Tolkien famously had a different approach to the end of MacBeth: the forest literally stands up and walks, and the witch-king is killed by a woman pushing him onto a dead man's knife held by a nonhuman, simultaneously satisfying every possible interpretation of the phrase "no man alive"
@@thodan467 I wouldn't even be so presumptuous as to take is for granted that atani are humans. Also, if periannath were atani, wouldn't that mean the prophecy was false? Since the person holding the knife that ultimately caused the witch-king's death was both alive and a periannath? Tolkien was first and foremost a linguist, he was very careful about words.
I recently ran an old Pathfinder adventure adapted for P2e. At the end of the session as the players were leaving one of the players turned to me and said, "Tell me honestly, you didn't expect us to mutiny and take the ship did you?". I turned to him and said, "The adventure is called The Wormwood Mutiny". The player looked so confused, they made all the choices how could the outcome be predetermined? I found that very satisfying as a Game Master.
I just started playing Mothership. This game is SO GOOD at helping GMs design situations and conflicts, not plots. I just set the scene, and then everything else is player choice. And it's so fun to run, because I have no idea what's going to happen either!
Best advice ever. I plan encounters, both social and combat. I do not plan story, and I run with the assumption that around 1/3 of my encounters just won’t happen due to player choice, and that doesn’t mean the world sits in stasis while they’re doing other things. Sometimes, player delay or avoidance should have consequences. If you keep the world moving around the players regardless of their choices, but give them the opportunity to struggle and change the direction and outcome of that movement, the world is alive and the players feel the impact of their choices, successes and failures. Then, just make sure you’re ok with letting things play out as they would rather than as you’d like them to. Sometimes I still have to improvise, but a solid, vital, energetic world and a very flexible plan will do you wonders.
Have a timeline, not a railroad. Keep referring to events that are going on, and Players can choose what to interact with. But if they reject every plot hook, then wonder why they are seen as interlopers the moment they first take interest, it's not against the rules to point out that having not interacted with any of these people in the past means they have no reason to trust you in this crisis, and that some of these people have been actively spurrned by these players in the form of every plot-hook the players rejected.
@@MogofWarthis is just perfect! I was hitting a creative dead end when trying to design a story that targeted the players, simply because I didn’t know what they would do next. So I decided to have the story ongoing, and give them the opportunity to inject themselves into the story. If they choose not to, they need to see the in game consequences of their inaction. One of the things I took as criticism the other day was a player saying “I could say no to the NPC’s subquest, but then I feel we’d be throwing away all the prep work you, as the DM, have done”. I honestly would not have minded if he did that, but the Delacroix he felt there was a conflict between what he wanted to do and what he feels his character would do, meant I do need to rethink how I present the options they have in the game.
"Out, Out, damned spot" is a line from MacBeth. It is a line by Lady MacBeth. She sees a spot of blood on her hands, and she keeps rubbing them to wash it out.
I feel like almost every game has what i call at least "light rails". No matter what a DM still has to present a scenario or challenge to the players, for it to be an interesting and fun experience. A truly "open-ended" game where you plop your platers in the middle of a town or wilderness with no directions would be bewildering and disorienting for the vast majority of players. You can call it node based if you want but its still rails, just light rails. Which is fine.
Its the difference between a railroad and a road map mixing my metaphors). The railroad is locked on the rails while the road map can occasionally go off road while still going roughly in the intended direction.
I think one exception to not railroading is one piece of advise from The Lazy Dungeon Master by Sly Flourish about strong starts where he suggests skipping the part where the party meets the quest giver and accepts the quest. The idea is to narrate that part and get to the action faster. I like this advice especially for short campaigns or one shots because if you only have one thing prepared they kind of need to take that option so that isn't really a choice. A bit of a railroad to start but it gets them to an actual real choice quicker.
Usually I will give them options to choose from at the end of the previous session... that way I only have to prepare one module for the next one and we can just start right in on it. Of course they still have the option to leave the encounter mid session... in which case we'll just improv... but usually they don't.
My thoughts exactly! Are they making him a love slave? because if so, that is problematic AF. I would suggest the creature join our party and learn some social mores and charm that might let him attract a mate no matter what he might look like ;)
@@howirunit2033 It wouldn't be problematic if the doctor made her weak willed with low self esteem. Theme song: ruclips.net/video/ZhIsAZO5gl0/видео.html&ab_channel=KissVEVO
When conceptualizing a campaign, i figure out the story beats. However the characters get there is up to them. If they ignore the beats and do their own thing, the world around them changes to reflect that choice.
I usually conceptualise a big bad with a plan for world domination, then go down the chain of command to the lowliest footsoldiers. Then I report to the 1st level players some of the outcomes of the footsoldier actions and it is up to them to decide which actions they will put a stop to and whether or not they will follow the chain to the top. If they get distracted by side quests then the big bad's plans gain momentum and their paths will no doubt cross again. So deciding the steps of the big bad's plan is "designing the campaign." Also, if the big bad has minions that (for example) can only be hit with magic weapons, a few chances to acquire magic weapons before they meet those minions is a good idea.
Sometimes it seems like railroading is when you fail to create the illusion that players had a choice. If one of six NPCs has the same intel and the players ask one and follow the lead, did they really choose?
It's like the difference between being directive vs supportive as a manager. In one role you basically tell them what to do each step of the way. In the other, you give them an objective, answer questions, recommend, discuss, support - but they figure out how to achieve the objective. They OWN the outcome and the path there.
Or when the party decides to attack the 14th+ level city leaders when level 3. Heck some of the guards were 5th and 6th level and could whoop the party and did.
Recently ran a first session where I set up a possible encounter, but did not force it to conflict when the players were clever and didn't just draw swords. It is always so rewarding and fun to see them come up with things I would never be able to think of and have fun doing it. It is one of the many reasons we enjoy this hobby so much and don't just go write books.
top notch advice, and worth hearing again even for experienced people like myself! That "the DM is *not* the storyteller" is getting post-it-noted to the first page of every campaign journal from now on
This reminds me of how the Angry GM describes agency in his book, Game Angry. Essentially, agency is the degree to which players can make choices, and there are three general tiers of agency. Tier 1 is being able to choose how you react to a situation. Do you side with the dragon after it tells you why it kidnapped the princess, or do you choose to slay it anyway? If you choose to oppose the dragon, do you do so through open conflict or do you try to trick the dragon? Or do you ignore the dragon entirely and just try to rescue the princess and get away without fighting it? Tier 2 is the ability to choose the situation. Maybe instead of going straight to the dragon's lair, you choose to pursue that rumor of the Sword of Dragon's Bane first, and see if you can find that. Or maybe you try to convince the king to spare you a troop of soldiers, and lay siege to the dragon's lair. Or maybe you seek out the aid of the mysterious mage in the woods, who may or may not be one of the fair folk. Tier 3 is the ability to choose your goal. Maybe you dont want to save the princess - maybe you want to take over the kingdom instead. Or maybe you want to delve into the dungeon of Fear and Hunger, and unravel its mysteries. Or maybe what appeals to you is getting filthy rich through piracy. The world is your oyster, and you can do whatever you want. Edit: No matter what, though, the most important thing is that the players are making choices with regards to what their characters are doing. Otherwise, you don't have a game, you have a cruddy play where nobody knows the script but somehow everyone is expected to get it perfectly on the first try anyway.
@@MrShadowbite I don't think there is a tier 4, but there probably should be a tier 0, where the players are basically strongarmed into resolving a given situation in a specific way (like "this is a combat encounter, roll for initiative")
@@taragnor tier 4 is probably just tier 3 turned to 11. I know what you mean by the tier 0, instant fight. I remember one module where you are forced into a fight with the headless horsemen and you by default get decapitated and wake up in a lich's lab. You are then basically forced to go along with its plan to send you back in time
So much depends on the DM and the player’s expectations. Railroading, open-style play, they’re both tools. I’ve had wonderful and horrible experiences with both. Open-style play works best when the players are involved in the story and can drive the plot with their own motivations, but falls apart if they don’t. Railroading can be absolutely frustrating for players who want absolute agency for their characters, yet other players want to be taken for a ride.
That's true, I've been in games like that where everyone derps around waiting for something to happen and nothing does until the DM introduces a crisis.
My eyes are tired. I read that as "sending them on a bike" - I now want ents on bicycles soooooo badly. It might not be for the Shakespeare purists, but it would be *fun*.
@@drillerdev4624 Originally I wondered about putting them on Harleys but that wasn't nearly as hilarious as thinking of them pedaling on bicycles with their roots, especially realizing that the bikes would probably be like tiny clown bikes to something the size of an ent.
March of the Ents (epic music, then cut to ents on bikes, mute music and replace with squeak, squeak, squeak, squeak as they furiously pedal and hardly move forward).
I took your advice for only planning one session at a time and it has been the best way to run my homebrewed campaign. I have npcs and villains with their own agendas, but it's up to my players to find them and to interact with them. We have been playing for over a year, and I see this going on for many more years. I do a slow level up, I even took a level away once and so far my players have had a blast.
I run two open matrix campaigns. One on Mondays and the other on Fridays. They are both the same base campaign. Just like you pointed out, the players drive the game. The Friday group went to a town that the Monday group never went to. The Friday group killed a character that the Monday group kept around forever. It is exciting running an open matrix campaign. I never know what will happen next. The players seem to love it. When I started DMing, I ran Adventure League games. They were very railroad-like. It is a nice starting point. But I am glad I went in the sandbox direction.
It really depends on the group. I have groups that WAYYYYYY prefer to be lead by the nose when it comes to narrative and actually request that their games be run like that. Having a set path isn't inherently bad, it is more about making sure you are aware of what players like and finding ways to cater to their desires. Session zero also helps with this. Making sure players both know they want to play in this campaign as well as making characters that are going to mesh well with the adventure (and this is true for non linear adventures like true sandboxes too, as not every character and player is suited for that experience)
This is true of life in general. So many times I've returned to the same bar or holiday destination, with the same people after having an amazing time, only for it to fall flat, despite 90% of the ingredients being the same. Roll with it
Railroading I think often comes from the DM's wanting to be "prepared" OR "in control". it's the need to feel in control. It's hard to let go and trust the players. You see in management styles ALL THE TIME in the real world.
Some level of railroading is necessary to keep the players "on mission" unless the DM has unlimited time to run a sandbox. I can't imagine running a game where 5 PC are each doing their own thing. It would be a nightmare
A great approach! I have a few of my own that maybe lean into this style a little bit… Style 1- set up the beginning and the end and however they choose to get there is up to them Style 2- set up the beginning and let them run wild and free, improvising until a theme shows itself Style 3- asks players what sort of game they want to play (MotW, Save the World, Build the World, Rebel Uprising, etc) and give generic opener and let them pursue their own paths to develop the game they wanted
To be honest I used to run pretty streamlined adventures, in a high magic almost alien world, based in modules and following that logic; the players loved it, but I got pretty bored and knew that the players had so much more to give. So I changed systems, to a lower magic one (lfg) and set the game in Westeros; but the biggest change I made was giving them full control of a small settlement that they have to make prosper to eventualy earn titles and power. They inmediately gave each other titles and things to do (Like, the master of coin, the rural manager, the "lord", etc.) and there are some sessions where I don't even do much, but they spend hours discussing stuff like where to put a road or who to marry, or what will their towns name be, and they have such legit fun that I feel blessed to just be there
This channel only gets better. Now I want to go back to my English class syllabi and adapt all those stories to DnD. The cask of amontillado, Jane Eyre, the lottery (I guess they already did this in RotFM)…
Great inspiration for me as a newby DM. I'm running my first ever Campaign and on every path my players take, I think of how to guide them without telling them "you have to do this". I prepared a dungeon room full of giant rats (homebrew) and gave them two rats that played bad music. Instead of my planned combat where they chase the players through the dungeon, my players improvised instruments with rope and their weapons and started playing music. They did so bad on their rolls that the rats liked their music and started dancing.
