The one I've got is pretty simple thus far, seeing as I don't have the 2e boxed set and we're not due for the release edition for another four months. So let's post what we've got and see if we can cross-pollinate each other.
Heroic tier- PCs escape from slavers aided by a surprisingly powerful NPC. They adventure with her for a bit, gathering several arcane oddiments that she somehow seems to know the location of. Mid-tier, they seize a freshly-erupted spring from a powerful Defiler who is planning on turning it into a fountain of corruption. Powerful NPC tells them the story of a legendary tablet which can empower them to protect the spring. PCs go off looking for it, eventually find it in the ruins of a city on the edge of a gypsum plain guarded by strange undead (pixies, gnomes, that kind of stuff). PCs return months later to find a budding City-State growing around the spring. Powerful NPC has established herself as Sorcerer-Queen, and welcomes PCs as prodigal templar. Crowning moment is when the powerful NPC uses a ritual from the tablet to raise an army of the undead to defeat an invading force from a rival S-K(Lalil-Puy?).
Paragon tier- Borys the Dragon comes with a bigger army, demanding the new city-state pay tribute or else. PCs sent off to look for something to defeat the Dragon, or at least hold him off. They go off adventuring and eventually retrieve a "celestial tablet" from an ancient white marble tomb near the center of a grove, as well as a black orb (obsidian orb?) from the catacombs beneath said tomb. Powerful NPC is well-pleased. Semi-climax with the appearance of three final-stage Avagnions telling powerful NPC that she can never follow their path and can never become an Avanion... ever. She vows to become an even greater force for good and not them nor some arbitrary rule will stop her.
PCs are sent off to find out how powerful NPC can become an Avagnion. More adventures, possibly going to the Pristine Tower with a caravan of sacrifices (powerful NPC uses Borys' tribute as a way to dispose of criminals). Adventure takes them to the ruins of Kalidnay, where the PCs find a weak Avagnion guarding a chalice of pure water. PCs roll Avagnion easily (PCs while not evil are certinaly opposed to the Avagnions at this point). PCs bring chalice back to powerful NPC.
Epic tier- Begins with powerful NPC's screams terrifying the city. She's turning into a dragon. Instead of a usual dragon, however, her scales are metallic (silver?), and aside from a lot of pain she isn't suffering the usual side-effects of dragon transformation. In a moment of clarity she's figured out that the Avagnions had already judged her unworthy and set up the chalice as a trap to seal her fate. While she ponders revenge, PCs have to deal with assassins from another rival (Tithian?). Avagnions appear again, acting like French Taunters.
Dragon Queen finally decides against revenge. She continues to grow as a Dragon, and sends PCs out on adventures after giving them special weapons (sorry, not sure what kind of filler to dump in- possibly after a lost tablet in the Ringing Mountains or something). Ultimately, they return to find their city at war. They arrive just in time to decisively turn the tides in favor of their Dragon Queen, forcing the rival dragon king's armies to flee in disarray. Dragon Queen has a ton of undead (she built her city-state on an ancient battlefield, after all), but living PCs really help.
Campaign ends with PCs called to the roof of the dragon queen's palace (which is small compared to those of other sorcerer-kings) for her final transformation. She seems to just fall asleep, though, and eventually they are all knocked unconscious. They awaken to discover (to their horror?) that her final transformation, while peaceful, has transformed them into liches and death knights- her undying master templars. Only one Avagnion appears, and concedes defeat at this point. While she could never become an Avagnion, she did prove that Dragon Kings can overcome the lure of evil.
Disclaimer: My players have never picked up a Dark Sun book so as much as I didn't want to, I felt I had to start them off as slaves so they can get that stereotypical Dark Sun intro and feel that so many of us fans have enjoyed far to much.
Heroic Tier:
* Make their escape from the gladiatorial slave pits of House Tsalaxa of Draj.
* Find way to society and befriend a member of the slave tribe "Tenpug's Band."
* Said member asks PC's to find what happened to friend who traveled to the ruins of Guistenal.
* PC's find ancient "Lion" medallion on dead friend of Tenpug member.
* PC's are welcomed to Tenpug's Band to find artwork painted on the ancient walls which house the slave tribe, to bear the markings of this "Lion". Further inquiry leads them back to Guistenal and the Blasted Spire.
