Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lord_soto Aug 17, 2003 15:10:07	My Way, or the Highway “Alright already, we’ll charge headlong into the Tomb of Certain Death” There is more than one way to run a gaming session. What is considered the nirvana of gaming is freeform, when nothing is planned, no pre-planned storyline ever goes astray, and, quite often in my experience, nothing heroic is ever done. The second, less glamorous (to some) way is the adventure hook. Adventure hooks are designed to catch the PC’s interest, to get them involved with events, when they would otherwise spend the evening lounging in a tavern, eating the DM’s stores of food from his Y2k fallout shelter, and complaining about how boring this campaign is. An adventure hook can be anything from a scrawled note pleading for help found on the side of the road to a man staggering into a tavern with a dagger in his back. The third, and generally most reviled, way to run a campaign is the dreaded railroad. A railroad campaign removes the player’s decisions from having an impact on the events. No matter how clever their plan, how well (or poorly) executed, there is absolutely no way they could save the king’s only daughter from being turned into a vampire, earning the king’s eternal wrath, and forcing them to leave the kingdom, where they will be pursued for decades by the king’s bounty-hunters, assassins, and one totally irritated vampire-chick, who is still mad about them staking her betrothed (not that I ever ran my players through something like that). Herein, DM’s will find a careful examination of railroading, some common types, and how to turn a good plotline into a series of adventure hooks, instead of putting a series of hoops and expecting the players to jump through them (DC: 10, +5 if the hoop is flaming, modified by Dexterity). Primarily, railroading is a trap of new DM’s, a curse brought down by DM’s with a very strong story (but little room for PC’s to walk through), and a bane of players everywhere. First-timers often have a pretty good idea of the type of adventure they want to run, of the story that will be told, and how they want to tie up all the loose ends. The problem that these newbie-dm’s encounter is that they are unprepared when their players’ come up with some unorthodox solution to the situations they are presented with. They then collapse into a series of “it doesn’t work”, “it’s too heavy”, or, worst of all “you can’t do that”, until the PCs finally stumble upon the exact solution that the DM wanted. This type of railroading the DM eventually outgrows, as (s)he becomes better at improvising events, planning for contingencies, and getting to know how the players tend to think. A more malicious type of railroading is when the DM in question has a story that (s)he wants to be told at any cost. Events fall into place, and the PC’s find themselves moving through a script, where their actions, fumbles, and interventions do not impact the story. This “railroading” DM is generally a very creative type, concocting elaborate plot twists, that hinge on a very fine time-table of events, and doesn’t want the players interrupting them. This is considered a “Plot-first” campaign, where the DM has a distinct vision of a dramatic finale that is only possible if all of the BBEG’s, PC’s, and NPC’s fall into line. This type of railroading may not result in as much of the “that doesn’t work” as the newbie-dm, but often tosses the same type of set-up to the PC’s until they finally pursue the course of action that the DM wants. If the players want to leave town on a riverboat, they find that the boat sinks, the boat captain is under the weather, or that bandits have stolen the boat. Eventually, they will cave in and do what the DM wants, but they will resent it for the rest of the session (if not their character’s lives). The alternatives to this second sort of behavior are actually quite simple. They may require a bit more effort on behalf of the DM in question, but are much more rewarding to both players and DM’s. The first step the DM needs to take is to break down the storyline into manageable parts. Often, the DM as already decided when and where certain events will take place. These should be laid out on a calendar (or if they all happen in the course of a day, on a clock). This should not be considered as fact, simply the order and time-frame that the events will take place if the PCs do not interact. Next, for the first event, the DM should determine some possible reasons why the PCs would become involved. These are adventure hooks. If the players choose to pass over them, so be it, and the evil plot continues according to the DM’s schedule. If the players do decide to pursue the adventure, the DM should take their actions into consideration. Assuming the players intercept the first contact that the Vampire suitor makes with the princess, it would push the DM’s calendar back. If they accidentally kill the young lady, it might even bring the rage of the Vampire down on their backs, as well as the king’s men. If, instead, they find out what the Vampire truly is, it may cause him to change his plans, first seeking to eliminate the threats to himself, or cause him to accelerate his plans in order to leave town sooner with his bride-to-be. In any case, the players have brought their own changes to the DM’s plot. They haven’t derailed it, nor have they been led through it by their noses. If the players choices next session take them away from town, the vampire may attempt