Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WizardlyFriend 08-10-05, 04:48 AM	my PCs havent accused me of railroading for years, but recently im writing my campaign and i realize that im not really wirting adventures, but im more of writing a story. sure they can fail and if they do fail one adventure then ill come up with something else. they don't have to win every adventuer and there is alternatives, and i try to prepare for everything, but i feel kind of like this whole thing is railroading.
HyperVyperBeam 08-10-05, 05:01 AM	OK, if they're supposed to be fighting a bunch of orcs and you think they are going to lose and you have it all planned out that they are going to be kidnapped and dragged back to the orc camp, but somehow the PCs surprise you and they manage to pull through and defeat the orcs, You probably don't want to have them turn the next corner only to be jumped by another group of orcs equipped with ropes and gags just to fulfill your need to have them captured. Just let it go. They got out OK. They'll probably go to the orc camp anyway eventually just to pay the orcs back for f^^cking with them. No need to fret over whether or not your planned out adventure is going to get played out. You'll have plenty of time to get around to it. Let the PCs do their thing. But seriously, in my experience, you know you're railroading when one of your players stands up in the middle of a session and shouts out, "ALL ABOARD," and the others chime in with the ever popular "CHOO CHOO!"
WizardlyFriend 08-10-05, 05:11 AM	OK, if they're supposed to be fighting a bunch of orcs and you think they are going to lose and you have it all planned out that they are going to be kidnapped and dragged back to the orc camp, but somehow the PCs surprise you and they manage to pull through and defeat the orcs, You probably don't want to have them turn the next corner only to be jumped by another group of orcs equipped with ropes and gags just to fulfill your need to have them captured. Just let it go. They got out OK. They'll probably go to the orc camp anyway eventually just to pay the orcs back for f^^cking with them. No need to fret over whether or not your planned out adventure is going to get played out. You'll have plenty of time to get around to it. Let the PCs do their thing. But seriously, in my experience, you know you're railroading when one of your players stands up in the middle of a session and shouts out, "ALL ABOARD," and the others chime in with the ever popular "CHOO CHOO!" oh, then im not even close. i just feel that i limit them. you see when i write an adventuer i go, if they lose the encoutner then this happens, if they win then this, this, or this happens, etc. thanks!
Lord Ian Stark 08-10-05, 05:18 AM	While having a set story is important, a narrow one with few options is not IMO. Too many times when I was a younger DM I figured the players would do either A or B and they infact did an unkown C. What did I learn from this? Have an overall story and let the PC's choose thier fate. It's not like I tell them you can do A, B or C, I just let them go and do whatever and have NPC's and certain events nudge them here or there depending on how many major events are supposed to happen. Last Saturday the players were going to fast through my material for the night so I threw in the old Lich in a bag of holding gag I saw on here. It was quite hilarious and helped slow the PC's down greatly. In the end, it's great to have a story ready, however the PC's may not do what you assume they will so kinda just have fun and let things happen. Once I learned this I have a lot of fun DMing now and I'm constantly impressed by the PC's imagination. (Even though mine is still way better. :P )
WizardlyFriend 08-10-05, 05:31 AM	While having a set story is important, a narrow one with few options is not IMO. Too many times when I was a younger DM I figured the players would do either A or B and they infact did an unkown C. What did I learn from this? Have an overall story and let the PC's choose thier fate. It's not like I tell them you can do A, B or C, I just let them go and do whatever and have NPC's and certain events nudge them here or there depending on how many major events are supposed to happen. Last Saturday the players were going to fast through my material for the night so I threw in the old Lich in a bag of holding gag I saw on here. It was quite hilarious and helped slow the PC's down greatly. In the end, it's great to have a story ready, however the PC's may not do what you assume they will so kinda just have fun and let things happen. Once I learned this I have a lot of fun DMing now and I'm constantly impressed by the PC's imagination. (Even though mine is still way better. :P ) lich in a bag of holding. i have to try that. a new twist on a cursed item
