I agree with the framework approach... it leaves most of the player agency intact.
Just have more going on than what you just described. Have dragons stirr from their slumber and raid villages as well. Do they handle the dragon problem? --> as a result, the undead army will grow. Do they handle the undead problem? --> the dragons will rampage and destroy a few towns.
Put in a few more problems like that... and your BBEG (whomever is left alone) will develop along with your character group.
I ran a similar storyline in my campaign, and it was just within a country, so, a civil war so to speak (about religion, what else) ; so there was this Necromancer that went about pillaging the battlefields of corpses to raise his army. The group who belong to a group of monster hunters decided not to get politically involved with the Civil War matter and ignored the war plotline for quite a long while... until rumors started finding their way that bodies of slain combatants were going missing. By that time the undead army infestation had grown quite a bit larger... just by their assumption and player choice they didn't want to get involved in the political aspect of it.
In my case, I let the story evolve around the players choices and actions... not the other way around. Nobody likes being railroaded, so, give them options, and make their choices matter. For better or worse.
After each session, decide on what happened in that session, and take your framework notes, and consider ramnifications of current events and how they impact others. Some important NPC got killed? Is there a new power vacuum? Who will take advantage? Who will profit... who will suffer for it? Cause and effect.
Cheers.
|
Sometimes, the only rational choice *is* to flee. The important thing is to give the players choices in *how* to flee. Do they save the farmers or the clergy? Do they take the route down the sewers or over the walls? Do they flee into the forest or into the mountains? Which NPCs do they prioritize to bring along? Give them meaningful choices in fleeing and make sure that their choices matter down the road.
Just keep track of what the NPC's are doing. From there its pretty easy to know whats happening wherever the PC's are. Keep track of time passing and how much of what the pc's do gets out. Its akin to a big game of risk. At the beginning of each turn(session) hey look what happened. What do you guys want to do next?
I generally run a fairly open campaign. However, sometimes you do need a little 'railroading' to construct a coherent story. In addition, it is difficult to have a whole world ready to go all the time, and you can often run a better game if you only have a few places to prepare in any given session, rather than dozens, depending on what the PCs do.
Often you can accomplish this by railroading the PCs without the players knowing it. The simple example, is they come to a fork in the road, what they don't know, is that the dungeon you have built is at the end of whatever fork they choose. They are free to choose, but their choice is really an illusion. This can be done in a more complex fashion as well. Lets say we have 3 locations in the area our PCs are exploring, an old mine, an abandoned fort, and a ruined mill. Our story idea is that one encounter will provide information and hep for the next, but we don't want to force our PCs to explore the mine, the fort and then the mill. So we map out the three locations, and build the three sets of encounters, but we don't place the encounters until the PCs decide where to go first. So if the explore the fort first, that will become are 1st set of encounters.
Obviously this works best if you can throw in some real 'sandbox' stuff as well. If in addition to the 3 places above, we also have an enchanted grove and bandit cave that are stand alone places it helps to add your trickery.
The other thing you can do is become skillful at baiting your plothooks. If you can figure out what will motivate your players to go somewhere (which sometimes includes disguising that you consider it an important plothook) you can lead them down your railroad while they remain blissfully unaware that they are doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just keep track of what the NPC's are doing.
That's usually my recommendation. I call it "villain-based plotting," but of course it applies more generally to any (significant) NPCs.
I make a list and timetable at the beginning of the adventure (or if I'm feeling ambitious, the entire campaign) of all the phases of the villain's Master Plan (whether he's explicitly made it or not -- it might just be God's knowledge of how things will unfold), and I make the party aware of events as they get the opportunity. Some events are pretty obvious ("during the night, an army of orcs surrounded the city and it's now under siege"), some might not be (two nights before that, the entire Temple of Urglesnort sneaked out of the main gate at sunset disguised as a group of itinerant veterinarians, but I won't tell them that unless they're watching the Temple, or maybe the gate).
Then figure out dependencies. If the party manages to capture the veterinarians, this means that their message to the orc tribes will not be sent. How will the orc commander react? Maybe he will send some of his own scouts to the now-deserted temple....
