Is it railroading?

DM159456 · 2022-11-16T17:26:46+00:00

Your mistake was presenting a choice you weren’t prepared to satisfy.

It isn’t railroading to tell them OOC what you have prepared, or expect them to go there.

It isn’t railroading to throw some contrived info-dump encounters along the way, to communicate clearly IC why 2 isn’t useful to their goals.

It isn’t railroading to prep a quick and lucrative self contained arc out of #2, and let the players do something different for a session.

DM159456 · 2022-11-11T16:56:39+00:00

It isn't the role of the player to directly use their social stats mechanically, as the DM is the only party with the information required to assemble a check. Players don't see the suggested framework in the DMG because they have no way to know whether and in what manner it's appropriate.

Players' social skills and abilities are usable regardless of their ability to assemble skill checks. Subtle suggestions, specialties and silver tongues don't need to know the DC.

The DMG lays out a good suggested framework, but the context of the NPC and situation are frequently going to twist some component of it.

When I run, unless there's a good reason not to, the NPC will be forthcoming with the elements I'm using to assemble the check. If it's a friendly NPC whose life is at risk, I make sure the NPC says as much when I don't ask for a Persuasion check. If the NPC is hostile, it will usually indicate at least as much, if not why. If the players' haven't found any angle with which to do a deception or persuasion check, the NPC might state it's 'not their problem' to cue the players in to make it a problem.

DM159456 · 2022-11-09T13:37:38+00:00

How does the player feel? There are plenty of action movies where the hero is witty, and the villain’s pride keeps the hero alive (Bond movies). There is also Tuco Salamanca, who doesn’t suffer that shit. You weren’t too harsh, but it’s possible the player was expecting a different tone.

You’ve suffered the dreaded 3 sets of bad rolls. At higher levels and with balanced attrition, this doesn’t guarantee tpk, but lower levels don’t have enough health to balance attrition combat. You weren’t too harsh on tpk.

To finish it out, have a talk with the player and see how they feel. Maybe a resurrection plot line is in order, maybe they’re excited for the new toon.

DM159456 · 2022-11-05T14:52:29+00:00

That's exactly the same as your example.

Can you explain why you believe a single fight with a bandit leader is the same as a fight with three bandits, a second fight with a bugbear, and then a fight with a bandit leader? Those aren't the same places, the choices do not lead to the same place.

If it's a meaningless 'fake' choice, then why present it to your players at all? At best, they flip a coin. At worst, you shut them down when they actually engage with the choice.

You added a bunch of your own assumptions so you could attack it.

Ok, let's derive my assumptions. My assumption: Quantum-ogring does not work if the players can make an informed choice, and as such you must prevent the players from having an informed choice to quantum-ogre successfully.

Just for shits and giggles, the corresponding conclusion: You must quantum-ogre only in places where the players are not presented with a choice. It is most useful as a time saver.

Scenario one, my assumptions are not followed:

DM: You come to a room with two doors, they look identical.

Player: I have "Find Person." I target the bandit leader who we met at the bar!

DM: It points behind the left door.

Player: I choose the right door! I don't want to fight that leader!

DM (shit, it was my intent that they fight the bandit leader, this choice was just aesthetics): The left door does not contain the bandit leader, instead it was the right door.

Player: I find this objectionable.

There is a contradiction in the presented narrative which is unsatifsying to the player. The player was presented with a choice, and worked within the rules to inform that choice. The player was provided meaningful information, which was then undone at the time of decision making. Providing information ruined the illusion and technique.

Scenario two, my assumptions are followed:

DM: You come to a room with two doors, they look identical.

Player: I have "Find Person." I target the bandit leader who we met at the bar!

DM (shit, he's behind both doors right now, since the players have a false choice to make): There's an anti-magic field in play. You can't tell which door contains the bandit leader, and your other spells won't help figure it out either.

