Railroading Encounters

[The_Hanged_Man]

[TGFBS]Split from the Sandstorm Thread in order to keep it on topic.[/TGFBS]

1111458683[/unixtime]]B> Part of some fvcking DM railroading plan. Oops, it's all sandy so now you guys have to do the only adventure that I'm the slightest bit prepared for and I'm not creative enough to just ad hoc something else or rub serial numbers off of wilderness encounters such that there's even the illusion of choice.

I'd say it's time for some group adjustment if this is the state of your game. What I mean? If your players are good roleplayers, or at least interested roleplayers, it should be enough to just say, "It's a really bad sandstorm, you can't see anything, sand's in your underwear, blah blah blah," and 95% of the time your players should just go into the inn to avoid the weather. Every now and then they may wander into the sand, but . . .

Does it work? Sometimes. If the only thing your players care about is will it kill my character, then I'd say the damaging weather death trap is probably appropriate. That's the level of the roleplay at that table - discomfort doesn't matter, inconvenience doesn't matter, only hp's and permanent injury matter. I'd say the DM doesn't have any choice but to use traps like that.

YMMV.

[User3]

I don't know; when did it become mandatory that not only do characters have to suffer, but we have to roleplay them suffering?

Most of my characters, under most circumstances, would get in out of a sandstorm if given the opportunity. But there are those who would be too stubborn to care if they get sand everywhere, or too altruistic to even think about pausing in their mission because of a little discomfort, or too angry to pause even one unnecessary minute in their quest to destroy the Archwizard of Gjuu'aa, or whatever.

There are real people in the real world who are not deterred by discomfort and inconvenience in doing whatever it is they've decided they're going to do. If I decide I want my character to shrug off the discomfort and inconvenience of being out in a sandstorm, and I have some kind of mojo that lets me make progress in the right direction under those circumstances, I'm not sure how well I'd react to the DM hauling out some kind of deadly "terrain-based trap" in an attempt to make me empathize with how awful it is to get sand in my hair so I give up and wait for it to blow over.

--d.

[Username17]

Exactly, these are people who when faced with actually getting torn in half and killed, don't stop their questing. Really. A closet troll comes and rips a character in half and they die in great pain, and then the raw power of nature gives them a second chance in a new body and they keep at it.

If they are doing something they feel is important, I really don't think that it being "really cold", or "wet and stinky", or "sandy and unpleasant" or anything is going to have much effect. If not just the hreat of death, but real actual death isn't enough to stop these guys, something as pissant as "discomfort" is just not going to cut the mustard.

Now, if they aren't doing anything important, or are on vacation or something, they'd probably get out of the rain, let alone some kind of sandstorm crap.

---

But let's face it, you're the DM. The players are going to go to an inn sooner or later, and when they finally get to one, the crazy old man who knows the last resting place of Akbar Shadul can be in it. Just keep a mental list of some encounters that are plausible in any particular circumstance, and then use them as appropriate.

That's the really cool thing about exploring - it works just like it does in Fallout. Special encounters can happen regardless of where you actually are in the world. Once you've found the Dryad Grove or the Umber Hulk Restaraunt, its position is fixed. But until you find it, it is in a quantum state where it can be in any direction at all.

There's no purpose served in showing the strings by trying to force the PCs to take a specific path when you can actually control what's at the end of any path they choose to take.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1111523096[/unixtime]]
That's the really cool thing about exploring - it works just like it does in Fallout. Special encounters can happen regardless of where you actually are in the world. Once you've found the Dryad Grove or the Umber Hulk Restaraunt, its position is fixed. But until you find it, it is in a quantum state where it can be in any direction at all.

There's something about me that finds the whole "quantum state" thing even worse than typical DM railroading. With DM railroading you are having choices taken away. Something like "there's a sandstorm outside and you have to take shelter in the cave" or whatever. The quantum state style is actually worse in that it makes your choices more meaningless. If you run into the same encounter whether you go left or right, Why bothering offering the choice at all?

[MrWaeseL]

That's not entirely true. What Frank is saying is "you get the same encounter wether you go to inn A or B", not "you get the same encounter whereever you go".

[Username17]

The point is that you aren't offering them a choice of left or right. The road forks left and it forks right, and one road goes to Hogsweil and the other road goes to Felby. The party could choose to go down either road. Or they could leave the road entirely. They could stop and cut down some trees to build a raft. They could turn around and go home. They don't have two choices. They just have at least two choices that happen to include being on a road.

