Knights & Knaves Alehouse

robertsconley wrote:The time you probably see this happening the most is when the DM wants to run an adventure path or something big like Castle Whiterock or The world's largest Dungeon.

The key to something like that is to offer situations that encourage entering or exploring the dungeon as a natural desire of the PCs. Bandits using the upper levels as a base. A zombie-fungus plague showing up in town, and PCs gradually discovering the source seems to come from these caves (that link up to the dungeon). An NPC adventurer party showing up and hauling fat loot up, and being lauded by the townsfolk (in my experience, this works exceptionally well, because the players look at it as upstart NPCs stealing their fortune and glory). The party needing to find some artifact or item that is rumored to be deep in the dungeon. A hated enemy that flees into the dungeon. Et cetera.

(Sound obvious, I guess, but I'm surprised at how often this kind of thing seems to get overlooked. And if they don't "take the bait," no big deal -- run with what they want to do. I typically try to set up multiple rumors or situations.)

(EDIT - The thing about a big dungeon is that it's a sort of "adventure gravity well" in its own right. That is, just by its presence in the setting it will naturally tend to come into play, even when play starts off on a seeming tangent that has nothing to do with it.)

TheRedPriest wrote:Do railroading DMs possibly just lack the confidence to wing it?

I would say experience more than lack of confidence.

But just as much railroading is caused by the DM wanting to run his "cool idea' come hell or high water.

TheRedPriest wrote: There are times when the PCs ignore the plethora of rumors, and rumors of rumors, that I plant for them. Sometimes they misinterpret a rumor. In either case, they'll head off in a direction that looks the most promising for them. Oops.. as DM, maybe I didn't expect something. No worries, I'll just adapt what I've already got, or if necessary, just make shit up on the fly as needed.

Which is why I try to get my players immersed into my game world. They quit acting like character and more like people. Once they starting doing that their choices become more predictable. The players get to have more fun because they can rely on their "Dealing with people" skill as well as their game playing and problem solving skills.

TheRedPriest wrote: I forgot where it was posted (here, DD's, S&W or DF I imagine), but there were a couple of posts in a thread that agreed that it doesn't matter if the dragon turtle, its lair and treasure were designed 5 months or 5 minutes before the PCs discover it. It's still there.

A lot of things are a sentance and hex location in my notes. That why I have bucket of "bit pieces" so I quickly throw together a module at the last minute.

robertsconley wrote:

rogatny wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:I feel I should point out that there is a significant portion of the gamer population who like, enjoy, and prefer "railroading".

Imagine a campaign where all you get are missions. And if you suggest not doing the mission the DM and other players look at you if you have two heads.

If your playing 1E D&D correctly the players choose what to do. They don't "get missions" they choose to go on them (and usually after searching for something worth doing). If players don't want to do a dungeon they might hang around town and the dm makes stuff up on the fly if need be. When 2E started filling everything in with railroads for the player they took away the motivation to play (at least for many). That trend likely reduced the general appeal of the game (no longer could you just drop down and do whatever you liked).

AxeMental wrote:

robertsconley wrote:

rogatny wrote:

Imagine a campaign where all you get are missions. And if you suggest not doing the mission the DM and other players look at you if you have two heads.

If your playing D&D correctly the players choose what to do. They don't "get missions" they choose to go on them (and usually after searching for something worth doing). If players don't want to do a dungeon they might hang around town and the dm makes stuff up on the fly if need be.

With a few rare exceptions, most of them posting on this board, without "missions" or assignments" it is my experience that most players will never leave the tavern/inn/starting location.

Flambeaux wrote:With a few rare exceptions, most of them posting on this board, without "missions" or assignments" it is my experience that most players will never leave the tavern/inn/starting location.

I've seen that, a bit; mostly with younger players or new players, but I suppose it might apply to experienced players who have never done anything but "tell me what to do" type of missions.

