I have a haunted house quest that I have planned for a game. The first hook will be a woman asking the party to help find her missing children (shocker they are in the house). If they don't go for and introduce another hook for example they hear rumors about the house and say they ignore that and I add another hook is that railroading https://routerlogin.uno/ ?
Railroading or not, it's common as muck - so to speak. Some hidden issue is plagueing a society, and various symptoms pop up - each a separate quest that people in said society ask the PC's for help with. Eventually, it all leads back to the same source. Fine and dandy.
Is it railroading? No. At least I don't think so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's only railroading if there's no actual choice -- there's one track the game's going to go along. If the players can't not go to the haunted house, then it's railroading.
Which doesn't make it necessarily bad. In many games, there's a prepared adventure, and if the players avoid it, there's no game. It may be "better" if the GM can just make something up on the fly to react to the players' choices, but that's hard. IMO, it's better to just tell the players outright when this is the scenario, rather than playing magician's force games where all paths lead to the adventure, but YMMV.
Remember a rollercoaster is on a rail, but it’s a helluva fun ride. I do this a lot, the road my party takes to get to the things I prepared doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s fun, exciting and engaging.
I have a haunted house quest that I have planned for a game. The first hook will be a woman asking the party to help find her missing children (shocker they are in the house). If they don't go for and introduce another hook for example they hear rumors about the house and say they ignore that and I add another hook is that railroading?
Railroading or not is the wrong question. I think you mean to ask whether it is "good" or "bad" DMing. The answer there is "good". But rather than thinking about it as "adding more hooks" I'd think about it as "the problem gets worse". Most problems will just continue to get worse and worse until they are dealt with, this applies IRL and in our games. So if the PCs ignore a problem like a haunted house just have it continue to get worse.
Maybe at first it's just a spooky house that some curious kids when in to explore and got trapped and their mum asks the party to help, then creepy noises start coming from it causing the townsfolk to chat about it and the mayor offer a reward for checking it out, then random people walking outside start getting lured into the house & killed, then a magical storm cloud appears overhead of the house creating lighting & thunder... etc...
Also ... I mean, the discussion of railroading is everpresent, right? But really, it's like ... 'This Is The Plot!' This game is about how you - eventually - confront and defeat some BBEG. Like Count Strahd. Right?
It's not a game about how the PC's decide the BBEG is someone else's problem, and go off and do their own thing somewhere else. Having a plot is not railroading.
Railroading is removing player agency, it's when the PC's get captured no matter what they do. For instance. I've seen some pretty bad examples in my time - like when we got jumped by 20 giants while travelling over open plains. When we managed to get everyone flying, it turns out the giants had pet wizards who could fly after us. Anyways, sidetrack. Railroading might also be the quantum ogre thing: You go left, there's an ogre. Would the same ogre have been there if you picked right instead? Railroading might be used to describe an adventure where there's one and only one path to victory.
Having a plot is not railroading. Having multiple planned paths that each lead to the resolution of the plot is the opposite of railroading.
Also, the total absense of rails of any kind is a sandbox game. I've tried those many times: They don't work. If you don't give players a goal to pursue, they don't. They just stall. Sit there, waiting for you to give them a goal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Also ... I mean, the discussion of railroading is everpresent, right? But really, it's like ... 'This Is The Plot!' This game is about how you - eventually - confront and defeat some BBEG. Like Count Strahd. Right?
It's not a game about how the PC's decide the BBEG is someone else's problem, and go off and do their own thing somewhere else. Having a plot is not railroading.
[...]
Having a plot is not railroading. Having multiple planned paths that each lead to the resolution of the plot is the opposite of railroading.
Plot is not necessarily railroading... but it can lead to it. The more the DM thinks of "plot" as "the story that will be followed", the more train-like things can become.
"Defeat the Evil Overlord" isn't really plot. It's a goal. If it's up to the players how they go about it, it's not very railroady. If it's "gather the plot coupons of power", it's probably not, but more so. By the time it's "gather the plot coupons in this specific order and bring them to the Chosen One, then protect him in the final climactic confrontation at the gates of the Tower of Despair", it might as well be being GMed by Amtrak.
And the more freedom you give your players, the more you have to be prepared for them to do Something Else. Throw in with the evil overlord. Decide he's not their problem. Stubbornly pursue that minor side detail you threw in to the ends of the earth. And so on, and so forth.
Also, the total absense of rails of any kind is a sandbox game. I've tried those many times: They don't work. If you don't give players a goal to pursue, they don't. They just stall. Sit there, waiting for you to give them a goal.
Different groups want different levels of freedom. Some will be perfectly happy with a game with One Established Big Goal. Some will chafe.
In my experience, the trick of a more player-driven game is not to give them no goal, but many. Flesh out the things they bite on, while continuing to toss out more options. If they don't bite on a plot hook, maybe it wasn't that important, or maybe others in the world will deal with it, or maybe it'll develop in the background until it's something they can't ignore.
Different groups want different levels of freedom.