And if they make one of the road-based choices (as they probably will), you can use the "Road is filled with bandits" encounter, and you can use your "There's a root next to the road that looks an awful lot like a turtle" encounter, and you can use your "The bridge is damaged and looks like it may not take the strain of the party's siege golem" encounter, and you can use the "Passing riders of Lord Hemlock" encounter. And then the party can jolly well get to where they decided to go.

And you know what? It'll be time to call it, because walking in through the bustling gates of Hogsweil or the dusty and forbidding ruins of Felby is a decently dramatic place to call game. And then you have a whole week to think of good stuff to use in the place the PCs actually are.

And the root that looks like a turtle and the bridge are "fixed" once found, and the world will seem that much more real, because the players can go back and look at those things if they choose.

Choice and predestination are not irreconcilable opposites in a cooperative storytelling game.

-Username17

[Murtak]

If you run into the same encounter whether you go left or right, Why bothering offering the choice at all?

Because you can not design a whole world. Not even in a computer game, and certainly not on paper. You can however give the players general but valid choices. Not "left or right, doesnt matter" but "you know the left road comes close to mountains of Okza, which are kinda dangerous. The right one will probably take longer". And then you have generic encounters. Not "completely fixed" but "mostly fixed". Say there is a mad pack of cultists after the PCs. Then you have some basic cultists ready to go and if the NPCs go south they get bugbear cultists and if they go north they get kobold cultists. But you do not plan fifty different cultist encounters in advance. It is too much work and sometimes PCs will still go to a place you have not fleshed out yet.

Or the players are on a quest to recover the holy hand grenade of Antioch. Then you might have a dozen different clues the players can find - and when they visit a library searching for the last known location of the hand grenade they get that clue. And when they beat up the local sage and torture him he will reveal some other clue. You do not have to hand out a clue everytime the PCs do something smart, but simply putting each clue in a fixed place is incredibly frustrating if the players happen to think of other ways to look for clues.

[RandomCasualty]

1111569988[/unixtime]]
And if they make one of the road-based choices (as they probably will), you can use the "Road is filled with bandits" encounter, and you can use your "There's a root next to the road that looks an awful lot like a turtle" encounter, and you can use your "The bridge is damaged and looks like it may not take the strain of the party's siege golem" encounter, and you can use the "Passing riders of Lord Hemlock" encounter. And then the party can jolly well get to where they decided to go.

Ok, if you're just doing side quests with it, that's ok I guess.

I just didn't really like your earlier example of giving the party clues no matter where they go. If you're running a proper quest that involves info gathering, generally I consider looking in the right places to be part of the decision making process of the adventure.

[Murtak]

1111605058[/unixtime]]
I just didn't really like your earlier example of giving the party clues no matter where they go. If you're running a proper quest that involves info gathering, generally I consider looking in the right places to be part of the decision making process of the adventure.

So in your games, do you place clues in advance? What happens when the players think of a dozen places to look for clues in, all of which make sense but none of which happen to be the ones you put the clues in?

[RandomCasualty]

1111607490[/unixtime]]
So in your games, do you place clues in advance? What happens when the players think of a dozen places to look for clues in, all of which make sense but none of which happen to be the ones you put the clues in?

Then they don't find any. I consider a mystery in a quest to be one of the obstacles they face. To overcome it they have to find the true culprit or find the location of the emperor's secret base or any number of other stuff.

If they have trouble with it, then usually they have to turn toward divinations. Or ultimately they may fail the quest completely.

A mystery quest is pretty meaningless if the mystery solves itself. The clues should be within the means of the PCs to acquire certainly but they shouldn't be given to them for nothing if they happen to miss them. For players to get involved they have to get the idea that their decisions matter. And giving out clues regardless of where the player's look just makes them feel like spectators in the DM's novel, and is ultimately just like railroading, though less forceful.

It's actually not bad to railroad PCs as an adventure hook. Something like "you had to wait out the storm in the abandoned manor" or "the only wizard in town who had the components to that spell happens to be missing currently, there's a reward for whoever learns his whereabouts."

That kind of railroading is really ok, because sooner or later the PCs need a quest anyway. If circumstances happened to conspire to force the quest on them, so what? That kind of thing happens in fantasy stories all the time.