Interesting... I been working this idea of a Scooby-Doo themed one-ish shot. Fred(str ie Barb), Daphne(chr ie Bard/cleric), Velma(Int ie wild magic), Shaggy(int/con ie Alchemist) and Scooby(dex/str mnk/rog). The theme continues with the Scooby character having a speech impediment that makes communication almost imposable unless Shaggy assist him. Shaggy/Scooby have a special bond when they are near each other and when their off together.(they have the bad luck/habit of being separated from the group from time to time.) The one shot starts with any of your favorite Scooby-Doo episode theme. (ie."Hassle in the Castle" • "Go Away Ghost Ship" • "A Night of Fright is No Delight") and just the players lose knowing there is a limited time to this one-ish session.
Yes! Players surprising you with their choices is the best part of being a Dungeon Master! I often don't even know how a campaign, or even the adventures inside it, are going to end, just the BBEG, their goals and a few NPCs who are working towards(or against) them. It's based on the characters actions and decisions as they navigate that world that I end up tying all of their threads into an ending that satisfies. It can get a little messy at times but half the fun is figuring out how it all fits together! Great video, as always.
Great advice! In my "matrix" I keep adventure possibilities to one or two lines, with many possible paths in different directions. Only when I know where the players are actually going and who they incline to work with do I flesh things out. In our game last week, instead of going to the islands, which I thought was the very obvious next step, they decided to travel to the capital city!
Great video as always, Professor! Because I build immersive 3d terrain adventure tables for every adventure, people always think I must Rail Road the players. I don’t but neither do I Sandbox. I have my own method that I call the Carnival Cruise method. In real life, if you want to go on a Carnival Cruise, you can choose any of countless destinations - Hawaii, Alaska, Caribbean, etc. All choices are open to you, but once you make that choice and buy a ticket on a specific cruise, that’s where the boat is going to go for that trip. Probably you will have a fun time because it’s where you wanted to go. Once the trip ends, you get to decide if you want to go on another cruise to another location. I do the same thing with my players in my campaign. At the end of every session I ask my players where they want to go next. Essentially, what cruise ticket do you want to buy? Whatever they decide, that’s the adventure I build for the next session. Each table is designed to last for a 5 to 6 hour single session. At the end of the session, they are free to decide wherever they want to go on the next session - no matter if it's to follow a specific plot from the campaign or to just randomly go off fighting pirates or anything else they can think of. By running it this way, they choose what direction the campaign goes in every session and I can provide them a highly detailed adventure without rail roading them or wasting one second of my time building stuff they will never see. It's been working great for years!
PBTA taught me as a GM to be a player too. I make the world react to the players just as the players are reacting to the world. Play to find out what happens!
I think the railroad is built into a lot of games and "modules" and published adventures. Across all genres and all systems. It's sort of like sugar as an ingredient in food: it's ubiquitous and you really have to go out of your way ti excise it from your "diet." On the other hand, once you've seen it you can't unsee it and you'll get better and better at removing it from the mix. Once upon a time there was a term that was often used instead of _dungeonmaster_ or _gamemaster:_ *_Referee._* I like that. I like its neutrality, its disinterested quality. "This is the setup. _You players_ decide what to do. _You players_ play the parts of the protagonists in this story. And when _you_ make decisions and roll dice, then it's _my_ turn to interpret, explain and demonstrate what the results are and how the world and its non-player characters react. Good luck, everyone!" Of course, this non-partisan, unbiased approach is what made the old-school games deadly to player characters. But hey! You've gotta take the good with the bad. It wasn't a dangerous quest if there was never any chance of any of the players' characters dying or at least suffering serious injuries or losses.
The first ever session I ran as a GM was the adventure in the back of the system book. The party, as most are wont to do, deviated from what was printed. Part of why I decided to GM was because I was annoyed at the lack of options my DM seemed to allow, so I ran with the idea the party had. Took me ages before I ran another prewritten adventure, as I learned to just present encounters and plot hooks and run with how the party and dice decide. Now, that second prewritten adventure went off the rails even faster - in the first few minutes instead of about three-quarters of the way through - but I was able to lean on my experience to run with it. I've run a few prewritten adventures now in the past few years, and always adjust things on the fly. Come to think of it, I've actually only once run the same adventure for a different group... I should probably do that more often, to see the fun new ways groups have of going about them.
I humbly stand corrected from a prior post I made. I have to agree that the 'players and the dice are the story tellers' and the DM is the 'conflict creator'. The ultimate making and melding of the 'dream and imagination' of role playing. I bow to the wise Professor. Thank you.
One of my favorite tactics is to write a linear campaign and then watch the players twist it into knots. It adds some entertainment on my part. Some players can see how the story is supposed to go, and then from that knowledge can add some truly fun twists and turns. It does take a bit of getting to know the players, cause some players, when they learn you have a script, are convinced you are going to railroad, or feel obligated to play along. You got to learn who will rebel, who will play along with your script to be nice, and who will take you seriously when you say, "i have a plan, but no plan survives contact with the players, do what you will." i have tried multiple ways and it seems that the method that does the best is up to what the players want, and not everyone at a table wants the same thing. I have lost my touch accommodating all the different styles, so sadly i am not as good as a GM as i used to be.
Ah, railroading. That's how my first campaign petered out. I needed to get the party to a particular cave to witness a historical event, but instead, they wanted to wage war against the drow. Classic.
As someone pointed out, Angry GM has a useful framework. My players have one and quite a bit around two for sure, but there are definitely rails around three. In part because it has to be a game I'm interested in DMing, but also just for the practical reality that I have limited time to prep for each session and certain directions may not be realistic. If they wanted to find an ancient tech in a cave and go to space I would roll w that, because I have the interest, resources and tools to do so. But if they wanted to use magic to become happy woodland creatures, I'd gave them the hard no because that's not interesting to me at all.
I don’t write much for an adventure. I have a plot, a map or two, a few enemies that make sense to the plot, NPCs and locations as needed and I have a handful of clues they can get in a variety of ways. But they can run into any of the materials in the adventure any way they choose. I like this because I want to be surprised as much as them. I don’t ad lib all that well actually but my players really have fun cause they can do whatever. My main issue is with players trying to figure out “what I want them to do” when really I actually want them to do what they want.
I take a middle road approach between the railroader and the "never plan more than one session in advance" approach. Instead, I plan my whole campaign arc as though there are no player characters. I write from the perspective of the opposition and the neutral factions, including character motivations and planned events and who is planning those events and why they planned them. Then when my players make choices, I know what repercussions those choices have on the larger plot, and how it interferes with the opposition and/or neutral factions, and can respond with accurate NPC responses and new events on the fly. Then between sessions I alter the existing narrative to account for those choices, and flow those changes forward to the rest of the story.
In regards to a game where death isn't on the table I'd like to quote Alladin II The Return of Jafar, "You'd be suprised what you can live through." Not dying doesn't have to mean that you're going to win.
The first time I read your Frankenstein module I thought for sure I'd get to run the wedding, but both groups I've run it for managed to trap and beat Frankenstein in the lab. You never know until you play!
I agree with all of this. I gave up a long time ago on deciding how a game would end. I just write up the plot, make notes of how the bad guys will act when the PCs begin actively foiling their plans, and make notes of important scenes, locations, and NPCs. I have an idea where everything all leads, but never a set notion of how it will "end". I've taken this design philosophy through my cyberpunk game and it has created some really cool, climatic, and even heart breaking conclusions to some of the plots in the campaign. I've also done the same in running games for several different groups and I'm always surprised how they turn out. One game, "The Thing from Laboratory X", was written for my homebrewed horror game. I've run the game now 6 times and each time it is different. Some groups make it, some lose lots of members, and there has even been two cases of TPK. But I never railroad any groups. I present the game, let them work it out, let the dice fall as they will, and see where it all goes. As a GM it's as entertaining to me, as it is to the players, to see how they will succeed or fail.
A little railroading is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm currently running Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and needed to get the PCs to a tropical location (where the module is), so I put them on a ship and sank it in a hurricane. Once in the dungeon itself, the players are free to do what they want. And they're having a blast.
This is why I like the randomness and unpredictability of free-form prompts in TTRPGs such as Ironsworn/Starforged. Everyone gets to be a story AND conflict designer. It's also easier to hand-wave things, because prep is play and also it's easier to zoom in and out of situations.
A REALLY good game master prepares 3 ways for the players to TOTALLY BELIEVE they've derailed the campaign. (-; -Let them use a ice wand they just got as "random loot" to freeze a cave lake while your BBEG's pet is in it, or an army is crossing a river!! Give them tips on how to date the BBEG! -Give 'em a wand of distant cantrips so they can light enemy bomb stashes from a distance, or the king's meal taste super poisoned when it isn't! Random tricks once a day. (-; -Give them blackmail material against the BBEG's daughter from which unimportant NPC they obsess with!!! Let them loot a sleeping Santa!!!
Our crew likes to rotate through different game systems. Our next game is "Tales from the Loop". In this game, the characters are all 10-15 years old, and a mechanic of the game is they cannot die. The can become "injured" and even "broken", but can not be killed. It's not because players and GMs agree to that in a Session Zero: it's a core rule. And for the game setting, styled after "The Goonies" and "E.T.", it makes total sense. I'm looking forward to seeing how my players react to this (very different, to us) style of game play.
Ran the same adventure for Taverller twice. The first group played it with careful audacity, infiltrated the firebase, and blasted their way out in a blood filled, Where Eagles Dare ending. The second group were blindly bold. Their run ended halfway through the first minefield. It helps to have good players, although you can find amusement in the character deaths of poor ones. Either way they need to make the choices.
The way that I tend to conceptualize it is that as the DM I create the plot, and then the players and I create the story together through their interaction with the plot.
Whatever works. I try to create situations and the plot emerges through play. But I think we're doing the same thing, just using different words. Thanks for sharing!
The game master is a storyteller, he just isn't the only one at the table. Its a co-creative process. The game master tells the story of what is happening in the world around the PCs, and the NPCs, but he adapts the tale to what the players do, its a give and take. If its all left to the players, it can stall out, or become dominated exclusively by the players with the strongest drive and personality, and if its all the DM then the game becomes increasingly less interactive as the players are reduced exclusively to an audience. Its like a good conversation, sometimes you are taking the lead and talking, other times you listen.
Got a poll for yall. Would you/your DM approve this magic item concept? Masterful Halfplate +2, provides a +2 bonus to AC and Proficiency Bonus. Armor once owned by a renowned swordmaster sorta fluff story. No additional powers as the Prof Bonus gives so many characters extra uses of certain abilities or higher DCs to resist their powers and lots of generally improved ability checks. It would really constitute just making a character a bit better at most things they already do, and isn't so focused on one thing it overpowers certain characters. Its a suit that would make almost anyone consider getting a feat just to accommodate wearing it, or avoid the stealth disadvantage for wearing it, thus "consuming" a very valuable resource from many potential wearers.