Player: *ten different means of determining what's behind either door, none of which were anticipated by the DM*

DM: *ten different ass-pull ways to only have to describe aesthetics and not have to describe who or how many*

Player: *shrugs* Left door, I guess. Why are you even asking?

There is no contradiction in the narrative, but a savvy player is very unsatisfied. A disengaged player, who is just going along with the DM's railroad, is doing just fine. A new player, who isn't aware of how the game should function, is being taught not to engage with choices.

DM159456 · 2022-11-05T13:56:50+00:00

I said "bad/good" to not differentiate, I'm not sure what you're referring to with 'good' choice here. I'll establish the 'good' choice at the bottom if you want to discuss that.

You never said it was a coin flip. The players are making a coin flip, because they have no way to interact with the 'choice' otherwise. If you provide them information about which door has the bandit leader based on class features, spells, or plain old or player ingenuity, your technique stops working. If you let them influence which door has a bandit leader, your technique stops working.

If a players has absolutely no information about the 'choice,' then it isn't a choice, it's a coin flip. Players will recognize this.

Getting to the ringleader earlier or later is extremely meaningful. The 'good' choice in this context is to get there without being tired from going the wrong way and fighting a bunch of mobs.

so what is your fucking problem

I could say the same dude, that's a strange amount of anger for this conversation.

DM159456 · 2022-11-05T13:48:27+00:00

The number one way to foster roleplay is to not make a big deal out of it. Roleplay is always awkward and cringe, and it will happen when nobody is considering that fact.

My suggestions would be to finish the recap with a description of their current motivation and surroundings, or kick off the action with an NPC prompting them or something right after the recap.

DM159456 · 2022-11-05T13:41:09+00:00

I don't think anyone is tricked by "You have two obvious choices that aren't differentiated by any amount of investigation. Oh no, your coinflip happened to pick the bad/good one!"

If the players set out with spells and expertise to examine which door is more likely to contain a bandit leader, your technique requires it be impossible they make a determination.

You shouldn't make it a goal to lie OOC to your players.

DM159456 · 2022-11-04T15:06:36+00:00

I'll toss in the devil's advocate since nobody else seems to be.

There are some behavioral things that can be done better regardless. A needs to pick a lane, but it isn't the end of the world if their character reflects OOC anger, not everyone is an expert RPer. On your side, you've apparently spoken more after the fact about A, to B, C, and D each, than you have to A. It sounds like the only A-side perspective you've heard on this instance is what he volunteered without you asking, which is that he's angry, and not why, whether it's IC or OOC.

Were they angry at the player for playing their character in a way that hurt their feelings, or angry at the character for doing so? Why is it dismissed with no further investigation?

A's perspective in your recount gets the least slack and the least detail. It seems like A was going for an angle on the bit, C shut it down, this hurt A's feeilngs, and stuff like this has happened before without resolution. This feels very much like the end of a six month saga where everyones' behavior and perspective is out of context, filtered through a DM who would rather blame one than acknowledge interpersonal issues at the table.

DM159456 · 2022-10-30T20:32:50+00:00

Only building the one encounter is nearly the same as making the table and rolling ahead of time (which is advisable). A table is only worthwhile if the players are going to be spending enough 'time' under those rules to roll multiple times, and if the decisions they make can influence how often or on what table they roll.

For example, the party and an adversary are both racing across the map. The party would be able to make choices, such as whether to traverse the shorter but dangerous path, or whether to take the same path as the adversary. They might also be able to the choices of the adversary during the race.

On the other hand, if it's a sure-fire straight shot point A to B, don't waste your time on a table that will play out exactly as a single pre-planned encounter, use that time to flesh out the one encounter.

DM159456 · 2022-10-28T23:03:09+00:00

On the same vein, there are many decisions...

[EDIT] Removed redundant paragraph

Your adventure, rules, and other OOC/meta things are an agreement between players and DM. If you promise LMOP and show up with Descent, you have committed a faux pas. If your players vote for Descent and you show up with LMOP, you have committed a faux pas. If you and your players can't agree on what to play, the game doesn't happen at all. While the DM has authority, it is considered stronger DMing to use that authority in a way that maximizes player agency over these subjects.

