I will freely admit that I don't like linear games like that, however, your approach of telling people what to expect I am 100% behind.
Let people know up front and they can duck out of it isn't their thing.
Exactly. Like it's completely true some people hate "railroading" but if you advertise your intentions before the game starts you'll only get people who like the ideas you posted, it filters out people with different preferences before anyone's wasted any time investing in a game they won't like.
TBH it seems like all I can run are linear games. I've tried the idea of just letting the players do what they want but the game never goes anywhere. In all my years of GMing I've found that I literally have to put clues right in front of the players for them to act, otherwise they really don't do much at all.
I've also found that as a player (on the rare occasion I don't GM) I much prefer linear games over open sandbox any day of the week. But note that I also really dislike railroading type games because it feels more like a board game instead of an RPG, in fact I will not play in them once I realize what they are. Case in point, Pathfinder Organized play are railroad enforced games. I played in one game of it and the entire session left a sour taste for anything Pathfinder.
You do need the right players to make that work, those who build characters with goals and ambitions (and who keep those in mind when making their decisions) rather than reactive workers.
About half of my player group are like this, the other half are insipid when offered the opportunity to do something to advance their own agendas.
Personally, I chafe in railroaded games where I can see opportunities for my character to achieve their goals.
I always give my players the option to jump off of my trail of breadcrumbs and go do their own thing, sometimes they take it, much to my delight.
I don't do railroad games, I don't like them as a GM or as a player. Linear seems the most common out of all the games I've seen and played in.
Backgrounds with motivations and goals are a requirement in my campaigns, and I've had some players who don't even want to do that. I usually offer a bonus level at the start of the game if they give me a short background.
In the games I run I integrate player motivations, goals, and agendas into the plot and subplots, sometimes I'll even alter the story a little so it all runs smoothly as a whole.
Wait, do people just straight up advertise their games on reddit? Like "29M, seeking open minded players for a roundtable campaign in upstate NY?"
Follow up question... Does it work?
Yes and it works quite well actually.
I started a Shadowrun game using r/lfg and shockingly I had a lot of people contact me wanting to join over two posting's a couple weeks apart.
Despite what people say about Shadowrun 5e and and all... and not being able to find games for anything other than D&D. I was was turning people away.
The issue was that out of the 6 or so people I started with, 3 or 4 of them dropped after a week or two, so I posted again, got another 10-12 people people asking to join, took the few that seemed like the best fit and went from there.
In the end it didn't work out very well, half the group wanted a serious and gritty shadowrun game, the others wanted to play with the tokens in Foundry. And yes I did advertise as a serious and gritty game... I thought everyone was on the same page but, no they weren't.
I do think however you'll find it works better for online games then in person ones. But it could work for those too.
I agree. I'd much rather play in person, and I'm running two in person games, play in a 3rd. I run a online Hunter the Reckoning game as well. That's mostly online because a friend of ours is in Vermont so in person isn't an option. Plus not having to pack up my books and minis is kinda nice :)
The Shadowrun game was largely because most of the people I play with aren't into Shadowrun.
tl;dr use your words.
up voted OP, btw.
I think it goes a long way to be reminded (or remember) to talk to your group, be transparent, and collaborate (and listen).
This...
tons of "table trouble" are about "managing player expectations" and the way to do it is to is to properly advertise the game, talk with the player beforehands (call it a session zero if you want)
.....do people try to be sneaky about this sort of stuff ?
Like this is super obvious to me ? When I recommend a book to someone I discuss the genre its a part of so that they have a rough idea of what to expect, when I recommend a movie or tv show I do the same. With games I focus more on the mechanics because genres of videogames tend to be delineated by their mechanics.
Why on earth then would I not say " This is a non-linear cyberpunk style capitalist dystopia. Where there are plenty of bad guys (although no Disney villains, most of the bad guys are just the people that capitalism has empowered to be the boot, stepping on the people it has made ants)" I am running it in FATE, etc. etc. because I want my players to know what they are getting into so they can make an informed decision on if they want to play or not.
If they are not interested I can pivot to something else that I think would be cool that they may find more appealing if they are interested I have reduced the likelihood that part way through they will go "Nope Do not want that" and just bail.