But once they're on the quest their actions and decisions have to mean something, otherwise it really is just a novel with dice rolling. If there aren't good choices and bad choices, then there are no choices at all. Some series of choices in every quest should lead you to fail that quest.

[Username17]

Find the pixel?

It does sound like RC is essentially advocating D&D as King's Quest. Or Peasant's Quest.

So basically you have no options except to slay Trogdor, and you won't be able to make any progress until you get the ring which is at the bottom of the pot of porridge, and the magic hand of DM provocation will force you to sit in the damned kitchen until you eat all the damned porridge.

I disagree on several levels. If people want to kill Trogdor, they should be able to do that, but if they want to go do other stuff, there should be a wide world of other stuff to do. And if you need the ring before Trogdor slaying is an option, the DM should just find a way to get the ring to the PCs wherever they happen to be if the DM wants Trogdor slaying to be an option.

Choice means that the players get to help direct the overall arc of the story. It does not mean that they have the choice to advance or not advance down a pre-determined plot based on their ability to second guess the DM as to what they are "supposed" to do.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1111612612[/unixtime]]
Choice means that the players get to help direct the overall arc of the story. It does not mean that they have the choice to advance or not advance down a pre-determined plot based on their ability to second guess the DM as to what they are "supposed" to do.

In many cases what they're "supposed to do" in a mystery quest is solve the mystery. If you have a quest where the king was attacked by an unknown assassin or something similar, identifying the assassin is their first obstacle. And that shouldn't just solve itself regardless of where they go.

If the PCs go to the scene of the crime and miss a lot of the clues and lack enough to solve the mystery, then they fail the quest. It's really that simple.

Now it probably shouldn't be a matter where the PCs must find every clue to proceed. You can very well have redundant clues and clues in different spots, but they should be in line with the plot. And the plot just shouldn't solve itself if the PCs fail to find those clues. If the game is just a matter of the PCs throwing up their hands and saying we're stumped, then a mysterious old man shows up with all the answers and solves it for them, then that's pretty pointless. If things always work out where the mystery solves itself without much player intervention, then players won't bother to think most of the time. They'll just ignore the mystery and wait for the old man to show up with all the answers.

There should be more ways to fail a quest then just dying in battle.

[PhoneLobster]

But it isn't just a matter of failing to find the clues that are there. Its a matter of the PCs potentially making better clue searching choices than you accounted for.

Like tracking a mounted assassin by tracing his high quality horse and its stabling arrangements instead of identifying his rare exotic arrow heads (which could have been a deliberate red herring anyway).

If he had a damn good ebony black war horse then damnit tracing its movements is surely a very very good way of finding him, those things are not common and need a lot of care. While your prepared rare arrow setup might have been interesting in its own way but actually makes less sense as a reliable means of finding him or proving for certain that any given faction was behind him.

And anyway the first step in a mystery quest need not be a mystery solution.

I know my players and there would be a high likelyhood they would ignore the "who tried to kill the king" mystery itself and either A) Try to frame a faction or individual they dislike, or B) Decide the old king is on his way out and start cozying up to the immediate heir, or C) do something else unexpected, like leave the country for a region with a more stable government, or use it all as a way to get close to the king and kill him themselves (or just rob him a bit).

And thats not a side quest. Because its the only thing they are doing. So its just THE quest.

[RandomCasualty]

1111627953[/unixtime]]But it isn't just a matter of failing to find the clues that are there. Its a matter of the PCs potentially making better clue searching choices than you accounted for.

Like tracking a mounted assassin by tracing his high quality horse and its stabling arrangements instead of identifying his rare exotic arrow heads (which could have been a deliberate red herring anyway).

Then you make something up if it logically would work. There can be clues you never thought of, and if you think "Hey that's a good idea" then you should have it turn something up. There's nothing wrong with adding clues if PCs search in places you think should turn up clues. So long as PCs are smart and search out clues they deserve to be rewarded for it.

If they don't search out clues and instead expect clues to be handed to them, then they shouldn't find anything.

I know my players and there would be a high likelyhood they would ignore the "who tried to kill the king" mystery itself and either A) Try to frame a faction or individual they dislike, or B) Decide the old king is on his way out and start cozying up to the immediate heir, or C) do something else unexpected, like leave the country for a region with a more stable government, or use it all as a way to get close to the king and kill him themselves (or just rob him a bit).

And thats not a side quest. Because its the only thing they are doing. So its just THE quest.

