You had said, "my players' actions influence the scenario, which is why they go to prison."
The first DM I ever had played a world where consequences were forced on us under the logic that 'this is the consequence of what you did'. So, we just thought this is how it should be played. It always felt wrong, but I didn't know enough at the time about D&D. In one case, he wanted a demon to fly off carrying a child that my character very cleverly saved. He did NOT want that child saved, it was part of his story to capture the child. He got so angry that he killed the child. He narrated that the body "exploded" on the ground and refused to let our cleric bring them back from the dead. He rage quit after that.
"You did this, so this happened" was the logic, every time. It reads very much like your description "My players did X so they go to prison". " If I had been “railroading,” I would have continued my campaign as if nothing had happened." This took me a minute to follow this logic. So you're saying that since railroading is players actions not influencing the world around them, then therefore sending them to prison is not railroading, because you've created a causal relationship between their behavior and what happens. You've responded to their actions. Okay--I can follow that chain of thought, but there are a few issues with it.
This is a partial understanding of railroading. You're right, if the players actions have no impact on the world, it's definitely suspect to be railroading. Suspect, but not conclusive. At the same time, only a select amount of player actions will create a ripple effect. This means that a determination 'am I railroading my players?' can't be concluded by 'world reactivity' alone. So this results in the logic above "Guards have reacted to what the players did, therefore there is no railroading." which, is not accurate.
If I were to estimate the source of all railroading in the DM world, I'd put only a fraction of it in the 'the world doesn't respond to what my players did', category, and then put the lions share in the 'the way the world responds forces a narrative outcome' category.
You said this: " I already have the whole scenario figured out. There's nothing they can do to avoid prison."
Which component of railroading does this fall into? It's absolutely railroading, as others have pointed out.
It's worth considering the difference between 'probabilistic' vs 'deterministic' adjudication.
Deterministic: This is when "Input A" must result in "Outcome B". There are no variables here and the narrative demands this to occur. Deterministic outcomes are fixed outcomes. This is a prescriptive reality, where you are telling the players what happened to them. This is exactly the point Xalthu was making when he said "just send them an email" if their outcomes are pre-determined.
Probabilistic: Probabilistic outcomes are potential outcomes, where the result is not just "Outcome B", but C, D, E, F...etc. In fact, there could be an infinite amount of possible outcomes, and going to prison is just one of them. This is how to avoid railroading.
What you're describing is deterministic: "There's nothing they can do to avoid prison."
So then how to avoid this?
Well, obviously the players will try not to be sent to prison. Maybe they'll try to dodge the guards. Maybe they'll try to disguise themselves and sneak out. Maybe they'll persuade or intimidate the guards, bribe them just kill them out of sight and hide the bodies. You don't have to give them equal potentials, but to avoid railroading, there needs to be outcomes other than the one you've already decided will happen. In fact, you should never know what will happen.
"I have to say I was a little disappointed because my idea for the prison seemed so cool in my head."
It is a great idea! Don't be discouraged--just change it. For sure do it, but don't make it impossible for them to avoid prison. How about set it up like this:
There is someone in power that they've made angry with their murderhobo ways (they killed a nephew of this person), and that person wants justice. They want your players in prison, and will stop at nothing until that happens--a bit of rich privilege vigilante justice. So they've paid a group of ruffians to beat your players up and bring them to the guards. The ruffians do this--maybe they succeed, maybe not. Maybe the players kill them all. So then the boss in charge sends another group, this time stronger, and the boss lures them into a trap because the boss knows how capable they are and exploits their weaknesses. In this second encounter, players CAN still escape and win--but dice rolls and decision making will really have to go their way.
It's reasonable that at least one of them is captured, and probable that they all get captured. Let's say they get captured.
Now start your multiple-faction prison scene.
And the twist? The boss that the players pissed off who got them arrested is now who they're working for. The boss never cared about his nephew, he really wanted a group of capable killers to be indebted to him. Mic drop!
Lots of choices from there!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Linwe,
Glad some of this was of use!
