railroading", it really isn't. If you got off at the last station, people still boarded the train, and people still got off of the train. Things still happen at the next station that may or may not affect events as you travel along your own plot. If the players act out their agency, things do not happen in a vacuum. Maybe they completely ignored the rampaging goblins, who were defeated by the townsfolk instead of by the party, but that doesn't mean that those townsfolk will welcome the party back with open arms after leaving them hanging; after all, Kettle, the village blacksmith, died in the goblin assault, and he was very popular with the ladies.
- In good sandbox games, a plotline emerges. That plotline may not be determined by the GM, but it invariably will be there. Maybe the players didn't go after the goblins, but they did go after the minotaurs that were driving the goblins out of the mountains and toward the village. Perhaps those minotaurs were under the control of the high priest of the dark god, Gör, and that's why they were driving the goblins toward the village. Perhaps you had originally prepared for the party to kill off the goblins and go after the swamp witch that was supplying them with weapons and undead because she wanted revenge against the villagers that had driven her out years ago. It's a different story now, but no less awesome for the players having chosen a different path from what you had prepared.
- In poor sandbox games, characters have no sense of purpose. They wander around aimlessly going from "mission to mission" or going to no mission at all in search of something they want to do. You'll find that some games even have players that deliberately avoid every challenge that you provide for them. They didn't want to fight the goblins, they didn't want to save the village, they didn't want to go up into the mountains to find the minotaurs, they didn't want to explore the swamp and find the swamp witch, they didn't want to talk to the traders that were bloodied and scared for their lives, they didn't want to listen to rumours at the inn... They wanted to shag the inkeeper's daughter. But then they don't want to face the ire of the innkeeper and the villagers for ruining her reputation, so they decide to leave the area (the one that they chose to start in) to go somewhere new where they're going to avoid every interesting plot hook that you dangle in front of them. If this sort of nonsense occurs, no one is going to have fun, and that's going to happen pretty quickly.
- The best laid plans often go afoul, and that's okay. Let the players have their agency, but refer to my second point.
- Players can railroad the plot, too. This happens frequently when GMs are trying so hard to avoid controlling anything (or giving the appearance of controlling anything) that players, or one player in particular, will step up into the engine and everyone else is along for the ride. When you're in a village besieged by goblins and the players want to go fight orcs (possibly because one of them has a sword that is more effective against orcs, or orcs are their favoured enemies, or they have something in their backstory against orcs, etc...) instead... Sure, leave the village and go find some orcs to kill. But when they go after orcs time and time and time again, even though you keep on telling them that they've wiped out all of the orcs in the area, they're railroading the plot. Sure, this is a simplistic example of this principle, but it happens. At that point, refer back to my second point. Now they've got a reputation as orc-killers, so orc tribes near and far are banding together into an army to crush you, or they hire a band of adventurers to wipe you out. Sorry, players, but you don't exist in a vacuum.
- Murderhobos are almost universally bad. This isn't to say that playing murderhobos can't be fun; it's tonnes of fun, but if players have set themselves up to have zero attachments to anything, it's not very enriching to the plot and often leads back to point four above.
- You never meet God. God may not be dead, but he or she has invisible hands. There's no clear instance where the players must do something; they only have to die and pay taxes, and no one's really clear on exactly how strongly the second part of that is enforced. God is an ephemeral concept (and just to be clear here, I am referring back to point number one where the GM is God). You're not going to appear as a singing bush, encouraging the party's gunslinger to lead their people to the promised land (or possibly shoot the invisible swordsman). There should be zero clear evidence that the GM is guiding the players, despite the fact that actions have consequences. After all, you didn't make the villagers angry at the party because Kettle died. They did that all by themselves when they refused to help.
- Do not fear plot hooks. It's okay to fish for your players and reel them in when you put out just the right bait. However, don't forget that sometimes, you have to let them struggle against your plot hook, and let them pull the line out before you can really reel them in. This isn't railroading them, but they are allowed to take a break from whatever plotline has emerged to go and do other things. If they never come back to the original plot, that's okay. That particular fisher (plot) didn't catch the fish (the party), and perhaps another fisher will. If you make your plots interesting, players will eventually want to follow them of their own accord because they're engaging and fun.