One possibility to break this mold is to give them a nice strong "boss" (maybe a mid-level magic user) that sends them on some missions, but have it gradually become apparent that the boss doesn't have the PCs' best interests at heart, or perhaps is even setting them up for a fall. In other words, try to engineer a situation where the players naturally change into "free agents" in their own minds.

First off I am not advocating Adventure Paths just explained what I know based on reading them and having played through part of one.

Adventure Paths were inspired by the G-D-Q series. The first difference is that they start off at l level and end at level 20. Esstentially an entire campaign in D&D 3.X

The best adventure paths structured their plots so players were naturally interested in pursuing the adventure path to the end. For example you may start off saving the village from the orc, find out the orcs were supplied by the evil Church of Typhoon that has a local base that need to be taken out and so on all the way to 20th level where they confront the avatar of Typhoon himself!

The better adventures paths have multiple paths. Usually they have climax points where the path join up again and then diverage again. For example an alternate path could be the going up against the local Thieves Guild that has been corrupted by the Church of Typhoon.

There are sidepaths that last for a small number of sessions that branch off of some plot element introduction during the main adventures.

Periodically there are breaks where the DM can run unrealated stuff. For example after the secret base is destroyed the Chruch of Typhoon investigates it's disapperance and then finds out that the PCs done it. This takes a couple of months of game time during which the DM can run a couple of different adventures.

They were really popular for a short time. This is because not every type of plot you can run with D&D lends itself to being put in a adventure path. Also because rewriting an adventure path committs you to write 10 or more modules building on the same plot. In which time you can instead write 10 completley different modules.

They are not easy to write even if you take the choice of hamfisted railroading people through.

As a writer I like making specific locales, sandboxes, and other "bits" that a DM can alter or combine in anyway they see fit for their campaign. I must have a loose thread tying one or more products together but it would be like the teleporation deal in the Giant series rather than the adventure path ideal.

Philotomy Jurament wrote:, try to engineer a situation where the players naturally change into "free agents" in their own minds.

I prefer to phrase it as "masters of their own destiny" as some players want to be part of an larger organization and ultimately in control of it.

Flambeaux wrote:

AxeMental wrote:

robertsconley wrote: Imagine a campaign where all you get are missions. And if you suggest not doing the mission the DM and other players look at you if you have two heads.

If your playing D&D correctly the players choose what to do. They don't "get missions" they choose to go on them (and usually after searching for something worth doing). If players don't want to do a dungeon they might hang around town and the dm makes stuff up on the fly if need be.

With a few rare exceptions, most of them posting on this board, without "missions" or assignments" it is my experience that most players will never leave the tavern/inn/starting location.

This has been my experience as well. Not everyone but the majority.

Adventure paths cater to a hangup a lot of roleplayers have. An unregulated game can be very uneven, and with a wrong or substandard social mixture, devolve into "20 minuts of fun in 4 hours of gaming", or hurt feelings for a lack of balance. An adventure path is a convenience product that is carefully engineered to provide a fun experience in a regulated fashion - guaranteed entertainment, very likely few bad consequences for the characters, but a good reward cycle.

The problem is, the more passive the entertainment, the better alternatives exist in electronic media.

Melan wrote:The problem is, the more passive the entertainment, the better alternatives exist in electronic media.

Yeah; this is the problem I have with many of the changes (in direction or in rules) in later editions. It's not that I hate the concept they might be going for, it's that I hate it in D&D. It's either a bad fit for the game (e.g. interactive storytelling, adventure paths -- there are far better alternatives if that's what you're after), or it's re-shaping the game into a different game (e.g. that's how I see WotC D&D).

Melan wrote: The problem is, the more passive the entertainment, the better alternatives exist in electronic media.

This reason is one of the ones I been focused on writing all the sandbox stuff. I have no illusion of my impact on the larger industry. But if I can make the dynamic aspect of RPGs easier to play then that directly strengthens one of advantages that Table-top RPGS have over MMORPGs.

If we're not engaging each other at the table, if we're not bouncing weird shit off each other, if we're not collaborating on building a shared experience, what point is it?