* Blasted Spire reveals the ancient battle between Dregoth the Ravager and Taraskir the Lion. Also revealed is the possible god Taraskir and his people worshipped.
* PC's return to their home at Tenpug's Band to find the slave tribe scattered and a previously sealed portion of their home (a temple to Taraskir's "god"), now open.
* Awakening after the disturbance of Taraskir's resting place under the Blasted Spire, a creature tormented by the loss of it's ancient god has been calling out to the ancestors of the once true believers. It's goal is unkown at this point but it's defeat is the climax of the Heroic tier, and reveals more of what may lie beneath the City by the Silt Sea.
Paragon Tier: (note: not much is written on this part yet as I'm still working on the Heroic Tier)
* Searching for answers, the PC's must evade the Caller in Darkness and find a way beneath Guistenal. At this point, the Caller is far to powerful to be confronted.
* Under Guistenal the first discover "The Groaning City" and they learn of its housing of the demi-human followers of Taraskir the Lion. What they learn here is that Taraskir, and the horror they fought in the temple which housed Tenpug's Band were perhaps a possible ally to a greater evil which may lay below.
* After learning all they could in the Groaning City, the PC's move on and discover Kragmorta. The current home of the 1st Generation Dray. (Note: In my campaign, no player may roll a Dray i.e.: Dragonborn. Dray in my campaign have yet to see the surface.)
* The PC's must somehow convince the Dray that they are not sent from this being called Dregoth. The PC's are aware of this being and what he was at this point. After several quests and perhaps weeks or months of trials and tribulations, the PC's possibly befriend the Dray and learn of the true evil that is rising under the ruins of Guistenal. Dregoth, 3rd Champion of Rajaat, The Ravager of Giants is about to ascend to the surface.
* They also learn of Dregoths ambitions to ascend to Godhood, and his useage of a Planar Gate.
* The Paragon Tier ends with a climactic showdown with the Caller in Darkness, as their PC's power is far too much for the Caller to ignore. It manifests itself and attacks the PC's as they try to make it out of the ruins to warn the nearby City-States of this impending doom from below.
Epic Tier:
* The PC's must convince Nibenay, Abalach-Re and Tectuktitilay of the threat which is about to burst to the surface world.
* A difficult Skill Challenge must be overcome with each Sorcerer King and Queen to help in this fight against Dregoth. No support at all could spell doom for the PC's and the future of the tablelands. Their success in this matter won't be revealed till the end.
* The kings and queen reveal to the PC's the existence of a powerful artifact that may be used in order to help defeat Dregoth but it's pieces must be found.
* Once all the pieces of this artifact are acquired they are assembled by the three sorcerer kings and queen but in order to activate it to it's fullest potential, it requires the blood of Mon Adderath High Templar of Dregoth.
* This quest to slay Mon Adderath takes them to New Guistenal where they must also destroy the Planar Gate. This battle will consist of also confronting Absoleth, Templar of the 15th Scale (2nd highest ranking Dregothian Templar) and a nasty skill challenge to simultaneously destroy the gate before hordes of followers overwhelm the PC's.
* With his two highest ranking Templars slain and the Planar Gate destroyed, Dregoth is heard in the distance flying in to a rage. The PC's must escape New Guistenal with their lives and the Artifact now at it's full power. Dregoth unleashes his army of undead and 2nd generation Dray upon the surface.
* The PC's find a quicker exit to the surface with help from the 1st Generation Dray in Kragmorta who also make their escape to the surface.
* Finally reaching the surface, the earth behind them errupts and Dregoths Army floods the land from its depths. The PC's see the advancing armies of the Sorcerer Kings and Queen they successfuly convinced (remember the above skill challenge?) earlier.
* The three armies clash with the armies of New Guistenal and while that battle errupts, the PC's are sent to the center of the ruined city with their artifact now infused with the power of Taraskir the Lion in a final confrontation with Dregoth, the Undead Dragon King.
Conclusion:
If the PC's are successful:
* Dray will now be a playable race in future Dark Sun campaigns.
* With the help of the surviving Dray, and new found business in the area for local merchant houses, the PC's have an opportunity to claim Guistenal as their own, rebuild it and rule its people.