Lord Ian Stark 08-10-05, 05:37 AM	lich in a bag of holding. i have to try that. a new twist on a cursed item LOL. After barely beating it they found its phalactery inside. I also awarded them 1 GP for there hard work. ;) That's all that was in the bag. Sounds mean but our group just plays for the fun of it. Last time the players couldn't figure out which way to go in a game I had a Formian (sp?) Giant run at them yelling he just wanted someone to spoon with. Sometimes simplicity/stupidity can break the tone of a serious game for a needed get a way. :D
Cantankerous 08-10-05, 05:46 AM	my PCs havent accused me of railroading for years, but recently im writing my campaign and i realize that im not really wirting adventures, but im more of writing a story. sure they can fail and if they do fail one adventure then ill come up with something else. they don't have to win every adventuer and there is alternatives, and i try to prepare for everything, but i feel kind of like this whole thing is railroading. You're railroading when the PCs loose control of their actions. This does not mean that they can't be taken captive even, but rather that the NPCs have to plan it, not the DM. The only knowledge and abilities used must come from the POV of the NPCs involved in taking the PC's captive. They can have no outside assistance from the impartial DM. THAT is the big trick to DMing. Not letting the NPCs in on the DMs knowledge base, or letting them suddenly have Deux ex Machina abilities just to advance the storyline. The DMs stoyline is NOT sacred. The groups storyline (by this I mean the DM and Players storyline combined) is. Stay flexible as DM. Let the unexpected happen to your NPCs as or more often than it does to the PCs. The story will be better for it. Isshia
FriendoftheDork 08-10-05, 05:52 AM	Railroading is only bad if the players dislikes it.
shadowelf 08-10-05, 07:20 AM	Railroading is when you as a DM decree that something must happen despite anything the players try to do. There is sometimes a fine line in this. If you expect the players to fight a creature and they try to negotiate their way past it, it is not railroading to say their negotiations fail, if they are not clever enough. It could be railroading to decree in advance that no negotiations could ever work and there is no way to avoid the encounter - but some creatures (eg lich) will never negotiate, and generally it is reasonable to insist that a major villain will be defeated only in combat. But if the players find a clever creative way to destroy the lich's phylactery then it is railroading to arbitrarily declare that it doesn't work. In other words, respond to the PCs actions. If you plan "if they succeed, then X, if not, Y" then you are responding, so this is fine. Note the difference between a linear structure and railroading. If the PCs must achieve X, Y and Z in order this is not railroading. But you must have an alternate plan if they get stuck on one objective. If they try and fail and you have to resort to "a (mighty NPC) comes to your aid", or some such, to get them to the next section, then you are probably railroading. You can tell if the players don't feel they achieved it by their own efforts. Linear structures are inclined to lead to this sort of thing, which is why I try to avoid them.
tharivol266 08-10-05, 10:12 AM	Railroading is when you as a DM decree that something must happen despite anything the players try to do. only if it doesnt make sense from the worlds point of veiw. like the second batch of orcs come to haul u away is railroading but in a different thread when i was asking for random adventure ideas i said that the pcs weren't going to escape prison and jokingly i threw in an "i wont allow it" but it made sense from the world because they were all level 2 or 3 and it was a very high-class prison. granite walls, steel re-inforced wooden doors, steel shackels, lots of guards, a portcullis ect. sure its a little over kill but it worked and they didnt mind. edit: i did also have in mind something for if they managed to get alot of nat 20s
ajmastrean 08-10-05, 10:12 AM	Now, if you already have a heavy story driven campaign going... you can still have all 18 possible options lead to the same conclusion. It's not railroading because the players are allowed to do whatever they want (fight, sneak, diplomacy, evade, whatever), and they don't know what will happen at the end. You may tweak the DETAILS of the outcome, but every path may lead to the same general place. There's no reason that the players' actions should de-rail YOUR campaign. It's your responsibility to have a game ready... it would be retarded to let something the players do totally ruin that. They can still have fun and freedom and get on with the story.
DrMorganes 08-10-05, 11:09 AM	Last time the players couldn't figure out which way to go in a game I had a Formian (sp?) Giant run at them yelling he just wanted someone to spoon with.Nearly spit my soda all over the screen when I read that!