My campaigns start of as published adventures that I build upon. I read through the adventure and note the major characters. From this I extrapolate their motivations, personas and resources. I then look at how things are likely to progress and their relations with the other major characters. This often takes me well beyond the scope of the adventure and into fleshing out the campaign world. The end result is similar to the web plot described above.
Once I understand the interactions, I play through the likely events and interactions without the heroes involvement. This follows the adventure plot and also takes into account the extra areas that I'd mapped out. That depth helps me to understand the likely reactions that each group are likely to have when things go wrong - which invariably happens when the PCs get involved.
From a gameplay perspective, I'm interested in seeing where the players take the campaign, I have my framework and between sessions I can update as events unfold but I have no particular interest in seeing the players go in a specific direction. My enjoyment is in the not-knowing what is going to happen.
Personally, I prefer the 'managed sandbox' approach. You can predetermine the players, the locations, and some major external events - but the rest has to be left fluid. If something doesn't go as you intended, don't consider that a failure on your part, take that as a stimulus you need to react to just as the players do.
Just allow yourself the freedom to run the adventure without the baggage of terms like "railroading".
When in doubt, NPCs are your best friends. They can be used to nudge the adventurers in the direction you need them to go.
Leave the railroading for obsessive hand wringers on forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just allow yourself the freedom to run the adventure without the baggage of terms like "railroading".
With respect, I don't think you understand what "railroading" really is. The point is whether or not you can, in fact, "run the adventure," and what sorts of "nudges" are appropriate for motivating the adventurers.
Back in the bad old days, you knew more or less exactly where the adventures would go (and what they would do) because there were great big stone walls separating areas, and you couldn't get from B-35 to C-1 without getting the key to the door from the fire giant first. You didn't need to 'nudge" them because there was only one way to go -- forward.
Some APs have similar elements to them; for example, the boat in Skull & Shackles I goes where the captain wants it to, stops where he wants it to stop, and if you don't do what he tells you to do, he will quite possibly kill you. It goes from island #1 to island #2 to island #3 in that order, and you encounter them as specified. By the time S&S II rolls around, however, you have your own boat and can go wherever you like and do whatever you want. There's no particular reason for you to visit any particular island, so you might never get to the fire giant on island B-35 before visiting island C-1. How do you make sure that the party has the key it needs?
And this is where you need to resort to "nudges" and hints, or maybe a storm that blows the ship off course so it ends up on B-35 first, or whatever.....How do you do that while nevertheless preserving the illusion that the party is actually in control of their own boat?
|
Have absolutely no idea for the game whatsoever, just a massive scale random dungeon/monster/encounter/treasure/dressing generator like the 1st edition books....
....zero railroading ; )
A valid point, as the OP's entire issue stems from their desire to have the party go a particular direction.
Seems like the key issue is that the OP wants to railroad the party into a particular set of options, but doesn't want it to appear as such.
Personally, sounds like the game has gotten too "epic" for my tastes, and I'd suggest attempting to scale it back down to a more manageable level.
Grease the cart's wheels, then the players won't hear when it starts to roll. Seriously, as long as they don't notice it, it's fine. Never tell them to grease the cart's wheels for you, just give them the oil and see what happens. Hopefully they don't use it to burn stuff.
+1
The appearance is more important than the actuality when it comes to player agency. I find what works best is to indulge the small whims but stay on script for the big issues. Most players prefer to be part of an epic tale with many actors rather than a minor side quest of their own choosing where they are the only star. If you indulge the little things that don't matter they will quickly grow bored and want to get to where the action is.
In one of the campaigns I'm currently running, one of the major plot points is that the continent the party is currently adventuring on is at war with all the other armies of the world and also has a problem with undead running rampant and attacking travelers. It started out with few attacks, but has now risen to the point where escalation is inevitable.
At this point in the story, very soon there will be an invasion on the town the party is currently in, and from here on essentially where the plot will be amping up in difficulty and seriousness.
Problem is, how do I avoid railroading the party along a set plot with this setup? Obviously the party can't fight all the armies of the world and an army of undead as they are right now, but I don't want it to feel like I'm forcing them into a particular situation where their only choice is to flee whenever things get real.
Basically, I'm looking for tips on how to avoid railroading a plot that, at least for now, could be so easy to railroad by having the armies invading from all over. I want the situation to feel somewhat hopeless for now, while having player decisions still matter and impact the story.