If the PC's fail:
* The 1st Generation Dray will be extinct and Dray will not be a playable race in my campaigns.
* Nibenay and Raam are sacked and Draj is the next to fall. The Shadow King and Abalach-Re are thought to be slain. Urik is weakened after it's war on Tyr which was occuring while these events transpired and Dregoth's eye is on it's gates.
* Needless to say, if the PC's fail...it could be a whole new Athas and the Age of the Ravager could see dawn.
Not sure what I'm going to do yet. I may write up an adventure or convert old material to 4e. Right now I'm swamped with other projects, so I'm waiting for the DS release before I focus on darksun. Basically, all I'm doing right now is exploring possibilities.
I know for certain that I won't be starting the players off as slaves. That will be a late heroic, early paragon experience.
This way the cause of the Alliance is everyone's cause, and the reason behind party cohesion.
But remember that the Veiled Alliance is a terrorist organization; the party won't be doing good and fighting oppression as much as striking back against templars and the sorcerer-king. Virtually everything is permitted to achieve this goal.
Assuming I can get them to try 4th Edition, I'll have to wait for my players to make characters during a planning session in order to develop the material on what our game will be about. I see no point in writing out an adventure out beforehand and railroading them along -- I'd write a book if I wanted to tell someone else a story I came up with! I want to facillitate them telling me their stories.
I'm in agreement with this strategy. I'll do the same except for a few things. 1) my players can't wait for Dark Sun 4e. 2) I actually plan on looking at the adventure in the DD campaing book (if there is one) and looking at the Marauders of the Dune Sea. If those seem like good stories I may start off with them. If not, then i'll wait until the characters are made before I begin writing anything concrete.
Assuming I can get them to try 4th Edition, I'll have to wait for my players to make characters during a planning session in order to develop the material on what our game will be about. I see no point in writing out an adventure out beforehand and railroading them along -- I'd write a book if I wanted to tell someone else a story I came up with! I want to facillitate them telling me their stories.
Agreed. I tend to come up with an initial idea on what I'd like to see the campaign involve, but it is easily changed as the campaign/story progresses, as the players will inevitably change things and add to the story telling process in general. I'm not a fan of building elaborate pre-constructed scenarios.
But, the important thing is to keep track of the details, so I don't end up contradicting myself throughout the campaign... unless it fits with the story, that is.
Assuming I can get them to try 4th Edition, I'll have to wait for my players to make characters during a planning session in order to develop the material on what our game will be about. I see no point in writing out an adventure out beforehand and railroading them along -- I'd write a book if I wanted to tell someone else a story I came up with! I want to facillitate them telling me their stories.
Oh. That.
I just went along with everybody else and quoted you ;)
I'm writing my adventure now to get a jump start but I in no way intend to finish it all before one book comes out. What I can do is figure out the details of the story I want to tell and the types of encounters I want to throw at my players. It's up to my players to take that story where they want. I'm not "railroading" anything and I don't disagree with DM's that do. It's their group after all and if that's how they have fun then so be it.
I do like free form games from time to time though. They can be a bit difficult but it's fun to just react with your players and kind of go on the journey with them even though I'm behind the screen. Almost makes you as the DM feel like the Player as well.
To each his own I say, but try not to sound insulting when making your points.
P.S.: Yes I'm using the "City by the Silt Sea" boxed set for my ideas. It was a great adventure with so much in it that it could be an Adventure Path 1-30 as I'm designing. I thought being lvls 5-10 was pretty cheap with how much they could have detailed. Guess it's my job now.
Second, I also do not think that just because a DM coems up with the storyline to their campaign is "railroading" characters. I think that this thread and the stories you guys have written are great!
I was also thinking of using City by the Silt Sea in my campaign somewhere because i never got to in my old campaign.
But given the detailed backgrounds and effort most people put into characters, for most players "tell-me-a-story" is a learned habit of our hobby culture, because it is clear most players got into role-playing looking to tell stories: specifically, the story of this character they crafted. And yet that isn't what most players get.
Few groups will ever say, "Oh, yeah, our DM railroads us." Not because their DM doesn't, but because as a hobby we have come to be mistaken what railroading is and isn't. Railroading isn't a manaical DM forcing the players to do what he wants. There is, in fact, rarely any force involved.
