(Shout to admins, if this isn't allowed or breaks the rules please either delete it or ask me to. I don't want to cause problems.)
I want to preface my examples with two statements. I know railroading is a very negative term but I don't know what else it could be. I'm also not one of those players who's complaining because my DM wouldn't let me use a flaming raging posioning sword of doom to cut a whole in a solid rock wall.
Okay so our DM is new and we are all new to playing D&D but most of us have listened to or watched some D&D stuff like Critical Role, TAZ, Drunks and Dragons, and Dungeons and Daddies. He's the only one with real experience playing. He pitched the group idea and we were all really excited to play.
The first couple of sessions were great. We got to move around and do stuff in game. We have four players rogue, ranger, paladin, and a warlock. We're basically recruited by the elves to help stop this zombie plague and checking the local leadership to see if they're liches.
But things started to get stiff a couple of sessions ago. We discovered that the elves might be the ones causing the plague and are forced to flee. The warlock managed to find a map that shows the towns we've been to that elves have captured and he finds a scrying stone and a big magical gemstone. He steals the gem and destroys the stone because his character is all about chaos. Then we lose two of our party. One decides to stay back and protect the gateway we went through and another has an NPC cast mind control on him. The DM has the character kill himself as the barrier closes. Before we can do anything he says the character is dead and ends the session. He seems really bummed the other PC stayed behind and says it "messed things up". We find out that he didn't say anything to the person playing the PC about killing his character off. But we figure he'll bring them back to life or something next session. We were wrong.
The next session he has my character and the other remaining character killed by two liches. That's the first five minutes. We don't get time to talk or to take any kind of action besides inspect the room with one door we were transported to. We end up in this hellscape and we are forced to fight each other to the death. The last PC standing gets a wish scroll and also has us all brought back to life.
We are revived and dropped in this fancy wooded area with a large crystal and stone markers around it. The warlock roles an arcana to see if he knows how to use the crystal. He rolls high, 19-23, and the DM just says he knows it will work and how to operate it. Well we use it and end up in an elven fortress...elves were the people we had been running from before our back to back TPK.
And we are right in front of the big evil relic that we had earlier but our paladin gave away while he had shatermind and was under DM control. That's where he ends the session. After the session the Warlock player says he had really been looking forward to examining the stone he found and seeing if it could be useful. The DM didn't really respond to that but wanted to talk at length about how the same PC, the ranger, who had sacraficed their life for the party had been the one to kill them all in the match. The rogue player opted not to come back and play a different character because he "didn't know what his character would do" after the DM had the rogues mentor killed off who he had been searching for.
At the start of the next session the Warlock goes on speed run and grabs the relic and takes off with it. The room only has one door so he rushed out and finds a different room and hides out there after he snoops around. He casts identify on the gem, hoping he can use it to up his character for the fight that's coming, and gets a natural 20. The DM says he sees flashes of fire and burning people and nothing else. He gets no idea how to use the crystal or how it was created. Our players are at level 7. We find the new PC in a jail cell, he later said that the DM didn't say anything to him about why he was in the cell or what for, and free him. Then we find a NPC who'd helped us escape in a magic cell.
We start trying to free them and are about halfway there when a boss comes along. This boss had chased the party through the portal and killed the ranger before. We were all pretty keen on fighting them. But the minute they walked in they cast gravity and start monologuing. All the PCs are forced to the ground. The warlock PC tries to persuade her to get her attention while his unseen servant works on breaking the magical connection to the cell. The DM says "I'm doing something" and just has the NPC slam us up against the ceiling and hold us there. Then they monologue for a bit.
The warlock player looks bored and frustrated and says he wants to roll to persuade the boss when the DM pauses. The DM says "they're evil" as if that's a reason he can't try to persuade them. The new player casts a verbal spell to be free to attack. The DM looks frustrated and allows the warlock to try to persuade the boss. He rolls an 18 or 19 and says he wants to confess his love and read her a poem. This wasn't unusual, his character had talked about his attraction to the boss when she first showed up and threatened to kill everyone. He also has a scroll that does insane damage he was hoping to cast on them.The DM straight up ignores him and turns to another player. Warlock player interupts him and asks how long it's been. The DM ignores him and goes on to monologue as he casts a spell on the new player to restrain them.
But the spell he cast is concentration just like gravity. When this is pointed out he just shrugs before finally allowing the rest of us to fall to the ground. He rolls initiative and we fight the boss, who casts druid and necromancer spells that are around 15th level. We manage to take them out when the ranger uses the wish scroll to cast power word kill on them. The DM makes him roll for it. It succeeds and the DM seems even more frustrated as he reveals that the good NPC and boss are one. The NPC now evil tells the Warlock he can learn how to use the stones if he betrays his party. He doesn't and tries to roll deception to get an attack in but the DM ignores that too.
