Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bort333 06-13-04, 06:20 AM	Ie the DM essentially forces the situation to one outcome only, regardless of what the PC's do. Do you think its wrong to try to fight the inevitable? Example - The Party arives in town and soon is ambushed by thugs who start to beat down the party using subdual attacks. I decide to run away and I rejoin one other PC. Suprise we are soon ambushed again. I then run again and get to a guard explain everything and REFUSE to get any further then 5 feet from him. Anyway long story short I eventually get captured and dumped with the rest of the PC's of course this wasted a lot of time... Should I have just gone along and not waste time, or should I have done what I did. Another example - Higher level game Evil dragons plot the doom of humans/elves/dwarves. Good dragons can't help because they are combating an devilish invasion. We arrive on the battle scene and the dragons are victorious in the battle but the war is still going on. (We didn't exactly turn the tide, many of the dragons could crush our party). Now we learn that probably the strongest Gold Dragon is mysteriously absent, and we're led to belive that he could be of great assistance in the fight vs. devils but no one has seen him for many monthes. Clearly we're supose to go find him, I personally find it odd, consdiering a great wyrm would be able to achieve this far more easily then our party. Should I try to disaude the party in charchter against this course of action? I could very well be wrong, but I smell the hint of more Railroading going on. What do you do? Follow the linear course the DM has planned? Or try to chart your own path, which can "waste" time from the main story?
hekker 06-13-04, 06:25 AM	I recommend talking with your DM about this. Tell him why you don't like the way he runs the campaign and tell him why you're trying to thwart it. GIve him positive critique: that is, tell him what he IS supposed to do (not only says he does it wrong or something). If you guys can't work it out how to make the game to everyone's liking, I recommend finding another party if possible.
Bort333 06-13-04, 07:13 AM	Well other then rail-roading I consider him a good DM. He has a solid grasp on the rules, roleplays the NPC's well, and has an interesting story/world to go with it. I just really dislike rail-roading. I like options!
Nom 06-13-04, 08:15 AM	There's railroading and then there's railroading. Serious railroading is zero-options. You WILL open this door, then you WILL get past this trap, then you WILL fight this enemy (who WILL beat you). This isn't much fun, as it makes the players feel they have no control. The DM doesn't just set up the situation and let the players figure out how to respond, he tells them how to respond too. Beyond that, you need to consider whether your DM is more story-driven or world-driven. Some DMs are of the "here's my world, go play" school. There is no particular plot, and the PCs do what they like. Others prefer to feed the players story arcs, and let the PCs explore these arcs. At some point, there needs to be a meta-game understanding between the players and the DM about how much freedom is appropriate. Especially early in the piece, when character personalites (and thus behaviour) is less well established, the DM often feels the need to hem the characters in a little in order to make a coherent story. Later on, a good DM can loosen up a bit as he has more information about the characters to work with. As a player, you need to ask yourself two questions: * Is it my goal to have my PC "fit" with the storyline, or do I want to play my character as I want to play it and don't care if that suits a party-based game? * Am I looking for "options" because I'm a creative player trying to find creative ways to join in with the story, or am I being obstreperous. If both of your answers suggest that you're a "team player", then it's time to have a chat with your DM about how to make his plot-lines more flexible. On the other hand, being rebellious towards plot guidance from a DM isn't really conducive to good play; a player who deliberately tries to play outside the "scope" of the adventure is a pain in the DMs butt. As a final piece of advice for your DM - if it's critical that something is a fait accompli (like the party being captured), he's better to just provide a short summary of what happens. If he tries to play these things out "in-game", there's always a possibility that some player will find a reasonable mechanism (or lucky roll) to bypass the event. Most players are more accepting of railroading that admits it's railroading and asks for player trust than ham-fisted attempts to make it "just happen". Though if you're not even willing to accept this, then maybe you need to find a more freeform game. Hope that's helpful.
Raynard the Black 06-13-04, 08:56 AM	I used to have a player in my group who used to subvert the DM storyline at every possible opportunity. If there was a way to pervert the story he would try it. It annoyed the DM (me) to no end and always wound up getting the player killed. I used to plan all of the encounters for a party of five and when he left the party to go off "exploring" he would usually stumble into one of these encounters and die horribly at the hands of a monster meant to face the entire party. It was never my intention to kill him, but he would always get himself into more trouble than he could handle. Eventually he was asked to leave the group because he could not adapt to our style of play. I do not think that there was anything wrong with his playing style. He just didn't fit our style of play. The goal of the players and the DM should always be to work together as a team to make the experience more satisfying for everyone in the group. D&D is NOT about a player vs. DM free for all. If you do not like how your DM is running the game then talk with him outside of game time. Talk to him in person, not through email. Let him know how your feel about being railroaded. Let him know that you would like options during play and not have to be directed everywhere. A good DM will learn to direct his players without making it seem to be rail roading. My suggestion is to introduce your DM to these boards so that they can rely on fellow DMs to help coach him when he is having problems. Hope this helps.
