A basic conceit of the trope too is that if you're stranded on an island and you literally need a bow or a finesseable weapon or something similar to function, you'll find or be able to quickly cobble together out of coconuts, bamboo, and animal skins something that fulfills that requirement.
It won't be your +1 fortuitous adamant rapier, but the swashbuckler will still get something to precise strike with.
Wizards spell book? Spell comp pouch? Holy Symbol? Decent Armor?
Wizards spell book? Spell comp pouch? Holy Symbol? Decent Armor?A basic conceit of the trope too is that if you're stranded on an island and you literally need a bow or a finesseable weapon or something similar to function, you'll find or be able to quickly cobble together out of coconuts, bamboo, and animal skins something that fulfills that requirement.
It won't be your +1 fortuitous adamant rapier, but the swashbuckler will still get something to precise strike with.
Play the AP and you'll see.
This AP just starts this way as written. The PCs are knocked unconscious; the players have typically barely done anything at this point in the story. The PCs are purposely not meant to know what happens next, which is why they definitely go unconscious.
If done well, the survival aspect of the whole first book should be pretty fun.
The PCs won't have sticks and stones the entire time ...
As for at high levels, I played a homebrew where we lost all of our gear, including clothes, without any other options. It was a lot of fun in line with the story and our group still talks about it to this day (some 10 years later). For us, it wasn't a big deal because we game to sit around and have fun with each other as friends. I guess outside of that environment, it may be more traumatizing.
DMs' would you want to play in a game like that?
Have done, willing to, and will do again. I have zero problem with this approach as a player, and I probably GM roughly 4 times as often as I get to play. I've been a DM for the last 27 years so I don't think I count as "inexperienced" though I think that the fact that I have run roughly half of the TTRPGs under the sun probably expands my perspective on this sort of thing.
I don't play these games to pretend to be a really good-at-fighting badass, I play it to enjoy a story. If the story has my character being knocked out and having to improvise an escape with whatever happens to be at hand, then that's the story. I might disqualify a story because of content, but not because of some plot device that temporarily disempowers me.
if you let me know beforehand that it'll happen sometime then I'll probably play and play a sorcerer or oracle and laugh at everyone who cares about books or pouches. and roll on the floor laughing at the beatsticks that no longer have any sticks with which to beat people with, and have no hard objects on them to protect them from other beatsticks.
I don't think the OP is in the grouo though, so I don't see a problem.
Unless you want to join the group. Although something so roleplay heavy wouldn't be that fun even if you were begrudgingly added. All the players and GM are happy, the game is good.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised that as many people consider this to be an issue at all. I would expect that, at some point in a campaign, my character will have to do stuff without some/any of his gear.
If it was for an extended period of time, or happened over and over again, then I would hope that the GM would give a bit of a heads up during character creation. I can't imagine realistically expecting to always have the advantage of being fully equipped. It's like having the expectation that the party never gets surprised or ambushed.
It's really blatant and a mark of a inexperienced DM. All DMs wanna try this, and few players do. DMs' would you want to play in a game like that?
I strongly disagree with the first part. Setting up a starting point and a scenario is common, and often makes for more a far more compelling story than other methods. Basically, this is starting 'in media res' and just like for films, it can work very well for gaming.
As to the second part, I certainly wouldn't want every game and scenario I play in to be gearless, but having that be the challenge from time to time seems fun to me.
Magic items and gear are one of the rewards for playing well. Would you just strip the PCs of all their experience because you thought of a great 1st level adventure?
Given the talk about WBL etc. it seems that the general consensus is that Magic items and gear are the rewards for playing at all, not necessarily playing well. As for the second point there, I have many times stopped a campaign because it was done or I didn't have any more story to tell and started a new campaign that I hoped had a great 1st level adventure (as well as other adventures to follow. I suppose every time I did this I effectively stripped all the players of their exp, and while I didn't strip the PCs of Exp, I did after a fashion destroy them and their entire world which seems worse.
Bottom line is, it is a game. People can have fun with it a lot of different ways, and if the particular way you want to have fun doesn't match up with how other people want to have fun, then find people you are more in suited to to game with.
What's the difference between "paladin falls" and "dex monk/Bonded Witch/Cha 11 android psychic/etc falls"? Am I not allowed to have fun making and playing these builds because a GM feels like it?
That is 100% absolutely correct. You're not allowed those builds if the GM says you're not.
If you don't like that GM's rulings or conditions, find another one. Should the GM be required to run a game he or she doesn't like? As GM, I set parameters for my games all the time. As a player, if I don't like a GMs restrictions or style, I don't play. Simple as that.
The GM will always wind up doing much more work on the game than all the players combined. Thus, it's the GM's prerogative to set out the sort of game it will be.
It's really blatant and a mark of a inexperienced DM. All DMs wanna try this, and few players do. DMs' would you want to play in a game like that?
I've been GMing for 39 years, so I don't think I qualify as inexperienced. And I plan to do exactly that in an upcoming campaign. And I've played in at least two classic campaigns (Slave Pits of the Undercity and Monte Cook's Night of Dissolution) where this happens and can name others (Skull and Shackles comes to mind).
As to whether I'd want to play that way, that all depends on one question: Will it be awesome? Will the resulting game be fun? If yes, then I'm in!
If you can only have fun through playing at your tricked-out optimal best, then that sort of story isn't for you. As for me, I've fough dinosaurs with dinosaur bones when my pistols were stolen and hurled rocks when my spells were taken away. Those were great GMs who made it fun, and that made all the difference.
I think from now on, I might use this as a decision tool for which players to accept into my games: Could you have fun in a game where you lost all your best gear and had to survive without spells or powers?