Then we have to fight the now evil NPC. We fight them and come out on top again. The warlock keeping to his weird character catches the dying evil but once good NPC. He tries to persuade them to tell them about the stones. The DM ignores this. He then insists on searching the body. The DM says it just turns to ash until the BB comes and grabs it and tosses the Warlock aside. The BB leaves through a portal with the body.
Then there's a horde of undead attacking the city and the party has to flee. We're chased all the way to a boat we use to escape the island. The DM ends the session.
They then complain about how we threw off their session. I felt bad until he said that he had planned on us fighting the two NPCs that session and killing one but not both. But that he could always bring them back later. He we was mad we had moved to the fight before he was through monologuing. He then adds that he had wanted to kill off one of our characters that night. He said specifically the ranger or the paladin. Both of whom have died more than the rest of the party.
I've talked to both the ranger and rogue players. They feel like it is railroading with the rogue going so far as not coming to the next session.
Please let me know if I'm over reacting or if this sounds like railroading. If it is a case of railroading please leave suggestions on how to talk to my DM so they will change. One of the other players DMs every other session and I'm worried approaching the DM mentioned above will make him stop coming and destroy our group. So any tips would be greatly appreciated.
A DM should still have a bit of railroad (the bigger picture, the story has to go a way in the end), but enough freedom for the player, so that their decission alter the road in between (or even the end).
Railroading is not a bad thing if done right (lord of the rings). A total sandbox becomes boring eventually because there is no higher storyarc involved.
You mentioned critical role. In detail it is a railroad. Matthew mercer slowly moves the player in the direction he wants them to, but is subtle enough in his attempts + he gives them relative enough freedom in those parameters. If they go way over those parameters, he adapts and adjusts the parameters so that they are again in those but with a hint of thier flavour.
Campaign 1: Big picture are the arc. Briarwoods, Chroma conclave, vecna. This is all railroading. But how they journey to this points is in the players hands. Mercer is flexible enough to adapt his railroad with a confined sandbox + adaptation of open story threads. But its stilll a raildroad. But a good one
Saying railroad is bad is plain wrong...because every storyarc with a big picture is railroad at the end. It depends how flexible your DM is. I railroad all the time with enough freedom and flexibility that my player think I dont railroad... but I do... cause else its "GTA kill and steal everything out of boredom" style
The problem here is the DM inexperience. (and maybe a bit of bloodthirst for PC?)
Best thing is to speak to him. To be more flexible. Let him watch "the gamers 2: dorkness rises".
Stories in PnP RPGs need to be fluid and not stuck and nailed like a skript. Thats the magic of D&D or RPG in general
Sounds like your DM has made a classic newb DM mistake: having the mindset that the PCs are just characters in the DM's story. They also seem to have a DM vs players mindset.
Railroading is not an entirely bad thing, but execution is important. The DM is the narrator of the PCs' story. Players can be given the option to move however they please and have the plot placed in front of them rather than dragging the PCs to wherever the plot is. And the possibility of death should be brought up before it happens (and there are alternatives).
The DM is essentially all powerful, they should be trying to challenge the players not kill the characters. If they want to kill characters they can do so with a word, but that is not fun for anyone.
Sounds like your DM has made a classic newb DM mistake: having the mindset that the PCs are just characters in the DM's story. They also seem to have a DM vs players mindset.
Railroading is not an entirely bad thing, but execution is important. The DM is the narrator of the PCs' story. Players can be given the option to move however they please and have the plot placed in front of them rather than dragging the PCs to wherever the plot is. And the possibility of death should be brought up before it happens (and there are alternatives).
The DM is essentially all powerful, they should be trying to challenge the players not kill the characters. If they want to kill characters they can do so with a word, but that is not fun for anyone.
It depends on the situation. During a big story arc involving a demon incursion (that the PC brought upon themself by accident... had to stop the evening to thing about what they had done), I killed a player off. But it was for all people involved fine, because they knew this city was overrun by a demon army and every step could be their last. (mention pc walked away from party because he wanted to scout and didnt mention it to anyone. So he was alone in the streets and missed a few checks... he became hell hound food).
In the context like a dangerous zone (of course you should hint to the player "dudes, this zone can become deadly really fast, so mind your choices") I dont see the problem to let the dices count as they fall, even if it means a PC death. Because they know it before they enter the zone and deliberately decided to enter it with the knowledge of it. That gives some edge.
But just killing off for the sake of killing (I read someone dying because he walked and tripped over a stone or some silly thing) just shows the sadistic nature of the DM, or killing because your Story got derailed / didnt play out as you wanted is as bad as that mentioned before
I'll never understand the DM "awe I really wanted to kill a character tonight" mindset. Like, people put work and emotional investment into their characters, and killing them for the sake of killing them without taking any steps to resolve their personal character arc is cheap. I get you wanna build a challenging encounter, but character deaths are not the only barometer for a challenging encounter.
