In this video I talk about some important terms used in tabletop RPGs (like D&D) that describe good or bad DMing practices, which are worth understanding to know the right way to run a game.

I often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Quote from: BadApple on February 23, 2025, 12:48:58 PMI often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Nope. Different groups need different amounts of direction before they get some momentum going.

For some, you can start them in some random town and they'll organize and figure out something to do. Others need a specific job or rumor to start out, but will otherwise self-direct. Some need an actual sponsor NPC they can report to because while they're on task when assigned one, they won't take the initiative to pick a task for themselves.

And this isn't even consistent. Sometimes you'll have a random element a normally passive group latches onto, other times that one player who's the glue for keeping the party on task misses a session and the entire group mires down to where they spend an hour of real life and in-game time arguing over whether to set up camp in the tree line for concealment or against the rocky outcropping that would limit the approaches to the camp... and there wasn't even going to be a nighttime event initially... except they spent so much time arguing about it loudly enough I determined something nearby actually noticed them when it otherwise wouldn't have and attacked them while in the open before camp had even been made.

In short, people are people and that means they're subject to a lot of variables that affect how they play and as a GM you can, at best, notice and prepare for trends, but need to often improvise the specifics.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 23, 2025, 01:21:44 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 23, 2025, 12:48:58 PMI often start a campaign with a little bit of a railroad to get play started and then open it up to a sandbox.  Am I wrong?

Nope. Different groups need different amounts of direction before they get some momentum going.

Yes, exactly. I think that's why Lost Mines of Phandelivn starts with a railroad (road attack, goblin caves) and then you get to the village and its more sand-boxy. Shame WotC went for railroads for so many other 5E adventures.

Some peoples definition of "railroading" is so fucked up there is just no way to ever game with them.

Either they stretch it to effectively mean "everything on earth".
Theres a barrier preventing leaving the area. "You filthy railroader!"
The room has only one exit. "This is for the worst!"
DM asks the group what module they want to play through. "The Monster!!!!!"
ad nausium.

Or they distort it to suit some crackhead agenda. Storygamers will bitch incessantly about it. But the minute they gain control they commit ten times worse than what they were accusing.

Instead of addressing actual railroading problems.

Every game needs some kind of structure, or you risk choice paralysis.
I ran a mercenaries campaign with Starfinder a few years ago. The basic structure was that they get job offers from an organization called Merc.Net. The better they do, the more lucrative and dangerous the job offers. They had the freedom on which jobs to take, or if they wanted to follow up on interesting leads of their own found during the mercenary contract missions.
It was running very well until Covid shut everything down.

Running a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

How so?

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

Well, sometimes they do.  Often it boils down to a single player who is the one who gets the rest of the group going.  It becomes really apparent when that one player misses a session and the group spends the whole session floundering around aimlessly arguing about nothing and doing nothing.  I have run campaigns where I had the misfortune of not having that one motivating player.  I was running Heritage of Hastur on Roll20.  In the first session, the character attend a performance of The King in Yellow in London and strange things happen.  After that, they get a clue that points to an insane asylum.  The next session was mostly them doing research in London.  Exhaustive research.  For 4 hours of game time.  They found out everything in about 2 hours and I told them so.  Then the next session happened.  Did they go to the asylum?  No.  They just continued to mill around in London.  By this point, I was flailing around trying to find some way of making this the least bit interesting or scary.  Then another session went by and they continued to mill around in London while I flailed around and attempted to get them going.  At that point, I just gave up and ended the campaign.  I am convinced that they would not have actually gone anywhere or done anything unless I made them.  I mean something along the lines of

Me: You go to asylum now.
Player: Wait, I want to...
Me: You are at the asylum now.  What are you doing?

Something really hamhanded like that. 

Quotes were broken in this post and I couldn't figure out how to fix it, sorry.

It depends on what you mean by participate in the game.  They did show up.  They did roleplay.  They were participating in the game in a sense.  There was just no forward movement at all.  A big chunk of the third session was them arguing about what supplies they should get  For an hour drive through the British countryside near London.  I remember them arguing about whether they should bring tents and supplies like they were going on an expedition to Borneo or something.    In the end, they decided against it.  I have rarely seen a group spend so much time and energy doing so little.  They argued about whether to buy some stuff and then didn't buy.  If that's providing structure, they throwing a giant pile of building supplies on the ground is building a house.  Sometimes the players will provide structure and sometimes, well, they won't.

Yes, if your players choose not to participate in the game, there won't be much of a game. This is true no matter what sort of game it is.

If a player isn't making any decisions, railroading him won't make any difference. He can still be replaced by a dice rolling bot.

Quote from: yosemitemike on Today at 05:18:06 AMMe: You go to asylum now.
Player: Wait, I want to...
Me: You are at the asylum now.  What are you doing?

Something really hamhanded like that.

I don't follow you. It looks like your player was about to inform you of a decision he wanted to make. Why interrupt him?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on Today at 04:28:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

How so?

By such methods as creating characters (their own and others), making decisions, pursuing goals, affecting the world, and causing or resolving conflicts.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 05:47:56 AMI don't follow you. It looks like your player was about to inform you of a decision he wanted to make. Why interrupt him?

Apparently, I wasn't clear about what the players had been doing for three sessions.  It would have been something like "I want to do some more library research" two sessions after I told them bluntly that they had found everything that there was to find.  That's what they did for twelve hours.
 

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:11:41 AMBy such methods as creating characters (their own and others), making decisions, pursuing goals, affecting the world, and causing or resolving conflicts.

My point is that some players just don't do those things.  As I said before, it often boils down to one player who actually does that stuff.  If that person is absent, that stuff doesn't happen.  The players don't make decisions or pursue goals.  They fiddle around and argue about nothing.  They spend what seems like forever arguing about how they are going to get from London to Basildon when they have cars.  This seriously happened.  There is a certain segment of players that drag the game to a complete halt like this repeatedly unless there is another player there to get the group going or I just force them along. 

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 05:47:56 AMYes, if your players choose not to participate in the game, there won't be much of a game. This is true no matter what sort of game it is.

If a player isn't making any decisions, railroading him won't make any difference. He can still be replaced by a dice rolling bot.

Quote from: yosemitemike on Today at 05:18:06 AMMe: You go to asylum now.
Player: Wait, I want to...
Me: You are at the asylum now.  What are you doing?

Something really hamhanded like that.

I don't follow you. It looks like your player was about to inform you of a decision he wanted to make. Why interrupt him?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on Today at 04:28:32 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:11:41 AMRunning a real game is both easier and more fun than running the illusion of one.

Players provide the structure.

How so?

By such methods as creating characters (their own and others), making decisions, pursuing goals, affecting the world, and causing or resolving conflicts.

That's not a structure though. Structure is in how the game presents choices and goals to the players.

The players choose their goals. The players make choices.