PDA

View Full Version : How to run an involved plot, minus railroading?



Zaeron
2009-08-09, 03:05 PM
Basically, I've presented the players of my newly formed group with some options for campaigns - the one I expect to be chosen is roughly as follows:

The Ducati family and the Borvar family were at war, until six years ago, when a peace treaty was signed. Two children of Sevrin Ducati (the head of the family), were sent to the Borvars as wards. Now, however, rumors abound that the Borvars intend to break this peace, and use the wards as hostages. Sevrin sends a spy to break the kids out of the palace, and hires an airship pirate to rescue them.

Now, the idea here is that we've got a mix of swashbuckling airship piracy, sneaking through hostile castles, negotiating with lords and ladies, and general foppery. Here's the issue: This is all pretty thoroughly railroaded, just by nature of the setting for the campaign. After they escape the castle, they'll only have one really viable choice - trying to meet up with that airship pirate. Now, I've got 3-4 potential side events - I.E. there's a swordmaster wandering the plains, and if they meet him, he'll introduce them to the Brotherhood of the Sword (opening up a paragon path, and possibly letting some of them switch out encounter powers for new custom powers or something). There's also a village that, if they spend the night there, they'll encounter a cult of werewolves, and so on.

Thing is, those are just minor details - I suppose they COULD try to get a ship while still at Borvar's castle, sneaking aboard it or something. And if they did throw me for a loop that way, I could put the Swordmaster on the ship as well, or say that some werewolves had taken up as part of the crew, or tie my minor encounters in in other ways - but that's secondary to the point. I don't want the players to feel like the ONLY choice is going where my NPCs suggest they go - I just want them to feel like it's the smart choice.

Any suggestions? Or am I being paranoid over nothing?

Sanguine
2009-08-09, 03:12 PM
I think you are overestimating it's railroadyness(yes I'm making this a word) there are several options(not neccesarily smart ones) for instance they could try and kill the leader of the Borvars or they could hide in the city or they could try negotiating with the Borvars and if it doesn't work run like hell and/or fight there way out.

PLUN
2009-08-09, 03:17 PM
As long as you stay flexible, paranoid over nothing. You seem to have goals rather than paths. As long as they get onto the ship, you're happy. As long as they meet x, you're happy. How they actually do it does not seem to bother you. Honestly that doesn't seem like railroading to me - if the party wants a sandbox they'd have told you, it sounds like they're enjoying the plot and you haven't come against someone actively trying to damage or change it. You have elements they can explore, that they might not find altogether.

All games with a set plot are linear. This is only fair if the gamers actually want a story rather than a collection of combat or rp scenarios - you can't have detailed cause and effects for one guy riding around in an empty keg on fire and how it interacts with the other guys dragon stuff. You're only human. Railroading is forbidding players from exploring some square or attacking some NPC and strongarming them with spamming 'rule zero' (snorts) or twisting everything to suit a very specific action or emotion. If everyones having fun? Not railroading.

I'd say you have a smart approach. Reduce, reuse, recycle - if you can use an encounter or NPC that went passed by elsewhere, do so if you think its organic. If their own decisions essentially lead them to fight a different encounter which just happens to be mechanically identical to ones they didn't 'choose', then they'll never know.

You seem to be doing just fine.

Narmoth
2009-08-09, 03:26 PM
You should then have several railroad tracks, all branching out in several branches.
What happens if they don't meet up with the pirate?
What happens if they're pursued by guards and the airship get's shot down or something, and so on.

Skorj
2009-08-09, 04:03 PM
A good random encounter can be encountered just about anywhere, but once you start changing the intended terrain type from "plains" to "boat" it might be stretching it. You can always let the party get somewhere, then resume encounters.

Also, tempting fate is not railroading. The party's ship was shipwrecked? Really? Never saw that coming ... :biggrin: They were asking for it, really.

Umael
2009-08-09, 05:33 PM
In my opinion, there are two things that turn a plot into a railroad.

The first is that your plot has only one direction to go.
The second is that your players know it.

