Escaping the Railroad

Over at the Alexandrian is a new article about the long-term effects of railroading on players and GMs of RPGs. It’s largely about the frustrations of trying to run an open-ended campaign based on conflicts for players who are conditioned to look for and ride the plot-train.

I’ve long considered the way I run D&D to be non-standard. My experiences in campaigns run by others have largely been of the sort where the DM preps a dungeon, the players go to that dungeon, they go through the front door, they clear out a few rooms, they retreat, rest up, then go back in. The dungeon does not react much to the PCs incursions, nor does the wider world. It’s fun, popcorn gaming and I know folks enjoy it. I like it every now and then, but it’s generally not what I’m looking for in an RPG.

So when an experienced player shows up at my table for the first time, I assume that even if they do understand intellectually what I mean when I talk about sandbox-style play, once the dice hit the table they are likely to default to old habits. So I throw a blatant choice in their path and I openly discuss the consequences of the potential choices.

Sometimes I’m pretty overt about this. I’ll have a conversation with the players, as the DM and with the actual living humans around the table, about what the choices are and the likely outcomes of each choice. This not only allows them to make an informed decision (and tell me, the DM, what their priorities are), it blatantly shoves in their face the reality of meaningful choice. Some folks still won’t get it, end up frustrated and give up. Which is fine; my games are not for everyone. But eventually most players come to expect this sort of decision gate and start looking for it everywhere.

When I can, I prefer to have this conversation in-game, in order to preserve the immersion. I call this NPC arguments, and my players frequently call it “Brian has a conversation with himself.” Generally, two or three NPCs (adding four or more often makes things too confusing to follow) will argue about the choices the PCs face. Each will champion a different choice, and will point out the potential pitfalls and opportunity-costs of going with their rival’s preferred option. And then, to make it blatant, one will turn to the PCs and say something along the lines of, “Well, what are you gonna do?”

Keep in mind, these are sandboxy scenarios, so while I’m presenting two or three choices, those are never the only options. And nerds being nerds, they’re going to want to Picard these scenarios and find a better plan that mitigates the bad (or, at least, pushes all the bad on people they don’t like). And I’m totally cool with that, because, as I said: sandboxy. If the players want to Yojimbo between the Castellan and the Caves of Chaos, I’m totally down for that. Whether their motivation is a thirst for freedom, a desire to screw with me, or just because it sounds like more fun, I can roll with those punches. Especially if they’re creating their own option because it sounds like more fun!

Art by Jim Roslof.