Railroading is a style of DMing that for some reason our hobby has latched on to as standard and acceptable since the early 90's (likely due to the influence of White Wolf and its overt metaplots, where characters became observers of the focus of play instead of the focus of play, and were told that was "story"). One where players don't have any real input into the story or any work to do except to roll a few dice and maybe talk with a funny accent now and then, or make some choices that won't affect the development of the plot or even what the plot is -- they just follow the steps through to the conclusion.
Even though most groups play adventures where the players are following a branching script with pre-detailed scenes, revelations, and climaxes, as long as players feel like they have control over the story, even if they don't, everyone believes it isn't railroading. Even though it is just the DM leading the group through a pre-scripted story.
And DMs, consciously or not, have learned to instill into their players the idea that you do not stray far from this "plot" -- as deviating from the plot is seen as an attempt to disrupt play -- and that the DM will either subtly or overtly steer the character around to make sure they end up following THAT story (the players can't change what the story is about and where it is going), citing "group cohesion" or "ease of play" or etc. as the reasons. Thus players learn to sit back and roll dice when told, follow the clues about where to go/what to do next, and occasionally do some pseudo-thespian things.
I know many groups will say, "That isn't how OUR games work!" and they believe it. But decades of play experince in numerous groups around the country, and discussions with dozens-and-dozens of other gamers, have shown me that is the way most DMs run their games and most players play.
They will argue, "Oh, but the players COULD do other stuff, too. And they might fail! So it isn't railroading." No, it still is, because that doesn't matter. Those things don't define or not define railroading. Because pre-scripted adventures do not allow for deviation from THAT plot's progression and climax: that is definitional railroading.
Further consider the typical D&D adventure: you can slot any old character into it without much trouble, without needing to significantly alter the adventure, and you don't have to change what it is about at all. I can drop my halfing cleric, or half-giant warrior, or thri-kreen bard, or invisible talking unicorn mage and her chipmunk familar into the adventure and play through it without issue.
Maybe the GM even "hooks" each character in with something specific to that character, or maybe he doesn't. Regardless, the adventure always progresses along the same pre-scripted lines no matter who the characters are: through a (sub)set of expected conflicts in previously detailed areas towards some already known climax, usually with some bad guy.
And quite often the party is probably the party BECAUSE they have to be, even though they have no real motivation to stick with each other beyond metagame concerns of the players at the table. There's usually only a vague sense of purpose in the characters doing what they're doing, as the adventures have nothing to do with who their characters are or what they really want. Etc.
For example, your adventure is ABOUT stopping Dregoth. It can't be and isn't about anything else. Because that's what you designed it to be about. It has a a set of expected conflicts leading towards an expected climax, with this happening here, and that happening there, at just the right times, and the players need to or should do this or that along the way, and eventually they'll fight this guy at the end.
That's why just "hooking" the players into the story and binary outcomes don't make a game "not railroading". That is just illusion covering up the train tracks, to make it easier to pretend it isn't, or to make it seem more like it is the player's story and they are directing it even when they aren't.
And, as gamers, we think that's how it's supposed to work.
You can take that as you will, but I do think that is amateur, and an inferior way to play. But with the caveat that if your group is fine with being railroaded -- I mean they literally all say, "Railroading? Awesome. Let's do that! Tell us a story!" -- then cool. Have fun! But if you're just hiding the tracks?
Thus I suspect if I were a player in your game, SS, I would doubtlessly make your life as a DM (unintentionally) a living hell because I don't play that way at all. I really, honestly don't give a fig about the story the DM is trying to tell or his plot-arc, or in playing connect-the-adventure-dots to get to the big climax the DM has planned with his cool bad guy.
Because -- to take your outline above as an example -- do I care about Tengpug or his band? Why? Or exploring this ancient temple beneath it? Or waltzing around trying to figure out who Taraskir was, or what is underneath Guistenal? Why do I care? You know what, I decide my character figures these are all ghost-haunted ruins better left alone! And he leaves them alone.
Because: what's my character's motivation? What does he really want out of life? "My sister is still a slave in the pits of Urik. I leave to find and free her." or "I leave to hunt down the so-and-so who sold me into slavery and avenge myself on him and his family." (Or whatever.)