I have been a spell caster in campaigns where I have started gear-less. It look us a lot of sessions to get the money for new spell books, making 2 of the 3 of us next to useless. That being said, there was a home-brew allowance to try to remember spells and cast them from memory, with pain and consequences if we failed. At times it was frustrating, but made the game interesting. The GM never put us against an enemy we couldn't take gearless, and it was less fighting more stealing or negotiating.
Other campaigns have started us as slaves and we have to go find the gear, or destitute and in need of a patron.
Others we are enslaved, and the gear stolen, and during our escape we have to decide if we go find it or take off (we went looking!)
I find that the best thing is to have an open discussion with the GM, maybe privately, if something bugs you. Most will try to find a way to make it fun for everyone.
Though I hated having my holy symbol taken as a cleric, I ended up loving the challenge of the game and trying to find it, and the GM made sure we found our stuff, or got new things.
It all about what the group finds enjoyable.
Wizards spell book? Spell comp pouch? Holy Symbol? Decent Armor?A basic conceit of the trope too is that if you're stranded on an island and you literally need a bow or a finesseable weapon or something similar to function, you'll find or be able to quickly cobble together out of coconuts, bamboo, and animal skins something that fulfills that requirement.
It won't be your +1 fortuitous adamant rapier, but the swashbuckler will still get something to precise strike with.
Play the AP and you'll see.
This AP just starts this way as written. The PCs are knocked unconscious; the players have typically barely done anything at this point in the story. The PCs are purposely not meant to know what happens next, which is why they definitely go unconscious.
If done well, the survival aspect of the whole first book should be pretty fun.
Been there, done that.
Right, as I said, starting a campaign this way can be fun.
It's really blatant and a mark of a inexperienced DM. All DMs wanna try this, and few players do. DMs' would you want to play in a game like that?I strongly disagree with the first part. Setting up a starting point and a scenario is common, and often makes for more a far more compelling story than other methods. Basically, this is starting 'in media res' and just like for films, it can work very well for gaming.
As for the second point there, I have many times stopped a campaign because it was done or I didn't have any more story to tell and started a new campaign that I hoped had a great 1st level adventure (as well as other adventures to follow. I suppose every time I did this I effectively stripped all the players of their exp, and while I didn't strip the PCs of Exp, I did after a fashion destroy them and their entire world which seems worse.
You quoted me out of context: " it's a totally legit way to start a campaign. Just tell the Players to "dont worry about gear, we'll do that in session 1"
It's fine to start a campaign like this, cheezy to pull it at lvl 10.
No, since they still had their characters, which could be played in other campaigns.
Now, if you end all your campaigns with "The world explodes and you're all dead" then yes, but again- cheezy.
It's really blatant and a mark of a inexperienced DM. All DMs wanna try this, and few players do. DMs' would you want to play in a game like that?I've been GMing for 39 years, so I don't think I qualify as inexperienced. And I plan to do exactly that in an upcoming campaign. And I've played in at least two classic campaigns (Slave Pits of the Undercity and Monte Cook's Night of Dissolution) where this happens and can name others (Skull and Shackles comes to mind).
Again, quoted out of context " it's a totally legit way to start a campaign. Just tell the Players to "dont worry about gear, we'll do that in session 1"
Skull and Shackles start with the PCs stripped. Having played A1, no, it doesnt.
It's fine to start a campaign like this, cheezy to pull it at lvl 10.
Legitimate question. Is it unreasonable to have a segment of a campaign take place in an region where magic simply does not function, so your magic items are mundane versions of those items, you cannot cast spells or activate SLAs, or access your transdimensional storage, provided you design the encounters to be things that your party can overcome without any of that stuff?
Can I do that at level 10? Sure, this hoses the wizard way more than the fighter, but what if this is a deliberate scenerio where the point is for the fighter to be more useful than the wizard for once. Obviously you don't run the entire campaign like this, but I don't see a big difference between "someone took all your gear, go get it back" and "in this section of these ancient ruins magic doesn't work right, but you have to get through it."
Honestly, as a player I find those scenes where I feel disempowered are great because they add contrast that lets me feel truly powerful later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised that as many people consider this to be an issue at all. I would expect that, at some point in a campaign, my character will have to do stuff without some/any of his gear.
If it was for an extended period of time, or happened over and over again, then I would hope that the GM would give a bit of a heads up during character creation. I can't imagine realistically expecting to always have the advantage of being fully equipped. It's like having the expectation that the party never gets surprised or ambushed.
I believe the issue is the "GM handwave you autofail this" thing.
If a GM mechanically pulls of a surprise attack or ambush then cool. If we get jumped at night and had no watch we probably die.But to have a GM say that the guy with 100 perception at lv5 auto-fails his spot check because the GM wanted to have an ambush, that is the issue the OP has. The GM breaking rules of the game because "it makes his story better".
Yes the GM "has the power to break rules" but it goes with the social contract made for that game. If the players are okay with it, not okay, or haven't been told.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fine to start a campaign like this, cheezy to pull it at lvl 10.Legitimate question. Is it unreasonable to have a segment of a campaign take place in an region where magic simply does not function, so your magic items are mundane versions of those items, you cannot cast spells or activate SLAs, or access your transdimensional storage, provided you design the encounters to be things that your party can overcome without any of that stuff?
Can I do that at level 10? Sure, this hoses the wizard way more than the fighter, but what if this is a deliberate scenerio where the point is for the fighter to be more useful than the wizard for once. Obviously you don't run the entire campaign like this, but I don't see a big difference between "someone took all your gear, go get it back" and "in this section of these ancient ruins magic doesn't work right, but you have to get through it."