For this specific example I would have a huge army arrive and surround the town but not attack. Have the process of troop build up take weeks so the PCs can organise an evacuation if they choose to. If the PCs choose to stay, the army cuts off the food supply to starve out the town, so the town elders look for volunteers to go to the next town for aid (emphasising how brave they need to be to accept this dangerous mission). If the PCs don't volunteer then have the army move in slowly, large armies are difficult to coordinate, and start destroying the town piece by piece. During the invasion give the PCs an obvious way to escape. If they refuse, let them die like heroes and then roll up new characters who are on the run.
|
|
Another possibility is to tell them not to go somewhere. Have their diplomacy checks to gather information get a lot of results of people telling them, "You can go anywhere around these parts... but never go to Plaht Valley. Trust me, never go there. Nothing worth it down there."
So true. Psychological manipulation of the players can be really fun.
Huge fan of the chuckling after secretly and noisily rolling dice that have no "apparent" effect for the players.
Beware stealing something a character valued can create a player very unhappy. Seen this happen once and it caused that player to get very pissed and leave. Was a bit over reaction imo but it can happen.
<snip>
You, the dungeon master, need to out-and-out tell me that it's time for me to go west to the fishing village and investigate those strange disappearences and leave the flushing out of the rest of the forest bandits to the local militia, if that's really what's supposed to happen.
<snip>
A good GM shouldn't need to tell you, but should liberally sprinkle clues around so that the players can reach that conclusion by themselves. I repay investment in the knowledge skills by providing hints. The character has in-game knowledge that the player doesn't have and the hints are presented to the player as things the character would know. E.g. A character with no knowledge (religion) sees a pilgrim from a different god making a religious sign. The knowledgeable character sees the pilgrim dressed up as a worshipper of God X doing a religious sign that praises God Y and considers it unusual - imagine seeing a Rabbi doing a cross gesture.
Maybe not a concrete solution, but I like to try custom fitting the campaign towards the PC's. Like a Sandbox, but you only have to make a couple things at a time, and develop it as you go on. Like the writers for a TV show. It also lets me customize it towards the characters and make meaningful sidequests and whatnot.
Oh yeah, sidequests make people feel like they're in control of their actions more.
Maybe not a concrete solution, but I like to try custom fitting the campaign towards the PC's. Like a Sandbox, but you only have to make a couple things at a time, and develop it as you go on. Like the writers for a TV show. It also lets me customize it towards the characters and make meaningful sidequests and whatnot.
Oh yeah, sidequests make people feel like they're in control of their actions more.
I don't custom fit the campaign towards the PCs. The players need to work as a team to overcome the challenges. My view is that a well rounded party should be able to overcome any level appropriate challenge. If the party designs four overly 'optimised' individuals and leave huge gaps in their overall capability that is their look out. Part of my challenge is to make the encounters interesting and varied so different roles all have a chance to thrive.
I agree on the sidequests part though. I keep a small library of drop-in encounters and mini-adventures that I can pull out to fill a session or two if the party go off script. That gives me time to fill in detail on the main plot to take account of the change in direction.
The simple example, is they come to a fork in the road, what they don't know, is that the dungeon you have built is at the end of whatever fork they choose. They are free to choose, but their choice is really an illusion.
I used to believe this, until I discovered players who discovered the value of simple reconnaissance:
DM: "You see a fort up ahead!"
Players: "OK, we turn around and take the other fork instead, looking for the mill."
DM: "OK, you come to the mill."
Players: "We go in."
DM: "The mill turns out to be a disguised fort! Ha ha ha ha!"
Ugh.
|
|
The simple example, is they come to a fork in the road, what they don't know, is that the dungeon you have built is at the end of whatever fork they choose. They are free to choose, but their choice is really an illusion.I used to believe this, until I discovered players who discovered the value of simple reconnaissance:
DM: "You see a fort up ahead!"
Players: "OK, we turn around and take the other fork instead, looking for the mill."
DM: "OK, you come to the mill."
Players: "We go in."
DM: "The mill turns out to be a disguised fort! Ha ha ha ha!"Ugh.
It still works provided that both ends of the split path form a loop.