That's my view. It seems to me that a whole pile of dirty laundry aired online by people seeking validation that DM #1 or Player #2 is horrible owes mainly to a lack of social skills and common sense.

I just don't get the deal of playing in a campaign with people with whom one cannot -- and apparently does not even want to -- communicate as one friend with another.

I am delighted that (knock on wood) I'll have a chance tomorrow to play again in a game that had been put on hold due to the scheduling conflicts of real life.

These are fellows whose company I enjoy, regardless of how the D&D game goes. If there's such a last-minute change of plans that some of us are already gathered, then we can undertake a different D&D adventure -- or play some other game entirely (even as far afield as tossing horse-shoes in the back yard).

It might have a bit to do with age, which sometimes teaches some kinds of maturity. Demographics, though, are just spreads of probabilities not so useful in relationships with individuals.

Some of us here can remember the days when, if D&D was #1, WW2 operational and strategic games were #2.

I'm no great shakes at those, but I think I may be better than average at playing the Soviets in the Great Patriotic War (regardless of game).

In my (perhaps unrepresentative) experience, most war-gamers have more aptitude for offense than for defense.

People coming to D&D due to the intersection with the fantasy of comic-books may be accustomed to garishly costumed and super-powered heroes a whole lot more reactive than our beloved feckless swordsmen. If Superman really took the initiative to change the world ... you'd get into oddball cases like Squadron Supreme or Watchmen.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I will note that Tolkien's hobbits more or less hauled out of their holes by the scruffs of their necks to participate in nasty adventures have influenced a lot of popular heroic fantasy.

For a lot of folks, "Show me money!" does not work as well as "Show me the Dark Lord!".

(If he's Jack Kirby's Darkseid, then Apokolips yeah you can punch my ticket to the Boom Tube and hand me my Mother Box!)

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:With a few rare exceptions, most of them posting on this board, without "missions" or assignments" it is my experience that most players will never leave the tavern/inn/starting location.

I've seen that, a bit; mostly with younger players or new players, but I suppose it might apply to experienced players who have never done anything but "tell me what to do" type of missions.

One possibility to break this mold is to give them a nice strong "boss" (maybe a mid-level magic user) that sends them on some missions, but have it gradually become apparent that the boss doesn't have the PCs' best interests at heart, or perhaps is even setting them up for a fall. In other words, try to engineer a situation where the players naturally change into "free agents" in their own minds.

I've never experianced this problem (unless I'm sitting with a bad DM who's either trying to ram some plot down our throats, or doesn't have anything planned and is uncreative). New players should have either been told by the DM (before game) or read in the PH (on their own) what they're supposed to do (find monsters and get thier treasures) for whatever reason.

In any event, even lazy players will quickly run out of money and need to either find work (selling thier sword) or look for self employment "didn't you say there was some ruins around here where gold was found". If that doesn't work, trouble can always find PCs (local scum start a fight, a map is found on them to a cults hidden lair, etc.). The possibilities are endless and so obvious I don't think anyones ever written a list down (the girl who comes in worried about her missing father who didn't return from collecting wood, a blood trail leads to the cliff wall and secret doore etc.). If anything, the typical problem for the DM is not to tell the players too much too fast without first making them "earn it". Its better if players start asking questions themselves and uncover work, so they feel like they've accomplished something just in learning the location of lair x.

Then there's always hiring out as a guard (crossing some dangerous woods or path, which leads to the dungeon) , an NPC adventurer looking for a party to explore a hidden dungeon he has a map to etc. etc. etc.

The problem is that a lot of gamers today are not on board with the basic D&D premise, and not prepared to go out and stamp their own on the game in play.

The "story-telling" concept of an RPG has become too widespread and deeply rooted. It's not enough (in that view) for it to be just a game.
"What's it about?"
"Exploring dungeons and wilderness, and dealing with traps and enemies to carry off treasure. You score points for the treasure you get."
"But what's it about? What's the plot? What are the themes? What's my motivation?"