Honestly, as a player I find those scenes where I feel disempowered are great because they add contrast that lets me feel truly powerful later.
If you spring it up that suddenly they are there then yes. If the players know this area doesn't allow magic and allow the players the choice to go in or not then it's fine. If you tell the players its there and then railroad them in that is considered springing it on them.
And being magic-less can be as crippling to some fighters. The ones counting on their agile blade or similar.The issue is "railroad a PCs to uselessness" and "the PCs failed or decided to be useless". Most that are complaining are doing it to the railroad to uselessness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't say I'm a fan of the GM Handwave Autofail. Now, if the GM sat down, levelled with us and say "Hey, I'm kind of interested in running a scenario where you survive without gear. Is this cool?", then I think I'd be more for it. I probably wouldn't do it myself as a DM, but as a player, I give a lot of trust to my GM for this.
If it was the starting conceit of the campaign, like Serpent Skull or a DCC styled Funnel, I'd definitely be down. As PissableCabbage said, it can be fun starting a campaign like this. I have done this and the previous example and it turned out great.
But if it's just rocks fall, you lose your stuff, no save, without any form of retaliation or fighting back... I'd have some terse words for the GM. Not a fan of being railroaded into a scenario.
It's fine to start a campaign like this, cheezy to pull it at lvl 10.Legitimate question. Is it unreasonable to have a segment of a campaign take place in an region where magic simply does not function, so your magic items are mundane versions of those items, you cannot cast spells or activate SLAs, or access your transdimensional storage, provided you design the encounters to be things that your party can overcome without any of that stuff?
Can I do that at level 10? Sure, this hoses the wizard way more than the fighter, but what if this is a deliberate scenerio where the point is for the fighter to be more useful than the wizard for once. Obviously you don't run the entire campaign like this, but I don't see a big difference between "someone took all your gear, go get it back" and "in this section of these ancient ruins magic doesn't work right, but you have to get through it."
Honestly, as a player I find those scenes where I feel disempowered are great because they add contrast that lets me feel truly powerful later.
Generally, it feels hamfisted and short sighted. Not really thought out through enough. Personally, I'd run it with either A) some foreshadowing to it if it's a place people have been to. Rumors and such.
Or B) make it gradual. When you are at the borderlands of, say, the Mana Wastes, have magic act more chaotically. As you get deeper, magic goes more haywire until it stops completely. I'd even have some lodestones in the outskirts that act as magic inhibiters, which foreshadow the anti magic zone to come. It feels more organic and 'natural' and allows for a risk and reward mechanic for the player. Do I cast and run the risk of it going haywire? Do I lead these magic adventurers to a antimagic lodestone to ambush them? It still disempowers the player but gives a meaningful option for them in the process. I find that to be a more interesting narrative and gameplay mechanic.
If you spring it up that suddenly they are there then yes. If the players know this area doesn't allow magic and allow the players the choice to go in or not then it's fine. If you tell the players its there and then railroad them in that is considered springing it on them.
I mean, if they're exploring ancient ruins in some cavern and they go into the place where magic stops working, they'll figure it out quickly and if they want magic to start functioning again, they can step out of the static region and back to where they were.
Conceivably they can find some way from point A to point B that's not "Walk down the treacherous hallway" but it might be more difficult an involved than "walking down the treacherous hallway."
And the key to designing adventures in the anti-magic zone or when you don't have your stuff is to make sure everybody is still useful, even if they're not able to do the thing they most want to do. A fight where a wizard can shoot a crossbow and still kill something, even though they can't cast a spell is a fight where the wizard is still useful. Maybe the party doesn't even have a character who depends on magic as much as the Wizard does, so this isn't even a problem. It's not about making PCs useless, it's about making them stop seeing the world as nothing but nails by taking away their hammer for a bit.
Regarding the auto-fail thing, how is this really different than asking players for saving throws but setting the DC outside of what any of them could make, in a scenario where they can't easily escape and thus have to save multiple times lest they succumb to the poison gas? Is "handwaving the illusion of choice" really that valuable?
Can't say I'm a fan of the GM Handwave Autofail. Now, if the GM sat down, levelled with us and say "Hey, I'm kind of interested in running a scenario where you survive without gear. Is this cool?", then I think I'd be more for it. I probably wouldn't do it myself as a DM, but as a player, I give a lot of trust to my GM for this.
But if it's just rocks fall, you lose your stuff, no save, without any form of retaliation or fighting back... I'd have some terse words for the GM. Not a fan of being railroaded into a scenario.
Oh, sure, I could buy that. Treat your players like adults, and trust them, discuss these things. Get buy in.
Right.
And, I wasnt talking about a battle where the PC's lose, are taken captive (maybe a couple die) and have to escape. But it's the handwave aspect that is bad.
Regarding the auto-fail thing, how is this really different than asking players for saving throws but setting the DC outside of what any of them could make, in a scenario where they can't easily escape and thus have to save multiple times lest they succumb to the poison gas? Is "handwaving the illusion of choice" really that valuable?
How are you reaching DC's that are impossible to make? And there's still often 1/20 chance of succeeding and a 1 in 400 I think at worst.
How did thy get into this difficult escape place?
But if everything is done by the book yes. Because players COULD have got a scroll of X that protects against gas attacks, before entered a place that was dangerous they COULD have gotten info about it, and have had ways of quickly escaping.
Also if this was a generically hard trap/hazard and not one specifically built just to cause the save pumping paladin to fail or the trapfinding specialized rogue to fail.