LCD2YOU 08-10-05, 11:23 AM	PCs do something that angers some powerful NPCs. The NPCs want to take revenge on the PCs: Non Railroading: DM looks at the NPCs resources. The DM reflects on just how PO'd the NPCs are and has them act accordingly. DM decides that based on the NPCs' personalities the goal is to kill and or capture as many of the PCs as possible. With that, they set out to do that. The DM has things planned, from the beginning with ideas based on what was sent after the PCs what will go on if the things go in another direction. The equipment and tactics drawn up by the NPCs are based on what was told to them or what is known about the PCs. Sometimes what is "common knowledge" is just plain wrong. Contrast that with the DM who specifically designs NPCs to stomp on the PCs. The DM has the right classes to oppose them. Entrapping and other spells that slow or stop the PCs' opponents down? Don't forget items that allow for freedom of movement. Something unexpected happens? Well, throw in that other character you thought about using but didn't want to as you wanted the PCs to think they had a chance. The top is not railroading. The bottom is.
Bruunwald 08-10-05, 11:56 AM	oh, then im not even close. i just feel that i limit them. you see when i write an adventuer i go, if they lose the encoutner then this happens, if they win then this, this, or this happens, etc. thanks! Some players actually like this sort of thing. It gives them definite boundaries and helps to expediate play by not leaving advancement up to how well they are paying attention to every little detail. Others prefer complete freedom in all things, but I can say from experience that that comes with all sorts of even bigger problems and can get boring quickly, as PCs wander into and out of plots half completed. The real measure of this, is how you and your players feel about it. Do they think you are railroading them? They'll probably appreciate you letting them have a say, so go ahead and ask them. If they say no, by all means, proceed as you have.
LCD2YOU 08-10-05, 12:09 PM	Some players actually like this sort of thing. It gives them definite boundaries and helps to expediate play by not leaving advancement up to how well they are paying attention to every little detail.True, but for the most part, I find people new to DnD and kids to be the ones who fit that description the best.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-10-05, 02:16 PM	You're railroading when they notice it. Running a cinematic game is a matter of knowing your PCs and thier reactions and making it so something you do will cause a reaction that puts the PC in a position to do what you expect. The important part though is keeping your hands off. Never tell them to do something, convince them to do something via the situation. Also, make sure thee's always a choice. No one will think its railroading if they clearly had a reasonable choice.
olshanski_home 08-10-05, 02:31 PM	The fact that you said "I'm writing a story" sounds like railroading to me. A good DM doesn't write a story. He creates story elements. A) A old castle that a new band of Orcs is inhabiting. B) The orcs are lead by a half-orc C) The half-orc once had a secret affair with a noble's daughter D) An older orc cleric doesn't like the direction that the half-orc is leading the clan. E) The castle is haunted. F) A band of mercenary hobgoblins is teamed up with the orcs. G) The mercenary hobgoblins are lead by a disguised doppleganger. H) The doppleganger really wants a magic item hidden somewhere in the castle. I) The doppleganger periodically visits the town disguised as a loremaster's assistant. Now that you have written all of these elements, it is up the the players to decide where the story goes... Frankly, with these diverse elements, almost anything could happen, and that is the point. The players are the ones that decide what happens... it is your job as a DM to make sure that the elements for a good story are available, whether or not the players follow one, two, or most of your leads.