Saying, "okay, here's the battle plan" is not a railroad. Setting up a logical chain of events is not a railroad. Having your villain come up with alternatives just in case is not a railroad.

Railroading is FORCING your players to have their characters go in a direction YOU AS DM picked, disregarding their opinions on the matter, and doing so so blatantly that they know that this isn't a interactive story, it's a show being done by you and they are just the unwilling participants.

Telling the PCs "here, this is an airship, use it!" is not railroading, it is the world being intelligent and alive and giving advice. If you as DM then pause and then ask them what they are going to do, they will probably agree (because, I mean... dude! Airship!).

Let's say they decide not to go with the airship idea. Have them give you, as DM AND as the NPCs providing the airship, a good reason why they are avoiding the airship. It might develop the story further*, or maybe just be an opportunity to do some good role-playing**. Of course, it may just be an example of miscommunication***, or worse, your players being a**** (in which case, it is better to find out at the beginning of the adventure then at the end).

* - DM (as NPC): Here is your airship...
PCs: Er... no thanks.
DM (as NPC): ...excuse me?
PCs: Well, you see, we thought about it, and we realized that it's too obvious, too vulnerable. We've got a better plan...

** - DM (as NPC): Here is your airship...
PC1 (hissing): No, no, no! Don't! It's a trap!
PC2 (to PC1): What?
PC1: How do we know it's safe? How do we know we can trust this guy?
PC2 (thinking): Well, look, we need to make sure that the airship is... um... air worthy...
DM (as NPC): You imply that we...!?
PC2 (talking fast): No, no, no! It's just that... my friend here... *claps PC1 on the shoulder*... he's... he's the type that gets airsick. Real easily. And so we need to check the airship over... make sure he's comfortable, you know...

*** - DM (as NPC): Here is your airship...
PCs: We'll need some horses.
DM: What? He's offering you the use of an airship! What do you need horses for?
Player to DM: What good is an airship going to do us? I thought this place was up in the mountains... where there are storms and stuff!
DM: No, no, no! He said that there are likely to be some in a few weeks! You know, stormy season?
Player: Oh... um, can we make it there and back safely?

**** - left to your imagination

Raum
2009-08-09, 09:54 PM
Any suggestions? Or am I being paranoid over nothing?First, ensure you and the players are ready to leave the tracks before you get rid of the engineer. Some groups prefer railroading to one degree or another.

If / when you're ready to leave the rails it's a simple method. To avoid railroading, never plan the PCs' actions - even by implication. Instead, create NPCs with goals and keep how they reach said goals flexible.

In the scenario you've outlined, you have one or more Borvar NPCs, Sevrin Ducati, and a variety of others. Sevrin's goals appear to be simple - he wants his children safe. The Borvar goals however are less obvious. Why do they want war? Or do they? Is someone else instigating conflict? If so, why? Back to the Borvars, are they all in agreement about taking the children hostage? How do they intend to use the hostages? How far are they willing to go? The answers to such questions help you, as GM, react to player actions without the need to predict their actions.

Just as an exercise, lets suppose the Borvars don't want war so much as they want the Ducati's to surrender some crucial property. Given this as a goal, they're unlikely to kill the hostages...that would probably lead to war. And, if the hostages are rescued, they'll attempt to bring pressure in some other area of Ducati weakness. In this scenario, it doesn't matter whether the PCs choose a frontal assault over stealth. The Borvars might try to move the hostages but probably won't kill them simply because the PCs did the unexpected.

Basically, figure out what each NPC wants, what resources they have, and toss the PCs into the mix to see what they stir up. Even if they decide to betray their employer and side with the Borvars, you know how to react...Sevrin still wants his children to be safe.

holywhippet
2009-08-09, 11:17 PM
Railroading shouldn't be strictly neccessary as an RPG group should be operation on something like a "gentleman's agreement" regarding what they will be doing. For example, the old Knight's of the Dinner table favorite of pulling out a crossbow and taking a shot at the king who's party they are at is a no-no. Blatently trying to disrupt the game by doing stupid, sociapathic things shouldn't be allowed. If they try this kind of thing, kick them out without hesitation - unless they have a really good reason for doing so like being an assassin sent to kill the king, but it has to be known in advance and not be Something Postive like.