TLDR, the situation probably should never come up that a handwaved failure is the same as not handwaving. And if it did, that the PC's still have the chance of countering it if they made the correct choices and/or get lucky.
|
|
I believe the issue is the "GM handwave you autofail this" thing.
If a GM mechanically pulls of a surprise attack or ambush then cool. If we get jumped at night and had no watch we probably die.
But to have a GM say that the guy with 100 perception at lv5 auto-fails his spot check because the GM wanted to have an ambush, that is the issue the OP has. The GM breaking rules of the game because "it makes his story better".
I have no problem with a GM autofailing the entire party on something (though probably not something that ta player is specialized against) if it will advance the plot in a fun and interesting way.
I'm curious what this contrived situation of the theoretical 100 perception character getting auto-failed on seeing something comes in to the discussion. No one has mentioned anything like that happening. Even if it did happen, it might be a bit lazy at worst. Sure, the GM should probably have come up with something like a high DC sleep poison, or a Will save, or other plot device that gets the party in the situation that the GM is building things around. That would probably be better, but the results will be the same. The GM should just have picked another way that makes more sense to facilitate his plot.
But YOU just made up that contrivance to make this theoretical GM look bad. The OP didn't even play in the campaign in question, so I'm not sure how you can be so certain that the GM did anything like that. I certainly never said that the GM should feel free to take liberty in negating something that a player heavily invested in. If I'm the GM I'm just going to find another way of making this happen, and I'm not convinced that the GM in the OP's story did anything like what you are suggesting.
Easier just to start with them having a hazy memory from the night before but wake up in the cell.
If there is no room in the beginning narrative for them to escape then playing pretendises and having them roll dice is more frustrating.
I know which of my players can't handle slight deviations from RAW or having their jimmies vaguely rustled, so I drop them from the opportunity to participate in adventures where that is a likelihood. Frankly their whining and gnashing of teeth is just too much hassle to deal with. Same same, if they find that the gameplay isn't to their liking then I expect them to check out - maybe come back later when the story has changed, but then also don't complain they feel like an 'outsider' or 'not part of the team' when they elected not to participate in the bonding phase of doing the hard yards and overcome adversity (yeah this has happened).
You quoted me out of context: " it's a totally legit way to start a campaign. Just tell the Players to "dont worry about gear, we'll do that in session 1"
Fair enough, but you are missing a critical point of the setup the OP outlined for this campaign.
5 sessions, at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20.
Basically that probably means that each 'chapter' starts almost like a new campaign, or at least a new movie in a series, with time having passed between when the last one ended, and the next one began. How much time is difficult to say, but unless they are advancing their characters during a game session (something that can be a bit problematic) it is probably three full levels of experience.
An unusual setup, but honestly one I might try sometime, an interesting way to highlight a few key episodes out of a characters career.
In any event, I would expect at the start of any session in such a game their to be a fair amount of exposition about how they got where they are are currently and what is going on as the game is starting. One of those starts, 'being things have gone terribly wrong and you have been captured' or 'your boat has gone down and you wash up on a deserted island' certainly doesn't seem outside the pale to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just realized I fat fingered the o and i and called him PissableCabbage.
I am so sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the issue is the "GM handwave you autofail this" thing.
If a GM mechanically pulls of a surprise attack or ambush then cool. If we get jumped at night and had no watch we probably die.
But to have a GM say that the guy with 100 perception at lv5 auto-fails his spot check because the GM wanted to have an ambush, that is the issue the OP has. The GM breaking rules of the game because "it makes his story better".
I have no problem with a GM autofailing the entire party on something (though probably not something that ta player is specialized against) if it will advance the plot in a fun and interesting way.
I'm curious what this contrived situation of the theoretical 100 perception character getting auto-failed on seeing something comes in to the discussion. No one has mentioned anything like that happening. Even if it did happen, it might be a bit lazy at worst. Sure, the GM should probably have come up with something like a high DC sleep poison, or a Will save, or other plot device that gets the party in the situation that the GM is building things around. That would probably be better, but the results will be the same. The GM should just have picked another way that makes more sense to facilitate his plot.
But YOU just made up that contrivance to make this theoretical GM look bad. The OP didn't even play in the campaign in question, so I'm not sure how you can be so certain that the GM did anything like that. I certainly never said that the GM should feel free to take liberty in negating something that a player heavily invested in. If I'm the GM I'm just going to find another way of making this happen, and I'm not convinced that the GM in the OP's story did anything like what you are suggesting.
See, I'm not a fan of the GM shoehorning the players into a scenario to advance a plot. Rather, I'd have the plot come from what happens when the players are presented with a scenario that could land them into something and seeing what they do.
Let's say we wanted someone to ambush the players and capture them. I'd have them try and trick the players, with having a decent sized force for just in case someone makes the save. And from there, I let the scenario play out.
If the players all fail their saves to drink the poison in their cups, then viola! You have your escape from the jail adventure ready to go.
If only some fail, then you have the rest having to make a choice: fight, surrender, or flee. Then play it out. If a player escapes, then suddenly, you have an interesting scenario where the single player (or two) come back later to free their friends. I'd probably have the caught players play as some back up, or have a side by side rping of the fleeing players breaking in while the caught players breaking out.
If all of them survive, then things get interesting. They can surrender, fight, or flee, but at least now, they have some numbers. If they surrender, get dropped, or get caught, then you have your escape the jail sequence. If they make it out alive, now you have a chase sequence. They have a very angry pursuer trying to get them, and now they have to try and lose him/her and escape. Or, imagine that they are able to hide, if only briefly, in the mansion/keep/castle of their ambusher. Now the scenario becomes an escape from the mansion before their would be captor gets them.