A few notes:
You had said,
"my players' actions influence the scenario, which is why they go to prison."
The first DM I ever had played a world where consequences were forced on us under the logic that 'this is the consequence of what you did'. So, we just thought this is how it should be played. It always felt wrong, but I didn't know enough at the time about D&D. In one case, he wanted a demon to fly off carrying a child that my character very cleverly saved. He did NOT want that child saved, it was part of his story to capture the child. He got so angry that he killed the child. He narrated that the body "exploded" on the ground and refused to let our cleric bring them back from the dead. He rage quit after that.
"You did this, so this happened" was the logic, every time. It reads very much like your description "My players did X so they go to prison".
" If I had been “railroading,” I would have continued my campaign as if nothing had happened."
This took me a minute to follow this logic. So you're saying that since railroading is players actions not influencing the world around them, then therefore sending them to prison is not railroading, because you've created a causal relationship between their behavior and what happens. You've responded to their actions. Okay--I can follow that chain of thought, but there are a few issues with it.
This is a partial understanding of railroading. You're right, if the players actions have no impact on the world, it's definitely suspect to be railroading. Suspect, but not conclusive. At the same time, only a select amount of player actions will create a ripple effect. This means that a determination 'am I railroading my players?' can't be concluded by 'world reactivity' alone. So this results in the logic above "Guards have reacted to what the players did, therefore there is no railroading." which, is not accurate.
If I were to estimate the source of all railroading in the DM world, I'd put only a fraction of it in the 'the world doesn't respond to what my players did', category, and then put the lions share in the 'the way the world responds forces a narrative outcome' category.
You said this:
" I already have the whole scenario figured out. There's nothing they can do to avoid prison."
Which component of railroading does this fall into? It's absolutely railroading, as others have pointed out.
It's worth considering the difference between 'probabilistic' vs 'deterministic' adjudication.
Deterministic: This is when "Input A" must result in "Outcome B". There are no variables here and the narrative demands this to occur. Deterministic outcomes are fixed outcomes. This is a prescriptive reality, where you are telling the players what happened to them. This is exactly the point Xalthu was making when he said "just send them an email" if their outcomes are pre-determined.
Probabilistic: Probabilistic outcomes are potential outcomes, where the result is not just "Outcome B", but C, D, E, F...etc. In fact, there could be an infinite amount of possible outcomes, and going to prison is just one of them. This is how to avoid railroading.
What you're describing is deterministic: "There's nothing they can do to avoid prison."
So then how to avoid this?
Well, obviously the players will try not to be sent to prison. Maybe they'll try to dodge the guards. Maybe they'll try to disguise themselves and sneak out. Maybe they'll persuade or intimidate the guards, bribe them just kill them out of sight and hide the bodies. You don't have to give them equal potentials, but to avoid railroading, there needs to be outcomes other than the one you've already decided will happen. In fact, you should never know what will happen.
"I have to say I was a little disappointed because my idea for the prison seemed so cool in my head."
It is a great idea! Don't be discouraged--just change it. For sure do it, but don't make it impossible for them to avoid prison. How about set it up like this:
There is someone in power that they've made angry with their murderhobo ways (they killed a nephew of this person), and that person wants justice. They want your players in prison, and will stop at nothing until that happens--a bit of rich privilege vigilante justice. So they've paid a group of ruffians to beat your players up and bring them to the guards. The ruffians do this--maybe they succeed, maybe not. Maybe the players kill them all. So then the boss in charge sends another group, this time stronger, and the boss lures them into a trap because the boss knows how capable they are and exploits their weaknesses. In this second encounter, players CAN still escape and win--but dice rolls and decision making will really have to go their way.
It's reasonable that at least one of them is captured, and probable that they all get captured. Let's say they get captured.
Now start your multiple-faction prison scene.
And the twist? The boss that the players pissed off who got them arrested is now who they're working for. The boss never cared about his nephew, he really wanted a group of capable killers to be indebted to him. Mic drop!
Lots of choices from there!