I believe that the first time I read about matrix design was in the AD&D 2e blue leatherette "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide". Great video, as usual!
I think my biggest problem with railroading is not having the creative juices for improvising answers. I'm running Icewind Dale 5e and I feel obligated to hit story beats because of implications down the line with characters and lore, etc. The book inevitably provides too little detail for the creativity of the players and I can't keep up, but also am sometimes just frozen by indecisiveness for potentially ruining the future story arcs.
Yep, the downside to following published adventures is the players have to stick to the publisher's plan. The upside is It saves work for DM's who are pressed for time.
A 'no player death' game isn't necessarily a 'players always win' game. There can be many kinds of failure. And creative, narrative consequences are often more interesting. Also, removing death can actually make 5E MORE consequential. If the outcome of failing an encounter is the destruction of your PC's favorite village, there's no way to cheapen that loss with a quick Revivify. Death, on the other hand, feels like a minor inconvenience at worst.
The game is what happens at the table. I’ve run a game a few times that I designed which is a sci fi horror scenario. I know what happened that led to the incident and what can happen based on the PC’s actions. The ironic part is that the characters always triggered their own demise. It happens a little differently each time, but they chose the path that led to inadvertently summoning cosmic horror
This, combined further with the advice from the Gamemastery section of Dungeon World; specifically the Grim Portents. A help even in OSR I feel like. Players are going to do things you couldn't even have imagined before. They keep you on your toes. Dungeon World tells you: don't prepare what the players are going to do. Instead, prepare the monster faction's plan, step by step. Like, three to five steps or so. KOBOLDS GOAL: Lay siege to the human village and steal its treasures. Step 1. Cut down wood in the FOREST to create crude weapons. Step 2. Look for spell components on the BARREN HILL to support the Kobold Pyromancers in casting their fire spell. Step 3. Wait until nightfall in ambush near the HUMAN VILLAGE. Humans are asleep and won't notice. Step 4. One group of kobolds creates chaos with fire spells and murder; while the other one sneaks around to the mayor's treasury room and steals their treasure. That's your prep. Now, the PCs have a goal: deal with the kobolds in their hideout. If the players fail to deal with them (E.g. they lost track of the kobolds in the forest) and you don't know how to react; or when some idle time passes when the PCs don't do anything related to the kobolds; increase the Kobold's plan to the next step. They are now at the Barren Hill. Maybe an NPC hunter has seen them there and brings the news to the village, in earsight of the PCs. Or maybe something else happens. But at least, the game continues. That is the power of Grim Portent. Expert level advice: have multiple factions active at once. The kobolds do their thing, but the orcs are also up to no good. Will the players deal with the orcs and ignore the kobolds? Or will they deal with the orcs and persuade them to attack the kobolds? Which plan will advance as the players deal with the other faction?
My worst example of railroading my players was during a Call of Cthulhu game. The players wanted to scope out a cult hangout from a nearby hilltop to get an idea of what they might be up against. They planned to use binoculars to do the spying. I had created a nasty ambush and didn't want to tip them off, so I said "Binoculars don't work at night." My players never let me live that one down. As far as being railroaded I played in a game run by a New York Times Best Selling Author. He wanted our party to head west of town to check out some clever creature he created. Our characters did some research on the legends of the creature and decided that heading west was a sure ticket to the great beyond, so we all said nah, we will stay around town. He had the town elders arrest us and had them break our characters fingers until we agreed to head west. The game ended with that session. Sometimes being a great author doesn't make one a good gm.
Eels very strange to me. On the one hand - the social contract says the players should go where the adventure is. (That's not a railroad, thats the DM planning an adventure and the players agreeing to play it). But on the other hand if you agreed to play the adventure and just went about it differently then its up to the GM to find another way the players *will* interact with it
@@sweetderpg Good observation. My approach is to running a game is to create a sandbox for the players. I have several different plots and interesting locations prepared and ready to go and leave it up to the players to lead me to the adventure. In the past I ran many canned modules and it just wasn't a good fit for me and my player group. Not trying to dis any particular modules, in fact sometimes I will borrow ideas from them and incorporate a location or npc into my sandbox. YMMV
I don't know how common it is, but I can say from experience that some players want to be railroaded. I play with one group who only care about combat, loot, and leveling up. Everything else is just flavor text, and they get annoyed with me if I slow them down with too much lore, or expect them to pay attention to plot, or ask them to make significant choices. Their catchphrase is "We go there", where "there" is wherever the next fight is going to take place. Admittedly, it makes my job as DM pretty easy -- I just set up the piñatas for them to whack at, and whatever story is there is mostly for my own amusement.
I've had a similar experience with my current Curse of Strahd Campaign. Now my players get a little more into roleplay than yours might. But they generally go looking for their next fight, loot or level up. (Except when going after said things is sure to result in certain death).
I made that mistake with a CoC campaign years ago. It was based on tatters of the king and had ran so well with my old group, I thought I would try it with a new group. I wasn't expecting the same experience but this group barely made it past session two. The concepts and ideas of dealing with the King in Yellow just went over their heads. They were confused at times by it and were struggling. In the end I called a halt to it. So you can run into this problem with pre written content. I guess the thing to treat it like a reboot and hope it works as well.
Weirdly enough, I had a few players drop recently because I wasn't *railroading* enough. Players were in Salzenmund in a Sea of Claws WFRP4E campaign. The group have a basic objective and they can choose anyway to complete it. (They agreed to find some allies for a norscan tribe). Any path was acceptable. They wanna go noble? Go underworld? Leave salzenmund and appeal to the elves or whatever else they could find? Whatever their heart desired. One of my players come to me after the game and throws up his hands. "I am not creative, so I can't really play these sorts of games!" I thought I provided enough vague direction and my other players enjoyed the session, so maybe it was a one-off situation.
Unless every aspect of your game is determined through charts and rolls to make it a "rogue-like" (*rogue* has a different meaning in video game design), your game has some form of rails. Looking at video games for a parallel, the Drake's Fortune series is a hard set railroad storyline. The Elder Scroll / Fallout Series, although considered sandbox, is a railroad network, in that every replay you will always encounter the same characters/creatures/events any time you visit set locations. Personal creativity certainly allows opportunity to shift the direcion of encounters, but the majority of thing are still based upon pre-existing frameworks. Either in pre-written module format, or even with ideas that your DM has been stewing up and sees an opportunity to insert, it all still has a framework or 'light-rail' aspect to it. Just enjoy the adventure and stories as they unfold. Great DM's have simply learned how to craft a curtain to hide the rails from their players. [Edited for spelling]
I prefer "guided sandbox" rather than "light-rail". I have "light rails" (aka adventure hooks) pointing the PCs toward a variety of adventure possibilities, but they are free to bypass the rails and take an uber to someplace that the rails don't go :-)
@mikeb.1705 even then, do you have generic encounters & scenarios to pull out of pocket? When they do "de-rail" do you have other things in mind to 'hook' them into things in your world for them to interact with. I do like your term "guided sandbox". But again, what do rails do but guide the cart along it's path? The lack of "rails" or "guidance" is an illusion that the DM must work to maintain. Just my opinion ✌️
@@watchtowerdragon7098 I don't disagree with you ~ the rails are always there, but the goal is to keep the players from seeing / feeling them AND be ready if the players get distracted by something shiny and "jump tracks" 🙂 Generally speaking, my game world lives inside my head, so improv'ing isn't too much of a hassle cuz I usually have an idea of what and who lies in any given direction that the party might reasonably go in (and sometimes unreasonable directions too!). I try to "bake in" generic encounters and scenarios that are obviously there to attrack / distract the players / PCs from the main plotline. I figure if I show them a side plot they are more likely to chase the obvious rather than going haring off on their own in a random direction. For example, last session the party was doing overland travel from A to B. I inserted the obligatory "random" encounter (which they declined to engage with), plus the path of travel also included a cross-trail with obvious monster tracks (which they also declined to engage with). If they wanted to, they could have side-tracked (literally) and found the monster's lair. They chose to stay on task and arrived at point B. But I was prepared with an obvious distraction just in case. What about you? Do you keep a bunch of encounters / scenarios in your back pocket that you can insert anywhere? Or do you use a different method for dealing with "off the rails" PCs?
My first homebrew was a railroad, but with a first-time DM and new players, it still ended OK. Some of the best advice I have gotten is to plan what the enemy would do if the PCs did not exist. Each session is either the enemy reacting to the PC choices or going about their nefarious plan. This video was good encouragement for how the players can make their own plan and still fit into the broad scheme of the DM's prep.
When I sit down and plan out the story of a campaign, it's less "this is what *will* happen in this game," and much more "this is what will happen in this game _if the players do nothing_ ." It helps me organize what my villains goals and means are, so when the players come along and start taking axes (or hammers, or spells, etc.) to the villains' plans, I have a strong enough sense of said villains to adapt. If I don't set out a blueprint ahead of time, *I* don't feel like I know enough to run a campaign. But, it is understood (by me, I guess, since I'm the only one who knows the whole thing) that the plan is _meant_ to be broken. (If it isn't, many, _many_ things must have gone tragically wrong.)
Yes, this is my experience also. I've got my own 'rules' for running adventures. 1. Don't use premade modules or campaigns. Even when players are intentionally trying to stay with the plot, they don't work. 2. Pick a setting and starting location. Let the players make characters suitable for it. 3. Never plan more than an adventure or two ahead. This assumes that players will figure something out, go some place, etc. Don't over invest in case they go elsewhere. 4. Stop making everything "epic" -- it usually doesn't work and often the things they remember as epic or cool are just random things which happen, a normal combat which goes bad and the players happen to pull through by some smart play, etc. 5. Don't adjust encounters to try to force them to be "epic". If the players win (or lose) when not expected, let them. If a silence spell nerfs your bad-ass shaman and the combat is easy, fine... the players won't remember it and some other combat or encounter will be remembered. 6. Ask the players at the end of the session what their characters are going to do (i.e. where are you doing, who are you going to talk to, etc.) and only write up the encounters for the next session based on this. 7. Vary encounters, including difficulty, NPCs, locations, challenges, etc. 8. Don't have plot to start with. Have a setting, idea, and throw enough sh!t at them and see what sticks. Sure, maybe the starting location has them near two countries nearly at war, with political happenings, etc. However, if the players ask in the fighter's guild for work... let them go hunt ogres if they want to do that. Maybe they find something with the ogres or maybe you work in that the ogres have detailed information about guard schedules or something. However, if the players just want to keep doing monster raids... ok, your campaign is now about some semi-famous ogre hunters. 9. Use personal ties to character to introduce plot vs. top-down NPCs, events, etc. If a PCs brother comes and him for help dealing with a local lord over his taxes, it's a better motivator than a notice that the local lord is looking for adventurers. Likewise, maybe the lord is looking for some evil wizard, but it might be better to give one of the PCs a personal reason to care about the wizard... say he's the PCs cousin, or he stole something from the PCs family. Railroading is also a feeling. If the players don't know they are being railroaded, it doesn't matter -- although it is insanely hard to do. 10. Allow your players to help 'railroad' themselves by giving them choices. You could ask the players to give themselves a reason to be on a ship, or ask them to create relatives or friends in a specific city and use these during play. 11. Avoid world sweeping events. Keep it grounded and from the PCs perspective. Yes, maybe there is a war going on, but if the PCs aren't directly getting involved, keep it secondary. Don't suddenly force attacks on them or cities falling to force them to participate in the war if they want to be profiteers or something. Same with massive curses, hordes of dragons, a god being reincarnated, etc. It is hard for players to feel it is "their story" if events would happen without them. 12. Don't be afraid to segment a campaign or even end it. If the players defeat something, it doesn't always need another level of leader to go after. Let that plot arc die. Maybe advance the campaign a few years and have the PCs meet up again. Think a Conan series rather than a Wheel of Time or Lord of the Rings. 5-10 session episodes with their own ends vs. a massive plot taking 50+ sessions. The best 'campaigns' are often just a replay (in people's minds) of everything the PCs did. Players will make their own highs and lows.