Either way, you have a good story in your hands. Limiting to just the escape just boxes you away from the myriad of interesting possibilities that can play out if one just lets the players do their thing. The following scenarios just feel less forced and become more organic events that are real consequences to what the players do.
A while back, a buddy planned a similar ambush. We all escaped but one guy. So what he did was have us roleplay as the guards while our captured PC tried to escape. He almost made it too. It was extremely fun and a completely different perspective from the game that is memorable even to this day. Nobody got forced into it. it was just a natural result of the events from before. It was much more rewarding as a plot point and as a game than just being handwaved into a prison cell, even with the odds stacked against us.
I guess my point is, getting the story out of the players and their actions is ultimately more rewarding than forcing a story out of them and pushing their actions to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odraude has it. Having the player NEED to be captured "for story" is railroading and can be annoying to upsetting. As Odraude points out, letting the players have agency makes it a living story and not just acting out a play or going through the motions to receive the end scene.
Following that logic:
"You are in Golarion" is also railroading.
"We are playing Pathfinder" = railroading.
The only way not to railroad is for things to be totally open sandbox play, and then you are still railroading, and railroading the GM as well.
GM setting houserules and limits on the campaign theme and the decision of where and what Gods and whatever is setting the campaign.
Making it so hopefully the characters WANT to follow your story is fine. "A Troll attacks and the villagers beg you to help." Is the happenings of the world. Since it's not directly affecting the players you can say whatever you want.
Deciding as the GM that the players MUST help out of the goodness of their CN hearts and not letting the village be destroyed is railroading but the more tolerable, we still get to decide how to kill troll and negotiate terms. Saying that the players will do it and do it a specific way is more railroady and will seem less good. Saying they are forced to fight the troll and auto-lose is big railroading and will likely not be enjoyed by all players.
Now if you narrate that the beginning of the campaign starts as you're in a pen of a troll that captured you cause you fought earlier and lost is setting, setting happens before the start of the players actions. But once players have had control, removing that control is railroading. And there's nothing inherently wrong with railroading. If the players like it and want it go for it. I've seen groups flounder for a first session since the GM was trying a complete sandbox and the players just wanted to run quests like a video game.
Cool
GM: Hey players, you fought and beat the troll - cool, I'm heading home to dial up Netflix
Players: But the session was 15 minutes
GM: Yeah but I had only spent 30 hours working out what the campaign and storyline looked like for you if you lost, so now you have one and just looted the troll and walked off then the rest of what I wrote is redundant - you don't need to fight your way out of its lair nor investigate who sent it or why it came.
Players: Why didn't you run that then?
GM: Well that would be railroading.
Players: Good point, we'll play Uno, see you next week!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Following that logic:
"You are in Golarion" is also railroading.
"We are playing Pathfinder" = railroading.
The only way not to railroad is for things to be totally open sandbox play, and then you are still railroading, and railroading the GM as well.
Not at all.
D&D is fundamentally different than other storytelling mediums in that the characters are played and controlled by thinking, acting people. That is the core of its appeal compared to movies, books, and even something as interactive as video games. Video games still have limiting factors in them that D&D doesn't have. So ultimately, to facilitate a story, you have to play to the strengths of the medium. The medium in the case of D&D is simple.
In a role playing game, the players are people in the world that do things and have consequences befall them for their actions. They have the ability to attempt anything they can feasibly do. Notice I said attempt. From that, as GMs, we take their actions or series of actions and weave it into a story by having consequences for their actions. This doesn't mean that they always succeed, or that we coddle our players. Far from it. We place obstacles in their path, struggles to overcome. And if they overcome, then that's great. If not, that's fine too. But from their success or failure, every setback and great job, we extrapolate from that and describe what happens next.
Railroading is essentially removing the ability to attempt things in the game world. It's essentially saying that their choices and actions simply don't matter against the fiction of the game. Which to me is squandering the biggest strength of D&D or RPGs in general. That freedom to attempt anything. To play out your character's story, or your team's story. Let's say, in the example of ambushing, our characters do not trust our ambusher. Maybe it's a gut feeling, or we decided to roll and passed our Sense Motive check and decide that we should lay low and tread safely. What does the GM do then? It's why I prefer to prep scenes and not scripts. Being flexible and adaptable is a good trait to have for GM, rather than having a rigid story. Especially with how unpredictable the PCs are.
Now whenever I bring this up, people will always bring up how to have a villain do their plot without railroading. You can still have a villain do their plot without forcing the characters into any kind of scene. Just imagine the villain is a thinking agent against the party. What would they do if the players threw a monkey wrench into their plans? Or, what would they do if the players failed but got away? Villains can still do their plans behind the scenes so to speak while taking to account the players now hampering their plans. Look at, say, the show Luke Cage for great examples of a villain whose plans get wrecked, but then adapts. Or you can have the players stumble into your villain's plan when it's almost complete. They follow clues and investigate, interrogating people, and make it to the grand set piece encounter you really want to run. But again, it's the players making the attempts at, in this case, investigating and letting their actions spur you on. If they fail, then the villain's plan goes like normal and now people have to deal with the aftermath of it. And now you have a new, cool adventure to run.
It's not really about playing fair either. You can definitely have the odds stacked against the players in a scenario. The idea is more to organically weave a believable tale of your players' success or defeat without the usual literary contrivances and plot holes. Their success and failure and adventuring through the consequences helps the players feel much more immersed and involved in your game world when their choices have real weight. Real consequences, positive or negative.