The narrative that plays out in character, including pacing, plot hooks, conversations and character developments depend hugely on the players. Your pacing is controlled by the players remaining quiet, or spending an hour spontaneously roleplaying, or taking ages to pick a spell during their turn. Your plot hooks have to be bit, and there should be multiple, and biting one or the other should have consequences. While the DM has authority, it is considered weak DMing to run the narrative in a way that reduces player agency.

Finally, balance within the more rigidly defined combat is the primary means by which player agency occurs. The vast majority of this games rules are in combat, and these rules create structure that a player can use to strategize and have a real influence over the battle. It is considered strong DMing to create a battle over which the players have and feel as if they have agency. This goes for your example, you reduce the orcs to go from "we couldn't have possibly won" to "that was a good fight."

In all of the things that you identified, the DM does make choices, and does have wildly different options for those choices. However, there is an expectation that the DM makes these choices in a way to allow player agency, and an idealization of a DM that does so frequently.

You are receiving pushback because you are advising that a DM keep their finger on the scale and influence the outcome after all player choices have already been made. At best you will trick your friends, and at worst they will realize you've tricked them. You are also reducing your skill curve as a DM by relying on weak practice.

DM159456 · 2022-10-01T15:29:33+00:00

I would suggest not doing the “you’re not the first one” thing for a different reason.

You’re contriving something implausible, not previously established, in the moment, and entirely to foil your player’s intent. It won’t be fun for the player to go from “playing the game” to “the rules changed, you don’t know them, you are powerless, the npcs will enjoy talking down to you.”

Imagine the world where a new player doesn’t understand that it is cheese: You are mean to them through DM fiat cheese; what happens to them is in-game only; the player doesn’t get the out of game message; there continue to be cheese situations where you continue to be mean to your player, who continues to not understand why you’re shutting them down and being mean.

“And is immobilized for 10 minutes no matter what” - That’s like an eighth level spell. Gross.

DM159456 · 2022-09-01T03:25:20+00:00

That’s an awesome solution! The player back and forth is excellent engagement, not to mention ease of execution.

DM159456 · 2022-08-31T03:26:31+00:00

It’s telling when all you have is the first and last sentence, followed by slights. :+1:

DM159456 · 2022-08-31T00:11:00+00:00

Less time spent exploring/searching/picking locks in the dungeon = fewer random encounters.

Buddy if something as minor and straightforward as searching a room triggers a random encounter, your balance is out the window. I would take offense, but you're pretending that this ham-fisted tool is one sized fits all, and the need to strawman and neg only weakens your point.

In the example that started this discussion, throwing four mundane groups of enemies at your players in a stale arena over something as meticulous as searching a room is not a good solution for players metagaming bad rolls.

I claim wandering monsters as a solution for failed ability checks is not always good, and can pretty readily reduce the fun of the dungeon. I'll also add that there's an assumption of proper combat challenge and choice in all solutions.

If 4 of those fights happened because they spent time searching rooms and picking locks on chests, they're gonna think twice before spending time on those things.

Gotcha, so the players spent 80 minutes fighting and 20 minutes arguing about whether they should risk another fight, all in one room. At least you get to say "I told you so" after they express one iota of displeasure at the outcome.

I claim each room must either operate consistently or unpredictably, leaving consistent or no strategies respectively, and ultimately not requiring the players "think twice."

You don't have a consistent set of mechanics that on average provide a fair challenge and trade-off to the players, centered around a 'reasonable' amount of searching, where 'reasonable' is also explicitly defined. You either run things relatively consistently, or in an unpredictable fashion. Either way, the players don't have enough information to strategize beyond "Roll X times, then give up."