This 100%, the group I'm DMing needs a clearly defined goal at all times or they just stand still confused about what to do. Even when offered side-quests they almost always turn them down / ignore them in favour of the main quest. It took a lot of "here's a side quest that is also in the way of you progressing" to convince them that side-quests are worth doing and to take some time to explore. But they still rarely just do stuff just for curiosity's sake. Whereas the party I'm a player in hates skipping anything and tries to do all side-quests all the time, simultaneously, and investigates every room, and person they kill for anything interesting expecially any extra clues.
I have a haunted house quest that I have planned for a game. The first hook will be a woman asking the party to help find her missing children (shocker they are in the house). If they don't go for and introduce another hook for example they hear rumors about the house and say they ignore that and I add another hook is that railroading https://routerlogin.uno/ ?
Railroading or not, it's common as muck - so to speak. Some hidden issue is plagueing a society, and various symptoms pop up - each a separate quest that people in said society ask the PC's for help with. Eventually, it all leads back to the same source. Fine and dandy.
Is it railroading? No. At least I don't think so.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's only railroading if there's no actual choice -- there's one track the game's going to go along. If the players can't not go to the haunted house, then it's railroading.
Which doesn't make it necessarily bad. In many games, there's a prepared adventure, and if the players avoid it, there's no game. It may be "better" if the GM can just make something up on the fly to react to the players' choices, but that's hard. IMO, it's better to just tell the players outright when this is the scenario, rather than playing magician's force games where all paths lead to the adventure, but YMMV.
Remember a rollercoaster is on a rail, but it’s a helluva fun ride. I do this a lot, the road my party takes to get to the things I prepared doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s fun, exciting and engaging.
Railroading or not is the wrong question. I think you mean to ask whether it is "good" or "bad" DMing. The answer there is "good". But rather than thinking about it as "adding more hooks" I'd think about it as "the problem gets worse". Most problems will just continue to get worse and worse until they are dealt with, this applies IRL and in our games. So if the PCs ignore a problem like a haunted house just have it continue to get worse.
Maybe at first it's just a spooky house that some curious kids when in to explore and got trapped and their mum asks the party to help, then creepy noises start coming from it causing the townsfolk to chat about it and the mayor offer a reward for checking it out, then random people walking outside start getting lured into the house & killed, then a magical storm cloud appears overhead of the house creating lighting & thunder... etc...
Also ... I mean, the discussion of railroading is everpresent, right? But really, it's like ... 'This Is The Plot!' This game is about how you - eventually - confront and defeat some BBEG. Like Count Strahd. Right?
It's not a game about how the PC's decide the BBEG is someone else's problem, and go off and do their own thing somewhere else. Having a plot is not railroading.
Railroading is removing player agency, it's when the PC's get captured no matter what they do. For instance. I've seen some pretty bad examples in my time - like when we got jumped by 20 giants while travelling over open plains. When we managed to get everyone flying, it turns out the giants had pet wizards who could fly after us. Anyways, sidetrack. Railroading might also be the quantum ogre thing: You go left, there's an ogre. Would the same ogre have been there if you picked right instead? Railroading might be used to describe an adventure where there's one and only one path to victory.
Having a plot is not railroading. Having multiple planned paths that each lead to the resolution of the plot is the opposite of railroading.
Also, the total absense of rails of any kind is a sandbox game. I've tried those many times: They don't work. If you don't give players a goal to pursue, they don't. They just stall. Sit there, waiting for you to give them a goal.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Plot is not necessarily railroading... but it can lead to it. The more the DM thinks of "plot" as "the story that will be followed", the more train-like things can become.
"Defeat the Evil Overlord" isn't really plot. It's a goal. If it's up to the players how they go about it, it's not very railroady. If it's "gather the plot coupons of power", it's probably not, but more so. By the time it's "gather the plot coupons in this specific order and bring them to the Chosen One, then protect him in the final climactic confrontation at the gates of the Tower of Despair", it might as well be being GMed by Amtrak.
And the more freedom you give your players, the more you have to be prepared for them to do Something Else. Throw in with the evil overlord. Decide he's not their problem. Stubbornly pursue that minor side detail you threw in to the ends of the earth. And so on, and so forth.
Different groups want different levels of freedom. Some will be perfectly happy with a game with One Established Big Goal. Some will chafe.
In my experience, the trick of a more player-driven game is not to give them no goal, but many. Flesh out the things they bite on, while continuing to toss out more options. If they don't bite on a plot hook, maybe it wasn't that important, or maybe others in the world will deal with it, or maybe it'll develop in the background until it's something they can't ignore.
This 100%, the group I'm DMing needs a clearly defined goal at all times or they just stand still confused about what to do. Even when offered side-quests they almost always turn them down / ignore them in favour of the main quest. It took a lot of "here's a side quest that is also in the way of you progressing" to convince them that side-quests are worth doing and to take some time to explore. But they still rarely just do stuff just for curiosity's sake. Whereas the party I'm a player in hates skipping anything and tries to do all side-quests all the time, simultaneously, and investigates every room, and person they kill for anything interesting expecially any extra clues.