The DM should provide enough hints to indicate where he expects the players to be going, and they should follow his trail of breadcrumbs. However they should be able to remain true to their character designs. The DM shouldn't expect a good (or mostly good) party to go join a cult by murdering a dozen innocent villagers as proof of their dedication.

Stuff may happen of course, sometimes players do something the DM just didn't expect or tried to avoid. It's up to them to deal with it.

valadil
2009-08-10, 09:27 AM
After they escape the castle, they'll only have one really viable choice - trying to meet up with that airship pirate.

Correction. They'll only have one really viable choice out of the choices that you've foreseen. Your players may surprise you and come up with a better option.

I'm also going to take exception with the word viable. The airship may be the only viable choice. But the information the players have gathered may be imperfect. RPGs are not logic puzzles (As a tangent, this is something where my group sometimes disagrees with me. Any time they're doing a mystery or social puzzle they'll reach a point where they decide the puzzle is unsolveable because they're treating it as a logic puzzle. They don't like having to take into account that NPCs can a) lie or b) be misinformed.).

PCs are notorious for two things: their stupidity and their ingenuity. If you expect them to realize the airship is the best plan, they won't. And if they do realize it's viable, they may still surprise you and come up with a better way out. By all means, have the airship prepared and ready to launch. Just make sure you let them try other means of escape if they so desire.

The way I like to run involved plot is to make the world NPC driven. Your game doesn't have plot. Your game has NPCs. Each NPC has plot. This makes it much easier to react when the players, inadvertantly or otherwise, derail your plot. NPCs should be active in the world at all times, not just when the players are present. Even if the players skip a meeting with an NPC, that NPC should make progress on his plots in the background of the world. This will make for a richer and fuller game world than one that is only on when the PCs are looking at it.

holywhippet
2009-08-10, 04:41 PM
Best way to gently railroad them towards the airship pirate is to have an NPC who is also escaping state that they are heading towards said pirate. Don't force the players, just drop them a hint and see what they do.

JonestheSpy
2009-08-10, 05:40 PM
For example, the old Knight's of the Dinner table favorite of pulling out a crossbow and taking a shot at the king who's party they are at is a no-no. Blatently trying to disrupt the game by doing stupid, sociapathic things shouldn't be allowed. If they try this kind of thing, kick them out without hesitation - unless they have a really good reason for doing so like being an assassin sent to kill the king, but it has to be known in advance and not be Something Postive like.


This brings up another useful bit of advice (imho): If they players deviate radically, there's nothing wrong with them having to face consequences, as long as they are reasonable ones - no bluebolts from the sky or equivalents. Just believable threats likely to make them want to meet up with that airship pirate.

AslanCross
2009-08-10, 06:08 PM
I don't think having only one viable option at the point is actually railroading. As long as you're not defeating possible options by merely saying "you can't do that period", I don't think it's railroading.

If the PCs come up with an alternative, let them have it, along with whatever consequences it calls for. I think you can avoid railroading in general if you've already decided the fate of every single character beforehand and there's nothing the PCs can do to stop it.

For example, in Red Hand of Doom,
my players found a lich's phylactery very far from its owner. Once they identified it, the more zealous good types wanted to destroy it immediately, but they remembered there was a letter that accompanied it saying that the goblins were holding the phylactery for a reason.

If I was railroading them (ideally they're not supposed to fight the lich), they'd have tried to destroy the phylactery again and again without any success. It would be completely impervious to damage.

On the other hand, the simple presence of a letter there suggests there is more to the phylactery than it seems, and that by keeping it with them they can use it to bribe the lich later on---because the goblins were blackmailing him into producing an undead army for them by holding his phylactery.

Clues are a great big help in letting your players know your intention, but even if they don't follow the clues they shouldn't get into any literary dead ends. Real railroading would be something like...the players talking to any NPC and getting a response like this: "You have done something wrong. The plot cannot commence."