But yeah, it sounds like classic new-DM-itis. In the session 0 for your next campaign, maybe mention you'd like to have a game with more player agency. To reiterate what Dolovon said, railroading isn't inherently bad, especially new DM's need to have some idea of where the story is going (open-world adventures take a TON of prep and you really have to work your way up to that level), but they can often fall into the trap of planning too much. A DM has to be prepared to improvise in order to provide a more organic, lifelike game. Otherwise, they end up discounting player choice and frustrated with their players for "ruining" their story.
(Also love the raging blazing poison sword of doom reference)
I think that you should call for a session 0 - you can have one at any time, after all.
I think it would be good for the players and DM to all get on the same page about the game they want to run and the story they want to tell.
Mention that you're not interested in character death for the sake of character death. Yeah, if there are stupid choices made or you've talked about it previously, fine. But not just because the DM felt like it tonight. Mention that you'd like to have player agency - railroading is fine when done well (per the above), but the DM probably shouldn't have the mindset of "you messed everything up". Unless, of course, that is the kind of story you want to tell.
I feel like getting the wish spell scroll after the TPK was like an "oops, sorry" kind of move to allow your characters to be brought back.
Finally, if the DM is annoyed that you "messed everything up", then that's on him for not giving you the clues or context needed to discover what you needed to discover in order to make the "right" choice.
There are many other concerning things in your post that I won't really address. Suffice to say that I probably would have left long before it got to this point.
Thank you all for your help and information. I didn't realize there was such a wide definition for railroading. To be honest I've just got into critical role and the only real reference I've heard was the Railroad song from one of the live Drunks and Dragons shows.
I may end up calling for a 0 session if this continues. I really don't want to do that because I really worry they'll quit playing and I live in the middle of nowhere so it's hard to get a group together. And as much as I don't like this kind of railroading I am still really grateful to the DM for starting the session.
Yeah, "railroading" is kind of a broad term. It's often used as a negative, but there's often "Railroady" elements in any campaign.
It seems to me that a lot of the players aren't having fun, and that's really the real issue, not the "amount" of railroading, though that seems to contribute. The FEELING of being railroaded is very unfun, and it's often hard to connect that feeling to what exactly the DM is doing to cause it. Here's the bits in your story that raise red flags
1) Killing off characters without them having the ability to do anything about it. When he had your character and one other "killed by two liches" within the first five minutes of a session, with no warning, that feels extremely bad - like the DM just wanted you dead for his story. At that point it seems like the DM could just say "rocks fall, you and your buddy die". Having a character die to mind control like that also seems suspect to me, probably felt out of nowhere.
2) Making you listen while the villain monologues. This seems like a classic railroad in a nutshell. The players want to do something (fight the boss). The DM doesn't want them to do it, and so puts more and more obstacles in front of them (gravity spell, NPC), and in the end just ignores what the PCs do if he doesn't like it (ignoring what the warlock is trying to do entirely). (I wonder what the DM would have done if the warlock just led with "I cast eldrich blast"?)
This interaction seems to me a textbook case of players being frustrated at railroads. Players want to do something. DM doesn't want to let them do it. Players feel constrained, and rebel by trying EVEN HARDER to do the specific thing the DM is trying to make them avoid. Bad feelings all around.
3) Same thing with looting the body afterwards. Instead of narrating what you find on the body, he decided he didn't want you guys to loot the body and so just made it unlootable - first it turns to ash, then it's carted off.
IMO, all of these come down to the DM thinking you guys are characters in HIS story. That mindset naturally leads a DM to be annoyed when the characters do something that's "not in the script".
It shouldn't be like that. It's cooperative storytelling - the DM should be setting up the world, and the players should do what they want in it. Both should have a pretty significant impact on where the story goes. The trick is for the DM to have just the right amount of preparation. The DM needs to probably be ready for most things the players do within a session, but shouldn't be afraid to do a pretty big re-plan between sessions if the characters do something unexpected. It make sense for the DM to have an overarching conflict and to expect that the players are generally gonna play along in trying to resolve it, but it probably isn't a good idea for the DM to make assumptions about where the players will *specifically* go next or who they'll decide to fight or not fight. Managing that line well is part of the art of DMing.
I haven't listened to Critical Role specifically, but the one D&D podcast I did listen to - Adventure Zone - was *extremely* railroady at the start, to the point where it would have been very unfun to play in, for me. The players went from scene to scene with apparently *no* choice in what to do next - only freedom to decide how to resolve the current scene and move on. Rooms in dungeons felt like they always had one entrance and one exit. I only listened to the first bunch of episodes, not the whole thing. This worked fine for a podcast - after all, the more linear the story the easier it was for the DM to have excellent descriptions that were awesome for a listener to listen to - but actually isn't as great for a real D&D game. It works if the players basically accept that it's the DMs story and are willing to just have their characters go along for the ride, but it can get very frustrating if they don't realize what they've signed up for.