The point is: I would do something that would badly upset your plans and the story progression you've outlined above, I would fail to follow the clues (or plot cues) and go where I "should", as I would be off seeking something well-outside the scripted boundaries of the adventure, something that mattered to my character; the REASON I made THIS character. And at that point everything you've outlined and planned for is off-the-rails.
So my question to you is then: and then what?
Would you get me back onto your story-path about the rise of Dregoth somehow because that's where you want my character by tweaking everything in that direction? Do you try to force me to care about Guistenal and Taraskir and dragon-people hiding in caverns with some GM sleight-of-hand? Or am I even out of the game (or at best mostly sitting on the sidelines) if I don't willingly and regularly interact with that plot?
Because, if so: yes, that is bad DMing. Unequivocally.
Unfortunately, many GMs say, "Well, I can't run it any other way! There would be chaos and confusion if we just went totally freeform!" Because what's the alternative except that? Right?
Well, heck, I used to think that, too, and "OMG the DM has to have a plot in mind for the players to follow along! He has to write the story for the players to explore or there will be serious play problems. Things will just sort of hang out nowhere doing nothing, or making no sense, or have no forward momentum. Or I won't be prepared every week for what they do...I can't prepare THE WHOLE WORLD! The GM has to have a story!"
To which I say, given a decade of experience otherwise, "Nope!" Because those reactions to the idea of scriptless play are not accurate, by which I mean it is the wrong duality concept entirely. The opposite of pre-scripted games is not some kind of crazy "freeform" do-whatever game where there is no planning or detail and you don't have your feet under you as a DM because the players might do ANYTHING and it is woo-time!
Scriptless games, rather than the common belief to the contrary, are actually much easier to run than pre-scripted scenarios. You may even think I'm kidding or lying or being facetious about that. Well, no one believes this until they experience it for themselves.
Yes, there is a skill-set involved in running an unscripted/scriptless game. A skill-set that involves knowing what is going on in the setting and with the players, and how those intersect or don't; taking the blatant cues every player provides about who their character is and what they want, and making THAT the adventure. In a nutshell: engaging in character-centric play.
So what does that mean?
Well, recall the bit above about how many groups run their games. Scriptless games do these things very differently: they focus on the characters. Who the characters are and what the characters want.
Mainly, the group creates characters together -- allowing everyone to get on the same wavelength and riff off each other like a band in rehersal: he plays that melody, so you play this melody, and pretty soon you're jamming together, etc. -- thus the DM gets to find out what each player (NOT character) wants, what their motivations are either explicitly or implicitly, just by watching this and seeing what the players think/want/put down on their sheets. This is actually very easy. Seriously. What player do you know who doesn't have a huge background written out for their character (or even a little one)?
The DM uses that. Not "jams it into his plans" or "hooks the players in"...he makes THAT his plans. And the thing is, as the DM, your players will literally give you NPCs, conflicts, motivations, rewards, and so forth. Everything you need to provide an adventure.
As well, when the players build characters together, they can actually tie them together better (though they don't have to). They can make social and obligatory connections between the characters: "We're all part of the same squad in the guards!" or "We've all been trained by Mak-tohr of the Veiled Alliance!" Or not. (And "not" is not a problem.)
After the character session, the DM goes home and thinks about everything, ties it all together maybe, weaves something from that creation session for the first adventure session. But he doesn't script it out; it isn't "Oh, and then they'll go here, and want to do this thing. Then after that this guy will talk to them. And then..." You don't have to because you know what the players want and what NPCs are important to them.
How does the DM do this?
He asks himself what those NPCs the players came up with want. What are they doing RIGHT NOW? Where are they at? Not "what scene can I construct for the players to find out this thing I want them to know so ten sessions down the road they can have this other big reveal?" Nope. You just play the NPCs right now, pursuing their goals, reacting to the PC's involvement with those goals (as hindrances, or agents, or nothing). That's it. That's all.
This is where a lot of DMs who don't get what's going on freak out: they think "But they could do ANYTHING! I have to be PREPARED!" and OMG it won't work! It's a super-huge amount of work!
Not at all. Less than scripted play, actually.