Well generally in writing a quest you have to write it based on your PCs. Your PCs dont' sound like heroes, so they wouldn't get heroic quests.

[PhoneLobster]

The first bits a complete reversal of your stand on clue finding.

But this just proves how narrow your story telling imagination is,

Well generally in writing a quest you have to write it based on your PCs. Your PCs dont' sound like heroes, so they wouldn't get heroic quests.

What in heck now?

Oh, I see, its the infamous "Divine Mandate".

The king, by virtue of being the boss must be virtuous and favoured by beneficial gods. All those who fail to altruistically pounce at the chance to help him mercilessly crush his enemies are "non heroic".

Meanwhile anyone who seeks to crush their OWN enemies, or make new friends by using the events around them, no matter who those enemies or friends may be or what the complex moral context of the events are is automatically "non heroic".

Now theres a subtle and ugly form of railroading for you, childish and oversimplified concepts of morality and alignment restricting your options.

Its worse than the one path to the true clue thing.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Meh, Divine Mandate's no better nor worse than any other alignment-type distinction. If the world's set up for it, go for it.

Annnyway. When I first started DMing, I was big into non-moble plot points, thinking that it enforced game-world ingegrity. In the end though, all it did was cause problems for me. If the next plot hook is to be recieved from an old man in the tavern at Ulsk, but the party went to Rienshagen next instead, the game screeches to a halt because that's not where the adventure is. Then I pretty much realized that it really doesn't matter where the next plot comes from geographically. That old man can just as easily be in a taven in Reinshagen, or splitting a jail cell with them in Grenburg, or waiting out a snowstorm in a cave that the party runs to ground in just east of Desmond. If the party is supposed to come across a town that's overrun by undead by night, there is literally no reason that city has to be in any fixed postion beyond "In front of the party". If you must tie it into a in-game phenomonon, then call it destiny.

With mysteries, well, I do agree that for the most part the clues should be at least realitivly fixed WRT position, but then mysteries are hard to do. Because the GM knows all the facts by virtue of having written the adventure, the GM runs a great risk of accidentally outthinking the party. For that, I can only suggest making about supplying about two or three times the number of clues that you think the party would need to figure things out.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1111629856[/unixtime]]The first bits a complete reversal of your stand on clue finding.

But this just proves how narrow your story telling imagination is,

Huh? Dude you said your PCs were going to frame people, rob the king themselves or just not care. Heroes they ain't.

[PhoneLobster]

Huh? Dude you said your PCs were going to frame people, rob the king themselves or just not care. Heroes they ain't.

Double Dude.

Robin Hood.

I rest my case.

[User3]

I have to say, PL, your players didn't exactly strike me as the Robin Hood type from that description you gave. More like the Sheriff of Nottingham type.

Not that that's a bad thing.

-d.

[RandomCasualty]

1111655427[/unixtime]]
Double Dude.

Robin Hood.

I rest my case.

Lets look at what you said again...

A) Try to frame a faction or individual they dislike, or B) Decide the old king is on his way out and start cozying up to the immediate heir, or C) do something else unexpected, like leave the country for a region with a more stable government, or use it all as a way to get close to the king and kill him themselves (or just rob him a bit).

So your characters would
-Frame someone who they didn't like, apparently letting the real assassin go free.
-Try to get the favor of the new king.
-Leave the country.
-get closer to the king and assassinate him them rob him.

They're interested only in what they could gain out of the situation and that's it. And there's not even any indication the king is corrupt or his successor is any better. Though if the successor is hiring assassins its likely he's probably evil. Though apparently your PCs would prefer to get to know him better than the old king.

Can we use it to frame someone, can we possible gain more political power by becoming friends with the new king or can we possibly rob the old guy before anyone else gets to him. And if none of those work, they'll just leave town.

For some reason, I just don't see Robin Hood thinking that way. And heck even Robin Hood sought to restore the throne to the rightful king and overthrow the oppressors who sought to steal the throne. I think it's safe to say your PCs aren't heroes at least not in the traditional D&D meaning of the word.

[MrWaeseL]

I agree with RC. Those don't seem heroic and Robin Hood gave money to the poor, at least.

[Ramnza]

[Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

Hey guys, this thread is about Dming plots and different tactics that we all try to use; can we please get back to that. Thanks.

[/Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

[Essence]

RC,

I think you are misunderstanding Frank's position here. If the PCs don't try to find clues, they won't. You don't solve a mystery by leaving town and never discussing the issue again.

