So I'm taking over 3 sessions to try my hand at DM'ing for my current D&D group. I've completed session 1, and it went wonderfully. Here's the basic summary of the story
The party goes back in time to an ancient castle siege to figure out what happened to 3 important characters that disappeared after the siege. That's the primary mission.
Session 1: set the stage, situation, narrative Session 2: Earning trust with King to be invited on this siege (king is a very good guy, Paladin champion of Lathandar) Session 3: Participating in siege to figure out where those people went (so they won't be fighting so much as trying to figure out where these characters went)--then return home.
Session 2 starts them at the warcamp preparing to assault the castle. They rescued the kings daughter who is being played by our normal DM. My session outline is this
1. They get to camp, put in a holding cell, face moral dilemma to try to escape or wait. 2. They will be interrogated by the king individually (this will be done by each of them getting the same 3 questions and providing me individual answers via text without having talked to eachother) (hoping this part will be fun as they debate whether or not to lie about what brought them there) 3. King makes a decision on what to do with them and releases them into camp, and letting them choose from an armory of powerful magical items. They can explore camp. 4. Emergency happens where a sergeant flies in on a griffin and is like "Reinforcements are heading to the castle, we must stop as many as we can!". They then fly off on Griffins to the ambush location where an unstoppable host of undead will be marching throw a ravine. Combat ensues. Their job is not to win the battle, but to prevent as many from reaching the castle as possible. Enemies will not attack them much--(maybe a bit of flying harrassment), but enemy goal is to reach the other side. Environmental variables, barrels, etc, will be plentiful. 5. After completion, return to camp and having earned kings favor (depending on quantity killed) will be invited to the siege as a trusted participant.
My question is on step 4---I'm thrusting a narrative on them, and if they say "nawww", then I don't have a plan for them because I have a super tight, 3 session window. Would you consider that railroading? I'm not sure where the balance is because of a tight session and narrative window. The narrative is linear as a result. What do you think?
Then--does it sound fun and doable for a typical 3 hour session? In the session they get 3 major moral dilemmas (should they break out of the crude holding cell when asked not to? Do they tell the truth during individual interrogation, and will they only take 1 magic item from magic item vault on a trust system?), camp exploration, and a large scale battle where their goal is to diminish the reinforcement and flex their powers.
1. Barbarian (zealot) 2. Cleric (Twilight domain) 3. Warlock (not sure) 4. Ranger (beastmaster I think) There is an NPc being played by the normal DM who will offer to bust them out of their initial holding cell, and then later join them. 5. Shadow Monk
Personally I wouldn't call that railroading, there's a difference between railroading (only letting your players do set things in exactly the way you planned) and a linear campaign (plot hooks come one after another in order but players have total freedom on how they solve it) Lost Mines of Phandelver is largely linear and it's one of the most beloved official releases of 5e. Especially if you've only got three sessions with a new DM you'd expect more of a linear campaign because you've got that time restriction and it would be unfair on you to expect you to prep a million things just in case they decide they don't like it. Your players also have a bit of a responsibility, again especially with a new DM, to accept plot hooks you give them because that's how the game is played. If they decide not to then they're being arseholes frankly and not treating you fairly.
If everybody knows that you're specifically playing a short "3-shot" game, then they should know to expect tight story beats and not wander. The time for players to mess around is during a full length campaign when time isn't critical - if they disregard your hook, then it's not on you (and the way this looks, it's not railroading, either).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
seems like the sort of thing to communicate to the players. "hey, i have this fun idea but it's not much of a sandbox. would it hurt anybody's feelings if this three-part adventure i'm planning was a bit linear? like, not much side-questing. after that, we can go back to business as usual. what do you think: go / no-go?"
is that railroading? going off-path will 'derail' things, so yes. but you've laid out an end date for things to go back to not-a-railroad. around here some folks like to say "everybody brings their own reason to be in the party" and that applies even when the party is being funneled down a narrow path. if everyone is all-aboard, then choo choo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Any game that I've put my players into the past is a railroad. They already know the outcome from it. There is no changing it.
That in mind I make it fun for them. To see what happened and how it all went back then. It's more of an understanding of part events that they can not change. To give them information for what they are going through in their current time.
Can't change the past so anything that happened in the past that the players are viewing and interacting with is a railroad.
Nothing wrong with it as long as the players know they can't change things and this is only for a view into the history of how those moments happened.
Echoing Avohei, if it's in the past, they know what happened, and events should progress like a strict railroad to the final outcome.
Except
The players know the timeline and can alter it through character choices and actions. Let them make changes. Then, when they return to the future, show them what's changed by meddling with the past. Classic Doctor Who trope really :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi All,
So I'm taking over 3 sessions to try my hand at DM'ing for my current D&D group. I've completed session 1, and it went wonderfully. Here's the basic summary of the story
The party goes back in time to an ancient castle siege to figure out what happened to 3 important characters that disappeared after the siege. That's the primary mission.