Bjorn the Wanderer 06-13-04, 10:04 AM	A good DM should be able to work with any action a PC makes. An example from one of my games. I was playing a 7 and a half foot tall elf (don't ask) who would duel weild longswords (as light weapons due to his size). On one of our adventures we went to investigate an in where strange happenings were occuring. Upon entry they wanted him to give up his weapons and he wouldn't (the party did and went in). The DM accepted this and he slept outside (which was fine for him as a ranger). The party inside continued as normal. When he awoke in the morning the inn was gone. With nothing else to do he rested for the day and watched for the inn to return. When it returned just before dusk that night he went in requesting the see his freinds and refusing to give up his weapons and enter. At this point one of the serving ladies (vampire) attacked him. The DM made no efforts to force my character to enter and accepted that unlike the rest of the party I had a different option and direction. In the end after fighting vampires solo he was drained 4 levels but gained almost 2 after having is levels restored. Later, Bjorn
trapspringer 06-13-04, 12:58 PM	I think you would have been better off leaving out taht part about ignoring weapon damage restrictions, but yea. A DM can generally adapt to any circumstance because they have lots of power.
Thorak 06-13-04, 03:15 PM	I agree wholeheartedly with the "There's railroading, and then there's railroading" comment. A good DM who has a story they want to tell designs the campaign to make the PCs want to follow the quest. Introduce an NPC they like, then have him killed by the BBEG. Steal something of value to one of them. Something like that. The trick is to make them voluntarily choose to do what you'd otherwise have to force them to do. It's not really that hard, either. I typically play characters that are easy to railroad this way, but will heavily resist the forceful tactic. Like my current Paladin-eventually-Kensai. Kidnap a peasant girl or threaten innocents, and you couldn't pull him away with a horde of orcs. But have people try and capture him to force him along the 'desired' route? He'll find a way around it. Case in point; we had a fight recently against a mass of orcs and a few Ogres and dark knight-types. We were all about level 3, so it was a tough fight; if we'd tried a melee slugfest, we'd have died, and we were trying to defend a village. Everyone set up nice guerilla positions and got the men of the village ready to defend themselves. My paladin saw this, thought to himself "What about the women and children?", and decided he would stand guard over the basement in the abandoned church they were hiding in. Even if the fight took place entirely down in the middle of town with the rest of the PCs. Little did we know, but the BBEG needed something from the church they were in. We still don't know if it was an object, or just the poorly-defended women and children who would make good blood sacrifices. Either way, a good third of the forces, including all the dark knight types who were the leaders, attacked the church. My character fought a valiant battle, almost died several times, and managed to save the day. And all because he thought for himself, rather than following the party's ideas. And the DM had a blast with it, because it was perfectly in-character, and without me the women and children would have died. There were a few rounds where I was the only person defending them, and managed to hold the fort till everyone else arrived to help out.
Asche 06-13-04, 04:59 PM	Let me preface this with the fact I am almost always a DM, never been a player in a D20 system, only different RPGs. I have played with a changing group of friends for years now, and the topic of "railroading" has come up 2 or 3 times. I dont claim I never try and nudge the PC's into a direction I developed the story arc to. However, since in a carefully developed story, or even an extended location like a large city, the DM might have the overview, but players most certainly do not. And often, when my players saw no other option than X, it was because they either didnt investigate, or plain did not see the options available to them. I have recently finished a large-scale storyline from level 1 to 11, over the course of 17 months of gaming. At no point but once, there was ONLY one option, but the most accessible and obvious was often the path I would prefer, due to storyline advancement. But a good DM, and I like to think of myself as half-decent at least, can react and answer properly to any "escape" from the story arc.... I let them run their own business in a thief-guild driven city, let them cross blades with pirates, inquisitors and an orcish chieftain, but eventually with patience you can lead them back to the plot, and nobody feels forced. Before accusing your DM of serious railroading, ask yourself if you really investigated other courses of action. Every Fortress has a front gate, but most have a backdoor as well.