to make the same moves that he originally planned. Of course, to really remedy the problem of focusing entirely on the DM’s plot, the players need to have some choice in not just the main storyline, but also in their own lives. This is where the campaign truly turns from railroading into an adventure hook type session. In order to make the change, the DM needs to prepare adventures that are not based on the time-line of the main story. A rumor of corruption in the nearby temple, merchant caravans suddenly stop coming into town, a well-known piece of sculpture believed to have last been seen on a sinking sea-liner is found on the market, or other events occur that allow the players to pursue adventure outside the DM’s developed plotline. Then again, not being present to take part in time-line events may impact what the players know or don’t know about what is happening (the vampire killed off the king and had his doppleganger servant replace him). Thus, the players learn to balance their choices when they are involved in a plot, in order to get the most out of a session. If they possess the only copy of the treasure map, perhaps they can stall on seeking out the treasure until they have solved the problem of the vampire. If someone else has pilfered the shipwreck, chances are good if they don’t hurry, they won’t be able to get any of the treasure. The world becomes more alive, with multiple layers of stories, events, and adventures taking place at any given time. Sessions become not just about the storyline that the DM is encouraging, but about the PC’s deciding amongst themselves the best way to handle situations. Even if the group never advances to freeform gaming, they have, in a way, created their own living world. As follows, in list form, the steps to go from railroading a storyline, to a campaign controlled by the DM’s handiwork, with the path determined by the players’ actions and choices. 1. Develop a storyline of events, where they will occur, and to what ends. 2. Place these events onto a timeline that will serve as an outline for the campaign. 3. Develop adventure hooks that could lead the players to become involved with the storyline at different points, assuming they miss important clues/links/contacts. 4. Plan alternate adventures, rumors, or events that could lead the players astray, giving them more depth to the game than just the main plot. 5. Adjust the plot/timeline between gaming sessions, based on actions taken or not taken by the players that would affect the outcomes of the BBEG’s plans.
#2 zombiegleemax Aug 22, 2003 19:27:44	Partly brought over from the PITG thread. As I see it, there are five levels of DM control of an adventure. Starting at the best (least control), they are 1: Freeform 2: Plothooks 3: Nets 4: Railroads 5: Straightjackets Freeform is in many cases the ideal- the DM simply responds to the actions of the party. If you do that well then you are a good DM, have a good group and don't need much of this. For us mortals, the other options are useful. Hooks are described above (by Lord Soto). They are very useful, need to be specially tailored to the PCs and can fall flat. They are also a lot of work at times, and not always suited to "off the shelf" adventures as there may not be a character in them that will take a certain hook. In third place comes the Net. A net is a situation that must be responded to, although the response may well vary. The classic net is either the Orc invaison or the Thieves/Assassins turf war- in either case, if the characters do nothing then they will get hurt badly by the colateral damage (orcs rampaging through their village or the turf war getting out of hand). On the other hand there are diverse ways to respond to a net (obvious ones for the Orc army are to go orc hunting, to try to summon the guard, to train the militia to resist the orcs, to assassinate the head honcho orc or to try to raise your own orc warband to fight the threatening one (dangerous, but effective and fun)). That character in the fallout shelter is going to be an obvious target for the motorcycle gang as he has both food and fuel. This is a good method for prepackaged adventures because it forces the character somewhere into the story, whatever his motivations although it allows him to set his own role. In fourth place comes the Railroad. A railroad DM forces his players to respond and to respond in a certain way (you must retrieve the artifact from the bottom of the dungeon, you will land on a certain island and mysterious monsters/disasters crop up whenever you deviate from the path). See start of thread for detailed commentary. In fifth place comes the straightjacket- a new DM in over his head will often break abilities that outwit him (giving all monsters potions of detect invis or gratuitously burning the wizard's spellbook being classic examples). Straightjacketing should never take place. Ever. Under any circumstances. A net is not a railroad (although they can shade into each other), but is a technique that many DMs throw out because it is close. To work out which is which, ask if the players must respond as you expect, and if they can actually affect the plotline by doing either what you want or a method of their own. If the response to either of these is no, you are railroading, while if the answer to both is no, then it's a net. To summarise, hooks and nets are both good ways of catching things while railroads aren't (and are decidedly anachronistic in D&D)