chrisnd 08-10-05, 02:41 PM	You're railroading when they notice it. I think that this sums up the whole quandry of railroading in a nutshell. If I were to ask anyone else if my particular DM'ing style were railroading, I would probably get a resounding yes 90% of the time, based on how people see and define railroading. However, my group does not see it that way. I told the characters after about 4 or 5 sessions (they were finally of a high enough level to be told as to why things were happening and what impact the party had on those happenings) of what the "save the world" quest entitled. But I gave them options. 1.) Find the missing NPC 2.) Find the missing artifact 3.) Stop the evil plans of the BBEG and his evil minions How the party goes about doing that is all their own doing. A DM needs to be able to react to the players actions, but at certain times, it requires a little bit of nudging (i.e. railroading) to keep the campaign going. The nice thing is, the "unintentionally appointed" leader of the group and I have had conversations about what the group should and should not do to keep the story and the campaign going. He somehow manages to keep everyone in line ("wink, wink, nudge, nudge") because, on a metagame level, he understands that if the party doesn't at least stay on the major plotline, there is not adventure for that night and I need another 2 weeks to put together another session. So, for the sake of keeping the game going, he plays along. It is really kind of unusual, but I guess I must be blessed with great players who understand the game on a metagame level and see it as a story created by me to be told to them as they participate it. I really don't have players that want to go off and do completely different things. At the end of the last session, I game them three possible locations for them to explore (through a very ingenous in-game method, if I do say so myself) - I mentioned the places in the order in which I THINK they should explore, but, if they decide to go straight to location 3, then I will not railroad them into location 1 and then 2 before they go to 3. I have all three locations fleshed out already, with monsters and NPC's, but if they skip 1 and 2 and go to 3, then okay. However, I think they, as a group, will go to location 1 because they understand that I am trying to tell as story as a DM and there are probably important clues to be had (location 1 is a red herring, but location 2 is very important to what is happening in location 3). Regardless, I don't think you are railroading, unless you start putting the PC's in situations in which they cannot avoid, OR if you take their decisions to do "X" and turn them into "Y" because "X" goes against your plans for the entire campaign. Let them do "X", then modify the campaign based on that.
spoogemonkey 08-10-05, 02:55 PM	It's a great question. The delima is this: The Players know that you have a plan in mind. They would be disappointed if you just made EVERYTHING up as you went along. They could tell. Players get upset when they don't have FreeWill. When they don't get a save before the trap goes off. When they don't get a chance to go their own way. If the adventure is TOO linear - they will be able to tell. You know how I can tell that you story may be railroading? It because the whole story is already written. How can you know THAT far in advance what they are going to do? My players ALWAYS surprise me.... I just can't predict how. You can write a linear story and NOT be railroading.... if you only write it two-weeks-in-advance of the last session. You should have an idea of where the story goes but not how they are going to get there. Fill in details the week before. Only have broad plot lines for a month ahead.
YRM 08-10-05, 03:29 PM	One time, I had planned to capture the PCs and they got out of it, so I had an arch-devil come in and teleport them all without save into the cages of those orcs. The teleport spell stripped them of their gear, and then the Devil wiped the Orc's memory. One of the players complained that, while I was the DM, and he respected my right to Rule 0, that I was making the game less fun for them by ego-power-gaming, railroading, and not following the rules. He said that they'd beat a tough challenge fair and square, and that I shouldn't have just insta-teleported them into an Orc Cage at Level 1. Why would an ArchDevil even care what they did? He had a point, so, the ArchDevil showed up again, just then, with his hand on his chin and a thoughtful look of respect on his face. Then he beheaded the player and used a wish spell to destroy the character sheet. --- Ok, I know about half the people in these forums can't recognize a joke. I'm kidding. Giving the players a tree of choices that helps them follow an important story for a while isn't railroading them. If your D&D campaign has more flexibility than Final Fantasy (which is purely linear), you're not really railroading the group. Total freedom with no story or major plots gets boring anyway.
AmanitaEata 08-10-05, 03:34 PM	my PCs havent accused me of railroading for years, but recently im writing my campaign and i realize that im not really wirting adventures, but im more of writing a story. sure they can fail and if they do fail one adventure then ill come up with something else. they don't have to win every adventuer and there is alternatives, and i try to prepare for everything, but i feel kind of like this whole thing is railroading. It is. If you're writing stories, not adventures within which your players choose their own fate, you're probably railroading. The fact that your players have accused you of it for years should be very, very telling to you. Stop "writing" campaigns as if you're creating a novel. You don't create a story and hope the players stay within the story's framework. Create a framework and let the story play out within that framework - however it plays out.
Palin the Wizard 08-10-05, 03:41 PM	When your PCs notice it, as Vaalingrade said. If you want a specific encounter to happen, and the PCs go a different road than you expected, having the encounter happen on their new path can be railroading, if the PCs have an inkling that it was meant to be elsewhere. If they have no clue it would happen no matter what they did... well, what they don't know, won't hurt them. The fact that your players have accused you of it for years should be very, very telling to you. You should read the post again, mate. They haven't accused him of railorading for years.
AmanitaEata 08-10-05, 03:45 PM	You should read the post again, mate. They haven't accused him of railorading for years. Good catch. My error.