A scenerio [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

A scenerio [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Eightbitmage
12-06-04, 11:25 PM I want to know if this is railroading or not. The actual situation is a bit different:

A group of level 2 PCs finish raiding an abandoned temple to an evil god. It had been reduced to ruins over many years. They found out there was still treasure and went for it, and met another party sent by the BBEG within. The PCs beat the evil party, and recover a glowing black stone that was within.

The cleric takes the stone a disposes of it with help from a local temple. A this point the PCs retire to their rooms in the inn. The next morining as they leave they are ambushed by a group of 12 level 1 warriors with tanglefoot bags and saps who have orders from the BBEG to capture them to find out where the stone is. The warriors are knights from a nearby kingdom and have spoken with the innkeeper and through him to the other patrons. So everyone is aware of this except the PCs.

They leave and are immediately captured after 4 tangle foot bags, and a series of sap hits (all actually rolled). They claim they had no chance. Was this railroading?
DeWayne
12-06-04, 11:46 PM No, this was not railroading.

The term rail roading implies that you are forcing the characters to take a certain course of action. This is merely a case of the bad guys using some intelligence in their tactics. In case your players haven't figured this part out, the bad guys don't want to lose any more than the player characters do.
Bringslite
12-06-04, 11:50 PM Nope.

To me, railroading is forcing the PC's to go down a certain road or enter a dungeon or to "DO" something to further your plot. Being captured or defeated by the BBEG's minions is not railroading.

They claim they had no chance but the chance they had was really lucky dice rolling or perhaps fleeing.
kryus
12-07-04, 12:18 AM Nope, not in this case. The only thing I might of done differently would of made the encounter closer (lower ECL to give the PCs the illusion that they could of won) but otherwise it was fine.

A friend of mine once told me that the art of DMing was to lead the players by the nose while giving them the illusion that they made the decisions.

Had the PCs won the encounter, the BBEG would probably try to find out the information in some other fashion. Example, send an attractive bard spy to ensnarl the dumb barbarian with a suggestion/charm person spell and get him to tell her what she needs to know. Not to mention the RP oppurtunity this raises.
TLomon
12-07-04, 12:23 AM A variant of this to make it railroading (to show contrast) would be as follows:

Player: Wow, this black gem looks really powerful.
DM: You take it to the local temple to have it destroyed.
Player: No I don't. This could come in handy.
DM: Yes, you do. After it is destroyed, you go to the inn.
Player: Wait a second!

DM: Ok, at the inn you both retire for the evening.
Player 1: I take the first watch.
DM: No, you both decide to go to sleep.
Player 2: But we always have someone stay up to watch! This town is dangerous.
DM: Not this time. You were really tired!
zodiki
12-07-04, 12:43 AM Sounds like you pulled off a great capture scenario. Kudos. It's usually very difficult to succeed without railroading which you certainly did not do. PCs always seem to whine when things don't go there way. Take it with a grain of salt.
ShadowDragon8685
12-07-04, 01:01 AM This is not overt railroading, but 3:1 odds at such low levels... That was railroading.

The most it should have been was 1.5:1, or about 6. That would have given the players a slim chance of scuccess. 3:1 is just lunacy.
Stormbright
12-07-04, 12:15 PM I say not railroading, but here's a few things that maybe could have gone different to change events.
Did the PCs defeat the evil party and let them live, or kill them all? Who knew about the events that took place?
As PCs left, did they take any precautions? After-all, they did just have a violent encounter with other sentients.
Did they pay the innkeeper nicely, so that he might have considered tipping them off to use the back door?
If you consider these questions, and your chain of events still seems logical to you, then all is well. If you scratch your head and think "well....." then perhaps you bullied them a bit. At the very least, a covert "sense motive" roll against the innkeeper or anyone who they see that knew about the ambush, would get you off guilt free.