#3 hariman Jan 28, 2006 22:41:41	You forgot one kind of railroading. The passenger train. It's a campaign where all the players have agreed to follow the DMs plotline/story. It's not an optimal situation, as a good number of DMs aren't master storytellers. This is a type of campaign that is a trap for noobs and desperate gamers. This type of campaign can be fun. There is, however, a need for the DM to provide adventures not in the main story for the players. It's just like an RPG. Sure, you have the main story. But you also have optional sidequests for each of the PCs and some sidequests that are for the entire party. One of the campaigns I play in is pretty open in terms of what the PCs can do. But since our characters are in his homebrew city there is an unwritten agreement that we'll be getting involved in the plots and schemes within the city. It's actually really fun because he's good at improvising when the party manages to do something unexpected/stupid. He's also very focused on making sure that all the players have fun. The other campaign was Cheesed in it's earliest phase (The first witchfire adventure was used to introduce us to Iron Kingdoms. It should pick up some in the next few sessions as the party leaves Corvis and starts to explore. For those of you who are looking for advice/help with your campaign; Rich Burlew (Author of Order of the Stick) has written an excellent set of articles on ways to improve the feel of a campaign/world and making realistic villains. You can find them at: http://www.giantitp.com/ Just click on the Form link in the sidebar to find them. His advice for creating realistic villains is something I'll definitely use when I start to DM. I DMed a little before and my inexperience showed. Now I'm going to wait at least a year or two before I start DMing again.
#4 gilean_dup Jan 31, 2006 8:56:36	Primarily, railroading is a trap of new DMs, a curse brought down by DMs with a very strong story (but little room for PCs to walk through), and a bane of players everywhere. First-timers often have a pretty good idea of the type of adventure they want to run, of the story that will be told, and how they want to tie up all the loose ends. The problem that these newbie-dm’s encounter is that they are unprepared when their players’ come up with some unorthodox solution to the situations they are presented with. They then collapse into a series of “it doesn’t work”, “it’s too heavy”, or, worst of all “you can’t do that”, until the PCs finally stumble upon the exact solution that the DM wanted. This type of railroading the DM eventually outgrows, as (s)he becomes better at improvising events, planning for contingencies, and getting to know how the players tend to think. Often titled trailblazing, where the players are supposed to read the GM's mind and proceed as written therein. What Hariman conveys is occasionally known as participationism. Not a bad article.
#5 zombiegleemax Feb 09, 2006 17:27:43	On these boards, Freeform is almost always ranked as the style for a DM. Basically, the DM creates the world and says, "so what?" This doesn't always work. In my experience, you get one of two things: 1. The party does something unexpected, and the DM makes everything up. 2. The party struggles to find a purpose, and the DM eventually invents a plot hook on the fly. Published adventures generally use a plothook to encourage the players to take a specific action or go to a specific location. This location is well developed and interesting. Players generally do well in this environment. You let them do anything they want, but by far the best option they see is the one or two things the DM prepared before the session. Wizards knows what they are doing with plot hooks. Use the hook. To summarise, hooks and nets are both good ways of catching things while railroads aren't (and are decidedly anachronistic in D&D) Exactly. You have to let PCs have free will. But you can do a lot without forcing the PCs actions. Your players will rarely complain that you have something prepared for them to do, and left an obvious hint about what that might be! If they don't like hooks, you will know it quickly from their actions, and you can switch to free-form.
#6 nidair Feb 13, 2006 17:04:50	Indeed, railroading is a very bad thing for your campaign. And it falls into the same category as Deus Ex Machina. In fact, those two things often happen in the same campaign. The name 'Deus Ex Machina' suggests divine intervention, which isn't that bad. It's even a good idea for a plot hook. For example, a minor god or a high-level NPC (about 10 levels higher than the PCs) asks the party for a rare material component so he can bless an army for the coming fight. What happens more often, sadly, is that said army is the party of PCs. Or worse, the spectators. Usually the PCs are asked to lend their 'invaluable' aid to a macho NPC so they can battle together against a common foe. Only to find out that their employer is not only 1000 years older than everyone in the party combined, he's also 10 levels higher and mows every enemy down without breaking a sweat. After killing the BBEG with 2 party members 'accidentally' dying, the immortal macho gives the party with the message that the princess has been turned into a vampire and teleports them to the castle that has immediately filled with undead and leaves shortly thereafter because he has more important things to do. Please, people. Railroading, straight-jacketing, Deus Ex Machina, they're all tools to make your campaign fun for the DM but boring and uninteresting for the players.