- Never take it personally when players do something else. While my second point really is one of the most important ones (and I keep referring back to it), don't ever punish the players with plot and consequence. Maybe the villagers never get over the fact that Kettle died, but when the party saves them from Gör's high priest and the minotaurs, they might just soften their tone a bit and not exactly welcome the players back into town with open arms and a parade, but they at least do business with them again. Let the players do other things and follow that new thread. Forcing them back to your original plan for them is, by definition, railroading. They can always ignore consequences; that might make them villains in the end, and that's just fine, too.
Best wishes!
One GM tactic that can rub players the wrong way is railroading, where the GM is overly controlling of the story. No matter what the players do, the story continues down the path the GM has laid out. All GMs in our group, myself included, are guilty of using this tactic at least once, if not constantly.
So in my next campaign I'd like to intentionally NOT railroad the group. My campaign is sandbox style, but that does not by definition prevent railroading. I think the true agony of being railroaded is that the players' decisions are meaningless and don't affect the outcome of the story. So I'm trying to brainstorm ways to make the players' decisions matter.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
How else could a GM implement the opposite of railroading?
I have little experience with this (since when I tried it, it turned out my players much, much prefer a high level of railroadness). However, when I attempted it, I found a useful mental habit was to refrain from thinking about how the players were likely to react.
When I set up a situation and then tried to devise a plan of attack, I found myself subconsciously making any other course of action unnecessarily difficult. When I just set the scene and eavesdropped on the PC planning (I asked them to CC me into any inter-session discussions also) then I found myself much more able and willing to make their chosen strategy entertaining for them.
That may say more about me than be a real strategy, but I found it a useful insight (even though we're now firmly back on the rails).
I'd say you're on the right track. The way I'd do it is to design a world with a few overarching plots, and let the characters decide where to go. This doesn't mean you can't have smaller adventure hooks as well.
For example, your main plot lines might involve:
1: The looming threat of civil war
2: The disappearance of the princess
3: The appearance of a red dragon in the northern regions of the kingdom
4: Whispers of a cult to an evil god.
Just because the kingdom's gearing up for war doesn't mean the local kobolds have stopped raiding villages, or the The Sword Of Gramthar won't be there for a worthy adventurer who's pure enough to wield it.
This means you can start with a few small, unrelated adventures while you flesh out the world, and then whichever plot the characters seem more interested in can get some more screen time.
Also note that those 4 major plot lines could be related to one another in any way, maybe the princess was kidnapped by the dragon? Maybe by the cult? Maybe she's leading the cult? Maybe the civil war is brewing because some of the noble houses think the king isn't doing enough to get rid of the dragon that's eating their peasants?
I'd also probably set it so that at some point these plot lines move along without any character intervention. This means that if the characters choose to ignore your hooks, the world moves, and feels more real. It also adds incentive for them to get involved next time if the war breaks out and now they have no one to buy their loot, and they can't get their hands on any good weapons.
Apologies for disappearing after posting; I just wanted to pop back in to thank everyone for the phenomenal responses. And to think I almost didn't post this thread thinking it'd be uninteresting!
@Petty Alchemy: Point taken; I hate too many irrelevant quests.
@chbgraphicarts: Freaking sweet! Thanks for pointing this out. I've noticed that our group is not lethal in the slightest, no PC deaths ever. I never quite put two and two together that it was because it's somewhat of a jerk move to kill PCs in a railroad plot, and of course our group always railroads. I look forward to TPKing every combat. (Totally kidding, but less pulled punches!)
@MsPleiades: That's my intention! I want this campaign centered around kingdom building rules. Should help tether them down; they're free to wander but they do need to come back eventually.
@Ithnaar: I'm glad to have mortal danger as one tool in my toolbox. Thanks for pointing out the 3x3x3 system! Took me a moment to put in the proper google search, but found it. I've had my players design NPCs for me, but not nearly 9 each, and not nearly as focused.
@Create Mr. Pitt: I'm doing my best to create a world with its own cultures and social/power structures. I don't intend to have linear narrative, but a bunch of chapters my players can explore in the order they choose.