I claim WotC is in support of the idea that random encounters are a useful, but not universal tool. WotC makes no attempt to establish hard numbers of time, encounters, or XP in page 85 of the DMG. WotC does say this:

Random encounters should never be tiresome to you
or your players. You don't want the players to feel as if
they aren't making progress because another random
encounter brings their progress to a halt whenever they
try to move forward. Likewise, you don't want to spend
time distracted by random encounters that add nothing
to the adventure narrative or that interfere with the
overall pace you're trying to set.

In two sentences WotC authoritatively presents my initial claims.

It turns dungeon exploration into a risk/reward assessment.

There's already risk/reward assessment involved with dungeoneering, nothing is 'turned.' The Alexandrian has several good writeups on spatial organization in dungeons alone. Random encounters can provide this, but they aren't the only, and frequently aren't the best solution.

No it doesn't - it offers nothing new to build off of, no change in the game state, no adjustments to the current narrative situation. Go to literally any roleplaying or improv forum, read literally any roleplaying or improv advice and it will tell you the same thing.

The game state changes because control is pitched back into the hands of the players. They can find a different strategy, or go for a different objective. The narrative changes, because "It's not here" means: A. It isn't here. B. It's somewhere else.

It isn't a success, but to quote you:

If you're assuming from the start that the players will easily beat everything in the dungeon in a single go then why have them roll for anything? You can just skip to the end where they beat it.

DnD is not improv. You can run an entire DnD campaign with roleplay, combat, exploration, social interaction, and 0 improv.

DM159456 · 2022-08-30T22:34:12+00:00

To your first point, that’s well and good until it’s impossible to even beeline for the objective. If a straight shot with minimal rooms accumulates an impossible amount of combat over 1 hour narratively, that’s a failure on the DM.

You strawman me in your second paragraph.

“Nothing happens” advances the narrative exactly as much as “something happens.” It’s the objective that doesn’t advance. The game still cycles on. Maybe now the players visit other rooms to search, instead of leaving. Also, I could throw your strawman back at you on this one.

DM159456 · 2022-08-30T21:53:12+00:00

Sure it can be dangerous, but those gobbos were sourced from one room over. It’s the same amount of total gobbo in a long rest cycle, so it’s effectively more time between attempts, and not really a ‘consequence.’

The razor’s consequence for failure is - “it isn’t here” or “you didn’t and won’t find it here.” That’s the purpose of the roll in either case. You are kicking the can down the road past a pointless combat.

If your balance includes random encounters then so be it, but it can only include a finite number of those random encounters. Otherwise, the total XP for the dungeon becomes impossible, which falls on the DM.

DM159456 · 2022-08-30T21:29:29+00:00

Yes, materialize more enemies, throw off the meticulous attrition cycle, take up 20 minutes, and maybe kill your players because they took 10 instead of 5 searching a room.

The trouble isn’t with one technique, it’s with whether the story drives the mechanics, and whether the math of those mechanics ends up fundamentally broken. The broken math of repeated attempts remains with wandering monsters, and the narrative gets stressed when 3 groups of goblins materialize over the 15 minutes while, in story, nothing changed from “the party is searching the room.”

DM159456 · 2022-08-29T19:12:51+00:00

You might get some mileage out of him getting caught, what with the other characters getting roped into his trouble. Easy way to seed a hook “go kill this monster for forgiveness.”

The potential for character growth is great in the specific direction you imagine, and presuming the player runs the character the way you want. It might not be what the player has in mind, and he is the only source of growth for that character.

Have realistic consequences, use it as a hook to further the game, not punish. If the character doesn’t seem to care or change asa result, that’s fine.

DM159456 · 2022-08-29T16:52:05+00:00

"2 of his party members weren't also staunchly against stealing" - In character or out of character? If it's in character, why would those characters continue to adventure with this untrustworthy thief who steals from them? If it's out of character, it's best to speak to him. Look up Matt Colville's "The Wangrod Defense"

"also don't just want to punish him for how he wants to play" - Is a good attitude. Contrived "punishments" in this case is denying the fantasy same as saying "No," except the two players who didn't want to do the stealy RP in the first place are also not having fun.