Oh my. Yes, your DM is railroading. It sounds like he has a story in mind and is willing to do anything, no matter how improbable, no matter how powerless it makes the "heroes" to stick to it.
It's a common mistake for new players, especially those whose experience with the game comes mostly from Critical Role. The reality of CR is that all the players are trained actors who are more focused on making a watchable show than a fun game (though they have that too), and they intentionally follow Matt's railroad (which frankly is MUCH more skillfully written than most beginner DMs').
My suggestion would be to start small and episodic, "zombies have been pouring into town from the haunted abbey nearby, and the mayor wants you to investigate," when you're writing stories as a new DM, and not to get too epic or plan ahead, but I'm afraid your game sounds too far gone for that. Good luck to both you and your DM...I'm sure he'll figure it out eventually, but until then, the game might not be as fun as you'd like. Feel free to talk to him about it! But if I were in your position, unfortunately, I might just leave.
Hey, I've found myself in a similar situation with a DM I've joined recently. Not necessarily the complaints and wanting to kill characters off, but there are some things I've noticed that lead me to think they are inexperienced (though the rest of the party says they've DM'ed many games for them).
To start, they want the story to move at a pace they set. No digressions at all. If you start to digress or get too far away from the objective, he tells the entire party, "Let's continue with the story" and then promptly ignores any complaints or last-minute desires such as searching a room. If you aren't able to make a session, that's fine, but your character is in just as much danger as every other PC that is there. We've already had a PC die when they weren't there for the session. I find that a bit... rude? Doesn't seem like the right word, but it fits the feeling.
We had a new character join this most recent session. All fine and whatnot, more players means more rp opportunity. The first thing this new character did was steal gold from another PC... and you might think, "I mean, it's a great way to introduce a rogue! Getting caught by the party and then being forced to join them only to accept them as friends as the story progresses." Which is totally accurate! If only they were a rogue instead of ranger... the new member and DM talked and admitted when questioned that the new PC was going to be the main character, which, of course, started an argument. The DM, had also made everyone roll a Con save when one of the PC's, in essence, created a cloud of stink that stuck to everything. Except the new member.
Now, the group itself isn't the greatest. A few murder-hungry, everyone rushing into places without a second thought to loot, and consequences when someone doesn't do what he wants them to do, such as facing 5 sorrow-sworn. We ended up losing 2 PC that session, but removed the sorrow-sworn from that universe. Which he then threatened to bring them back the next session because 2 PC's were going to get into a fight.
They also have a tendency to bring in their own PC. Which is fine and all. A little weird for me to see, but I wouldn't mind... if they were the same level as we were. No, the party is level 2 and the DM creates their own PC as a level 6 something or another, and then proceeds to use that character to beat some of the other PC's into submission. They then complained when the entire rest of the party ran over and accidentally killed their PC for attacking the other PC, then ended session there and left in a rage.
As far as I can tell, having only experienced 2 DM's and attempting to DM for a short period of time, they are very unfeasible when it comes to sessions not going exactly as planned and punishments are harsh and group-oriented when 1 person makes a mistake. Not sure how much longer I'll be part of this group to be honest...
Hey, I've found myself in a similar situation with a DM I've joined recently. Not necessarily the complaints and wanting to kill characters off, but there are some things I've noticed that lead me to think they are inexperienced (though the rest of the party says they've DM'ed many games for them).
To start, they want the story to move at a pace they set. No digressions at all. If you start to digress or get too far away from the objective, he tells the entire party, "Let's continue with the story" and then promptly ignores any complaints or last-minute desires such as searching a room. If you aren't able to make a session, that's fine, but your character is in just as much danger as every other PC that is there. We've already had a PC die when they weren't there for the session. I find that a bit... rude? Doesn't seem like the right word, but it fits the feeling.
We had a new character join this most recent session. All fine and whatnot, more players means more rp opportunity. The first thing this new character did was steal gold from another PC... and you might think, "I mean, it's a great way to introduce a rogue! Getting caught by the party and then being forced to join them only to accept them as friends as the story progresses." Which is totally accurate! If only they were a rogue instead of ranger... the new member and DM talked and admitted when questioned that the new PC was going to be the main character, which, of course, started an argument. The DM, had also made everyone roll a Con save when one of the PC's, in essence, created a cloud of stink that stuck to everything. Except the new member.
Now, the group itself isn't the greatest. A few murder-hungry, everyone rushing into places without a second thought to loot, and consequences when someone doesn't do what he wants them to do, such as facing 5 sorrow-sworn. We ended up losing 2 PC that session, but removed the sorrow-sworn from that universe. Which he then threatened to bring them back the next session because 2 PC's were going to get into a fight.
