Railroading and linearity in adventure modules
Jason Stokes
Reading through some old TSR AD&D adventure modules I have lying around,
I'm surprised at the amount of railroading (euphemized as
"troubleshooting") the modules go through and how linear the stories are,
especially since in my mature stage of GMing I've always regarded
railroading and linearity as "bad form" (to the extent I've dropped half
of the material I've prepared when players just *don't* figure it out/take
the bait.
I suspect most of the denizens of rec.games.frp.misc would agree with me;
but it makes me wonder. Are there "good" (or merely, reasonable and
expedient) ways of railroading players, and are there good adventures with
linear plots, or was TSR just printing rubbish?
--
Jason Stokes: j%stokes <at> bohm%anu%edu%au
exchange <at> with @ and % with . to discover my email address.
Bruce Baugh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <j.stokes-170...@g20mac8.anu.edu.au>,
j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
>but it makes me wonder. Are there "good" (or merely, reasonable and
>expedient) ways of railroading players, and are there good adventures
>with linear plots, or was TSR just printing rubbish?
Well, gaming does evolve.
Remember that gaming in general and D&D in particular began as an
outgrowth of wargaming, and it took time to develop approaches that
weren't so dependent on principles of wargame scenario design. (The
very term "scenario" is indicative.)
These days there are alternatives. One of the projects I'm working on
now has something I'm inclined to call scene-clusters - it's been used
before, and called other things, I know, but it's late and I'm
blanking on terms. Anyway, the idea is to have a bunch of scenes which
can be taken in just about any order, with links to and fro. The
players will, hopefully :), get to the given ending without too much
shoving along a particular path.
It's somewhat trickier to write, in some ways, but more satisfying.
(And in my experience, more reflective of how play works. In my
personal gaming I've long since given up writing much detail for the
latter half of any given adventure, because the players will be
hopelessly removed from anything I'd planned anyhow.)
Linear plotting works sometimes. Put the characters on a train, say.
:) But it's hard to do in ways that lead to satisfying play, I think.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEPAwUBM6zLW33AXR8sjiylAQFngAfQoX+Bv6VDlkxbfihiF1D+NvkXxA0Rml0Z
VgD6bDrL7pPxhXlp/1dCgBKT+MdRYpM43tQKDopiEhesAXAPuFOsjP7btN+WLAe3
z4lmLEaIPBWLLz9xhnihx1PSF95HcqW5q0Fq7bl0pIfeJAxprSl5O/8o1E/sROiw
cJs+Islu0PvR31raSiZo0lhyKfKOtol05MnZTJar5K6WxjTW5kvdOyUcjZYp3C4P
bdyYpt82dVFBw0H1zwbGJVmAGSmRmYBPejgDGSFCOJ1AiD9DTktkgj2AFHJOYFHb
EDh87HvFE+WalYt21VoY5zkjkI16dTGBA5yXSOdul/jKqw==
=eE5W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.phix.com/~bruce
ari...@eyrie.org <*> Host, new S.F. by Stirling and Effing er
(The above space is deliberate; ask and I'll tell you why, too.)
Manager, Christlib, mailing list of Christian & libertarian concerns
Mr. Tines
###
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:11:01 +1100, in
<j.stokes-170...@g20mac8.anu.edu.au>
j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote.....
> Reading through some old TSR AD&D adventure modules I have lying around,
> I'm surprised at the amount of railroading (euphemized as
> "troubleshooting")
I have often found that "troubleshooting" sections - and in my experience
Shadowrun modules are as bad if not worse in this respect - have sections
for if the players to A, B, or C, when I can tell from reading that the
players are likely to do Q, W or X. Personally, I don't sweat it. The
one advantage of the railroaded plotlines is that it gives you a timeline
of what the opposition will be doing when, all else being equal, and
that is usually enough to figure out the style of response to changed
circumstances.
I find this a lot better than the old style D&D modules
as lauded in r.g.f.dnd which if they are not simply monster hotels have
a set-up which is manifestly unstable but is essentially in stasis until
the PCs wander around the corner. If you're going to have to supply the
dynamics of the situation yourself, then what's the point of contracting
out any of the effort? I usually have enough to do tweaking things so
they don't violate my suspension of disbelief.
What I do find discouraging about the "troubleshooting" parts of modules
is the style of play which they assume (usually being of the form "If the
players have been mindless gun-bunnies" or "If the players have been ditto
wannabes and didn't do a good job of it")
> Are there "good" (or merely, reasonable and
> expedient) ways of railroading players
I do find as GM that I am more aware of when I am leading the players
by the nose than they seem to be.