I'm currently running the 1E classic series, Desert of Desolation. Having played since 1979, this is the fourth time I've run this adventure, and it's a long one. My current group plays from 7-11 pm on Wednesdays, so with 4-hour sessions weekly I expect this to run 12-15 months at the pace they're going. They started it in January, and they're nearing the end of the 2nd story arc out of 3 (Oasis of the White Palm). So they're about 50-60% done. My reason for outlining this is that this series of modules has a set path that the players must follow in order to complete it. Railroading? To a degree. But I give my players enough autonomy that they can quit at any time. They don't have to finish it all the way to the end. They can give up on the quest and escape the desert, heading back to civilization. But in so doing, they can have repercussions... >>>>Spoilers
Author Michael E. Shea recommendation for the DM to only plan. The very first encounter of the session. Which happens at the very starr of the session. That is a great method to set the tone, and get the ball rolling.
This is the absolute best advice for any DM, old or new. You’re not a screenwriter, director, or author. Your job is to create the challenges & make decisions on the fly to flesh things out. All important conflicts are resolved by the dice & the players. No fudging.
Whether to put your fingers on the scales as a GM is a good question. You may disagree, but sometimes I find that I simply did not plan an encounter well enough to entertain my players. Either because it is too easy or may result in a TPK. In this case I Improvise to tailor things to create drama and difficulty or allow for a expeditious retreat. That said I don't screw with the dice rolls.
"Character death is not on the table" is not equivalent to "characters always succeed". That is a simple misunderstanding to make. All it means that out of all the possible results of failure, dying is not among them. Your own game is a perfect example of this: in the Frankenstein scenario, if you let the players choose and don't railroad them to a particular ending, the characters can fail both to kill the monster and convince the doctor to make a bride, yet those endings can be reached without needing anyone to die. Sure, it could happen, and the threat of it happening can be in the air, but it doesn't *need* to happen for the scenario to be playable or fun.
No one is a story *teller* at a TTRPG table. Everyone is a story *discoverer.* A series of events--such as the events in an RPG campaign--aren't a story; they are a chronology. They don't become a *story* until they get recounted after the fact--and that's wonderful! RPG adventures become *stories* when the people who experienced them reminisce about them together, or tell them to people who weren't there. Will they recount the events factually? Almost certainly not--they will tell them as a story, highlighting the humor, the suspense, the defeats and the victories, and downplaying all the boring bits in between. My point is, it's not a story as it happens; it only becomes a story if what happens is worth remembering and retelling.
I have an overlying plot that moves along with or without the players, and then dangle a bunch of strings in front of them to see which ones they tug on. My job is to tie the strings together as fast as they pull them.
I think game masters are story tellers to a point. We just don't know how the story is going to end, or the order in which the chapters are laid out. That's for the players to decide.
I discovered a long time ago that no adventure prep survives contact with the players at the table. I used to spend countless hours trying to plan out every possible outcome I could foresee. I'd usually plan for 5 or 6 different results. Over time I realized that if I planned 4 outcomes the players would come up with option 5. If I planned 5 outcomes the players would come up with number 6. I eventually burned myself out even if it strengthened my improvisation skills. Then one day an epiphany: The specific outcomes and planning for each expected result was a horrible waste of my time and energy as a DM. What was more important was to plan out an NPC chart listing relationships, rivalries, personalities and most important of all motivations. I would come up with a theme and location for the campaign. The only session that would be planned out thoroughly was the opener. There would be a projected ending for the series but it wouldn't be in stone. The game flow would then determine what was happening in the campaign. How did the characters react to the opener? What did they do? What didn't they do? What do they want to do next? Then follows a series of actions/reactions between the PCs and the NPCs (both friendly and not) which would shape the conflicts and drive the narratives. I only planned the next session based on what the players wanted to do or based on what the NPCs were going to do in response to something that happened before. Player choices and motives vs NPC motives and course of action making the best RPG experience we could make collaboratively. It's not all on the players. It's not all on the DM. It's teamwork or synergy that makes it be the best gaming experiences you can have.
I make a premise, including location, some patron-level NPCs, existing factions and seasonal event tables. The players bring the main characters. Then it’s really up to them
Omg I love this bit of advice. I hope EVERYONE playing TTRPGs sees this. Nothing I hate more than a railroading dm and if I get the sense that I’m being rail roared I just can’t help but start testing the rails to see if I actually have agency or if the GM is going to just start putting road blocks in my way any time I start to deviate. If I want guard rails, I’ll go play a CRPG on my computer or play an FPS or something.
The way you describe Frankenstein is a good example of an open ended game. MacDeath, on the hand, that’s pretty much a railroad, the only choice the players get, from your description, is what to do with the sticks, but it ends the same. Probably more to it but as described it is, just as Traci’s closed matrix is (so much so they devoted a page to try to convince the reader that it isn’t in 2e 😅)
Back in the early 90s my campaign went that same way. One of the things I learned was keep a rough idea of points on a map but detail a few local hexes. That way I can adjust or full out change spots when needed as the player's choices expanded their area. As for the joke DB; throw it to the dogs, we'll have none of it.
I always looked at game design similar to early Ravenloft, you can let players have all the agency, searching the village, until they get in the castle, then you let them have all the agency in the castle (tightening the noose), searching rooms etc. Eventually they will get to the boss. It does not work 100% of the time, but for 70% ish of games it has worked great. Other games I let players lead the story and just see where things go. In most games I run it is fairly easy to come up with things "on the fly". There is nothing like a Shopkeeper turning on them and turning into something big and bad.
Great video. Love reading through the Alexandrian. I agreed with all of the points. My world building is just that: Build a world (with conflicts, points of interests, normal people, etc.) and then plop the PCs into that world. They (and the dice results) move the story forward. I get a great deal of enjoyment seeing where the players take the game. My early games were all with players that would not follow a linear path ever, so by circumstances, I fell into the habit of designing a more open game world and then seeing where the players and dice took the game. By the time I had players that requested a more linear adventure, I was able to use the Adventure Paths (for Pathfinder 1e) from Paizo. It was rare though.
Its a funny balance of agency, innit? The magic user in my group loves discovering/co-inventing the minutiae of of our homebrew magic system and I try to offer space for him to play there. At the same time, he can be rather passive at the other elements of the game, he's not going to bite on a investigation hook for instance, so that part moves along via NPC's and other players, and he's perfectly happy. DIscovering what drives each player and cultivating a table culture that answers all present, that's the subtle art of a good DM (and where most of my work lies, for sure), not dungeon layout or system mastery.
when we were young and having babies, a friendly couple of mine were due in July. I joked they could call their kid Julius Caesar, my mate retorted they could call the child July Caesarean.
I'm running COS now and really only have to plan one or two sessions in advance. I like the sandbox nature of COS but have been modifying it to increase the drama of the sessions. As a GM I throw problems at my players and allow them to solve them in many different ways. The party could decide to avoid the problem all together, but that choice won't grant as many rewards as resolving the problem. I grant inspiration if the player deals with the problem in a way that befits the character they are playing. As a GM I think you should put pressure on the party to move towards specific goals (carrot and stick). But this is not the same as railroading. One of the ways I do this is to give the monsters and NPC's agency to make deals and try to persuade or coerce the players towards specific encounters or areas of the map. This way I can foreshadow, build drama and hopefully create a stage for heroic action. Once that encounter is resolved, I plane for a few diverging hooks or quest lines, but I still allow the party to explore and possibly get into hot water if they don't take my bait. I believe this falls into the matrix style discussed in the video. I think this is also where experience as a game master really helps. I'm still learning and trying to hone in on what makes the campaign fun...
As a forever GM, I have made a high to low fantasy "noob island." I have 9 issues on the island, 1 to represent a bunch of different things that happens in D&D or what ever ttrpg you like. I have yet to get a single same outcome. I have each player roll dice to decide what season of year the game starts, the immediate type of mainland by the island from Port to Port, the main bad dude type (they don't know the outcome of this roll until later) and lastly a roll for what town faction is currently in power. Then I let them loose on the island. It's beautiful how they always come out differently.
I love to run a free flowing open world campaign that not only keeps me on my toes, but allows the bad guys to make reactions off the parties moves. I unfortunately started an offshoot part of the campaign for eberron in a spelljammer and ended up killing the campaign by making it too complicated and saw that I was railroading them. That led to a 2e campaign that's low commitment and simple a storyline they seem happy with.
Rather than a "storyteller", I prefer to be known as a "Disaster Tour Guide".
Awesome. I'm going to start calling my DM that now. 😆
"Disaster Master"
This!
Nice
Amazing. Great idea, mate.
Tolkien famously had a different approach to the end of MacBeth: the forest literally stands up and walks, and the witch-king is killed by a woman pushing him onto a dead man's knife held by a nonhuman, simultaneously satisfying every possible interpretation of the phrase "no man alive"
No man can kill me, why are you throwing me into a lion cage!
Merry did wound the witchking creating an opening for Eowyn to "slay" him and Hobbits are human
@@thodan467 Periannath are a "free people", but like Quendi and Khazâd, they are explicitly differentiated from Atani.
@@notoriouswhitemoth
AFAIK they count as humans
@@thodan467 I wouldn't even be so presumptuous as to take is for granted that atani are humans. Also, if periannath were atani, wouldn't that mean the prophecy was false? Since the person holding the knife that ultimately caused the witch-king's death was both alive and a periannath?
Tolkien was first and foremost a linguist, he was very careful about words.
I recently ran an old Pathfinder adventure adapted for P2e. At the end of the session as the players were leaving one of the players turned to me and said, "Tell me honestly, you didn't expect us to mutiny and take the ship did you?". I turned to him and said, "The adventure is called The Wormwood Mutiny". The player looked so confused, they made all the choices how could the outcome be predetermined?
I found that very satisfying as a Game Master.
That sounds awesome and a great DM moment!
That moment when you realize humans are pretty much all the same, when you realize that you are just like all the others.
You're unique. Just like everyone else.@@HereComeMrCee-Jay
Ah, skulls and shackles... where did you find the PF2 adaptation? Cause i am interested in that
I love it when a plan comes together.
Live it up, though. The best laid plans of mice and men--and especially gamemasters--gang aft agley.
"The GM is not a storyteller. The GM is a conflict-designer." Best description ever.
this I agree with
I just started playing Mothership. This game is SO GOOD at helping GMs design situations and conflicts, not plots. I just set the scene, and then everything else is player choice. And it's so fun to run, because I have no idea what's going to happen either!
Shock Theatre Master
Best advice ever. I plan encounters, both social and combat. I do not plan story, and I run with the assumption that around 1/3 of my encounters just won’t happen due to player choice, and that doesn’t mean the world sits in stasis while they’re doing other things. Sometimes, player delay or avoidance should have consequences.