They also have a tendency to bring in their own PC. Which is fine and all. A little weird for me to see, but I wouldn't mind... if they were the same level as we were. No, the party is level 2 and the DM creates their own PC as a level 6 something or another, and then proceeds to use that character to beat some of the other PC's into submission. They then complained when the entire rest of the party ran over and accidentally killed their PC for attacking the other PC, then ended session there and left in a rage.
As far as I can tell, having only experienced 2 DM's and attempting to DM for a short period of time, they are very unfeasible when it comes to sessions not going exactly as planned and punishments are harsh and group-oriented when 1 person makes a mistake. Not sure how much longer I'll be part of this group to be honest...
Not sure what to say except your objections are justified. Lots of red flags there. Might want to try suggesting some resources like Matt Colville's youtube to see whether they have the capacity to reflect and grow - sometimes people just don't know better.
Thank you for that! I'll make sure to send them that example so they can hopefully understand that it's not that I think they are DMing wrong, but was to roll with what the characters do a bit better!
I know I tried to bring it up one session and ended up getting server muted (since it was online) for the duration of the session, but idk what they had going on in their lives either, so my first attempt to try to help may have sounded more criticizing or undermining rather than helpful
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(Shout to admins, if this isn't allowed or breaks the rules please either delete it or ask me to. I don't want to cause problems.)
I want to preface my examples with two statements. I know railroading is a very negative term but I don't know what else it could be. I'm also not one of those players who's complaining because my DM wouldn't let me use a flaming raging posioning sword of doom to cut a whole in a solid rock wall.
Okay so our DM is new and we are all new to playing D&D but most of us have listened to or watched some D&D stuff like Critical Role, TAZ, Drunks and Dragons, and Dungeons and Daddies. He's the only one with real experience playing. He pitched the group idea and we were all really excited to play.
The first couple of sessions were great. We got to move around and do stuff in game. We have four players rogue, ranger, paladin, and a warlock. We're basically recruited by the elves to help stop this zombie plague and checking the local leadership to see if they're liches.
But things started to get stiff a couple of sessions ago. We discovered that the elves might be the ones causing the plague and are forced to flee. The warlock managed to find a map that shows the towns we've been to that elves have captured and he finds a scrying stone and a big magical gemstone. He steals the gem and destroys the stone because his character is all about chaos. Then we lose two of our party. One decides to stay back and protect the gateway we went through and another has an NPC cast mind control on him. The DM has the character kill himself as the barrier closes. Before we can do anything he says the character is dead and ends the session. He seems really bummed the other PC stayed behind and says it "messed things up". We find out that he didn't say anything to the person playing the PC about killing his character off. But we figure he'll bring them back to life or something next session. We were wrong.
The next session he has my character and the other remaining character killed by two liches. That's the first five minutes. We don't get time to talk or to take any kind of action besides inspect the room with one door we were transported to. We end up in this hellscape and we are forced to fight each other to the death. The last PC standing gets a wish scroll and also has us all brought back to life.
We are revived and dropped in this fancy wooded area with a large crystal and stone markers around it. The warlock roles an arcana to see if he knows how to use the crystal. He rolls high, 19-23, and the DM just says he knows it will work and how to operate it. Well we use it and end up in an elven fortress...elves were the people we had been running from before our back to back TPK.
And we are right in front of the big evil relic that we had earlier but our paladin gave away while he had shatermind and was under DM control. That's where he ends the session. After the session the Warlock player says he had really been looking forward to examining the stone he found and seeing if it could be useful. The DM didn't really respond to that but wanted to talk at length about how the same PC, the ranger, who had sacraficed their life for the party had been the one to kill them all in the match. The rogue player opted not to come back and play a different character because he "didn't know what his character would do" after the DM had the rogues mentor killed off who he had been searching for.
At the start of the next session the Warlock goes on speed run and grabs the relic and takes off with it. The room only has one door so he rushed out and finds a different room and hides out there after he snoops around. He casts identify on the gem, hoping he can use it to up his character for the fight that's coming, and gets a natural 20. The DM says he sees flashes of fire and burning people and nothing else. He gets no idea how to use the crystal or how it was created. Our players are at level 7. We find the new PC in a jail cell, he later said that the DM didn't say anything to him about why he was in the cell or what for, and free him. Then we find a NPC who'd helped us escape in a magic cell.
We start trying to free them and are about halfway there when a boss comes along. This boss had chased the party through the portal and killed the ranger before. We were all pretty keen on fighting them. But the minute they walked in they cast gravity and start monologuing. All the PCs are forced to the ground. The warlock PC tries to persuade her to get her attention while his unseen servant works on breaking the magical connection to the cell. The DM says "I'm doing something" and just has the NPC slam us up against the ceiling and hold us there. Then they monologue for a bit.