I'm not saying let them succeed. Far from it. I'm saying, let them attempt and see where it takes the story. Their actions and their consequences will help build a story that they will be invested in and enjoy. And as a GM of this, there is something exciting about seeing what your players do and thinking up the results of their actions. It's like reading a book you've never read before, but you're writing it too.
That's the strength of D&D over other storytelling methods. The ability to surprise your players and conversely, the ability for them to surprise you. And I wouldn't trade that for the world.
I think every game, in order to function, is going to need some sort of externally imposed structure, and players who feel the need to control literally every narrative twist and turn are both unreasonable and rare.
Like if you say the campaign starts on Continent A, the players are going to have to either be from Continent A or have some reason to have gone there. A player who insists his character is from Continent B and has never left his home village will simply not be appearing in the campaign.
Certainly players are free to perform whatever character actions they deem appropriate, but at some level you have to pay attention to the direction the GM suggests this is going and go along with it, or there isn't a story. If the evil necromancer bent on destroying the world is on Continent C, if the players don't want the world to be destroyed they're going to have to go there somehow.
The long and short of it is that "railroading" is not inherently bad. A lot of players realize that the stuff you've prepared is probably more interesting than the stuff you have to ad-lib and will happily just go in whatever direction they are pointed.
I mean, Paizo got its start because people like adventure paths. The very notion of "an adventure path" suggests you have to keep players on (or at least nearby) the path.
Cool
GM: Hey players, you fought and beat the troll - cool, I'm heading home to dial up Netflix
Players: But the session was 15 minutes
GM: Yeah but I had only spent 30 hours working out what the campaign and storyline looked like for you if you lost, so now you have one and just looted the troll and walked off then the rest of what I wrote is redundant - you don't need to fight your way out of its lair nor investigate who sent it or why it came.
Players: Why didn't you run that then?
GM: Well that would be railroading.
Players: Good point, we'll play Uno, see you next week!
That's why as a GM, you don't prep entire storylines. You learn to improvise, be flexible, adapt to the actions of what happens. It's also a good idea not to hinge your entire story on one specific action. It's essentially doomed to fail.
Sadly, in this example, there isn't really anything stated about the troll, but here's another example.
Let's say there is a troll and he's part of something bigger. Like an invasionary force. The players are 'supposed' to capture him and interrogate him. But instead they kill him. What do you do?
Well, first, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Maybe he has a note about it in his lair. Maybe he has a partner that looks like a solider or is wearing the heraldry of some far off nation that wants to invade. There is a myriad of clues, and it is good to make many of these clues in case the players miss some. So they can interrogate the troll, or the person, or find the note, or whatever else you can think of. Hell, they could even befriend the troll. That's the beauty of D&D.
And if they decide not to continue? That's fine. You can have foreshadowing of the continuing of the villain's plans. In the meantime, they can adventure somewhere else. That's where improvisation comes in, as well as having a good repetoire of maps and encounters to throw at players. It's not hard to have a list of NPCs, or just basic plots or even maps. There are a great deal of these online and I'd be happy to share them tomorrow. Got to get to bed now.
But the point it, improvising is your best friend and a great skill to hone. It really makes Gming more rewarding.
I think every game, in order to function, is going to need some sort of externally imposed structure, and players who feel the need to control literally every narrative twist and turn are both unreasonable and rare.
Like if you say the campaign starts on Continent A, the players are going to have to either be from Continent A or have some reason to have gone there. A player who insists his character is from Continent B and has never left his home village will simply not be appearing in the campaign.
Certainly players are free to perform whatever character actions they deem appropriate, but at some level you have to pay attention to the direction the GM suggests this is going and go along with it, or there isn't a story. If the evil necromancer bent on destroying the world is on Continent C, if the players don't want the world to be destroyed they're going to have to go there somehow.
The long and short of it is that "railroading" is not inherently bad. A lot of players realize that the stuff you've prepared is probably more interesting than the stuff you have to ad-lib and will happily just go in whatever direction they are pointed.
I mean, Paizo got its start because people like adventure paths. The very notion of "an adventure path" suggests you have to keep players on (or at least nearby) the path.
It's not controlling narrative twists. It's just them making their choices and abiding by those consequences. And if those consequences are "the world ends", I imagine most players would probably go stop the evil necromancer.
You can still throw monkey wrenches at them. Hell half the fun of D&D is that.
Pretty much PC.
Odraude, at some point there will need to be a narrative set up though - a start point where the stimulus hits the players. This is going to be a 'railroad' no matter which way you argue it. It wont always be in the players hands to decide - they want a story all about them building a village, but they find the village is wrecked by an earthquake.
Past the initial setup though, it IS over to them.
Pretty much PC.
Odraude, at some point there will need to be a narrative set up though - a start point where the stimulus hits the players. This is going to be a 'railroad' no matter which way you argue it. It wont always be in the players hands to decide - they want a story all about them building a village, but they find the village is wrecked by an earthquake.
Past the initial setup though, it IS over to them.
There Is a misunderstanding here. Let me try and clear it up.
Having the villains making actions against the players isn't rail roading. That's fine. It's forcing a specific reaction or result from your players that is. Ambushing the players isn't railroaded. Hand waving that they surrender/lose with out a chance is.
And if that's the starting conceit of a campaign and the players are cool with it then no problem. But If you keep hand waving their decisions, then yeah that's pretty rail road ing. Maybe This will be a better explanation, though too generalized for my liking. I'm tired, sorry.