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
3ad08a954d0134856279ad11b7241ad8f5ee4426e55632d38f46afe7864b
a573d347e8b7c253ee77b6037f4061b21ac4718f0fbeb19dd82de8fb57a8
Anthony Ragan
j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) screamed into the
Void:
>Reading through some old TSR AD&D adventure modules
Out of curiosity, what do you call "old?" For me, an old D&D module
would be Village of Hommlet(*),while anything for their recent
gameworlds would be new by comparison.
> I have lying around,
>I'm surprised at the amount of railroading (euphemized as
>"troubleshooting") the modules go through and how linear the stories are,
>especially since in my mature stage of GMing I've always regarded
>railroading and linearity as "bad form"
It's not just a TSR disease, either -- some of the worst railroading
I've seen happens in the modules written for Vampire (at least, up
through "Milwaukee by Night," after which I stopped playing the game).
>I suspect most of the denizens of rec.games.frp.misc would agree with me;
>but it makes me wonder. Are there "good" (or merely, reasonable and
>expedient) ways of railroading players, and are there good adventures with
>linear plots, or was TSR just printing rubbish?
Hmmm...by my definition of railroading (forcing the players along
narrow pre-written lines, putting "plot" above character freedom,
including the freedom to simply ignore the adventure), there is no
good way to do it.
When I write an adventure, I often do have an end or climax in mind
(though even that's not set in stone -- players are too
unpredictable). What I try to do though is provide multiple paths that
lead to the same end -- the players choose their route. They still get
to where I want them to go (usually), but they decided how they got
there. This lets me have a plot while still preserving a player's
freedom to actually play his character.
If you can find it, Lou Prosperi wrote a nice essay about designing
this kind of adventure -- I think he calls it the "clue tree"
adventure. It's in the Chill Companion, now out of print.
(*)I still think Hommlet is one of the best adventures to use to
introduce new players to rpgs. It has a nice, interesting setting, a
few plot threads, and is reuseable. I've used it in AD&D, Dragonquest,
WFRP, and (with some reworking) GURPS Space.
*****
--Anthony Ragan
Snotling in Chief, Staadtholder van Marienburg
iris...@mindspring.com (primary) & Iris...@aol.com (secondary)
The Warhammer FRP FAQ is at:
ftp://ftp.pvv.unit.no/pub/warhammer/FAQ3.2
Inovia Sil
Reading through some old TSR AD&D adventure modules I have lying around,
>I'm surprised at the amount of railroading (euphemized as
>"troubleshooting") the modules go through and how linear the stories are,
>especially since in my mature stage of GMing I've always regarded
>of the material I've prepared when players just *don't* figure it
out/take
>the bait.
>I suspect most of the denizens of rec.games.frp.misc would agree with me;
>but it makes me wonder. Are there "good" (or merely, reasonable and
>expedient) ways of railroading players, and are there good adventures
with
>linear plots, or was TSR just printing rubbish?
Originally, I think most GM's start by the railroad approach. GMing is
an acquired skill, and it requires practice to become flexible and quicl
thinking. We as GM's still railroad the players 90% of the time IMHO, but
we become more subtle about it. I am going to try to build a world, and
then let the players mostly do whatever, but this experiment will really
tax my ability to improvise. Still, I think it's going to be fun.
I think guiding the group is almost inevitable (but not always), and
they do not seem to mind terribly if your subtle. The middle ground makes
my adventures/stories end up one page of notes, more like an outline.
-Inovia Sil
Barry Gold
In article <j.stokes-170...@g20mac8.anu.edu.au>,
Jason Stokes <j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Reading through some old TSR AD&D adventure modules I have lying around,
>I'm surprised at the amount of railroading (euphemized as
>"troubleshooting") the modules go through and how linear the stories are,
>especially since in my mature stage of GMing I've always regarded
>railroading and linearity as "bad form" (to the extent I've dropped half
>of the material I've prepared when players just *don't* figure it out/take
>the bait.
>
>I suspect most of the denizens of rec.games.frp.misc would agree with me;
>but it makes me wonder. Are there "good" (or merely, reasonable and
>expedient) ways of railroading players, and are there good adventures with
>linear plots, or was TSR just printing rubbish?
I GM, I just set up the initial situation and devote
myself to properly roleplaying the NPC. Somehow we always
get a dramatically satisfying plot out of it. If I ever
figure out how it works, I'll write it up and sell it.
When trying to write someone for someone else to use, though,
I try not to be linear but to anticipate a variety of possible
choices, and provide instructions for what to do if some or
all of the PC group take them.
But I still have to depend on the GM to be prepared to wing it
if -- as ALWAYS happens when I GM -- the PCs decide to do
something I'd have never thought of but don't see any logical
or cultural reason to forbid.