If you keep the world moving around the players regardless of their choices, but give them the opportunity to struggle and change the direction and outcome of that movement, the world is alive and the players feel the impact of their choices, successes and failures. Then, just make sure you’re ok with letting things play out as they would rather than as you’d like them to.
Sometimes I still have to improvise, but a solid, vital, energetic world and a very flexible plan will do you wonders.
Good planning!
Have a timeline, not a railroad. Keep referring to events that are going on, and Players can choose what to interact with. But if they reject every plot hook, then wonder why they are seen as interlopers the moment they first take interest, it's not against the rules to point out that having not interacted with any of these people in the past means they have no reason to trust you in this crisis, and that some of these people have been actively spurrned by these players in the form of every plot-hook the players rejected.
@@MogofWarthis is just perfect! I was hitting a creative dead end when trying to design a story that targeted the players, simply because I didn’t know what they would do next.
So I decided to have the story ongoing, and give them the opportunity to inject themselves into the story.
If they choose not to, they need to see the in game consequences of their inaction.
One of the things I took as criticism the other day was a player saying “I could say no to the NPC’s subquest, but then I feel we’d be throwing away all the prep work you, as the DM, have done”.
I honestly would not have minded if he did that, but the Delacroix he felt there was a conflict between what he wanted to do and what he feels his character would do, meant I do need to rethink how I present the options they have in the game.
"Out, Out, damned spot" is a line from MacBeth. It is a line by Lady MacBeth. She sees a spot of blood on her hands, and she keeps rubbing them to wash it out.
Was wondering!
I feel like almost every game has what i call at least "light rails". No matter what a DM still has to present a scenario or challenge to the players, for it to be an interesting and fun experience. A truly "open-ended" game where you plop your platers in the middle of a town or wilderness with no directions would be bewildering and disorienting for the vast majority of players.
You can call it node based if you want but its still rails, just light rails. Which is fine.
Light rails is good too.
My players enjoy that and still ask and search for plot hooks, I can present some too. I'd they don't like it they won't bite
@@elgatochurro For sure. I always try to have at least 2 or 3 plot hooks brewing so they have a few choices available.
Its the difference between a railroad and a road map mixing my metaphors). The railroad is locked on the rails while the road map can occasionally go off road while still going roughly in the intended direction.
@@liamcage7208 tbh in my sandbox the players have even decided to just leave the area for a quest.
Every time I run The Keep on the Borderlands or the Lost City, the outcome is always different, but always satisfying!
True!
I think one exception to not railroading is one piece of advise from The Lazy Dungeon Master by Sly Flourish about strong starts where he suggests skipping the part where the party meets the quest giver and accepts the quest. The idea is to narrate that part and get to the action faster. I like this advice especially for short campaigns or one shots because if you only have one thing prepared they kind of need to take that option so that isn't really a choice. A bit of a railroad to start but it gets them to an actual real choice quicker.
Usually I will give them options to choose from at the end of the previous session... that way I only have to prepare one module for the next one and we can just start right in on it. Of course they still have the option to leave the encounter mid session... in which case we'll just improv... but usually they don't.
Has any Frankenstein group ever asked the creature "what if the bride rejects you?"
I don't believe they did.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Interesting. That would have been the first thing I would have had a character discuss with the creature.
My thoughts exactly! Are they making him a love slave? because if so, that is problematic AF. I would suggest the creature join our party and learn some social mores and charm that might let him attract a mate no matter what he might look like ;)
@@howirunit2033 It wouldn't be problematic if the doctor made her weak willed with low self esteem. Theme song: ruclips.net/video/ZhIsAZO5gl0/видео.html&ab_channel=KissVEVO
Roll a 1. Bride rejects him, campaign gets stuck so let's play another.
It happens
When conceptualizing a campaign, i figure out the story beats. However the characters get there is up to them. If they ignore the beats and do their own thing, the world around them changes to reflect that choice.
I usually conceptualise a big bad with a plan for world domination, then go down the chain of command to the lowliest footsoldiers. Then I report to the 1st level players some of the outcomes of the footsoldier actions and it is up to them to decide which actions they will put a stop to and whether or not they will follow the chain to the top. If they get distracted by side quests then the big bad's plans gain momentum and their paths will no doubt cross again. So deciding the steps of the big bad's plan is "designing the campaign." Also, if the big bad has minions that (for example) can only be hit with magic weapons, a few chances to acquire magic weapons before they meet those minions is a good idea.
Sometimes it seems like railroading is when you fail to create the illusion that players had a choice.
If one of six NPCs has the same intel and the players ask one and follow the lead, did they really choose?
You took the words right out of my mouth. It's one of those agree but also disagree. Story Beats and reflective world of their choices.
It's like the difference between being directive vs supportive as a manager. In one role you basically tell them what to do each step of the way. In the other, you give them an objective, answer questions, recommend, discuss, support - but they figure out how to achieve the objective. They OWN the outcome and the path there.
This video is deeper than it looks . Thanks.
Letting Deathbringer loose on your players is bad for the campaign.
True.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1A little railroading doesn’t seem so bad when the alternative involves an axe and a sociopath.
Or when the party decides to attack the 14th+ level city leaders when level 3. Heck some of the guards were 5th and 6th level and could whoop the party and did.
Bad for the players, great for the DM
Recently ran a first session where I set up a possible encounter, but did not force it to conflict when the players were clever and didn't just draw swords. It is always so rewarding and fun to see them come up with things I would never be able to think of and have fun doing it. It is one of the many reasons we enjoy this hobby so much and don't just go write books.
top notch advice, and worth hearing again even for experienced people like myself!
That "the DM is *not* the storyteller" is getting post-it-noted to the first page of every campaign journal from now on
Thank you. New video out now. I think you'll enjoy it: ruclips.net/video/7LCLFpPa1IM/видео.html
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 I'm watching it now! It's a blast
This reminds me of how the Angry GM describes agency in his book, Game Angry. Essentially, agency is the degree to which players can make choices, and there are three general tiers of agency.
Tier 1 is being able to choose how you react to a situation. Do you side with the dragon after it tells you why it kidnapped the princess, or do you choose to slay it anyway? If you choose to oppose the dragon, do you do so through open conflict or do you try to trick the dragon? Or do you ignore the dragon entirely and just try to rescue the princess and get away without fighting it?
Tier 2 is the ability to choose the situation. Maybe instead of going straight to the dragon's lair, you choose to pursue that rumor of the Sword of Dragon's Bane first, and see if you can find that. Or maybe you try to convince the king to spare you a troop of soldiers, and lay siege to the dragon's lair. Or maybe you seek out the aid of the mysterious mage in the woods, who may or may not be one of the fair folk.
Tier 3 is the ability to choose your goal. Maybe you dont want to save the princess - maybe you want to take over the kingdom instead. Or maybe you want to delve into the dungeon of Fear and Hunger, and unravel its mysteries. Or maybe what appeals to you is getting filthy rich through piracy. The world is your oyster, and you can do whatever you want.
Edit: No matter what, though, the most important thing is that the players are making choices with regards to what their characters are doing. Otherwise, you don't have a game, you have a cruddy play where nobody knows the script but somehow everyone is expected to get it perfectly on the first try anyway.
That's actually a cool way to word that concept. I've never quite been able to put the whole freedom of choice in RPGs in such succinct terms before.
What's tier 4?
@@MrShadowbite I don't think there is a tier 4, but there probably should be a tier 0, where the players are basically strongarmed into resolving a given situation in a specific way (like "this is a combat encounter, roll for initiative")
@@taragnor tier 4 is probably just tier 3 turned to 11. I know what you mean by the tier 0, instant fight. I remember one module where you are forced into a fight with the headless horsemen and you by default get decapitated and wake up in a lich's lab. You are then basically forced to go along with its plan to send you back in time
As a Game Master (and game designer) of 44+ years, wiser words have never been spoken.
So much depends on the DM and the player’s expectations. Railroading, open-style play, they’re both tools. I’ve had wonderful and horrible experiences with both. Open-style play works best when the players are involved in the story and can drive the plot with their own motivations, but falls apart if they don’t. Railroading can be absolutely frustrating for players who want absolute agency for their characters, yet other players want to be taken for a ride.
That's true, I've been in games like that where everyone derps around waiting for something to happen and nothing does until the DM introduces a crisis.
I can't believe no-one literally made the forest come to Macbeth by animating/awakening the trees and sending them on a hike.
It would have been ent-ertainment, to say the least.
My eyes are tired. I read that as "sending them on a bike" - I now want ents on bicycles soooooo badly. It might not be for the Shakespeare purists, but it would be *fun*.
@@GoodEggGuy
"The Ents aren't known for being fast to act"
"Give them bikes"
@@drillerdev4624 Originally I wondered about putting them on Harleys but that wasn't nearly as hilarious as thinking of them pedaling on bicycles with their roots, especially realizing that the bikes would probably be like tiny clown bikes to something the size of an ent.
March of the Ents (epic music, then cut to ents on bikes, mute music and replace with squeak, squeak, squeak, squeak as they furiously pedal and hardly move forward).
OMG, my 8th Grade English teacher used to tell that "out, out damn spot!" joke.
I took your advice for only planning one session at a time and it has been the best way to run my homebrewed campaign. I have npcs and villains with their own agendas, but it's up to my players to find them and to interact with them. We have been playing for over a year, and I see this going on for many more years. I do a slow level up, I even took a level away once and so far my players have had a blast.
Glad they like it and it's working.
I run two open matrix campaigns. One on Mondays and the other on Fridays. They are both the same base campaign. Just like you pointed out, the players drive the game. The Friday group went to a town that the Monday group never went to. The Friday group killed a character that the Monday group kept around forever. It is exciting running an open matrix campaign. I never know what will happen next. The players seem to love it. When I started DMing, I ran Adventure League games. They were very railroad-like. It is a nice starting point. But I am glad I went in the sandbox direction.
Sounds fun and I'm very impressed you can keep both games straight. I have a hard enough time keeping track of past events in one campaign.
It really depends on the group. I have groups that WAYYYYYY prefer to be lead by the nose when it comes to narrative and actually request that their games be run like that.
Having a set path isn't inherently bad, it is more about making sure you are aware of what players like and finding ways to cater to their desires.
Session zero also helps with this. Making sure players both know they want to play in this campaign as well as making characters that are going to mesh well with the adventure (and this is true for non linear adventures like true sandboxes too, as not every character and player is suited for that experience)
I agree. I've played with those groups.
This is true of life in general. So many times I've returned to the same bar or holiday destination, with the same people after having an amazing time, only for it to fall flat, despite 90% of the ingredients being the same.
Roll with it
Railroading I think often comes from the DM's wanting to be "prepared" OR "in control". it's the need to feel in control. It's hard to let go and trust the players. You see in management styles ALL THE TIME in the real world.
Some level of railroading is necessary to keep the players "on mission" unless the DM has unlimited time to run a sandbox. I can't imagine running a game where 5 PC are each doing their own thing. It would be a nightmare
A great approach! I have a few of my own that maybe lean into this style a little bit…
Style 1- set up the beginning and the end and however they choose to get there is up to them
Style 2- set up the beginning and let them run wild and free, improvising until a theme shows itself
Style 3- asks players what sort of game they want to play (MotW, Save the World, Build the World, Rebel Uprising, etc) and give generic opener and let them pursue their own paths to develop the game they wanted
To be honest I used to run pretty streamlined adventures, in a high magic almost alien world, based in modules and following that logic; the players loved it, but I got pretty bored and knew that the players had so much more to give. So I changed systems, to a lower magic one (lfg) and set the game in Westeros; but the biggest change I made was giving them full control of a small settlement that they have to make prosper to eventualy earn titles and power. They inmediately gave each other titles and things to do (Like, the master of coin, the rural manager, the "lord", etc.) and there are some sessions where I don't even do much, but they spend hours discussing stuff like where to put a road or who to marry, or what will their towns name be, and they have such legit fun that I feel blessed to just be there
Thanks for sharing.