Silverthrone 06-13-04, 09:19 PM	GIve him positive critique: that is, tell him what he IS supposed to do Any player that told me what to do at my table would be told what to do by me. Its okay to explain to a DM why you think something didn't go well, but never try and tell him what to do.
Veton 06-13-04, 10:12 PM	How do the rest of the players feel about this? If everyone resents being railroaded, here's one thing you could do: Next time you go to play, gather around the DM and say, "What's the story for today?" in a kid-like voice. Hopefully, he should get the hint :P
Thorak 06-13-04, 11:24 PM	Originally posted by Silverthrone GIve him positive critique: that is, tell him what he IS supposed to do Any player that told me what to do at my table would be told what to do by me. Its okay to explain to a DM why you think something didn't go well, but never try and tell him what to do. So then the DM tells his player where to go, and the player gets up and walks out. As does every other player who was equally miffed by the pushy, rail-roading DM, and who was looking forward to that player acting as their representative. And the DM can feel confident in his superior, "I make the rules!" attitude even though he's now playing with himself. A D&D game is a cooperative effort between the DM and the players. The DM is the referee, the players are the, well, players. The DM's job is to toss in the ball, enforce the rules, and see what happens. When the DM starts taking the ball away for no reason other than that he wanted the other team to score this time, or he doesn't like how the play was going, he's not being a good referee. And when all the players go home, the referee has no game. While the players need to respect the DM's freedom of choice, the DM has to do likewise for the players. It's all well and good to say "This is my game, so this is how it is", but recognize that if the issue's big enough, your players will walk out and leave you with nobody to play with. That said, I reiterate; railroading can both be 'good' and 'bad'. 'Bad' railroading is forcing the PCs to do what you want, whether by cheating (Oh, the Ogre rolls another natural 20!), presenting them with a fait accompli ("Heh, the wine you all drank is drugged, and the DC is 40 billion. You all fall unconscious and awake in..." "But I'm a druid and immune to poison!" "Not this one. You awaken in..."), or insisting that they have to go through the one option you've presented them with ("So the fortress has a front gate, but no other entrances, even windows, and it's entirely roofed over so we can't go over the walls? What about Stone Shape? No, didn't think so."). 'Good' railroading, on the other hand, doesn't even feel like railroading. This is usually done by giving the PCs, each of them, reason to follow the quest you present them with, taking their individual goals into the picture. It also almost always includes a DM who's quick-witted enough and open enough to improv to slap together both reasonable answers to unexpected questions (You could Stone Shape through the walls, I guess. But you'd better hope the Archmage doesn't sense the magic being used on his fortress...) and alternative solutions to those situations he didn't expect (Okay, you've Stone Shaped a hole in the wall. And the Archmage didn't notice. You see crates, barrels, and shelves filled with pottery. You've gotten into a store room. You hear a snoring coming from one corner...) I apologize for the many parentheses, but I think they help show what I mean and it's better than trying to put them all separately.
a18ffe 06-13-04, 11:58 PM	Who hasn't played in one of those campains... I think you should just role-play your character. I OTH, take great pleasure in trying to ruin the DM's plan.
bitnine 06-14-04, 01:30 AM	Originally posted by Thorak insisting that they have to go through the one option you've presented them with ("So the fortress has a front gate, but no other entrances, even windows, and it's entirely roofed over so we can't go over the walls? What about Stone Shape? No, didn't think so.").Heh, that reminds me of one game that I was in previously. The party, a mixed group of d20 modern and D&D characters, needed to defuse a bomb hidden in a commercial building in a technologically advanced city. The bomb was on the top (sixth) floor, and we wanted to get in undetected. We got all wind walked up and tried to get in; there were no windows above the third floor, and there was only one entrance - the main doorway. Additionally, the building was protected against magics (like stone shape), and, apparently, completely seemless, including the windows, and a complete lack of any ventolation openings. (When queried about this last one he stated that they had technology sufficient to make such not strictly necessary.) Not ones to give up easily, we had a sniper in the group perch on a building a lost distance away and try to shatter a few of the windows with a 50 cal rifle. However, the windows were completely unphased. I think one of us considered making those windows into armor when the DM added that they seemed to be surrounded by some sort of field that was rendering them invincible. So, we ended up trying to sneak in using our gaseous forms (from wind walk), reaching an upper walkway across the lobby. At a certain point a soldier hidden in the building burst out and fired on us with an antimagic gun, joined by two others with automatic weapons - causing major panic and sending civilians panicking every which way. After all, it was a commercial office building, not some sort of government emergency crisis center. Despite how it was built. In this case, the DM had some encounters prepared that he though were 'cool' and didn't really have an idea for how to modify them, so he wasn't going to let them be modified. I think we responded by poking fun at him for a few weeks. That and I and the other DM I think might have talked with him a little about sponteniety, modifying encounters, and the like. I liked the poking fun part, though. Anyways, when I'm a DM, any player who would dare give me a suggestion or tell me some sort of failing that I might be showing in my games, I would MURDER THAT PERSON WITH AN AX! Also, I demand that all players call me 'sire' and never gaze directly at me. Aside from that (and the bowing and the tributes), I'm fairly open. So just watch yourself if you dare speak ill of your game master.