...more later!
...and continuing!
@TGMaxMaxer: That sounds amazing. Especially the "3 plotlines, chose what to focus on, see what consequences unfold because of what you ignored." I've told my group I want to include the concept of time, and that the world is moving before PCs get there and after they leave. The "3 plotlines" strategy sounds like superbly focused way to do this; rather than tracking 10 individual towns/cities, just track the effects of the 3 plotlines.
@kyrt-rider: Good luck in your endeavor to return to the GM seat! It can be daunting, frustrating and rewarding. I look forward to tossing an encounter they simply cannot defeat, but of course give them the chance to escape. Also I do have something of an assistant GM; I'll lean on him more after the game begins.
@ChengarQuordath: Good point; I don't want to completely take my hands off the world, I can still guide them to the plots through my available tools, like NPCs.
@pezlerpolychromatic: I'll keep the concept of "something to strive for" in mind. Aimless PCs in my "unlimited potential awesome Sandbox" is a fear of mine. What good is my sandbox if my players have no sense of purpose?
@squankmuffin: I will encourage my players to have individual goals, but not necessarily count on those to guide the story. There are storylines in the world that the players can interact with that can have regional/global consequences that should add a sense of purpose and stave off feelings of pointlessness.
@Errant Mercenary: That's a great list of information you want to know as a GMing when building locations/plotlines within you sandbox. Rather than writing the plot in advance, write the villians / NPCs in advance and have them react to the world around them.
...even more to come!
And the final chapter!
@yronimous: I feel I have a GM who can railroad us even more than the GM you described; it's not "You stand at the outside of the dungeon, what do you do?" "Wrong!" ...it's more like... "My GMPC is leading you into the dungeon as you follow behind." The story can keep going without us making any decisions. Anyway, as you explained, I hope to provide my players with enough information, set the mood of the campaign and let them make informed decisions which have meaningful consequences.
@Cap. Darling: I do plan on using some "All roads lead to Rome" tactics, especially with any number of NPCs able to drop the same plot hooks, and perhaps any number of subplots lead to a bigger plot.
@Devilkiller: There are certainly some skills I'll need to master: improvisation and, failing that, controlling the flow of the game to non-offensively stall the PCs, thereby buying you the time you need to create a dungeon/flesh out a plotline that the PCs will explore next time.
@Bodhizen: Good reminders; I intend to have a weather forecast for the entire campaign. Players can railroad is a concern, I know one player who can get a little dominating. I could use some in-game consequences and punish this player, but I'd sooner take him aside and discuss it with him. He's been in my Pathfinder group for 7 years, so I'm comfortable enough.
@SteveGeddes: I'm unsure how comfortable my players will be without rails, I'll do my best to guide them subtly throw in plot hooks and decide for themselves which they'll bite. I do have a player who, when the story isn't moving at a pace she enjoys, will shout "Find the Plot!" a parody of "Find the Path", hoping similar magical results will be reached. Hopefully when the PCs stumble on one of the multiple plotlines found in my sandbox, it won't feel aimless nor require further castings of "Find the Plot"
@MrCharisma: Hope you don't mind if I straight up steal some of what you posted for my campaign. Great ideas. Really digging the separate yet interconnected and constantly moving plotlines.
...and it's over! Thanks again so much to everyone who posted. ...and feel free to post more. This has really helped inspire me to keep on plugging away at building my sandbox.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best Sandbox homebrew I ever ran involved me owning lots of Dungeon magazines.
Over the course of one afternoon I went through the mags and worked out the level range for each module. IT was fun.
Then, a week before game session, I sent an email out to the players letting them know which missions were available. They chose the most interesting for themselves and we ran with that.
Quests were finished in one or two sessions. Sometimes missions were still available, other times I worked out how they resolved and affected the world. Each time a new session was coming up, I'd email with updated lists and an overview of things going on as a consequence.
It turned into a real dynamic world with escalating threats, emerging groups to compete for the players fame and the players themselves setting their characters up in guilds and positions of power. They even started creating their own quests with interactions between factions and personal enemies.