This channel only gets better. Now I want to go back to my English class syllabi and adapt all those stories to DnD. The cask of amontillado, Jane Eyre, the lottery (I guess they already did this in RotFM)…
Write it up and share! Cask of Amontillado would be fun...
Been meaning to do an Dnd encounter on "the Wanderer"
Great inspiration for me as a newby DM. I'm running my first ever Campaign and on every path my players take, I think of how to guide them without telling them "you have to do this". I prepared a dungeon room full of giant rats (homebrew) and gave them two rats that played bad music. Instead of my planned combat where they chase the players through the dungeon, my players improvised instruments with rope and their weapons and started playing music. They did so bad on their rolls that the rats liked their music and started dancing.
Interesting... I been working this idea of a Scooby-Doo themed one-ish shot. Fred(str ie Barb), Daphne(chr ie Bard/cleric), Velma(Int ie wild magic), Shaggy(int/con ie Alchemist) and Scooby(dex/str mnk/rog). The theme continues with the Scooby character having a speech impediment that makes communication almost imposable unless Shaggy assist him. Shaggy/Scooby have a special bond when they are near each other and when their off together.(they have the bad luck/habit of being separated from the group from time to time.) The one shot starts with any of your favorite Scooby-Doo episode theme. (ie."Hassle in the Castle" • "Go Away Ghost Ship" • "A Night of Fright is No Delight") and just the players lose knowing there is a limited time to this one-ish session.
Go for it.
Yes! Players surprising you with their choices is the best part of being a Dungeon Master! I often don't even know how a campaign, or even the adventures inside it, are going to end, just the BBEG, their goals and a few NPCs who are working towards(or against) them.
It's based on the characters actions and decisions as they navigate that world that I end up tying all of their threads into an ending that satisfies.
It can get a little messy at times but half the fun is figuring out how it all fits together!
Great video, as always.
Great advice! In my "matrix" I keep adventure possibilities to one or two lines, with many possible paths in different directions.
Only when I know where the players are actually going and who they incline to work with do I flesh things out.
In our game last week, instead of going to the islands, which I thought was the very obvious next step, they decided to travel to the capital city!
Great video as always, Professor!
Because I build immersive 3d terrain adventure tables for every adventure, people always think I must Rail Road the players. I don’t but neither do I Sandbox. I have my own method that I call the Carnival Cruise method. In real life, if you want to go on a Carnival Cruise, you can choose any of countless destinations - Hawaii, Alaska, Caribbean, etc. All choices are open to you, but once you make that choice and buy a ticket on a specific cruise, that’s where the boat is going to go for that trip. Probably you will have a fun time because it’s where you wanted to go. Once the trip ends, you get to decide if you want to go on another cruise to another location.
I do the same thing with my players in my campaign. At the end of every session I ask my players where they want to go next. Essentially, what cruise ticket do you want to buy? Whatever they decide, that’s the adventure I build for the next session. Each table is designed to last for a 5 to 6 hour single session. At the end of the session, they are free to decide wherever they want to go on the next session - no matter if it's to follow a specific plot from the campaign or to just randomly go off fighting pirates or anything else they can think of.
By running it this way, they choose what direction the campaign goes in every session and I can provide them a highly detailed adventure without rail roading them or wasting one second of my time building stuff they will never see. It's been working great for years!
I do love Dungeon Craft upload day. Best day of the week.
Glad to hear it!
PBTA taught me as a GM to be a player too. I make the world react to the players just as the players are reacting to the world. Play to find out what happens!
I think the railroad is built into a lot of games and "modules" and published adventures. Across all genres and all systems. It's sort of like sugar as an ingredient in food: it's ubiquitous and you really have to go out of your way ti excise it from your "diet."
On the other hand, once you've seen it you can't unsee it and you'll get better and better at removing it from the mix.
Once upon a time there was a term that was often used instead of _dungeonmaster_ or _gamemaster:_ *_Referee._* I like that. I like its neutrality, its disinterested quality. "This is the setup. _You players_ decide what to do. _You players_ play the parts of the protagonists in this story. And when _you_ make decisions and roll dice, then it's _my_ turn to interpret, explain and demonstrate what the results are and how the world and its non-player characters react. Good luck, everyone!" Of course, this non-partisan, unbiased approach is what made the old-school games deadly to player characters. But hey! You've gotta take the good with the bad. It wasn't a dangerous quest if there was never any chance of any of the players' characters dying or at least suffering serious injuries or losses.
Good points.
The first ever session I ran as a GM was the adventure in the back of the system book. The party, as most are wont to do, deviated from what was printed. Part of why I decided to GM was because I was annoyed at the lack of options my DM seemed to allow, so I ran with the idea the party had. Took me ages before I ran another prewritten adventure, as I learned to just present encounters and plot hooks and run with how the party and dice decide.
Now, that second prewritten adventure went off the rails even faster - in the first few minutes instead of about three-quarters of the way through - but I was able to lean on my experience to run with it. I've run a few prewritten adventures now in the past few years, and always adjust things on the fly. Come to think of it, I've actually only once run the same adventure for a different group... I should probably do that more often, to see the fun new ways groups have of going about them.
Thanks for sharing.
I humbly stand corrected from a prior post I made.
I have to agree that the 'players and the dice are the story tellers' and the DM is the 'conflict creator'.
The ultimate making and melding of the 'dream and imagination' of role playing.
I bow to the wise Professor.
Thank you.
Thanks you for those kind words.
One of my favorite tactics is to write a linear campaign and then watch the players twist it into knots. It adds some entertainment on my part. Some players can see how the story is supposed to go, and then from that knowledge can add some truly fun twists and turns. It does take a bit of getting to know the players, cause some players, when they learn you have a script, are convinced you are going to railroad, or feel obligated to play along. You got to learn who will rebel, who will play along with your script to be nice, and who will take you seriously when you say, "i have a plan, but no plan survives contact with the players, do what you will."
i have tried multiple ways and it seems that the method that does the best is up to what the players want, and not everyone at a table wants the same thing. I have lost my touch accommodating all the different styles, so sadly i am not as good as a GM as i used to be.
@3:35 the GM is the 'conflict designer'. ...wow
Ah, railroading. That's how my first campaign petered out.
I needed to get the party to a particular cave to witness a historical event, but instead, they wanted to wage war against the drow. Classic.
Oh my god, is it bad that I find Deathbringer speaks to my inner soul better than anyone I've ever meet?
As someone pointed out, Angry GM has a useful framework. My players have one and quite a bit around two for sure, but there are definitely rails around three. In part because it has to be a game I'm interested in DMing, but also just for the practical reality that I have limited time to prep for each session and certain directions may not be realistic.
If they wanted to find an ancient tech in a cave and go to space I would roll w that, because I have the interest, resources and tools to do so. But if they wanted to use magic to become happy woodland creatures, I'd gave them the hard no because that's not interesting to me at all.
I don’t write much for an adventure. I have a plot, a map or two, a few enemies that make sense to the plot, NPCs and locations as needed and I have a handful of clues they can get in a variety of ways. But they can run into any of the materials in the adventure any way they choose. I like this because I want to be surprised as much as them. I don’t ad lib all that well actually but my players really have fun cause they can do whatever. My main issue is with players trying to figure out “what I want them to do” when really I actually want them to do what they want.
Thanks for sharing!
I take a middle road approach between the railroader and the "never plan more than one session in advance" approach. Instead, I plan my whole campaign arc as though there are no player characters. I write from the perspective of the opposition and the neutral factions, including character motivations and planned events and who is planning those events and why they planned them. Then when my players make choices, I know what repercussions those choices have on the larger plot, and how it interferes with the opposition and/or neutral factions, and can respond with accurate NPC responses and new events on the fly. Then between sessions I alter the existing narrative to account for those choices, and flow those changes forward to the rest of the story.
That set of diagrams from XDM is helpful. I haven't seen a comparison quite like that before -- thank you, PDM!
Glad it was helpful!
In regards to a game where death isn't on the table I'd like to quote Alladin II The Return of Jafar, "You'd be suprised what you can live through." Not dying doesn't have to mean that you're going to win.
there was that elf vengeful dwarfes cut about a dozen arms and legs in complete dwarf
I remember running a version of your Jigsaw Dungeon Mag module for Changeling the Dreaming some 20 years ago. We had so much fun with that one.
The first time I read your Frankenstein module I thought for sure I'd get to run the wedding, but both groups I've run it for managed to trap and beat Frankenstein in the lab. You never know until you play!
I agree with all of this. I gave up a long time ago on deciding how a game would end. I just write up the plot, make notes of how the bad guys will act when the PCs begin actively foiling their plans, and make notes of important scenes, locations, and NPCs. I have an idea where everything all leads, but never a set notion of how it will "end". I've taken this design philosophy through my cyberpunk game and it has created some really cool, climatic, and even heart breaking conclusions to some of the plots in the campaign. I've also done the same in running games for several different groups and I'm always surprised how they turn out. One game, "The Thing from Laboratory X", was written for my homebrewed horror game. I've run the game now 6 times and each time it is different. Some groups make it, some lose lots of members, and there has even been two cases of TPK. But I never railroad any groups. I present the game, let them work it out, let the dice fall as they will, and see where it all goes. As a GM it's as entertaining to me, as it is to the players, to see how they will succeed or fail.
A little railroading is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm currently running Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and needed to get the PCs to a tropical location (where the module is), so I put them on a ship and sank it in a hurricane. Once in the dungeon itself, the players are free to do what they want. And they're having a blast.
This is why I like the randomness and unpredictability of free-form prompts in TTRPGs such as Ironsworn/Starforged.
Everyone gets to be a story AND conflict designer. It's also easier to hand-wave things, because prep is play and also it's easier to zoom in and out of situations.
A REALLY good game master prepares 3 ways for the players to TOTALLY BELIEVE they've derailed the campaign. (-;
-Let them use a ice wand they just got as "random loot" to freeze a cave lake while your BBEG's pet is in it, or an army is crossing a river!! Give them tips on how to date the BBEG!
-Give 'em a wand of distant cantrips so they can light enemy bomb stashes from a distance, or the king's meal taste super poisoned when it isn't! Random tricks once a day. (-;
-Give them blackmail material against the BBEG's daughter from which unimportant NPC they obsess with!!! Let them loot a sleeping Santa!!!
Love your channel Professor and our community! Such a fun and creative hobby we have.
Our crew likes to rotate through different game systems. Our next game is "Tales from the Loop". In this game, the characters are all 10-15 years old, and a mechanic of the game is they cannot die. The can become "injured" and even "broken", but can not be killed.
It's not because players and GMs agree to that in a Session Zero: it's a core rule. And for the game setting, styled after "The Goonies" and "E.T.", it makes total sense. I'm looking forward to seeing how my players react to this (very different, to us) style of game play.
Ran the same adventure for Taverller twice. The first group played it with careful audacity, infiltrated the firebase, and blasted their way out in a blood filled, Where Eagles Dare ending. The second group were blindly bold. Their run ended halfway through the first minefield. It helps to have good players, although you can find amusement in the character deaths of poor ones. Either way they need to make the choices.