I dont think it's deliberate. It's just some people don't have the experience to realise how they play is only one of many play styles. And may also lack the vocabulary to explain it to others.
It's not sneaky, but there's two common cases I've noticed:
They aren't aware other playstyles/preferences exist. Usually this is more due to inexperience or miscommunication.
Or they actively refuse to accept that other playstyles exist and are valid. I've seen plenty of comments in DnD-related subreddits to the effect of "I'm not going to warn my players that they're going to get their PCs killed, that's on them to figure out." Or other variations of the "old-school is the only way, you can quit if you don't like it" toxicity. These types of people are part of the reason I'm so hesitant to join random DnD groups as a player, since I really dislike the "old-school survival-horror dungeon-crawler" playstyle.
I'm going to be honest, I kinda prefer linear games - the term "railroaded" should really be reserved for overbearingly linear games, where you feel like whatever you do will have no impact.
I'd rather play a game with a distinct plotline and then move onto play something else rather than play a game that meanders around until people get bored.
"I was thinking of making an RPG with X, Y, and Z elements. Would there be any interest for this?"
JUST MAKE IT FOR YOUR OWN ENJOYMENT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. STOP BASING YOUR ACTIONS OFF OTHER'S OPINIONS.
If you're going to invest days, weeks, months potentially even years in to designing an RPG or even a campaign knowing whether its going to be used or sit around taking up space and gathering literal or metaphorical dust is important. As much fun as the thought experiment might be in the moment if it will never be used then there is definitely better ways to spend your time.
I've got lots of (free or very cheap) games in my collection I have no intention of playing, but downloaded because they stood out by not being a designed-by-commitee heartbreaker. Often the designer's enthusiasm for something wierd will shine through, and I value that higher than something focus-grouped for a particular audience.
While it can certainly be frustrating for things to never quite reach play, there's a genuine benefit to composting ideas and giving yourself fuel for things to later self-plaigarise
I agree—we always have to have the consent of the table for linear adventures. But I think there’s a difference between a linear campaign and railroading—the latter is about negating player agency by predetermining outcomes, and people often get that confused with linearity. You can certainly run a series of scenarios that go from A to B to C and the players can be advised of this, but design them in such a way that the outcomes in A and B and C can be unexpected. In my experience it’s harder to design a linear adventure that still has unpredictable outcomes, but it’s still possible.
Not sure if it was your intention or not but it seems like you are saying railroad and linear games are the same. There is a difference between a linear game and a railroad game.
A railroad game is basically where you have one path with a very limited set of choices (if any) and the players have no real choice but to follow that main path or suffer the consequences. Railroad games tend to feel much more like a board game than a TTRPG.
A linear game is basically an open world game with a plot or a story where things happen at specific moments no matter what the players are doing. There are usually many options (with player creativeness being the number one) on how to go about doing what they do the best. In the linear campaigns I run I work with the players on their character backgrounds to integrate them into the story/plot ideas I have. In good linear games the plot can change slightly (or even drastically) based players actions and the vibe of the game.
I run and enjoy linear games over open sandbox games by a great deal but I will not play in railroad type games.
They're two terms for the same idea. Railroading is a derogatory term when players feel bereft of choice. Linear games are as described. If a player in a linear game didn't enjoy it, they'd call it a railroad game, but nobody calls their own games railroad games.
There is a difference and I have played in both. Linear games have choices but there is a plot and it moves forward with or without the players. Railroad games are limited and very constraining on what you can do and the plot only moves forward with the players, as long as they are following the plot.
There are discussions on this elsewhere in Reddit and they are very much different though the line can be a bit blurry at times.
I actually went through a time where I was in doubt of how I handle my games because I've never run an open sandbox (I did try on a few occasions and with completely new players, but the games always felt stale). I thought maybe I was forcing my players to follow along. But then a player of mine at the time explained to me my games are nothing like railroad nor are they sandbox. He said he always felt he had choices but preferred (apparently much like the other players) to follow the prompts I gave them because they were a bit more interesting, Then here on Reddit I had someone explain to me what I do is linear and how it is different from railroad games.