The warlock player looks bored and frustrated and says he wants to roll to persuade the boss when the DM pauses. The DM says "they're evil" as if that's a reason he can't try to persuade them. The new player casts a verbal spell to be free to attack. The DM looks frustrated and allows the warlock to try to persuade the boss. He rolls an 18 or 19 and says he wants to confess his love and read her a poem. This wasn't unusual, his character had talked about his attraction to the boss when she first showed up and threatened to kill everyone. He also has a scroll that does insane damage he was hoping to cast on them.The DM straight up ignores him and turns to another player. Warlock player interupts him and asks how long it's been. The DM ignores him and goes on to monologue as he casts a spell on the new player to restrain them.
But the spell he cast is concentration just like gravity. When this is pointed out he just shrugs before finally allowing the rest of us to fall to the ground. He rolls initiative and we fight the boss, who casts druid and necromancer spells that are around 15th level. We manage to take them out when the ranger uses the wish scroll to cast power word kill on them. The DM makes him roll for it. It succeeds and the DM seems even more frustrated as he reveals that the good NPC and boss are one. The NPC now evil tells the Warlock he can learn how to use the stones if he betrays his party. He doesn't and tries to roll deception to get an attack in but the DM ignores that too.
Then we have to fight the now evil NPC. We fight them and come out on top again. The warlock keeping to his weird character catches the dying evil but once good NPC. He tries to persuade them to tell them about the stones. The DM ignores this. He then insists on searching the body. The DM says it just turns to ash until the BB comes and grabs it and tosses the Warlock aside. The BB leaves through a portal with the body.
Then there's a horde of undead attacking the city and the party has to flee. We're chased all the way to a boat we use to escape the island. The DM ends the session.
They then complain about how we threw off their session. I felt bad until he said that he had planned on us fighting the two NPCs that session and killing one but not both. But that he could always bring them back later. He we was mad we had moved to the fight before he was through monologuing. He then adds that he had wanted to kill off one of our characters that night. He said specifically the ranger or the paladin. Both of whom have died more than the rest of the party.
I've talked to both the ranger and rogue players. They feel like it is railroading with the rogue going so far as not coming to the next session.
Please let me know if I'm over reacting or if this sounds like railroading. If it is a case of railroading please leave suggestions on how to talk to my DM so they will change. One of the other players DMs every other session and I'm worried approaching the DM mentioned above will make him stop coming and destroy our group. So any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Like you said, this DM seems inexperienced.
A DM should still have a bit of railroad (the bigger picture, the story has to go a way in the end), but enough freedom for the player, so that their decission alter the road in between (or even the end).
Railroading is not a bad thing if done right (lord of the rings). A total sandbox becomes boring eventually because there is no higher storyarc involved.
You mentioned critical role. In detail it is a railroad. Matthew mercer slowly moves the player in the direction he wants them to, but is subtle enough in his attempts + he gives them relative enough freedom in those parameters. If they go way over those parameters, he adapts and adjusts the parameters so that they are again in those but with a hint of thier flavour.
Campaign 1: Big picture are the arc. Briarwoods, Chroma conclave, vecna. This is all railroading. But how they journey to this points is in the players hands. Mercer is flexible enough to adapt his railroad with a confined sandbox + adaptation of open story threads. But its stilll a raildroad. But a good one
Saying railroad is bad is plain wrong...because every storyarc with a big picture is railroad at the end. It depends how flexible your DM is. I railroad all the time with enough freedom and flexibility that my player think I dont railroad... but I do... cause else its "GTA kill and steal everything out of boredom" style
The problem here is the DM inexperience. (and maybe a bit of bloodthirst for PC?)
Best thing is to speak to him. To be more flexible. Let him watch "the gamers 2: dorkness rises".
Stories in PnP RPGs need to be fluid and not stuck and nailed like a skript. Thats the magic of D&D or RPG in general
Homebrew I share:
Demonic Houndmaster
Sounds like your DM has made a classic newb DM mistake: having the mindset that the PCs are just characters in the DM's story. They also seem to have a DM vs players mindset.
Railroading is not an entirely bad thing, but execution is important. The DM is the narrator of the PCs' story. Players can be given the option to move however they please and have the plot placed in front of them rather than dragging the PCs to wherever the plot is. And the possibility of death should be brought up before it happens (and there are alternatives).
The DM is essentially all powerful, they should be trying to challenge the players not kill the characters. If they want to kill characters they can do so with a word, but that is not fun for anyone.
It depends on the situation. During a big story arc involving a demon incursion (that the PC brought upon themself by accident... had to stop the evening to thing about what they had done), I killed a player off. But it was for all people involved fine, because they knew this city was overrun by a demon army and every step could be their last. (mention pc walked away from party because he wanted to scout and didnt mention it to anyone. So he was alone in the streets and missed a few checks... he became hell hound food).