You already know what the players want for their PCs, so the game won't be all over the place: they've already told you what their PC is about and wants and cares about, and set up potential conflicts and all that stuff. It's all on their character sheet and in their background story, and will become obvious during play. And you play to THAT. They're going to want to anyways. You let them lead you.
And you make sure the NPCs are invested in the PCs. The NPCs want the PCs involved, one way or another (for reasons that should be obvious given the character's personal ties to these individuals), without there being a choice of what the PCs must/should/haveto do. They do whatever they do, and you respond to that.
For example, one game my wife and I played in years-and-years ago, we created a pair of wild elves who had been raised as brother and sister, but were not. The brother was pale and mute, having been slain protecting his sister from a forest dragon and brought back from the dead by the black arts of his mother, a witch of the elf's tribe. The sister fled with her ressurected brother when the tribe discovered what the witch had done and came after them, killing the witch. On the road, they met a human knight, a high-ranking agent of the king, whom she fell madly in love with despite racial taboos. The brother isn't quite right, though, he's not quite himself; he's half-dead, he sees spirits, and he has memories that can't be his.
That is literally pregnant with story-stuff. There's an elven tribe hunting them. There's a knight, and his king and kingdom, who has pledged to protect them both. There are dark powers invested in the brother's resurrection, and no one else can hear the wind and mist talking to him. And his sister wants to protect him and fix whatever is wrong with him and win the knight's heart. The brother is not fully alive, but still not dead, and hates it; he's also in love with his sister, whom he doesn't realize isn't really his sister, who is in love with a human.
Unfortunately, none of that is what the DM's plot was about, so the characters never really worked in play. Oh, he tried to include that stuff here and there, but it wasn't ABOUT that stuff, so it ended up being a game of wandering aimlessly and fighting the bad guys who served the great evil that we guess we know is bad, even though we have these other pressing matters we really need to resolve that were relegated to "just background color". It didn't matter in play. Play wasn't about that stuff.
Nor does this creatively stymie the DM, because you'll also note the DM is completely free to design the details of the background. I never wrote out what was really going on, why the powers brought him back that way, who the knight was or what he wanted, etc. (Atually, the knight was another PC -- and that's the spiffy bit, when the group makes characters together like this, they can take one another's NPCs as characters, suggest ways their characters relate to one another and each other's stories. Heck, someone could have even played the slain witch (hard to kill a necromancer maybe?), or one of the elven hunters tracking the twins down (who says they all have to be in a party together?), or the king, or whomever.)
And keep in mind, there is nothing that says you can't say, during the creation session, "I want to run a game set in and around Guistenal that is about ruin exploration and the revelation of ancient evil." Then your players can go, "YEAH! Awesome. Let's do that. I'm going to play a ruin-explorer seeking powerful artifacts! He...has a map of this one and a secret chamber below!"
And make characters appropriate to that idea, rather than the whole "You all meet in a tavern/slavepit/dungeon/postoffice and decide it would be awesome to run around doing things together (and one of you is a talking lagomorph)" that serves as the cohesive incentive in many games.
And it is ridiculously easy to run. Way easier than trying to keep a bunch of disparate weirdos together and pointed in one direction who have nothing in common other than a propensity to murder hapless monsters, or the DM's or player's idea that they "should" want to go that way or do this thing.
It returns the DM to the role of facilitator, instead of the role of story-teller/writer -- he is made an equal participant to the other players again, rather than the guy who tells you when to roll the dice and then says what happens. It makes the players the story-tellers along with him.
Anyways, that's overly-long and a whole lot to process, so to wrap-up, there's also a couple different ways to run this sort of scriptless game. The two I'm familiar with: One is called "Narrativism", which focuses on the exploration and resolution of dramatic premises in play. Another is called "Sandbox", which is simply open-ended exploration of an established setting, and hearkens back to the way D&D was played back in the day.
Thanks for the advice. Thanks for the boost in confidence! Character centric campaigns are fun and simple to run, but they are also intimidating for new DMs.
Have your players ever wanted to play evil characters? Character-centric campaigns are an excellent way to go about running evil campaigns. Let the players create characters, and write a storyline around them. I ran an evil campaign, and made the biggest mistake ever, by railroading my characters into the plot I developed. All of a sudden, the game fell apart. Biggest mistake, because the game was soooo much fun before I ruined it.
