We all know we aren't supposed to railroad players. If we wanted to
have full control, we can just write a book. However, written into
the game are restrictions for players and some arguably even for
Dungeon Masters. The extent of the control the Dungeon Master should
have over events as well as the degree of influence players should
have is an interesting topic and I hope to share some of my thoughts
on it. I won't be able to fit everything I want in here but I feel
like I should start somewhere.
Rules Are Restrictions
Games like D&D allow a lot of freedom for players to try things,
particularly when compared to things such as video games, but the
presence of rules still imposes some restrictions. If we wanted to
tell a collective story, we could do good old fashioned collaborative
story telling. The issue is that, again, we end up basically writing
a book together. Role-playing happens in one direction. We don't want
to need to come back and revise an event. We want to keep the story
going forward. The result is that we start to develop a resolution
mechanic. The player needs to know how it's handled
so they can develop their characters within that framework to be what
they want. It also adds some structure to what we are doing and makes
it less about just making things up as we go along.
Of course, we do make things up as we go along as Dungeon Masters. We
still need to come up with a world, characters, and enemies. However,
we are also armed with a resolution mechanism that takes some control
out of our hands and into the hands of the players. It gives the game
some transparency and lets the player understand how things work so
that they can act accordingly. It also adds some unpredictability to
the outcomes of actions (without it, we'd just be deciding things as
the Dungeon Master). By removing some possibilities and shifting
likeliness, we have something more interesting. Players work within
their restrictions to solve problems and can think of intriguing ways
to use their restrictions in interesting ways.
What's Wrong With Restrictions?
Too much restriction is a bad thing as well. Just like being able to
do absolutely anything in a game at any time for any reason is boring, it's also boring to be
able to do absolutely nothing. Some people are naturally good
storytellers and listening to them speak or their audio book is
great. I can't remember ever hearing someone complain that their
audio book was too railroady. However, tabletop role-playing games
are more than that. We come into them with the expectation of
interactivity and creating a story together. It's a different
experience. We want meaningful choices on both sides of the screen.
Even interpreting and running a pre-written adventure is a creative
task and requires decisions on the part of the Dungeon Master.
Reason For Railroading?
The main cause for railroading I've seen is that the Dungeon Master
wants a particular and specific story event to occur. It's more than
just coming across a particular situation. Putting your players into
a situation is perfectly fine. The problem is when the solution to
that situation is already thought up and you refuse to consider any
other, even when they should make sense. Say you want your players to
be captured. Fine. It might even make sense. If they just killed
someone high ranking, it would make sense someone might be after
them. However, if they think of a clever way to escape and roll
appropriately, they won't be captured. You can force them onto the
railroad and capture them anyway, but in that case it feels cheap.
There isn't much of a choice in cases where you want to railroad
because even if they think of something, or beat the odds and win a
straight up encounter, you'll still go back and try to force them
onto the path. Railroading often leads to more railroading.
Players eventually ending up at a particular spot is fine. However,
they still need to choose their path to where they are going. The
extent and specifics of this is hard to discuss since it depends on a
number of things including the players themselves, the stories being
told, and the Dungeon Master themselves.
How Much Restriction?
This is a hard thing to talk about. Rules are restrictions and the
way we interpret and actually use them are important. Do you let a
player succeed based on the pure logic or points of their argument
that they role-played, their character's charisma and persuasion
score combined with a roll, or a bit of both? Does it depend on the
situation? What situations fall under what rules? All of these put
restrictions on what player characters can do.
If you are playing a comedic game, your player's arrow might very
well be able to hit the moon on a natural 20. In this case, the tone
of the game will play a part into the restrictions. Some players also
like some degree of restriction. There is nothing wrong with a good
dungeon delve. Having your players being part of a guild that chooses
from some number of missions and does it is more restrictive than a
sandbox world where your players are looking for tombs in the desert.
However, the guild scenario still allows your players to choose how
they approach the mission they decide on. Some might hate this
restriction. Some might like not spending half an hour arguing with
each-other over which direction they should look for the tomb next.
Regardless, both need to have meaningful choices and your players
should be comfortable with it. Of course, the exact definition of meaningful varies from person to person. Sometimes you need to adjust on the
fly as well. Don't feel like you need to be locked in.
No comments:
Post a Comment