#7 kyuketsukiouji Feb 13, 2006 19:24:39	I'd like to propose that freeform isn't the best roleplay style out there. The reason why it's not the best is that freeform worlds are very often static. A DM that relies completely on the player for their impetus is going to find himself often having the exact opposite problem that railroading leads to; his players will have to do all the work themselves. In my mind, the best kind of RP is time/space-based campaigns. In a time/space-based campaign, a DM will create a geographical area (the size of which is relative to the PCs’ level and can range from a village and its environs to multiple planes). He will then populate this area with multiple "encounters" (not necessarily combat encounters) of varying CR. A town, perhaps, some creature lairs, a few antagonists, neutral and potentially friendly NPCs. Then, he'll draft timelines for these "encounters". Maybe in two days, merchant X will have a problem. Maybe the orcs over on ridge y will do something in a week. A bard might go through town and sing a song about dragon z in a few days (said dragon being more than powerful enough to obliterate the party). Duke So-and-so will have a ball. Harvest time starts in a month. (An excellent resource for this is the 1st Edition Oriental Adventures). Then you can cut the party loose. By having done all this preliminary work, when your players start interacting with the campaign, it's not a dead world reacting to them, it's a living world interacting with them. They don't have to take any of the plot hooks that will naturally occur over time, they can do whatever they want, with you having a good idea of what's around. If a fighter PC goes "I want to kill humanoids", you've already got a tribe of orcs ready for him to go after, assuming he gets to them before the necromancer's zombies that are scheduled to attack in a week do so. If the players are too late, the orcs will have been dead, and it's up to the party to decide if they investigate or turn to something else. Obviously, it takes more prep work to set up a campaign like this, but in the end, I'm convinced that's the absolute best way to do things. Not by railroading the party, but by giving them a living world to explore that won't force them to create the story utterly on their own.
#8 zombiegleemax Feb 14, 2006 13:10:52	In my mind no mention of railroading is complete without discussing the responsibilities of the player. On the one hand, a GM agrees to undertake the responsibilities of NPC direction, environment construction, and story pacing. What exactly do the players agree to? I bet every reader of this post has participated in a session in which at least one player actively worked against the GM, if only by refusing to go along with anything. This is just as egregious as railroading. They should at least respect the fact that the GM put some effort into running a game. Sometimes this means creating characters that will mesh well with the campaign that the GM provides. Other times it means doing something a player may argue goes against his character's motivations. Yet if a player reserves the right to turn down every hook that gets dangled before a character, a GM should have the right to suspend the session to prepare for some off the wall tack the party takes that renders her preparation useless. Likewise, if the GM designs a scene in which failure is preordained, there may be reason for doing so - if only to begin a session where the party is imprisoned, for example. Plenty of exciting scenes arise from this situation, but what party with a choice would ever willingly submit to being captured? This sacrifices the potential of a rich session in favor of poorly-exercised player autonomy. This ultimately means that player perception is vital to a discussion of railroading. If a GM decides that a certain encounter will occur regardless of which hallway the party takes, there clearly is an illusion of choice. If the players never discover the illusion, and the game is fun, what's the harm? Likewise, if their road is restricted by the GM, and the game is going well, who is harmed? All players should give up their precious freedom for the off chance of being truly entertained by a change of pace.
#9 objulen Feb 14, 2006 19:38:35	Free form works fine if the PCs are highly motivated characters who have goals and missions who go out and do things, which ends up being less of the case because heroes are generally reactive. However, it can be done, but it generally ends up with the hook, but the players deciding what general form the hook will be. For example, a Knight of the Chalice investigates rumors of demonic activity, while another character is trying to uncover the location of some lost artifact or revenge the murder of a loved one, etc. These characters then go out and actively seek these goals, which the DM then fills in and develops a plot with, etc.