But not railroading. Railroading would have been to wake up and find the black gemstone back in the hands of whoever removed it from the ruins, despite having passed it over to the clerics. What you did was advance a story, which is afterall the DM's job.
PaladinKD
12-07-04, 12:35 PM Nope, no conductor's hat for you.

It seems there will always be times when the players are rudely reminded that they are not above misfortune and unfavorable odds. If you truly rolled the attacks and they were legitimately captured (even by 3:1 odds) then it wasn't railroading. Heck, if you put a dragon outside their door it wouldn't be railroading! Maybe power DMing, but not railroading. :)

Parties sometimes (often ;) ) forget that running away is a viable option. I a have heard this very statement from a player, "What was I supposed to do... run?" How silly I say, of course there are times when the wisest course is to bravely run away. Did any of the party attempt to run? I'll bet a shiny penny the answer is no. :rolleyes:

Now, as a DM you shouldn't put these situations in a lot, but the occasional unfair fight is well within the DM's rights.

And as for allowing them a sense motive check against the innkeeper, that's only necessary if they have reason to be suspicious of the innkeeper. Since you say that he knew of the ambush, perhaps Stormbright is right in calling it "a bit of bullying," but that's up for debate.

I say you are perfectly in the clear.
tackleberry
12-07-04, 12:36 PM I vote not railroading

if you had given the pcs absolutely no chance of getting out of the encounter then that would be railroading.
even if you were determined to capture them, a good dm would do well to use balanced tactics to accomplish this as a plot development only but even with those odds, they could still have formulated another strategy like running away?
even if they had escaped the encounter, you would have thought of something else to capture them and give them the illussion that they ahd a chance of getting out of it - i dont even think this is railroading as long as it is not used as a tool to 'take the players down a peg or two' and doesnt result in TPK or nerfing.
whatever you do to capture pcs, they may always beleive it was inevitable but using this approach should only be used when creating a cinematic and dramatic exciting encounter - all players love to mount daring escapes and win through seemingly insurpassable odds. they will then actually be glad they got captured so taht they could enjoy the escape!
CzarGarrett
12-07-04, 12:44 PM Maybe a Greyhound ride, but not railroading.
Nom
12-07-04, 08:50 PM I vote not railroading

if you had given the pcs absolutely no chance of getting out of the encounter then that would be railroading.Depends on what you mean by this. To set up an encounter that you don't believe the PCs can escape from but then play the cards as they lie is not railroading. Railroading is summarily (or subtlely) vetoing any action by the PCs that would expose a loophole in your plans.

That said, there is a certain amount of trust required between the players and the DM, and a certain amount of understanding. Campaigns may have "stronger" or "weaker" plotlines. In the case of strong plotlines, both players and DMs understand that there are directions the story will go and that both parties will attempt to move the story in that direction. In contrast, weaker plotlines emphasise player freedom at the cost of big picture narrative.

Some of the most entertaining scenarios I've played in involved "bad things" being inflicted upon the characters. In each case, there was a certain degree of inevitability about the outcome, required for the "big picture" story. Yet the PCs had a degree of freedom about how we acted, and I felt that the situations we ended up in followed from our actions, rather than being imposed upon us by fiat.

You need to figure out how much external pushing your group is willing to accept. Though sometimes, the objection can be simply a knee-jerk reaction to temporary bad circumstances that the players just need to get past.
Eightbitmage
12-08-04, 01:05 AM Ok, now that i know this, is does this being added to the scenerio make it more fair (the full story of what happened in the game):

The old couple who owned the inn found out about it and provided the PCs with a steak and eggs dinner free of charge. I made sure to point out the fact that this was expensive, and out of the ordinary. I also said that the old woman was washing the same clothes over and over by the window and every once in a while hanging them out and bringing them back in. I also arranged it so that if pressed with any questions they would break down and tell them what was about to happen, and mention the back door.