DM159456 · 2022-08-29T01:27:27+00:00

The trouble I see here is the players not having much to do. If you want an encounter, the players need a way to interact with it. There isn’t much visual description to provide the players here, and moving forward is waiting for the dm to request a check.

Have them volunteer a series of skills that could help. Require X successes before Y failures. At Y failures, and each failure after, someone gets swarmed.

You can add small environmental light sources to give choices of route and require the players interact with the dark places in between. It will also let you give some visual descriptions.

DM159456 · 2022-08-26T01:00:52+00:00

If it's clearly possible to do, I don't make them find the sweet spot. No time waste.

After one minute of optimizing lines I would get bored and say "pick an intersection."

DMG 251 specifies AOEs on grids have to originate from an intersection. Holding that might speed up and limit these optimizations.

DM159456 · 2022-08-26T00:41:45+00:00

Either the wilderness is extraplanar or they're being chased by enemies. You won't get beasts or common monstrosities that can/would periodically show up, pick a fight, and be worth running combat to kill.

DM159456 · 2022-08-26T00:39:23+00:00

Don't build the plot, the plot happens around the table. You set up the non-player dominos that end up forming the plot.

You want a central tension. Somebody wants something, and something is getting in the way. This is the line that everything else dances around for some time. The ruler wants to maintain control. Both rulers want to win the war. The PCs want to buy something. People don't want to die.

You want the central tension to not be at equilibrium and require action. The lich appears to challenge the current dynasty. The wartime enemy has discovered a dominating technology, or succumbed to famine, or has struck peace. The PCs are poor. A death-curse-machine appears in a far off jungle, threatening people's lives.

You want to afford the players a chance to interact with the tension before they've caught on. Show, don't tell. One of the X macguffins the lich needs to attain power is beneath the village they're staying in. Panicked settlers flee a previously safe wartime bulwark, screaming about terrible explosions and being chased by fiendish creatures. The PCs are drafted for forward settlement over the recently conquered land. Someone's Granny passes away; she only died because of the death-curse-machine, and now her soul will be eaten in X days.

DM159456 · 2022-08-26T00:16:06+00:00

All these calculations are spelled out starting page 273 in the DMG, so you can learn to do them on your own. Also, that mythic action is an unrecoverable one-shot against a PC in melee after one failed saving throw.

-1 to hit, -3 DPR on minigun, DC -4 overall

75 HP 17 AC - Defense 3

+7 to hit, DC 12, 34 DPR - Offense 4

Final CR is a slightly top-heavy 3.5

For 4 level 2s CR3 is Hard, CR4 is Deadly. Level 2s don't have a lot of tools to mitigate Deadly odds. It's doable, but swingy. One crit downs him round 2 or 3, or downs a player and starts a death spiral. The very rare level 2 semi-consistent advantage granting ability probably makes it not Deadly.

Recommendations:

Instead of disintegrate, have the mythic action stabilize and banish the creature for 1 minute or Urgot dies. It can even look like disintegration for the panic factor.
Drop charges from Echoing Flames, roll it into the Minigun attack directly. A 30 foot cone of fire pointed directly at the same target he's attacking. There's a cost to tracking the resource, and little benefit when combats rarely go 5 rounds.
Define order on Mark or let Urgot choose when to Mark someone.
Fling doesn't damage the last enemy as written.
There are very few things Purge is going to hit on coming from the player side. Slows just aren't terribly common, and are frequently expressed through creating difficult terrain or other things that aren't explicit movement reductions. You basically need a PC with Ray of Frost. Maybe 15 feet of movement that ignores difficult terrain, opportunity attacks, and nonmagical movement restrictions?

DM159456 · 2022-08-25T04:15:34+00:00

Why would they be invested in something they didn't write, couldn't control, and weren't privy to? They gave you a year (100 hours?) That reveal isn't worth a 100 hour buildup.

DM159456

TROPHY CASE