As for adventure paths, I have my own thoughts on them. Time For bed though
What if the PCs in the OP's example simply failed to notice a bunch of indications and failed to take adequate precautions and simply walked right into a competently executed trap from the villain. At the point where they're all at the bottom of a 100' shaft with smooth and greased walls with a metal grate on which the villain is standing with an anti-magic field spell active while pouring knockout gas into the hole, then I think it's appropriate to just handwave "you all pass out", provided that there were numerous actions they could have taken up to that point to avoid ending up in that unfortunate situation.
Like at the point where the PCs say "this is an interesting hole, let's see what's at the bottom of it; everybody in!" they've basically already committed to their fate. You could sit there rolling fort saves until everyone fails, or you could just realize they're not getting out of this one and move on to the next scenario.
We don't know for sure the players didn't get knocked out and deprived of their gear because they did something that brought it upon themselves. If the players do something really foolhardy, end up in a bad situation from which they cannot plausibly extract themselves, and you don't want to kill their characters then "dumping them on a deserted island without their stuff" is a reasonable thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with the concept... as long as the players know ahead of time. There are really some classes that get nerfed faster then others do. This is not the type of game for some characters. Even wizards and clerics you can usually regain some gear pretty quick by killing some other casters... Sorcerers and Oracles are better choices.
Something like an Alchemist? Gunslinger??? These are classes built entirely around their gear. I highly recommend NOT playing this type of character in the 'desert island' scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end it depends on the nature of the players.
In my local group there used to be two players you could NEVER put together. The first felt that anything that did not involve moving miniatures about tactically and then rolling dice was just time wasting. The second player felt that if you got to the point of having to fight it out instead of wrangle/manipulate/connive and con your way past you had failed and you may as well be playing warhammer.
Generally though it also depends how well done the scenario is. probably the most popular module in the old Wizards 3.5 LG organised play has the party being transformed into dolls in a doll house.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my area, there's a semi-orgainized play campaign going on. I am not in it due to inability to provide an adequate backstory, but I know what happens from one of my friends who is in it. Recently, the party was knocked/poisoned unconscious and left on an island without gear. Since any sort of rolling was bypassed, I couldn't believe that the GM would take away all the gear (effectively destroying several interesting builds)simply because plot. However, everybody I asked about is saying that I'm a bad player for asking the DM to be as bound by the rules as the players. What is so wrong about wanting to try out interesting mechanics, and having them not arbitrarily lost? Especially since the characters were without their main gear for around 20% of the campaign length? (It's five day long sessions, at levels, 4,8,12,16,20)
Nothing's wrong for your behavior/enjoyment for merely wanting to use interesting mechanics, etc. However, you may want to reevaluate your behavior if you seek to influence a game you're not playing in when all those who are playing are enjoying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with the concept... as long as the players know ahead of time. There are really some classes that get nerfed faster then others do. This is not the type of game for some characters. Even wizards and clerics you can usually regain some gear pretty quick by killing some other casters... Sorcerers and Oracles are better choices.
Something like an Alchemist? Gunslinger??? These are classes built entirely around their gear. I highly recommend NOT playing this type of character in the 'desert island' scenario.
I'm pretty sure Alchemists are OK with generic-type martial gear + an INT headband. Gunslingers are 90% toast if they don't have a gun- they're Fighters with better Reflex saves, more and better skills, fewer feats, and gun-only weapon training. And you really need to enchant guns to keep them competitive. It's like building a non-evil campaign for your party Paladin. Sure, you have cool defensive features, but your damage is all gone.
Wizards need one very important piece of gear - missing your spellbook basically shuts you down completely. Spell component pouches and holy symbols (for clerics) are easier to find than a spellbook containing all the spells you want/know.
As you mentioned, Monks, Oracles, Sorcerers, Psychics, Kineticists, Summoners, Monk-imitation archetypes, and black blade archetypes seem to come out ahead in the deal. If the GM yanks away your black blade or murderizes your Eidolon every session, well...
We're planning an adventure coming up that involves all of our characters escaping from drow or orcs or something in the darklands after a raid. So we've been told up front (probably still have a year before our Shattered star AP is over) that our characters will be essentially starting with loincloth's and whatever rocks and sticks we can find.
We're planning our classes accordingly and are all looking forward to it.
I only read the OP and a few responses, but here's my take on the scenario, as presented in the OP. There are two approaches one can take with this style of story-telling:
1. Colorful, Explanatory Narrative - This is where the GM tells the players the events of what went down and how they got to where they are now, with no interactive feedback from the players. It's setting the stage with storytelling. This, IMHO, is the best approach. It can happen at the beginning of the campaign, as well as in between "chapters", though the more advanced the characters become, the less "creative license" a GM should take with the characters and their hard-eared stuff.
2. Semi-Interactive Narrative - This is where the GM sets the stage, allows the player(s) to respond, but ultimately has a direction they are taking the story, and the player(s) really have no control over the outcome. This, IMHO, is a HORRIBLE approach. It is bound to PISS OFF at least one player, if not multiple, and could result in the loss of players when they feel like the GM's story is more important than any contribution the player(s) have to offer. I've been in this situation, and it made no sense to me that my wizard couldn't Magic Missile the bad guys he could clearly see. Apparently there was some magical force field on the woodshed I was in! All because the GM wanted me to watch the bad guys kill in cold blood the farmers who were putting me up. I was allowed to ATTEMPT to help, but the GM had predetermined that there was nothing I could do to stop the butchering. This would have gone much better with a Colorful, Explanatory Narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But specializing is something only martial do. Casters do not need to specialize, they can basically do everything.
That is absurd. The people I play with tend to like high-challenge encounters. The more people fall in the fight, the more appreciable it was.