It still works provided that both ends of the split path form a loop.
DM: "So, you go off the right side of the screen and re-appear on the left side!"
It still works provided that both ends of the split path form a loop.The simple example, is they come to a fork in the road, what they don't know, is that the dungeon you have built is at the end of whatever fork they choose. They are free to choose, but their choice is really an illusion.I used to believe this, until I discovered players who discovered the value of simple reconnaissance:
DM: "You see a fort up ahead!"
Players: "OK, we turn around and take the other fork instead, looking for the mill."
DM: "OK, you come to the mill."
Players: "We go in."
DM: "The mill turns out to be a disguised fort! Ha ha ha ha!"Ugh.
What's the point? Seriously.
If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.
If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.
The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.
So, just dishonesty?
So, just dishonesty?If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.
If you'd like to call it that. Why bother playing the game at all though? The end result is that the heroes will kill the bad guys, collect the treasure and have the adoration of their countrymen - or die in the attempt. You could flip a coin and tell them a story about what happens - heads they win through, tails they die horribly.
The adventure is there to be played through and it has a narrowly defined set of options. Any opportunity to widen those options and give the players the feeling of choice and self-determination should be taken, even if all the options lead to the same outcome.
|
|
So, just dishonesty?If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.
It's not entirely just the illusion of choice. Just because both paths lead to the same place doesn't mean that going either direction will result in the same outcome.
For example, the path to the left could lead to the front gate of a fort, while the the path to the right leads up the mountain to a ledge that is just close enough to the height of the walls to allow players to jump the wooden fort walls. Yes, both paths lead to the fort, but the adventure alters depending on how the PCs approach things. The advantage for the GM is only having to make one map and one set of NPCs, but you have at least two obvious ways for the PCs to proceded (and they could still do something else, like teleporting without using either path).
So, in the example, the PCs go to the left if they intend either to assault from the front, or if they intend to convince the guards to let them in. The right path is for a more sneaky way inside. And, as mentioned, they could try something else entirely. Just because the GM designs two paths, doesn't mean the players have to use either. Teleportation, tunnelling, flying, and so forth. The GM can't be expected to plan for everything, but when planning, two paths that lead to the same place is very practical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you'd like to call it that. Why bother playing the game at all though? The end result is that the heroes will kill the bad guys, collect the treasure and have the adoration of their countrymen - or die in the attempt. You could flip a coin and tell them a story about what happens - heads they win through, tails they die horribly.So, just dishonesty?If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.
I could... Or I could let the choices of the player actually matter, or at least, be honest enough to not pretend they do, while secretly invalidating their choices.
The adventure is there to be played through and it has a narrowly defined set of options. Any opportunity to widen those options and give the players the feeling of choice and self-determination should be taken, even if all the options lead to the same outcome.
The fork in the road doesn't add anything to the adventure, though. If it makes no difference, all it does is waste time that could be better spent on the areas where the player's actions actually have an impact, even if a predictable one.
There's nothing wrong with railroading, if your group is okay with it... What I consider wrong is pretending a railroad is a sandbox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not entirely just the illusion of choice. Just because both paths lead to the same place doesn't mean that going either direction will result in the same outcome.So, just dishonesty?If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.
If they don't result in the same outcome, I don't have a problem with it... After all, the road is at least as important as the destination. But the proposed "fork in the road" does nothing. You go to the same place, see the same sights, meet the same people and face the save challenges no matter what you do, because that's what your GM wrote down on his notebook.
That's railroading, but that's not my problem with it... Railroad adventures can still be fun. Railroading is not bad if the group is ok with it. My problem is with railroading while lying to your players that it's a sandbox campaign.
It's not entirely just the illusion of choice. Just because both paths lead to the same place doesn't mean that going either direction will result in the same outcome.So, just dishonesty?If the choice doesn't matter, why even add it to the game? Just tell the players they travel dor X amount of time before reaching their destination.The point is the GM is giving the players the illusion of choice, free-will and self determination so they don't feel they are being railroaded along a predetermined script.If they don't result in the same outcome, I don't have a problem with it... After all, the road is at least as important as the destination. But the proposed "fork in the road" does nothing. You go to the same place, see the same sights, meet the same people and face the save challenges no matter what you do, because that's what your GM wrote down on his notebook.