When I started GMing, I used to devise scenario traps and put
in two possible solutions. I eventually noticed that the PCs
always debated three solutions, none of which were the ones I'd
provided but all of which would work as I'd described the problem
to them, and then often chose a fourth tactic. So I saved myself
work by creating problems and not worrying about whether there
seemed to be a solution.
I remember a TOON party that literally went to hell (I had the
road covered with New Year's Resolutions = good intentions)
and found along the way a dump full of machines that had
irritated their owners enough to be consigned to hell (cars,
computers, etc.) They befriended a computer and it followed
them along. Some hours later when they wanted to leave, they
just hit the ESCAPE key. I spent the next few minutes laughing
(and gave them all Plot Points).
--Lee Gold, using Barry's edress
DwD
In article <j.stokes-170...@g20mac8.anu.edu.au>, j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
>Reading through some old TSR AD&D adventure modules I have lying around,
>I'm surprised at the amount of railroading (euphemized as
>"troubleshooting") the modules go through and how linear the stories are,
>especially since in my mature stage of GMing I've always regarded
>railroading and linearity as "bad form" (to the extent I've dropped half
>of the material I've prepared when players just *don't* figure it out/take
>the bait.
Definitely railroading is bad GM form, but most modules I have read from TSR
have to provide some sort of timeline/sequence of events to make it easier to
follow. This allows the GM to understand the flow of the scenario. Now, if the
player deviate from the path the GM should 'help' them along, but not railroad
them. I think there is two different concepts at work here. 1) the scenario
layout vs 2) deliberate GM railroading. Scenario railroading I can handle, GM
railroading I don't mind if done very well. Really bad railroading is
untolerable.
I have never seen this "troubleshooting section"??
DwD
DwD
>
>I do find as GM that I am more aware of when I am leading the players
>by the nose than they seem to be.
Yes, I agree. Well handled pushing, prodding or 'railroading' by the GM is
usually missed by players. It doesn't matter if the scenario is linear or not,
most players I have played with (as GM) never realize that they are going in a
linear fashion.
DwD
Jason Stokes
In article <5op4o8$ig3$2...@news1.sympatico.ca>, b1hx...@pop1.sympatico.ca
(DwD) wrote:
So as long as the players don't *feel* they are being railroaded...
sounds reasonable.
Bart Gerardi
On Tue, 24 Jun 97 18:46:31 GMT, b1hx...@pop1.sympatico.ca (DwD)
wrote:
>>
>>I do find as GM that I am more aware of when I am leading the players
>>by the nose than they seem to be.
>
>Yes, I agree. Well handled pushing, prodding or 'railroading' by the GM is
>usually missed by players. It doesn't matter if the scenario is linear or not,
>most players I have played with (as GM) never realize that they are going in a
>linear fashion.
But it can lead to a strong anti-climax. My group just finished the
Earthdawn adventures in "Prelude to War." Unfortunately, we picked up
on some really subtle clues, and had the thing figured out too early.
I swear, it was good detective work, (and excellent note-taking -- we
use two notetakers that take notes very differently....) and not poor
design. The problem was there was no way out of the scenario if we
figured it out early.
So, when the dramatic moment happened, we were right there for it,
knew what was happening, and wrapped it up. We have a Good GM, and he
was able to make it work, but it was still an anti-climax...
Bart
DwD
[post]
>>Yes, I agree. Well handled pushing, prodding or 'railroading' by the GM is
>>usually missed by players. It doesn't matter if the scenario is linear or not,
>>most players I have played with (as GM) never realize that they are going in a
>>linear fashion.
>But it can lead to a strong anti-climax. My group just finished the
>figured it out early.
>So, when the dramatic moment happened, we were right there for it,
>knew what was happening, and wrapped it up. We have a Good GM, and he
>was able to make it work, but it was still an anti-climax...
Well, I do see your point. Is it the scenario's role to cover all possibilties
- or is this the GM's responsibility?
Although, all scenarios must have an end - regardless of how the players get
there. I believe that if the ending was given away (or 'rightly so' discovered
by the players), it would take some deft on the GM's part to either alter the
ending or twist the plot. I think this would be the case in linear or any
other style of plot development. Not many GM's can pull out of a pending
disaster like the one you described. Of course, if the ending is not acheived
in that game session, and the GM has time to re-think the scenario more
thoroughly.
A good example would be the old A1-4 Slave Lord Series. A VERY linear plot and
style of adevnture design. Certainly there are many places for the characters
to go off track, give up, screw up, figure things out, etc. But there are also
many places for the GM to adjust play to keep the flavour of the scenario
going.
I guess it just boils down to that good/exceptional GM's can make anything
work, and work well. Inexperienced GM's may find either style
of adventure design (linear/railroading or 'unstructured') easier to work
with. I don't think there is a right or wrong, or better or worse way for
scenario writing, just gamemastering.
DwD