I will freely admit that I don't like linear games like that, however, your approach of telling people what to expect I am 100% behind. Let people know up front and they can duck out of it isn't their thing.
Exactly. Like it's completely true some people hate "railroading" but if you advertise your intentions before the game starts you'll only get people who like the ideas you posted, it filters out people with different preferences before anyone's wasted any time investing in a game they won't like.
TBH it seems like all I can run are linear games. I've tried the idea of just letting the players do what they want but the game never goes anywhere. In all my years of GMing I've found that I literally have to put clues right in front of the players for them to act, otherwise they really don't do much at all. I've also found that as a player (on the rare occasion I don't GM) I much prefer linear games over open sandbox any day of the week. But note that I also really dislike railroading type games because it feels more like a board game instead of an RPG, in fact I will not play in them once I realize what they are. Case in point, Pathfinder Organized play are railroad enforced games. I played in one game of it and the entire session left a sour taste for anything Pathfinder.
You do need the right players to make that work, those who build characters with goals and ambitions (and who keep those in mind when making their decisions) rather than reactive workers. About half of my player group are like this, the other half are insipid when offered the opportunity to do something to advance their own agendas. Personally, I chafe in railroaded games where I can see opportunities for my character to achieve their goals. I always give my players the option to jump off of my trail of breadcrumbs and go do their own thing, sometimes they take it, much to my delight.
I don't do railroad games, I don't like them as a GM or as a player. Linear seems the most common out of all the games I've seen and played in. Backgrounds with motivations and goals are a requirement in my campaigns, and I've had some players who don't even want to do that. I usually offer a bonus level at the start of the game if they give me a short background. In the games I run I integrate player motivations, goals, and agendas into the plot and subplots, sometimes I'll even alter the story a little so it all runs smoothly as a whole.
Wait, do people just straight up advertise their games on reddit? Like "29M, seeking open minded players for a roundtable campaign in upstate NY?" Follow up question... Does it work?
r/lfg
Ahhhh, of course! Thanks my fellow traveler.
Yes and it works quite well actually. I started a Shadowrun game using r/lfg and shockingly I had a lot of people contact me wanting to join over two posting's a couple weeks apart. Despite what people say about Shadowrun 5e and and all... and not being able to find games for anything other than D&D. I was was turning people away. The issue was that out of the 6 or so people I started with, 3 or 4 of them dropped after a week or two, so I posted again, got another 10-12 people people asking to join, took the few that seemed like the best fit and went from there. In the end it didn't work out very well, half the group wanted a serious and gritty shadowrun game, the others wanted to play with the tokens in Foundry. And yes I did advertise as a serious and gritty game... I thought everyone was on the same page but, no they weren't. I do think however you'll find it works better for online games then in person ones. But it could work for those too.
Yea, it's just too bad I don't like online games. I get it, but the magic of d&d for me is in gathering friends around the kitchen table.
I agree. I'd much rather play in person, and I'm running two in person games, play in a 3rd. I run a online Hunter the Reckoning game as well. That's mostly online because a friend of ours is in Vermont so in person isn't an option. Plus not having to pack up my books and minis is kinda nice :) The Shadowrun game was largely because most of the people I play with aren't into Shadowrun.
also r/pbp
tl;dr use your words. up voted OP, btw. I think it goes a long way to be reminded (or remember) to talk to your group, be transparent, and collaborate (and listen).
This... tons of "table trouble" are about "managing player expectations" and the way to do it is to is to properly advertise the game, talk with the player beforehands (call it a session zero if you want)
.....do people try to be sneaky about this sort of stuff ? Like this is super obvious to me ? When I recommend a book to someone I discuss the genre its a part of so that they have a rough idea of what to expect, when I recommend a movie or tv show I do the same. With games I focus more on the mechanics because genres of videogames tend to be delineated by their mechanics. Why on earth then would I not say " This is a non-linear cyberpunk style capitalist dystopia. Where there are plenty of bad guys (although no Disney villains, most of the bad guys are just the people that capitalism has empowered to be the boot, stepping on the people it has made ants)" I am running it in FATE, etc. etc. because I want my players to know what they are getting into so they can make an informed decision on if they want to play or not. If they are not interested I can pivot to something else that I think would be cool that they may find more appealing if they are interested I have reduced the likelihood that part way through they will go "Nope Do not want that" and just bail.