It only worked because I had such a huge array of prewritten material though. Not sure I could pull it off again, though I do have large amounts of PDF material now days.
A hexcrawl campaign can help sand boxy play. In this you build a map sprinkle it with short NPC notes or Dungeons or villages . Add a few random encounter tables with varying encounter levels. Don't fetishize balance in encounters. And let the players explore.
The Wilderlands of High fantasy campaign setting could be very useful for this.
Here are some threads on Toolboxy stuff , worldbuilding and sandboxes .
Read the Alexandrian blog on hexcrawl, the importance of wandering monster/random encounter tables, encounter design, and the open game table.
Also read the West Marches campaign blog.
I tried a sandbox game two times now and both times it fails.
Once because the player simply do nothing, second as soon as you descripte something they jump onto it and think this is an adventure, even if it's only a long forgotten ruin...
At the moment I'm running a "pseudo" Sandbox Campaign (like kingmaker).
I build some intressting adventure side which I can place whereever I want and have some "Meta-Plot".
So let's see how this works.
Ah and sandbox campaigns are a hell to track. My new group is at level 8 at the moment and I already have so much pages of notes, they can easily become a new Pathfinder book.
@MrCharisma: Hope you don't mind if I straight up steal some of what you posted for my campaign. Great ideas. Really digging the separate yet interconnected...
You do me great honour sir!
I also really like Wraths idea of emailing plot hooks to the players between sessions.
You could also save some plot hooks for specific characters. Maybe you only email the cleric & the paladiin about the sword of Gramthar, the wizard might know more about the dragon, the rogue hears news of the cult, and the fighter's contacts send word to him with information that the duke is secretly gathering an army only 4 days march from the capital.
Sorry, getting too detailed =P I need to start running my own game again.
Once again, really like Wrath's idea, all credit to him/her.
One GM tactic that can rub players the wrong way is railroading, where the GM is overly controlling of the story. No matter what the players do, the story continues down the path the GM has laid out. All GMs in our group, myself included, are guilty of using this tactic at least once, if not constantly.
It's a popular myth, at least on these boards. Fact of the matter is people generally want direction as to where and what their characters to do, but they also want the illusion that they have free will to choose.
So what most people object to is not rail-roading per sey, but railroading that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
I would say that most people don't mind some direction and will *usually* follow along with the general plot, but they still want the ability to exercise their agency when they feel like it.
An adventuring party might happily follow the "rails" for a while, but when they have a bad feeling about the situation the are in and don't want to go into this particular hole in the ground and would rather continue traveling until they can resupply then they expect the GM to say "OK, you keep traveling", not "No, too bad, you go in anyway". They also don't expect the GM to pull fast ones like "No, the trail that all these people travel along between two cities goes through the basilisk lair and there is no way around and no you can't teleport or fly or whatever just because" and effectively preemptively remove player agency.
As for interconnected plotlines: read node based design on the alexandrian.
And then there are players like me who despise rails entirely. I'm not there to ride a train, I'm there to play a character with independent motivations.
If you ever do GM Dow do you make the game function like you describe?
|
|
And then there are players like me who despise rails entirely. I'm not there to ride a train, I'm there to play a character with independent motivations.
I understand the need for this style of play Kyrt. However, putting 4 or 5 characters together with independent motivations will more often than not lead to a dysfunctional group. Someone is always taking a back seat to someone else's plots. Or worse, they end diametrically opposed.
Plus, in a world of villains, you may not want the rails in place, but may be forced on them anyway. You may just have created the epic guild of thieves you've always wanted, only to have the world zombi appocalypse make all your power worthless because you didn't chase down the threat your DM said was looming.
It's a tight line to walk.
My players have been running APs for a long time now, and things are fairly stale. I might do another sandbox game in the near future, assuming I ever DM again.
Edit - sandbox games like Kyrt describe are doable and great fun. They resource intensive for the DM though, and involve great deal of on the moment thinking and problem solving. That's a big ask for any one DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@kyrt
Thanks for answering. I agree this is a interesting way to play. But i dont think it allow for more roleplay with Independent motivations for the characters. Even if it let the players have more control of the game on the meta level.