#10 jasonorlandohawk Feb 14, 2006 22:21:57	The closest approach listed in this forum to how I story tell is railroading, but I haven't received any complaints about my games. In fact, I have been told that my storytelling style is one of the best of the various local GMs that I know. I will share it with you, and let you take from it what you will. My Core Beliefs: 1: I, the DM, should be able to enjoy the game. I reserve the right to be able to plan ahead of time to save myself digging for material when I should be gaming. 2: My players should be able to enjoy the game. They reserve the right to influence the outcome of the story and make a noticeable impact on the "game world." 3: The only way to reconcile my needs for preparation with a player's needs for involvement is to handle that situation some other time than at the gaming table. Basically, I allow the players to influence the gaming world by telling me what they intend to do before the game itself takes place. They are welcome, and in fact, encouraged, to make suggestions for story arcs, plot hooks, BBEGs, etc... However, inside of game time itself, I expect the players to stick to what I have prepared for them, within reasonable limits. Here's an example: One of my character generation rules is that each character must come with a two paragraph back-story that includes one important (to that character) NPC that exists solely for my use. The back-story and NPC can be anyone or anything, but they become my tools for world-building. Was your character raised in a temple of Pelor? Wow, there's a temple of Pelor in that city! Was your instructor at the Wizard's Guild an elf named Tharivol? Guess who just got added to the faculty listings at the guild hall? Suddenly, you have a two fold bonus. First, the characters are automatically deeper than they would have been. Next, I have ready-made, sure fire plot hooks. The PCs are clearly affecting the world, but I get enough material that I can prepare ahead of time, and create satisfying adventures. Almost every aspect of my game works this way. I purposefully ask for player game requests. "I want to fight a dragon! Can I try to court the princess in game? I want to spend some time doing some cat burglary. Can I pursue the Loremaster prestige class?" Now, I have four stories in my hands, to dispense as I see fit. What I do is simple: I mix my story and their requests at a purposeful rate. Thus, every so many games, my player will get to do exactly what they want to do. In the meantime, they allow other characters to have the spotlight, or the plot I have planned to progress. There has never been a single request that I haven't been able to tie into my game. (i.e.: I want to fight a Dragon! becomes You have just discovered that the BBEG has paid large sums of money to a pair of dragons to raid the caravans to your city.) Best part, I have time to plan it all. Some words of advice, if you find my style to be an interesting option. First, learn to balance the progression of "The Plot" with the inserted adventures requested by your players. Don't sacrifice your story too much. Don't sacrifice your player's wishes too much. Script at least three major possible endings for your campaign: Good, Bad, and Phyrric Victory. Since you have forewarning of what you're going to include, use that knowledge to enhance suspense and surprise. (They want a dragon? Give them hints that there is a dragon in the area.) Let them guess when it is coming. However, most importantly of all, build a good GM/Player trust. Make sure the players know that if they follow the story you've presented, they will get to do the exact things they've requested to do. I think this approach is incredible. It isn't unreasonable to give the Storyteller a heads-up the week before you want to try something. They can plan the pacing of the game around it, and detail the encounter better than it would have been off the cuff. (Sorry, you may think you can “off the cuff” well. I think I can “off the cuff” well. However, the best games always have planning to them.) IMHO, the best storytelling technique is to let players guide a significant portion of the game, but to request that they do so at a time when you can plan for it properly.
#11 gilean_dup Feb 15, 2006 4:37:39	Some wisdom from RPG.net: railroading is only bad when it stops a player from giving meaningful input. Alternatively, only bad railroading is railroading at all. Meaningful input varies from player to player. Some find combat meaningful and want to fight every single kobold according to the rules, making sure that nothing bad happens to their character. Others are fine not making decisions relevant to the "plot", whatever it may be, as long as they are sufficiently immersed. And so on.
#12 zombiegleemax Feb 20, 2006 15:20:32	I don't think I’ve ever seen the Freeform approach work effectively. On one end of the spectrum, you go through the campaign with some levels of inconsistency and a host of unbalanced encounters. On the other end of the spectrum there's little to do and what needs to be done is so mundane and typical. I've seen players become bored and wondering what "big" is there to do. My goal is the light plot hook. Set little clues and such around and let the PCs pick where they want to go. Have a good overarching plot that taps on the PCs shoulders to get involved in, but doesn’t force them to have to become involved. My campaign deals a lot with moral issues. There have been times in which PCs have elected not to get involved and other times where their morals were tested and they felt the need.