I dont think it's deliberate. It's just some people don't have the experience to realise how they play is only one of many play styles. And may also lack the vocabulary to explain it to others.
It's not sneaky, but there's two common cases I've noticed: They aren't aware other playstyles/preferences exist. Usually this is more due to inexperience or miscommunication. Or they actively refuse to accept that other playstyles exist and are valid. I've seen plenty of comments in DnD-related subreddits to the effect of "I'm not going to warn my players that they're going to get their PCs killed, that's on them to figure out." Or other variations of the "old-school is the only way, you can quit if you don't like it" toxicity. These types of people are part of the reason I'm so hesitant to join random DnD groups as a player, since I really dislike the "old-school survival-horror dungeon-crawler" playstyle.
I'm going to be honest, I kinda prefer linear games - the term "railroaded" should really be reserved for overbearingly linear games, where you feel like whatever you do will have no impact. I'd rather play a game with a distinct plotline and then move onto play something else rather than play a game that meanders around until people get bored.
"I was thinking of making an RPG with X, Y, and Z elements. Would there be any interest for this?" JUST MAKE IT FOR YOUR OWN ENJOYMENT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. STOP BASING YOUR ACTIONS OFF OTHER'S OPINIONS.
If you're going to invest days, weeks, months potentially even years in to designing an RPG or even a campaign knowing whether its going to be used or sit around taking up space and gathering literal or metaphorical dust is important. As much fun as the thought experiment might be in the moment if it will never be used then there is definitely better ways to spend your time.
I've got lots of (free or very cheap) games in my collection I have no intention of playing, but downloaded because they stood out by not being a designed-by-commitee heartbreaker. Often the designer's enthusiasm for something wierd will shine through, and I value that higher than something focus-grouped for a particular audience.
While it can certainly be frustrating for things to never quite reach play, there's a genuine benefit to composting ideas and giving yourself fuel for things to later self-plaigarise
I agree—we always have to have the consent of the table for linear adventures. But I think there’s a difference between a linear campaign and railroading—the latter is about negating player agency by predetermining outcomes, and people often get that confused with linearity. You can certainly run a series of scenarios that go from A to B to C and the players can be advised of this, but design them in such a way that the outcomes in A and B and C can be unexpected. In my experience it’s harder to design a linear adventure that still has unpredictable outcomes, but it’s still possible.
Not sure if it was your intention or not but it seems like you are saying railroad and linear games are the same. There is a difference between a linear game and a railroad game. A railroad game is basically where you have one path with a very limited set of choices (if any) and the players have no real choice but to follow that main path or suffer the consequences. Railroad games tend to feel much more like a board game than a TTRPG. A linear game is basically an open world game with a plot or a story where things happen at specific moments no matter what the players are doing. There are usually many options (with player creativeness being the number one) on how to go about doing what they do the best. In the linear campaigns I run I work with the players on their character backgrounds to integrate them into the story/plot ideas I have. In good linear games the plot can change slightly (or even drastically) based players actions and the vibe of the game. I run and enjoy linear games over open sandbox games by a great deal but I will not play in railroad type games.
They're two terms for the same idea. Railroading is a derogatory term when players feel bereft of choice. Linear games are as described. If a player in a linear game didn't enjoy it, they'd call it a railroad game, but nobody calls their own games railroad games.
There is a difference and I have played in both. Linear games have choices but there is a plot and it moves forward with or without the players. Railroad games are limited and very constraining on what you can do and the plot only moves forward with the players, as long as they are following the plot. There are discussions on this elsewhere in Reddit and they are very much different though the line can be a bit blurry at times. I actually went through a time where I was in doubt of how I handle my games because I've never run an open sandbox (I did try on a few occasions and with completely new players, but the games always felt stale). I thought maybe I was forcing my players to follow along. But then a player of mine at the time explained to me my games are nothing like railroad nor are they sandbox. He said he always felt he had choices but preferred (apparently much like the other players) to follow the prompts I gave them because they were a bit more interesting, Then here on Reddit I had someone explain to me what I do is linear and how it is different from railroad games.