How much better does this make the situation.
The_Dark_One
12-08-04, 01:23 AM Wait, you specifically mentioned this highly suspicious behaviour and they did nothing about it? They deservrd to get caught...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eightbitmage 12-06-04, 11:25 PM	I want to know if this is railroading or not. The actual situation is a bit different: A group of level 2 PCs finish raiding an abandoned temple to an evil god. It had been reduced to ruins over many years. They found out there was still treasure and went for it, and met another party sent by the BBEG within. The PCs beat the evil party, and recover a glowing black stone that was within. The cleric takes the stone a disposes of it with help from a local temple. A this point the PCs retire to their rooms in the inn. The next morining as they leave they are ambushed by a group of 12 level 1 warriors with tanglefoot bags and saps who have orders from the BBEG to capture them to find out where the stone is. The warriors are knights from a nearby kingdom and have spoken with the innkeeper and through him to the other patrons. So everyone is aware of this except the PCs. They leave and are immediately captured after 4 tangle foot bags, and a series of sap hits (all actually rolled). They claim they had no chance. Was this railroading?
DeWayne 12-06-04, 11:46 PM	No, this was not railroading. The term rail roading implies that you are forcing the characters to take a certain course of action. This is merely a case of the bad guys using some intelligence in their tactics. In case your players haven't figured this part out, the bad guys don't want to lose any more than the player characters do.
Bringslite 12-06-04, 11:50 PM	Nope. To me, railroading is forcing the PC's to go down a certain road or enter a dungeon or to "DO" something to further your plot. Being captured or defeated by the BBEG's minions is not railroading. They claim they had no chance but the chance they had was really lucky dice rolling or perhaps fleeing.
kryus 12-07-04, 12:18 AM	Nope, not in this case. The only thing I might of done differently would of made the encounter closer (lower ECL to give the PCs the illusion that they could of won) but otherwise it was fine. A friend of mine once told me that the art of DMing was to lead the players by the nose while giving them the illusion that they made the decisions. Had the PCs won the encounter, the BBEG would probably try to find out the information in some other fashion. Example, send an attractive bard spy to ensnarl the dumb barbarian with a suggestion/charm person spell and get him to tell her what she needs to know. Not to mention the RP oppurtunity this raises.
TLomon 12-07-04, 12:23 AM	A variant of this to make it railroading (to show contrast) would be as follows: Player: Wow, this black gem looks really powerful. DM: You take it to the local temple to have it destroyed. Player: No I don't. This could come in handy. DM: Yes, you do. After it is destroyed, you go to the inn. Player: Wait a second! DM: Ok, at the inn you both retire for the evening. Player 1: I take the first watch. DM: No, you both decide to go to sleep. Player 2: But we always have someone stay up to watch! This town is dangerous. DM: Not this time. You were really tired!
zodiki 12-07-04, 12:43 AM	Sounds like you pulled off a great capture scenario. Kudos. It's usually very difficult to succeed without railroading which you certainly did not do. PCs always seem to whine when things don't go there way. Take it with a grain of salt.
ShadowDragon8685 12-07-04, 01:01 AM	This is not overt railroading, but 3:1 odds at such low levels... That was railroading. The most it should have been was 1.5:1, or about 6. That would have given the players a slim chance of scuccess. 3:1 is just lunacy.
Stormbright 12-07-04, 12:15 PM	I say not railroading, but here's a few things that maybe could have gone different to change events. Did the PCs defeat the evil party and let them live, or kill them all? Who knew about the events that took place? As PCs left, did they take any precautions? After-all, they did just have a violent encounter with other sentients. Did they pay the innkeeper nicely, so that he might have considered tipping them off to use the back door? If you consider these questions, and your chain of events still seems logical to you, then all is well. If you scratch your head and think "well....." then perhaps you bullied them a bit. At the very least, a covert "sense motive" roll against the innkeeper or anyone who they see that knew about the ambush, would get you off guilt free. But not railroading. Railroading would have been to wake up and find the black gemstone back in the hands of whoever removed it from the ruins, despite having passed it over to the clerics. What you did was advance a story, which is afterall the DM's job.