That's railroading, but that's not my problem with it... Railroad adventures can still be fun. Railroading is not bad if the group is ok with it. My problem is with railroading while lying to your players that it's a sandbox campaign.
It's not really like that. Players in all sorts of games enjoy them more, the more they are in control. It's why D&D is so successful, the customization and personal touch to everything. Obviously sandbox campaigns are really hard to make, but they're still more fun based on that principle. Changing things up to make players feel in control, is regardless of whether or not they are is simply more enjoyable. Sure, doing that for a population's lives Aldous Huxley style is unethical, but I'm sure most people agree with me they wouldn't mind. It's a detail the GM adds so we feel more truly immersed in this world.
It's really just an atmospheric technique. One that works quite well because of how the brain works.
A worked example:
You follow the trail along a plain that comes to a fork, the path to the left leads to a range of hills, to the right leads to a forest.
Party goes left: "Whilst walking through the pass, you spot a small cave up ahead on the left, a gnome is tending to some plants outside the entrance"
Party goes right: Whilst walking through the forest trail you spot a large tree with a hollow in the trunk up on the left, a gnome is tending to some plants outside the entrance"
Party interacts with the gnome in a friendly manner and learns that the gnomes are being plagued by Kobolds.
OR
Party interacts with the gnome in an unfriendly manner and either gets beaten back and the Gnome screams "I hope the Kobolds get you" or they kill the gnome and find a note from the gnome-lord requesting assistance against the kobolds.
OR
The party avoids the gnome and some time later stumble upon the remains of a recent skirmish between gnomes and kobolds, that was clearly inconclusive given dead from both sides were left behind.
The players have had choice, the same encounter has potentially occurred regardless of that choice and the result is the same regardless of how the encounter was resolved. The result is much, much better than "you walk along a trail, enter some woods, meet a gnome who tells you to be on the lookout for kobolds who are plaguing the area and attacking all the gnome settlements hereabout and carry on walking through the forest".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible, however, (and quite easy, actually) to add meaningful choices even in a "railroady" campaign. Not everything has be a choice with multiple possible results... But whatever choices there are, should be actual choices rather than smoke and mirrors. Change a few of the monsters they encounter, add a few different NPCs going to different places, and so on... It doesn't have to be big, it just has to be real.
The illusion of choice only works until it doesn't. Players always end up seeing through the illusion sooner or later, and that leads to disappointment with past games and indifference for future "choices" the GM present, even the real ones.
It's possible, however, (and quite easy, actually) to add meaningful choices even in a "railroady" campaign. Not everything has be a choice with multiple possible results... But whatever choices there are, should be actual choices rather than smoke and mirrors. Change a few of the monsters they encounter, add a few different NPCs going to different places, and so on... It doesn't have to be big, it just has to be real.
The illusion of choice only works until it doesn't. Players always end up seeing through the illusion sooner or later, and that leads to disappointment with past games and indifference for future "choices" the GM present, even the real ones.
You are missing one important point, the players have taken a choice and they haven't taken the other one. They will never know what was down the other path. How will they ever know that the NPC they bumped into on the road going who was going to the same town would have been encountered in any event had they taken the other route?
You are missing one important point, the players have taken a choice and they haven't taken the other one. They will never know what was down the other path. How will they ever know that the NPC they bumped into on the road going who was going to the same town would have been encountered in any event had they taken the other route?It's possible, however, (and quite easy, actually) to add meaningful choices even in a "railroady" campaign. Not everything has be a choice with multiple possible results... But whatever choices there are, should be actual choices rather than smoke and mirrors. Change a few of the monsters they encounter, add a few different NPCs going to different places, and so on... It doesn't have to be big, it just has to be real.
The illusion of choice only works until it doesn't. Players always end up seeing through the illusion sooner or later, and that leads to disappointment with past games and indifference for future "choices" the GM present, even the real ones.
Plus, making good encounters does take some effort, and it might take a bit of work to reuse an abandoned one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Justin Alexander's blog has a wealth of advice for you:
I particularly recommend "Don't Prep Plots" and "The Three-Clue Rule"
The "don't prep plots" is pure gold.