As a result, creatures are often well above our level in CR and typically have good saves. I've played a two casters (a sorcerer and a cleric) with this group, and albeit a part of this was attributable to bad luck on my rolls, the only times I really felt effective was when I was hyper specialized. Spell Focus forces you to pick a school, spell perfection only applies to one spell, metamagic feats are not equally useful for all spells, etc. At whatever levels my casters got less specialized, they barely ever beat any more DCs, and monsters ever failed any more saves. At one point it made me go "fine, I'll just focus on stuff that does something even on a save", but by high levels then there's just a ton of other factors that come in to block this (energy resistance that causes half damage to be pretty much negated, immunities, very high SR, etc.). In both cases, my casters veered away from their focuses (necromancy and energy drain for one, enchantments for the other) and spent more and more turns just buffing their martial allies, even if playing support had never been my intent, because these were the only reliable tools.
It was pretty blatant on my cleric. When he started out, he would spam Murderous Command and stuff rarely made the save (With Spell Focus and Mythic Spell Focus). Understandably, the DM would probably get tired of me spamming that all the time, so creatures immune to it became more common. As we leveled I diversified, stopped focusing on it so as to be more useful all around, but my DCs weren't scaling anywhere near as fast as the creatures saves, and I died frequently (again) along the way (sometimes wholly my fault, I concede), while my offensive arsenal got worse and worse. By the end, I was just buffing all the time. Every now and then, I would get creative with my spell list, but mostly my lack of hyper specialization forced me into a role I didn't want. By the end, I was getting fed up with it and the DM allowed me to retrain, I switched to a two-handed paladin and had much more fun.
While casters can "do" everything, they can also easily suck at everything. It all depends on what kind of DMs you play with. I play with friends and we rotate GMing, and I tend to find that casters need to specialize even more than martials do at this table unless they just want to be support buffers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the PCs in the OP's example simply failed to notice a bunch of indications and failed to take adequate precautions and simply walked right into a competently executed trap from the villain. At the point where they're all at the bottom of a 100' shaft with smooth and greased walls with a metal grate on which the villain is standing with an anti-magic field spell active while pouring knockout gas into the hole, then I think it's appropriate to just handwave "you all pass out", provided that there were numerous actions they could have taken up to that point to avoid ending up in that unfortunate situation.
Like at the point where the PCs say "this is an interesting hole, let's see what's at the bottom of it; everybody in!" they've basically already committed to their fate. You could sit there rolling fort saves until everyone fails, or you could just realize they're not getting out of this one and move on to the next scenario.
We don't know for sure the players didn't get knocked out and deprived of their gear because they did something that brought it upon themselves. If the players do something really foolhardy, end up in a bad situation from which they cannot plausibly extract themselves, and you don't want to kill their characters then "dumping them on a deserted island without their stuff" is a reasonable thing to do.
Since the players had every opportunity laid out in front of them to avoid their fate and due to luck or bad choices, they ended up here, and they legitimately have no way to escape the hole, then for expediency of play, you could have them fail their saves. In that context it isn't rail roading. They had all their options and they failed. Now they are stuck in a hole and can't get out and it's clear that magic doesn't work and nothing they have works. So you can definitely say that "you guys are really truly trapped and instead of rolling for five minutes, we're going to move on. That alright?" Again, they made their choice to jump in. You didn't force them into that hole.
And that is the point I'm trying to make. Having that happen organically as above works. Just saying "you guys are now trapped in this hole and lose your gear no matter what because I said so" really is forced and railroading. Failure isn't railroading. Removing all opportunity and forcing the players into an outcome of failure despite their actions is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd be annoyed if the gear was permanently lost and no option of regaining it or get a fair option of replacing it was there, but if the plot gave a way to regain it then it could be an interesting move.
See what the party can do with professions, crafts, survival etc. rather than be combat driven for the time being.
But specializing is something only martial do. Casters do not need to specialize, they can basically do everything.That is absurd. The people I play with tend to like high-challenge encounters. The more people fall in the fight, the more appreciable it was.
Then this pertain to your table. Overall Casters if not effective as Blasters can use Crowd Control or buffing, whereas Martials only and possible job is to deal damage.
Even if I don't have Spell Focus I can still cast Haste, Herois, Resist Energy, Improved Invisibility, etc.Even so, most will consider Blasters not the optimal choice. If you focus on Blasting then you're similar to Martials (can only deal damage) so it only makes sense you would specialize on it since it will be the only job you're doing. Though it doesn't forbid you to cast Buff Spells or CC ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my area, there's a semi-orgainized play campaign going on. I am not in it due to inability to provide an adequate backstory, but I know what happens from one of my friends who is in it. Recently, the party was knocked/poisoned unconscious and left on an island without gear. Since any sort of rolling was bypassed, I couldn't believe that the GM would take away all the gear (effectively destroying several interesting builds)simply because plot. However, everybody I asked about is saying that I'm a bad player for asking the DM to be as bound by the rules as the players. What is so wrong about wanting to try out interesting mechanics, and having them not arbitrarily lost? Especially since the characters were without their main gear for around 20% of the campaign length? (It's five day long sessions, at levels, 4,8,12,16,20)
I remember playing a series of modules in 2nd edition AD&D called scourge of the Slave Lords which originally was written in AD&D as series of modules. There was part where the GM had to capture the party as part of the story and enslaved them to run oars on slaver ship. In it he party saw their possession destroyed, sold or taken by high level slavers. There was lots of opportunity to get new magic items once the players could escape. I do remember how pissed the player were with this when I ran it. After it happen I had to halt the game and we had a talk about. Once on board the the game continued and the players found the challenge of escaping with out magic items very fun after they got some loot to build them up again.