PaladinKD 12-07-04, 12:35 PM	Nope, no conductor's hat for you. It seems there will always be times when the players are rudely reminded that they are not above misfortune and unfavorable odds. If you truly rolled the attacks and they were legitimately captured (even by 3:1 odds) then it wasn't railroading. Heck, if you put a dragon outside their door it wouldn't be railroading! Maybe power DMing, but not railroading. :) Parties sometimes (often ;) ) forget that running away is a viable option. I a have heard this very statement from a player, "What was I supposed to do... run?" How silly I say, of course there are times when the wisest course is to bravely run away. Did any of the party attempt to run? I'll bet a shiny penny the answer is no. :rolleyes: Now, as a DM you shouldn't put these situations in a lot, but the occasional unfair fight is well within the DM's rights. And as for allowing them a sense motive check against the innkeeper, that's only necessary if they have reason to be suspicious of the innkeeper. Since you say that he knew of the ambush, perhaps Stormbright is right in calling it "a bit of bullying," but that's up for debate. I say you are perfectly in the clear.
tackleberry 12-07-04, 12:36 PM	I vote not railroading if you had given the pcs absolutely no chance of getting out of the encounter then that would be railroading. even if you were determined to capture them, a good dm would do well to use balanced tactics to accomplish this as a plot development only but even with those odds, they could still have formulated another strategy like running away? even if they had escaped the encounter, you would have thought of something else to capture them and give them the illussion that they ahd a chance of getting out of it - i dont even think this is railroading as long as it is not used as a tool to 'take the players down a peg or two' and doesnt result in TPK or nerfing. whatever you do to capture pcs, they may always beleive it was inevitable but using this approach should only be used when creating a cinematic and dramatic exciting encounter - all players love to mount daring escapes and win through seemingly insurpassable odds. they will then actually be glad they got captured so taht they could enjoy the escape!
CzarGarrett 12-07-04, 12:44 PM	Maybe a Greyhound ride, but not railroading.
Nom 12-07-04, 08:50 PM	I vote not railroading if you had given the pcs absolutely no chance of getting out of the encounter then that would be railroading.Depends on what you mean by this. To set up an encounter that you don't believe the PCs can escape from but then play the cards as they lie is not railroading. Railroading is summarily (or subtlely) vetoing any action by the PCs that would expose a loophole in your plans. That said, there is a certain amount of trust required between the players and the DM, and a certain amount of understanding. Campaigns may have "stronger" or "weaker" plotlines. In the case of strong plotlines, both players and DMs understand that there are directions the story will go and that both parties will attempt to move the story in that direction. In contrast, weaker plotlines emphasise player freedom at the cost of big picture narrative. Some of the most entertaining scenarios I've played in involved "bad things" being inflicted upon the characters. In each case, there was a certain degree of inevitability about the outcome, required for the "big picture" story. Yet the PCs had a degree of freedom about how we acted, and I felt that the situations we ended up in followed from our actions, rather than being imposed upon us by fiat. You need to figure out how much external pushing your group is willing to accept. Though sometimes, the objection can be simply a knee-jerk reaction to temporary bad circumstances that the players just need to get past.
Eightbitmage 12-08-04, 01:05 AM	Ok, now that i know this, is does this being added to the scenerio make it more fair (the full story of what happened in the game): The old couple who owned the inn found out about it and provided the PCs with a steak and eggs dinner free of charge. I made sure to point out the fact that this was expensive, and out of the ordinary. I also said that the old woman was washing the same clothes over and over by the window and every once in a while hanging them out and bringing them back in. I also arranged it so that if pressed with any questions they would break down and tell them what was about to happen, and mention the back door. How much better does this make the situation.
The_Dark_One 12-08-04, 01:23 AM	Wait, you specifically mentioned this highly suspicious behaviour and they did nothing about it? They deservrd to get caught...