But if the PCs try to find clues, like they really are willing to spend a few hours at the table taking stabs at it, and they don't find anything because they didn't look at the detail you decided was relevant, then you are being a horrible DM. No one wants to waste time looking for clues for two hours, only to come up empty handed because no one asked the drunk that hangs out behind the gymnasium leering at the girl's jai alai team if he'd seen anything on his regular trips to the stockade for his weekly tomatoing.

If the players try to accomplish a goal, and you force them to fail because they didn't do some arbitrary thing that you decided on beforehand, you are being a spoonty DM. If the players don't try to accomplish a goal, and you force them to accomplish it against their will, you are being a spoonty DM. The players should be given a chance to tell their character's stories. They shouldn't fail to do so, and they shouldn't be telling the DM's.

[RandomCasualty]

1111819671[/unixtime]]
If the players try to accomplish a goal, and you force them to fail because they didn't do some arbitrary thing that you decided on beforehand, you are being a spoonty DM. If the players don't try to accomplish a goal, and you force them to accomplish it against their will, you are being a spoonty DM. The players should be given a chance to tell their character's stories. They shouldn't fail to do so, and they shouldn't be telling the DM's.

I'm not quite sure I understand you... you're saying that basically any mystery plot should be pretty much autosolved by the PCs regardless of if they make good choices searching or bad choices searching?

Where's the fun or challenge in that? I don't really think I'd want to be in a campaign that lets you succeed all the time just because you give effort. That's like the DM fudging dice in combat so that PCs never die in battle. It just cheapens the game experience. Now, inevitably some people can come back and say "you may never know the DM is fudging" and all sorts of other defenses toward fudging the dice or the story, but all in all sooner or later you get some indications.

Within every quest there should be an option to fail, and that option should lie in more than just bad dice rolling. If the PCs make poor decisions and fail, then that's fine, and I'm not sure why it's bad DMing to just let them fail.

It's going to get pretty stupid if every locale the PCs decide to check turns up a lead, even when that lead seemingly has no good reason for being there. To me, a DM doing this is saying to the PCs, "OK you guys are too damn stupid to figure out the quest I had planned, so now I'll just railroad you to the solution so I can advance my plot."

If you want to let PCs tell their own stories, you must let them fail sometimes. Sometimes the princess doesn't get saved, sometimes the mystery assassin remains undetected. If you want to get away from railroading part of the plan has to be to not have a predesired destination you force the PCs to reach. If they can't solve the mystery, then they can't solve the mystery and you move on with the story.

That feels a heck of a lot more real than throwing some timely clue that always happens to appear in thier path when their detective work is sucking.

Part of your planning for a mystery quest should be a contingency in case the PCs don't solve it. If you assume they're going to solve it and will keep throwing clues at them until they do, then that's railroading, plain and simple. It's like fudging dice only potentially worse. Writing off really bad luck is fine sometimes, but when the PCs decisions themselves become meaningless... that really blows.

[PhoneLobster]

when the PCs decisions themselves become meaningless... that really blows.

Even attempting to solve the mystery is the players communicating their decision to solve it.

Preventing them from doing so because they didn't try to solve it in the place or way you anticipated is not their failure. Its yours. And it makes their decision meaningless. Aparently therefore blowing.

If they do attempt to solve it in the right way or place, or with some sane flexibility on the DMs part, and yet they still fail. Then the mystery offered to them was beyond their ability to solve, rendering their decision to solve it meaningless. (Again this is a failure of DM, not a failure on the part of the players) And apparently therefore blows.

Part of your planning for a mystery quest should be a contingency in case the PCs don't solve it. If you assume they're going to solve it and will keep throwing clues at them until they do, then that's railroading, plain and simple.

Maybe I am reading to much into the contingency but this statement seems to be going in a direction that looks contradictory.

It seems to say that ensuring the PCs can find their way to the kill the assassin fight is railroading.

While also saying that a good DM should ensure that if the PCs fail to find the kill the assassin fight there should be a contingency where it should go to them instead. And that that is not railroading and is the preferable choice to railroading.

It looks like they are both the same thing to me.

Sure, maybe you mean the contingency is instead "players go on another adventure" but thats not a contingency. Thats another adventure.

And also means that in an actual D&D game, as opposed to Clue, where the main focus of game play is the killing the bady bit, that they just totally wasted two or three hours of game time. There is no contingency where you get three hours of your life back.