The way that I tend to conceptualize it is that as the DM I create the plot, and then the players and I create the story together through their interaction with the plot.
Whatever works. I try to create situations and the plot emerges through play. But I think we're doing the same thing, just using different words. Thanks for sharing!
Hahaha that Macbeth joke at the end was genius!! Thanks Professor!
The game master is a storyteller, he just isn't the only one at the table. Its a co-creative process. The game master tells the story of what is happening in the world around the PCs, and the NPCs, but he adapts the tale to what the players do, its a give and take. If its all left to the players, it can stall out, or become dominated exclusively by the players with the strongest drive and personality, and if its all the DM then the game becomes increasingly less interactive as the players are reduced exclusively to an audience. Its like a good conversation, sometimes you are taking the lead and talking, other times you listen.
Got a poll for yall. Would you/your DM approve this magic item concept?
Masterful Halfplate +2, provides a +2 bonus to AC and Proficiency Bonus. Armor once owned by a renowned swordmaster sorta fluff story.
No additional powers as the Prof Bonus gives so many characters extra uses of certain abilities or higher DCs to resist their powers and lots of generally improved ability checks. It would really constitute just making a character a bit better at most things they already do, and isn't so focused on one thing it overpowers certain characters.
Its a suit that would make almost anyone consider getting a feat just to accommodate wearing it, or avoid the stealth disadvantage for wearing it, thus "consuming" a very valuable resource from many potential wearers.
I believe that the first time I read about matrix design was in the AD&D 2e blue leatherette "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide". Great video, as usual!
I think my biggest problem with railroading is not having the creative juices for improvising answers.
I'm running Icewind Dale 5e and I feel obligated to hit story beats because of implications down the line with characters and lore, etc. The book inevitably provides too little detail for the creativity of the players and I can't keep up, but also am sometimes just frozen by indecisiveness for potentially ruining the future story arcs.
Yep, the downside to following published adventures is the players have to stick to the publisher's plan. The upside is It saves work for DM's who are pressed for time.
May e it would help to let go of the story arcs... and at the same time make them very enticing.
A 'no player death' game isn't necessarily a 'players always win' game. There can be many kinds of failure. And creative, narrative consequences are often more interesting.
Also, removing death can actually make 5E MORE consequential.
If the outcome of failing an encounter is the destruction of your PC's favorite village, there's no way to cheapen that loss with a quick Revivify. Death, on the other hand, feels like a minor inconvenience at worst.
The art of improvising is necessary for all DMs / GMs. I literally just did a video on this very topic last week.
The game is what happens at the table.
I’ve run a game a few times that I designed which is a sci fi horror scenario. I know what happened that led to the incident and what can happen based on the PC’s actions. The ironic part is that the characters always triggered their own demise. It happens a little differently each time, but they chose the path that led to inadvertently summoning cosmic horror
This, combined further with the advice from the Gamemastery section of Dungeon World; specifically the Grim Portents. A help even in OSR I feel like.
Players are going to do things you couldn't even have imagined before. They keep you on your toes.
Dungeon World tells you: don't prepare what the players are going to do. Instead, prepare the monster faction's plan, step by step. Like, three to five steps or so.
KOBOLDS GOAL: Lay siege to the human village and steal its treasures.
Step 1. Cut down wood in the FOREST to create crude weapons.
Step 2. Look for spell components on the BARREN HILL to support the Kobold Pyromancers in casting their fire spell.
Step 3. Wait until nightfall in ambush near the HUMAN VILLAGE. Humans are asleep and won't notice.
Step 4. One group of kobolds creates chaos with fire spells and murder; while the other one sneaks around to the mayor's treasury room and steals their treasure.
That's your prep. Now, the PCs have a goal: deal with the kobolds in their hideout. If the players fail to deal with them (E.g. they lost track of the kobolds in the forest) and you don't know how to react; or when some idle time passes when the PCs don't do anything related to the kobolds; increase the Kobold's plan to the next step. They are now at the Barren Hill. Maybe an NPC hunter has seen them there and brings the news to the village, in earsight of the PCs. Or maybe something else happens. But at least, the game continues.
That is the power of Grim Portent.
Expert level advice: have multiple factions active at once. The kobolds do their thing, but the orcs are also up to no good. Will the players deal with the orcs and ignore the kobolds? Or will they deal with the orcs and persuade them to attack the kobolds? Which plan will advance as the players deal with the other faction?
My worst example of railroading my players was during a Call of Cthulhu game. The players wanted to scope out a cult hangout from a nearby hilltop to get an idea of what they might be up against. They planned to use binoculars to do the spying. I had created a nasty ambush and didn't want to tip them off, so I said "Binoculars don't work at night." My players never let me live that one down.
As far as being railroaded I played in a game run by a New York Times Best Selling Author. He wanted our party to head west of town to check out some clever creature he created. Our characters did some research on the legends of the creature and decided that heading west was a sure ticket to the great beyond, so we all said nah, we will stay around town. He had the town elders arrest us and had them break our characters fingers until we agreed to head west. The game ended with that session. Sometimes being a great author doesn't make one a good gm.
Eels very strange to me. On the one hand - the social contract says the players should go where the adventure is. (That's not a railroad, thats the DM planning an adventure and the players agreeing to play it).
But on the other hand if you agreed to play the adventure and just went about it differently then its up to the GM to find another way the players *will* interact with it
@@sweetderpg Good observation. My approach is to running a game is to create a sandbox for the players. I have several different plots and interesting locations prepared and ready to go and leave it up to the players to lead me to the adventure. In the past I ran many canned modules and it just wasn't a good fit for me and my player group. Not trying to dis any particular modules, in fact sometimes I will borrow ideas from them and incorporate a location or npc into my sandbox. YMMV
Prof- speaking of Clyde and old TSR art, Larry Elmore has his last Kickstarter on right now if you are interested.
The “storytelling” in RPGs is a collaborative process!
I don't know how common it is, but I can say from experience that some players want to be railroaded. I play with one group who only care about combat, loot, and leveling up. Everything else is just flavor text, and they get annoyed with me if I slow them down with too much lore, or expect them to pay attention to plot, or ask them to make significant choices. Their catchphrase is "We go there", where "there" is wherever the next fight is going to take place. Admittedly, it makes my job as DM pretty easy -- I just set up the piñatas for them to whack at, and whatever story is there is mostly for my own amusement.
I've had a similar experience with my current Curse of Strahd Campaign. Now my players get a little more into roleplay than yours might. But they generally go looking for their next fight, loot or level up. (Except when going after said things is sure to result in certain death).
Sounds like you might as well play Heroquest. Nothing wrong with that.
I made that mistake with a CoC campaign years ago. It was based on tatters of the king and had ran so well with my old group, I thought I would try it with a new group. I wasn't expecting the same experience but this group barely made it past session two. The concepts and ideas of dealing with the King in Yellow just went over their heads. They were confused at times by it and were struggling. In the end I called a halt to it. So you can run into this problem with pre written content. I guess the thing to treat it like a reboot and hope it works as well.
Weirdly enough, I had a few players drop recently because I wasn't *railroading* enough. Players were in Salzenmund in a Sea of Claws WFRP4E campaign. The group have a basic objective and they can choose anyway to complete it. (They agreed to find some allies for a norscan tribe). Any path was acceptable. They wanna go noble? Go underworld? Leave salzenmund and appeal to the elves or whatever else they could find? Whatever their heart desired. One of my players come to me after the game and throws up his hands. "I am not creative, so I can't really play these sorts of games!"
I thought I provided enough vague direction and my other players enjoyed the session, so maybe it was a one-off situation.
Thank you for sharing, Players are SO weird.
Unless every aspect of your game is determined through charts and rolls to make it a "rogue-like" (*rogue* has a different meaning in video game design), your game has some form of rails. Looking at video games for a parallel, the Drake's Fortune series is a hard set railroad storyline. The Elder Scroll / Fallout Series, although considered sandbox, is a railroad network, in that every replay you will always encounter the same characters/creatures/events any time you visit set locations. Personal creativity certainly allows opportunity to shift the direcion of encounters, but the majority of thing are still based upon pre-existing frameworks. Either in pre-written module format, or even with ideas that your DM has been stewing up and sees an opportunity to insert, it all still has a framework or 'light-rail' aspect to it. Just enjoy the adventure and stories as they unfold. Great DM's have simply learned how to craft a curtain to hide the rails from their players. [Edited for spelling]
I prefer "guided sandbox" rather than "light-rail". I have "light rails" (aka adventure hooks) pointing the PCs toward a variety of adventure possibilities, but they are free to bypass the rails and take an uber to someplace that the rails don't go :-)
@mikeb.1705 even then, do you have generic encounters & scenarios to pull out of pocket? When they do "de-rail" do you have other things in mind to 'hook' them into things in your world for them to interact with. I do like your term "guided sandbox". But again, what do rails do but guide the cart along it's path? The lack of "rails" or "guidance" is an illusion that the DM must work to maintain. Just my opinion ✌️
@@watchtowerdragon7098 I don't disagree with you ~ the rails are always there, but the goal is to keep the players from seeing / feeling them AND be ready if the players get distracted by something shiny and "jump tracks" 🙂
Generally speaking, my game world lives inside my head, so improv'ing isn't too much of a hassle cuz I usually have an idea of what and who lies in any given direction that the party might reasonably go in (and sometimes unreasonable directions too!).
I try to "bake in" generic encounters and scenarios that are obviously there to attrack / distract the players / PCs from the main plotline. I figure if I show them a side plot they are more likely to chase the obvious rather than going haring off on their own in a random direction.
For example, last session the party was doing overland travel from A to B. I inserted the obligatory "random" encounter (which they declined to engage with), plus the path of travel also included a cross-trail with obvious monster tracks (which they also declined to engage with). If they wanted to, they could have side-tracked (literally) and found the monster's lair. They chose to stay on task and arrived at point B. But I was prepared with an obvious distraction just in case.
What about you? Do you keep a bunch of encounters / scenarios in your back pocket that you can insert anywhere? Or do you use a different method for dealing with "off the rails" PCs?
My first homebrew was a railroad, but with a first-time DM and new players, it still ended OK. Some of the best advice I have gotten is to plan what the enemy would do if the PCs did not exist. Each session is either the enemy reacting to the PC choices or going about their nefarious plan. This video was good encouragement for how the players can make their own plan and still fit into the broad scheme of the DM's prep.
When I sit down and plan out the story of a campaign, it's less "this is what *will* happen in this game," and much more "this is what will happen in this game _if the players do nothing_ ." It helps me organize what my villains goals and means are, so when the players come along and start taking axes (or hammers, or spells, etc.) to the villains' plans, I have a strong enough sense of said villains to adapt. If I don't set out a blueprint ahead of time, *I* don't feel like I know enough to run a campaign. But, it is understood (by me, I guess, since I'm the only one who knows the whole thing) that the plan is _meant_ to be broken. (If it isn't, many, _many_ things must have gone tragically wrong.)
Yes, this is my experience also. I've got my own 'rules' for running adventures.
1. Don't use premade modules or campaigns. Even when players are intentionally trying to stay with the plot, they don't work.
2. Pick a setting and starting location. Let the players make characters suitable for it.
3. Never plan more than an adventure or two ahead. This assumes that players will figure something out, go some place, etc. Don't over invest in case they go elsewhere.