I, for one, want more of what you just wrote. I like how you railroaded me into wanting something I didn't really want. ;) See what I did? I connected the...and made a parallel with...ahhh.
A friend of mine developed something similar to what you are talking about. We all developed characters with back stories and someone that we had a bad encounter with (whether or not we knew who it was). The campaign started with us waking up in a dungeon with no equipment, left for dead and with no idea why. The party had no idea what was the common connection and who was after us. We had no knowledge of each other at this point.
As the story progressed, we found out what was happening and worked to stop the people that put us in the dungeon that turned out to be Undermountain. There was a metaplot, and there was definitely a feeling that we were required to do something. So in a way, one could look at it as railroading.
However, as players we could go anywhere and do anything in the world. Literally. While the DM had a calendar with all the major NPC's activities on it so that he could keep track of everyones' actions and plans, we didn't have to do anything. We could have all said, screw this, lets go somewhere else where these people will just leave us alone. We had any number of ways to work towards fighting against the threat, from tracking down artifacts to gathering allies to anything really.
I thought it was an interesting way to do things. Not only did it allow us to find our own way and do whatever we wanted, but it also forced us to pay attention to things and make choices about what actions we would take. The NPC's weren't sitting in their lairs on their piles of treasures waiting for us to kill them. They were just as active as we were. How we dealt with them (which was connected to our background) and how we got along together (since we ended up in a dark corner of Undermountain) were how we told the story to the DM.
I thought it was the most fun we ever had. I never felt railroaded, because the personal connection (which quickly moved past revenge for being left for dead) grew into a shared sense of purpose and a desire to stop the metaplot (which was the quiet takeover of all the nations by evil dragons who took the shape of the rulers).
As much as I think pre-generated campaigns are a fun read, they just don't do it for me as a DM, or a player.
Each character has his own set of cards, one for a family member, a commerce or law or underworld contact, a possible or confirmed enemy, a beloved or hated dead person, etc. Each card is the player's own and it's up to him/her to tell the other players in the party - through roleplay! - why/how they know the NPC and why it should matter to them. Also, the player might roleplay the very NPC he has on his card if the party ever meets him, encouraging the player to think about his NPCs and fleshing them out.
As the players meet new NPCs as a group, they get cards that the entire party can view since they meet those NPCs while together.
Correct the few typing errors (extra spaces), find a catchy title, and this will be worthy material for a profile blog. Worthier than most.
I swear to you that WotC's forums system screws with the spacing. I typed it out in TextPad first, and there were absolutely no spacing errors (I've noticed this on other posts I've done, too).
Might even get your blog noticed and sent to the top of the most-consulted current blog entries. Then you'll have a nice, secure future as an unpaid blogger =D
LOL...just what I want.
I, for one, want more of what you just wrote. I like how you railroaded me into wanting something I didn't really want. ;) See what I did? I connected the...and made a parallel with...ahhh.
Ahhh! With the railroading and the...ahahhh! You are hilarious!
Actually, after some musing about last night's game, and our prior 3:16 games, I have some other thoughts brewing about a really simple idea and method to get your players to be more involved in play and creative.
I do have players who want to show up, play in an adventure, and then go back to their normal lives. They don't want to do anything outside of the session. So, for me, as much as I would love a character centric game with them giving me the plot outline, it's not going to happen.
turlough
I do have players who want to show up, play in an adventure, and then go back to their normal lives. They don't want to do anything outside of the session. So, for me, as much as I would love a character centric game with them giving me the plot outline, it's not going to happen.
Character centric games don't entail players "giving you a plot outline", that's not how it works in any way. Players, as usual, don't have any work to do outside of showing up and playing each session, the work (such as it is) is all still on the DM's side. It's very easy to run for casual players.
It seems like you're thinking "make a story" and the players do it now. But that's not it, because unscripted gaming is not a reversal of duties from the DM to the players. The very words "plot outline" are a problem. There is no plot, there is no outline of events. Period. Just NPCs who want stuff trying to get it (with the caveat that those NPCs are meaningful to the PCs).
Caveat: Sandbox-style unscripted games, though not Narrativist, may require some player involvement outside the session, depending on how you decide to run the game. This is usually so they can decide among themselves and then let the DM know where the group plans on heading next. As an example, here's a link to an excellent series of posts from Ben Robbins on how he handled a Sandbox-style game: The West Marches.