In the context like a dangerous zone (of course you should hint to the player "dudes, this zone can become deadly really fast, so mind your choices") I dont see the problem to let the dices count as they fall, even if it means a PC death. Because they know it before they enter the zone and deliberately decided to enter it with the knowledge of it. That gives some edge.
But just killing off for the sake of killing (I read someone dying because he walked and tripped over a stone or some silly thing) just shows the sadistic nature of the DM, or killing because your Story got derailed / didnt play out as you wanted is as bad as that mentioned before
Homebrew I share:
Demonic Houndmaster
I'll never understand the DM "awe I really wanted to kill a character tonight" mindset. Like, people put work and emotional investment into their characters, and killing them for the sake of killing them without taking any steps to resolve their personal character arc is cheap. I get you wanna build a challenging encounter, but character deaths are not the only barometer for a challenging encounter.
But yeah, it sounds like classic new-DM-itis. In the session 0 for your next campaign, maybe mention you'd like to have a game with more player agency. To reiterate what Dolovon said, railroading isn't inherently bad, especially new DM's need to have some idea of where the story is going (open-world adventures take a TON of prep and you really have to work your way up to that level), but they can often fall into the trap of planning too much. A DM has to be prepared to improvise in order to provide a more organic, lifelike game. Otherwise, they end up discounting player choice and frustrated with their players for "ruining" their story.
(Also love the raging blazing poison sword of doom reference)
I think that you should call for a session 0 - you can have one at any time, after all.
I think it would be good for the players and DM to all get on the same page about the game they want to run and the story they want to tell.
Mention that you're not interested in character death for the sake of character death. Yeah, if there are stupid choices made or you've talked about it previously, fine. But not just because the DM felt like it tonight.
Mention that you'd like to have player agency - railroading is fine when done well (per the above), but the DM probably shouldn't have the mindset of "you messed everything up". Unless, of course, that is the kind of story you want to tell.
I feel like getting the wish spell scroll after the TPK was like an "oops, sorry" kind of move to allow your characters to be brought back.
Finally, if the DM is annoyed that you "messed everything up", then that's on him for not giving you the clues or context needed to discover what you needed to discover in order to make the "right" choice.
There are many other concerning things in your post that I won't really address. Suffice to say that I probably would have left long before it got to this point.
Thank you all for your help and information. I didn't realize there was such a wide definition for railroading. To be honest I've just got into critical role and the only real reference I've heard was the Railroad song from one of the live Drunks and Dragons shows.
I may end up calling for a 0 session if this continues. I really don't want to do that because I really worry they'll quit playing and I live in the middle of nowhere so it's hard to get a group together. And as much as I don't like this kind of railroading I am still really grateful to the DM for starting the session.
Thanks for your advice and help! ☺️
Yeah, "railroading" is kind of a broad term. It's often used as a negative, but there's often "Railroady" elements in any campaign.
It seems to me that a lot of the players aren't having fun, and that's really the real issue, not the "amount" of railroading, though that seems to contribute. The FEELING of being railroaded is very unfun, and it's often hard to connect that feeling to what exactly the DM is doing to cause it. Here's the bits in your story that raise red flags
1) Killing off characters without them having the ability to do anything about it. When he had your character and one other "killed by two liches" within the first five minutes of a session, with no warning, that feels extremely bad - like the DM just wanted you dead for his story. At that point it seems like the DM could just say "rocks fall, you and your buddy die". Having a character die to mind control like that also seems suspect to me, probably felt out of nowhere.
2) Making you listen while the villain monologues. This seems like a classic railroad in a nutshell. The players want to do something (fight the boss). The DM doesn't want them to do it, and so puts more and more obstacles in front of them (gravity spell, NPC), and in the end just ignores what the PCs do if he doesn't like it (ignoring what the warlock is trying to do entirely). (I wonder what the DM would have done if the warlock just led with "I cast eldrich blast"?)
This interaction seems to me a textbook case of players being frustrated at railroads. Players want to do something. DM doesn't want to let them do it. Players feel constrained, and rebel by trying EVEN HARDER to do the specific thing the DM is trying to make them avoid. Bad feelings all around.
3) Same thing with looting the body afterwards. Instead of narrating what you find on the body, he decided he didn't want you guys to loot the body and so just made it unlootable - first it turns to ash, then it's carted off.
IMO, all of these come down to the DM thinking you guys are characters in HIS story. That mindset naturally leads a DM to be annoyed when the characters do something that's "not in the script".
It shouldn't be like that. It's cooperative storytelling - the DM should be setting up the world, and the players should do what they want in it. Both should have a pretty significant impact on where the story goes. The trick is for the DM to have just the right amount of preparation. The DM needs to probably be ready for most things the players do within a session, but shouldn't be afraid to do a pretty big re-plan between sessions if the characters do something unexpected. It make sense for the DM to have an overarching conflict and to expect that the players are generally gonna play along in trying to resolve it, but it probably isn't a good idea for the DM to make assumptions about where the players will *specifically* go next or who they'll decide to fight or not fight. Managing that line well is part of the art of DMing.