Session 1: set the stage, situation, narrative
Session 2: Earning trust with King to be invited on this siege (king is a very good guy, Paladin champion of Lathandar)
Session 3: Participating in siege to figure out where those people went (so they won't be fighting so much as trying to figure out where these characters went)--then return home.
Session 2 starts them at the warcamp preparing to assault the castle. They rescued the kings daughter who is being played by our normal DM. My session outline is this
1. They get to camp, put in a holding cell, face moral dilemma to try to escape or wait.
2. They will be interrogated by the king individually (this will be done by each of them getting the same 3 questions and providing me individual answers via text without having talked to eachother) (hoping this part will be fun as they debate whether or not to lie about what brought them there)
3. King makes a decision on what to do with them and releases them into camp, and letting them choose from an armory of powerful magical items. They can explore camp.
4. Emergency happens where a sergeant flies in on a griffin and is like "Reinforcements are heading to the castle, we must stop as many as we can!". They then fly off on Griffins to the ambush location where an unstoppable host of undead will be marching throw a ravine. Combat ensues. Their job is not to win the battle, but to prevent as many from reaching the castle as possible. Enemies will not attack them much--(maybe a bit of flying harrassment), but enemy goal is to reach the other side. Environmental variables, barrels, etc, will be plentiful.
5. After completion, return to camp and having earned kings favor (depending on quantity killed) will be invited to the siege as a trusted participant.
My question is on step 4---I'm thrusting a narrative on them, and if they say "nawww", then I don't have a plan for them because I have a super tight, 3 session window. Would you consider that railroading? I'm not sure where the balance is because of a tight session and narrative window. The narrative is linear as a result. What do you think?
Then--does it sound fun and doable for a typical 3 hour session?
In the session they get 3 major moral dilemmas (should they break out of the crude holding cell when asked not to? Do they tell the truth during individual interrogation, and will they only take 1 magic item from magic item vault on a trust system?), camp exploration, and a large scale battle where their goal is to diminish the reinforcement and flex their powers.
Appreciate the feedback!
One thing I would need to know to help you is your player levels
5 total, all level 10 and very well equipped.
1. Barbarian (zealot)
2. Cleric (Twilight domain)
3. Warlock (not sure)
4. Ranger (beastmaster I think)
There is an NPc being played by the normal DM who will offer to bust them out of their initial holding cell, and then later join them.
5. Shadow Monk
Personally I wouldn't call that railroading, there's a difference between railroading (only letting your players do set things in exactly the way you planned) and a linear campaign (plot hooks come one after another in order but players have total freedom on how they solve it) Lost Mines of Phandelver is largely linear and it's one of the most beloved official releases of 5e. Especially if you've only got three sessions with a new DM you'd expect more of a linear campaign because you've got that time restriction and it would be unfair on you to expect you to prep a million things just in case they decide they don't like it. Your players also have a bit of a responsibility, again especially with a new DM, to accept plot hooks you give them because that's how the game is played. If they decide not to then they're being arseholes frankly and not treating you fairly.
If everybody knows that you're specifically playing a short "3-shot" game, then they should know to expect tight story beats and not wander. The time for players to mess around is during a full length campaign when time isn't critical - if they disregard your hook, then it's not on you (and the way this looks, it's not railroading, either).
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
seems like the sort of thing to communicate to the players. "hey, i have this fun idea but it's not much of a sandbox. would it hurt anybody's feelings if this three-part adventure i'm planning was a bit linear? like, not much side-questing. after that, we can go back to business as usual. what do you think: go / no-go?"
is that railroading? going off-path will 'derail' things, so yes. but you've laid out an end date for things to go back to not-a-railroad. around here some folks like to say "everybody brings their own reason to be in the party" and that applies even when the party is being funneled down a narrow path. if everyone is all-aboard, then choo choo.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Any game that I've put my players into the past is a railroad. They already know the outcome from it. There is no changing it.
That in mind I make it fun for them. To see what happened and how it all went back then. It's more of an understanding of part events that they can not change. To give them information for what they are going through in their current time.
Can't change the past so anything that happened in the past that the players are viewing and interacting with is a railroad.
Nothing wrong with it as long as the players know they can't change things and this is only for a view into the history of how those moments happened.
It's basically an interactive lore drop.
Echoing Avohei, if it's in the past, they know what happened, and events should progress like a strict railroad to the final outcome.
Except
The players know the timeline and can alter it through character choices and actions. Let them make changes. Then, when they return to the future, show them what's changed by meddling with the past. Classic Doctor Who trope really :)