4. Stop making everything "epic" -- it usually doesn't work and often the things they remember as epic or cool are just random things which happen, a normal combat which goes bad and the players happen to pull through by some smart play, etc.
5. Don't adjust encounters to try to force them to be "epic". If the players win (or lose) when not expected, let them. If a silence spell nerfs your bad-ass shaman and the combat is easy, fine... the players won't remember it and some other combat or encounter will be remembered.
6. Ask the players at the end of the session what their characters are going to do (i.e. where are you doing, who are you going to talk to, etc.) and only write up the encounters for the next session based on this.
7. Vary encounters, including difficulty, NPCs, locations, challenges, etc.
8. Don't have plot to start with. Have a setting, idea, and throw enough sh!t at them and see what sticks. Sure, maybe the starting location has them near two countries nearly at war, with political happenings, etc. However, if the players ask in the fighter's guild for work... let them go hunt ogres if they want to do that. Maybe they find something with the ogres or maybe you work in that the ogres have detailed information about guard schedules or something. However, if the players just want to keep doing monster raids... ok, your campaign is now about some semi-famous ogre hunters.
9. Use personal ties to character to introduce plot vs. top-down NPCs, events, etc. If a PCs brother comes and him for help dealing with a local lord over his taxes, it's a better motivator than a notice that the local lord is looking for adventurers. Likewise, maybe the lord is looking for some evil wizard, but it might be better to give one of the PCs a personal reason to care about the wizard... say he's the PCs cousin, or he stole something from the PCs family. Railroading is also a feeling. If the players don't know they are being railroaded, it doesn't matter -- although it is insanely hard to do.
10. Allow your players to help 'railroad' themselves by giving them choices. You could ask the players to give themselves a reason to be on a ship, or ask them to create relatives or friends in a specific city and use these during play.
11. Avoid world sweeping events. Keep it grounded and from the PCs perspective. Yes, maybe there is a war going on, but if the PCs aren't directly getting involved, keep it secondary. Don't suddenly force attacks on them or cities falling to force them to participate in the war if they want to be profiteers or something. Same with massive curses, hordes of dragons, a god being reincarnated, etc. It is hard for players to feel it is "their story" if events would happen without them.
12. Don't be afraid to segment a campaign or even end it. If the players defeat something, it doesn't always need another level of leader to go after. Let that plot arc die. Maybe advance the campaign a few years and have the PCs meet up again. Think a Conan series rather than a Wheel of Time or Lord of the Rings. 5-10 session episodes with their own ends vs. a massive plot taking 50+ sessions.
The best 'campaigns' are often just a replay (in people's minds) of everything the PCs did. Players will make their own highs and lows.
Nice vid my man.
Our theater group works with both Shakespeare & Shelly.
#NoRailroading.
I'm currently running the 1E classic series, Desert of Desolation. Having played since 1979, this is the fourth time I've run this adventure, and it's a long one. My current group plays from 7-11 pm on Wednesdays, so with 4-hour sessions weekly I expect this to run 12-15 months at the pace they're going. They started it in January, and they're nearing the end of the 2nd story arc out of 3 (Oasis of the White Palm). So they're about 50-60% done.
My reason for outlining this is that this series of modules has a set path that the players must follow in order to complete it. Railroading? To a degree.
But I give my players enough autonomy that they can quit at any time. They don't have to finish it all the way to the end. They can give up on the quest and escape the desert, heading back to civilization.
But in so doing, they can have repercussions...
>>>>Spoilers
Thanks for sharing.
I enjoy writing my one shots as a closed matrix. It’s fun to ponder what players do and then have them wreck it as they blaze their own trail.
Author Michael E. Shea recommendation for the DM to only plan. The very first encounter of the session. Which happens at the very starr of the session. That is a great method to set the tone, and get the ball rolling.
LOL - that punch line by Deathbringer caught me off guard. I should have seen that coming. So funny! 🙂
This is the absolute best advice for any DM, old or new.
You’re not a screenwriter, director, or author.
Your job is to create the challenges & make decisions on the fly to flesh things out.
All important conflicts are resolved by the dice & the players. No fudging.
Whether to put your fingers on the scales as a GM is a good question. You may disagree, but sometimes I find that I simply did not plan an encounter well enough to entertain my players. Either because it is too easy or may result in a TPK. In this case I Improvise to tailor things to create drama and difficulty or allow for a expeditious retreat. That said I don't screw with the dice rolls.
"Character death is not on the table" is not equivalent to "characters always succeed". That is a simple misunderstanding to make. All it means that out of all the possible results of failure, dying is not among them.
Your own game is a perfect example of this: in the Frankenstein scenario, if you let the players choose and don't railroad them to a particular ending, the characters can fail both to kill the monster and convince the doctor to make a bride, yet those endings can be reached without needing anyone to die. Sure, it could happen, and the threat of it happening can be in the air, but it doesn't *need* to happen for the scenario to be playable or fun.
No one is a story *teller* at a TTRPG table. Everyone is a story *discoverer.* A series of events--such as the events in an RPG campaign--aren't a story; they are a chronology. They don't become a *story* until they get recounted after the fact--and that's wonderful! RPG adventures become *stories* when the people who experienced them reminisce about them together, or tell them to people who weren't there. Will they recount the events factually? Almost certainly not--they will tell them as a story, highlighting the humor, the suspense, the defeats and the victories, and downplaying all the boring bits in between. My point is, it's not a story as it happens; it only becomes a story if what happens is worth remembering and retelling.
I have an overlying plot that moves along with or without the players, and then dangle a bunch of strings in front of them to see which ones they tug on. My job is to tie the strings together as fast as they pull them.
Good advice.
I think game masters are story tellers to a point. We just don't know how the story is going to end, or the order in which the chapters are laid out. That's for the players to decide.
Choose your own adventure.
With "your" in its plural sense.
I discovered a long time ago that no adventure prep survives contact with the players at the table. I used to spend countless hours trying to plan out every possible outcome I could foresee. I'd usually plan for 5 or 6 different results. Over time I realized that if I planned 4 outcomes the players would come up with option 5. If I planned 5 outcomes the players would come up with number 6. I eventually burned myself out even if it strengthened my improvisation skills. Then one day an epiphany: The specific outcomes and planning for each expected result was a horrible waste of my time and energy as a DM. What was more important was to plan out an NPC chart listing relationships, rivalries, personalities and most important of all motivations. I would come up with a theme and location for the campaign. The only session that would be planned out thoroughly was the opener. There would be a projected ending for the series but it wouldn't be in stone. The game flow would then determine what was happening in the campaign. How did the characters react to the opener? What did they do? What didn't they do? What do they want to do next? Then follows a series of actions/reactions between the PCs and the NPCs (both friendly and not) which would shape the conflicts and drive the narratives. I only planned the next session based on what the players wanted to do or based on what the NPCs were going to do in response to something that happened before. Player choices and motives vs NPC motives and course of action making the best RPG experience we could make collaboratively. It's not all on the players. It's not all on the DM. It's teamwork or synergy that makes it be the best gaming experiences you can have.
I make a premise, including location, some patron-level NPCs, existing factions and seasonal event tables.
The players bring the main characters.
Then it’s really up to them
Omg I love this bit of advice. I hope EVERYONE playing TTRPGs sees this. Nothing I hate more than a railroading dm and if I get the sense that I’m being rail roared I just can’t help but start testing the rails to see if I actually have agency or if the GM is going to just start putting road blocks in my way any time I start to deviate. If I want guard rails, I’ll go play a CRPG on my computer or play an FPS or something.
The way you describe Frankenstein is a good example of an open ended game. MacDeath, on the hand, that’s pretty much a railroad, the only choice the players get, from your description, is what to do with the sticks, but it ends the same. Probably more to it but as described it is, just as Traci’s closed matrix is (so much so they devoted a page to try to convince the reader that it isn’t in 2e 😅)
Back in the early 90s my campaign went that same way. One of the things I learned was keep a rough idea of points on a map but detail a few local hexes. That way I can adjust or full out change spots when needed as the player's choices expanded their area.
As for the joke DB; throw it to the dogs, we'll have none of it.
LOL
I always looked at game design similar to early Ravenloft, you can let players have all the agency, searching the village, until they get in the castle, then you let them have all the agency in the castle (tightening the noose), searching rooms etc. Eventually they will get to the boss. It does not work 100% of the time, but for 70% ish of games it has worked great. Other games I let players lead the story and just see where things go. In most games I run it is fairly easy to come up with things "on the fly". There is nothing like a Shopkeeper turning on them and turning into something big and bad.
Great video. Love reading through the Alexandrian. I agreed with all of the points. My world building is just that: Build a world (with conflicts, points of interests, normal people, etc.) and then plop the PCs into that world. They (and the dice results) move the story forward. I get a great deal of enjoyment seeing where the players take the game. My early games were all with players that would not follow a linear path ever, so by circumstances, I fell into the habit of designing a more open game world and then seeing where the players and dice took the game. By the time I had players that requested a more linear adventure, I was able to use the Adventure Paths (for Pathfinder 1e) from Paizo. It was rare though.
Its a funny balance of agency, innit? The magic user in my group loves discovering/co-inventing the minutiae of of our homebrew magic system and I try to offer space for him to play there. At the same time, he can be rather passive at the other elements of the game, he's not going to bite on a investigation hook for instance, so that part moves along via NPC's and other players, and he's perfectly happy. DIscovering what drives each player and cultivating a table culture that answers all present, that's the subtle art of a good DM (and where most of my work lies, for sure), not dungeon layout or system mastery.
when we were young and having babies, a friendly couple of mine were due in July. I joked they could call their kid Julius Caesar, my mate retorted they could call the child July Caesarean.
I'm running COS now and really only have to plan one or two sessions in advance. I like the sandbox nature of COS but have been modifying it to increase the drama of the sessions. As a GM I throw problems at my players and allow them to solve them in many different ways. The party could decide to avoid the problem all together, but that choice won't grant as many rewards as resolving the problem. I grant inspiration if the player deals with the problem in a way that befits the character they are playing. As a GM I think you should put pressure on the party to move towards specific goals (carrot and stick). But this is not the same as railroading. One of the ways I do this is to give the monsters and NPC's agency to make deals and try to persuade or coerce the players towards specific encounters or areas of the map. This way I can foreshadow, build drama and hopefully create a stage for heroic action. Once that encounter is resolved, I plane for a few diverging hooks or quest lines, but I still allow the party to explore and possibly get into hot water if they don't take my bait. I believe this falls into the matrix style discussed in the video. I think this is also where experience as a game master really helps. I'm still learning and trying to hone in on what makes the campaign fun...
As a forever GM, I have made a high to low fantasy "noob island." I have 9 issues on the island, 1 to represent a bunch of different things that happens in D&D or what ever ttrpg you like.
I have yet to get a single same outcome.
I have each player roll dice to decide what season of year the game starts, the immediate type of mainland by the island from Port to Port, the main bad dude type (they don't know the outcome of this roll until later) and lastly a roll for what town faction is currently in power.
Then I let them loose on the island.
It's beautiful how they always come out differently.
Thanks for sharing.
I love to run a free flowing open world campaign that not only keeps me on my toes, but allows the bad guys to make reactions off the parties moves.
I unfortunately started an offshoot part of the campaign for eberron in a spelljammer and ended up killing the campaign by making it too complicated and saw that I was railroading them. That led to a 2e campaign that's low commitment and simple a storyline they seem happy with.