I haven't listened to Critical Role specifically, but the one D&D podcast I did listen to - Adventure Zone - was *extremely* railroady at the start, to the point where it would have been very unfun to play in, for me. The players went from scene to scene with apparently *no* choice in what to do next - only freedom to decide how to resolve the current scene and move on. Rooms in dungeons felt like they always had one entrance and one exit. I only listened to the first bunch of episodes, not the whole thing. This worked fine for a podcast - after all, the more linear the story the easier it was for the DM to have excellent descriptions that were awesome for a listener to listen to - but actually isn't as great for a real D&D game. It works if the players basically accept that it's the DMs story and are willing to just have their characters go along for the ride, but it can get very frustrating if they don't realize what they've signed up for.
Oh my. Yes, your DM is railroading. It sounds like he has a story in mind and is willing to do anything, no matter how improbable, no matter how powerless it makes the "heroes" to stick to it.
It's a common mistake for new players, especially those whose experience with the game comes mostly from Critical Role. The reality of CR is that all the players are trained actors who are more focused on making a watchable show than a fun game (though they have that too), and they intentionally follow Matt's railroad (which frankly is MUCH more skillfully written than most beginner DMs').
My suggestion would be to start small and episodic, "zombies have been pouring into town from the haunted abbey nearby, and the mayor wants you to investigate," when you're writing stories as a new DM, and not to get too epic or plan ahead, but I'm afraid your game sounds too far gone for that. Good luck to both you and your DM...I'm sure he'll figure it out eventually, but until then, the game might not be as fun as you'd like. Feel free to talk to him about it! But if I were in your position, unfortunately, I might just leave.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Hey, I've found myself in a similar situation with a DM I've joined recently. Not necessarily the complaints and wanting to kill characters off, but there are some things I've noticed that lead me to think they are inexperienced (though the rest of the party says they've DM'ed many games for them).
To start, they want the story to move at a pace they set. No digressions at all. If you start to digress or get too far away from the objective, he tells the entire party, "Let's continue with the story" and then promptly ignores any complaints or last-minute desires such as searching a room. If you aren't able to make a session, that's fine, but your character is in just as much danger as every other PC that is there. We've already had a PC die when they weren't there for the session. I find that a bit... rude? Doesn't seem like the right word, but it fits the feeling.
We had a new character join this most recent session. All fine and whatnot, more players means more rp opportunity. The first thing this new character did was steal gold from another PC... and you might think, "I mean, it's a great way to introduce a rogue! Getting caught by the party and then being forced to join them only to accept them as friends as the story progresses." Which is totally accurate! If only they were a rogue instead of ranger... the new member and DM talked and admitted when questioned that the new PC was going to be the main character, which, of course, started an argument. The DM, had also made everyone roll a Con save when one of the PC's, in essence, created a cloud of stink that stuck to everything. Except the new member.
Now, the group itself isn't the greatest. A few murder-hungry, everyone rushing into places without a second thought to loot, and consequences when someone doesn't do what he wants them to do, such as facing 5 sorrow-sworn. We ended up losing 2 PC that session, but removed the sorrow-sworn from that universe. Which he then threatened to bring them back the next session because 2 PC's were going to get into a fight.
They also have a tendency to bring in their own PC. Which is fine and all. A little weird for me to see, but I wouldn't mind... if they were the same level as we were. No, the party is level 2 and the DM creates their own PC as a level 6 something or another, and then proceeds to use that character to beat some of the other PC's into submission. They then complained when the entire rest of the party ran over and accidentally killed their PC for attacking the other PC, then ended session there and left in a rage.
As far as I can tell, having only experienced 2 DM's and attempting to DM for a short period of time, they are very unfeasible when it comes to sessions not going exactly as planned and punishments are harsh and group-oriented when 1 person makes a mistake. Not sure how much longer I'll be part of this group to be honest...
Tldr.im am idiot. For the future that fact will continue and ramp up. Didn't realize the post was that old. Wonder how things have changed since then.
Apologies for my idiocy.
@Avohei Ranting at OP is probably not going work since the post is from 2+ years ago.
Not sure what to say except your objections are justified. Lots of red flags there. Might want to try suggesting some resources like Matt Colville's youtube to see whether they have the capacity to reflect and grow - sometimes people just don't know better.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Thank you for that! I'll make sure to send them that example so they can hopefully understand that it's not that I think they are DMing wrong, but was to roll with what the characters do a bit better!
I know I tried to bring it up one session and ended up getting server muted (since it was online) for the duration of the session, but idk what they had going on in their lives either, so my first attempt to try to help may have sounded more criticizing or undermining rather than helpful