I had a reply all typed out that the internet then ate. Blargh.I do have players who want to show up, play in an adventure, and then go back to their normal lives. They don't want to do anything outside of the session. So, for me, as much as I would love a character centric game with them giving me the plot outline, it's not going to happen.
Character centric games don't entail players "giving you a plot outline", that's not how it works in any way. Players, as usual, don't have any work to do outside of showing up and playing each session, the work (such as it is) is all still on the DM's side. It's very easy to run for casual players.
It seems like you're thinking "make a story" and the players do it now. But that's not it, because unscripted gaming is not a reversal of duties from the DM to the players. The very words "plot outline" are a problem. There is no plot, there is no outline of events. Period. Just NPCs who want stuff trying to get it (with the caveat that those NPCs are meaningful to the PCs).
Exactly. Of course, character-centric campaigns can also be a lot more work (but its fun work) for the DM, if done right, having to keep track of little details like when the PC's unabashedly insult the high templar who was inconveniently out of uniform in the bar that day...
Exactly. Of course, character-centric campaigns can also be a lot more work (but its fun work) for the DM, if done right, having to keep track of little details like when the PC's unabashedly insult the high templar who was inconveniently out of uniform in the bar that day...
Actually, I mentioned that above: no, they aren't more work. Ever. Seriously. They're way easier to handle and run. If it's more work than a plotted adventure, you're doing it wrong (and probably running it like a plotted game). Really.
Exactly. Of course, character-centric campaigns can also be a lot more work (but its fun work) for the DM, if done right, having to keep track of little details like when the PC's unabashedly insult the high templar who was inconveniently out of uniform in the bar that day...
Actually, I mentioned that above: no, they aren't more work. Ever. Seriously. They're way easier to handle and run. If it's more work than a plotted adventure, you're doing it wrong (and probably running it like a plotted game). Really.
Ok, true, I see your point, I was just thinking about keeping track of what the characters have done, and how it impacts the world around them... that's a bit different than the work involved with planning out a plot and story outline...
I've had characters that go off and seriously impact the world around them, oblivious to it at first, and then actively later on once they began to realize what they could do. It had been a bit of an effort to keep track of some of the things they did, and how it all tied back into later encounters. But it was fun, none-the-less.
Yes, some people do like "tell-me-a-story" style play. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
But given the detailed backgrounds and effort most people put into characters, for most players "tell-me-a-story" is a learned habit of our hobby culture, because it is clear most players got into role-playing looking to tell stories: specifically, the story of this character they crafted. And yet that isn't what most players get.
Few groups will ever say, "Oh, yeah, our DM railroads us." Not because their DM doesn't, but because as a hobby we have come to be mistaken what railroading is and isn't. Railroading isn't a manaical DM forcing the players to do what he wants. There is, in fact, rarely any force involved.
...
bravo! took on the unscripted style back in college in '96 and haven't looked back since. i had a whole story written, ready to go, they had written character backgrounds and stories that interwove together and i was about ready to just go nuts with the plot when all of the sudden...they wanted to go diving into the dark and murky forests of the unknown. terrified but not wanting to hold them back, i just said "yes" and winged it from there...and kept saying "yes" and winging it from then on. i find it most enjoyable as a DM because i felt (and FEEL) so much more ENGAGED with them...i loved how their characters grew and thrived and how wonderfully creative all my players became. how there were so many times we all surprised ourselves...the comedy, the tragedy, the fun! you can't write that...well you can, but you can't PLAY it. i think it's also because did a TON of improv theatre (highschool, some college, local theatre) and playing in this fashion really allowed that to come out and flourish. so fun.
Railroading everyone into a certain style of play is still railroading folks.
Railroading everyone into a certain style of play is still railroading folks.
Heh. Definition fail.
Railroading everyone into a certain style of play is still railroading folks.
Heh. Definition fail.
But factual
But factual
Er...NOT being factual would actually be the definition of a "definition fail". Like calling "fish" "shoes".
But, yeah, if anyone else has any campaign tracks they're going to do for their game, don't let me or anyone else stop you posting about them here. As stated above, I'm not judging your fun if that's what your group is all into.