BW0222 06-14-04, 01:43 AM	Bort333, Nom's "There's railroading and then there's railroading" comments are good. Any campaign or encounters designed by a DM is a balancing act. On one extreme there are DMs who can "wing" everything. On the other side there are those which spend insane amounts of time coming up with pages of maps, stats, NPCs descriptions, etc. The first style of DMing is extremely hard to do in 3e. Rules, stats, and combat often need pretty precise planning and need to be written down. My ability to wing things definitely got harder with 3E. With non-combat encounters you can wing it, but if combat or specific rules are coming I'd rather have two or three encounters planned and written out. I know a lot of DMs which get very upset when players spoil their encounters. A lot of time, planning, and prep works go into them and having them "spoiled" often get DMs frustrated. However, a good DM is going to realize the difference between intentionally spoiling an encounter and good roleplaying, great planning, or just dumb luck. I've seen entire modules broken by a "commune with nature" spell, or a big encounter blown when a bad guy has his flying mount failed a polymorph save and become a duck. (No escaping to encounter #3) As a DM you have to realize the difference between PCs being smart (taking reasonable precautions to avoid harm) and players being smart-asses (intentionally meta-gaming to avoid the encounters). A good DM is going to realize that while the PCs might be smart or lucky and "break" some encounters, things will definitely balance out -- they'll make mistakes and get themselves into the soup also. That said, if it is so obvious to the players that the encounter is going one-way, then the DM needs to spice things up a bit or be a bit more tricky. That and don't plan more than a couple of encounters ahead and be ready to toss on if the players find away around it. Thanks, Brett
Joe Khol 06-14-04, 07:52 AM	Trying to break railroading in the game will only encourage the DM to railroad even more. Deliberately trying to 'break' the game because you don't like how it is being run is petty, childish and counter productive. This is an OOC issue so should be dealt with OOC.
Nom 06-14-04, 08:43 AM	Warning: slightly off topicOriginally posted by bitnine We got all wind walked up and tried to get in; there were no windows above the third floor, and there was only one entrance - the main doorway.Reminds me of a game once, using a published encounter. Three bloopers in one encounter: "I've gone the whole way around this building, and there are no doors?" "Oh, sorry, yes there are. I thought the markings on the map were windows." "Turning around, you see a 30 foot tall mecha activating." "Uh, 30 foot tall mecha? What 30 foot tall mecha?" "It was parked beside the big building." "The one we walked all the way around looking for doors?" "Yes, that one." "And how exactly didn't we notice a 30 foot tall mecha just sitting there?!?" "Uh, what about the guy with the heavy machine gun we posted on the rise above the base? Didn't he perhaps notice when this mecha started moving?" "Um, what guy? ... Oh! ... He must have fallen asleep." But hey, he was a good GM (DM) and we were having fun, so we just accepted these unlikely events and kept playing. The moral of the tale? If you're having fun, let the DM get away with a bit of railroading for everyone's sake.
Admiral Victor 06-14-04, 11:11 AM	From my limited experience, "railroading" can help in the first few sessions to get the party to mesh, and form bonds. I'll give an example of this. In the second campaign I was in(this is dragonlance by the way), my character was being introduced in the second session since I had to miss the first session, so the DM had to come up with a way for my character to be incorporated into the group. The party was on the vessel they were employed on, running drink to Godnest in the north-west of solamnia. That is where I was starting. Lo and behold, three or four ships filled with ogre slavers appears, being led by Gelladis(spelling?), the white dragon from South Ergoth I believe. From here, my character, as well as the others from my soon to be party, decide to try and help the solamnic knights and militia. In the end, we are all captured and imprisoned on the ships being bound for South Ergoth. This provided my character, and the other four PCs a way of meshing. And in the end, we came out with a ship of our own. :D And "time traveling" with a shipfull of true kender......