Would you consider it railroading if someone would make a likeable and charismatic NPC that helps players only to get him horribly killed/force players to kill him at some point for drama points?
Thing is , I specifically want to design a character who WILL die, no matter what players might do. There is no way PC would be able to save him since his death is tied to campaign conclusion.
It's pretty much railroading if the players have no agency in the matter. You can dress the guy up as an enemy soldier, and if they fail their perception, he's just another soldier, or you can execute him before an audience of evil mooks - where no player would go with any sense - but if the players can't do anything about it, I'd say it's railroading.
>Would you consider it railroading if someone would make a likeable and charismatic NPC that helps players only to get him horribly killed/force players to kill him at some point for drama points?
Not necessarily, but-
>Thing is , I specifically want to design a character who WILL die, no matter what players might do. There is no way PC would be able to save him since his death is tied to campaign conclusion.
Yes, that's absolutely railroading. The only choice it gives the PCs is whether or not they give a shit about the character you kill off.
Do consider that railroading in moderation is absolutely fine.
It's a railroad and it's also shit storytelling. Deaths like these have impact when they somewhere in the conceptual middle. After that feeling of powerlessness characters are mad and on the road of vengeance, or justice, or whatever they're into. It's better to not have it scripted too, but once in a blue moon it's okay.
But not only you're creating an NPC who will die no matter whater, you're deliberately tying it to the campaign's ending. That's a huge fuck you in the face of players, not drama.
Just make them *feel* like they could have stopped it if they'd just done X, Y and Z.
It doesn't matter if none of that would have worked they just need to feel like it just slipped out of their hands. If they had no say in it and they know nothing they could have done would have saved the NPC then it won't be as tragic and will feel like rail roading.
But if they feel like it's their fault because they couldn't stop it then you're on a winner.
>will feel like rail roading
Because it fucking is. Inserting shit like "well if you did this and that" is pure insult. And literally no player I've ever played with would fall for this bullshit.
Red is best girl, Mr. Nobody is best boy.
Yes, it is definitely railroading, but it can be done well if you are very careful.
Yeah that's cool. Drama points are fine and too many people are purists about railroading that don't realize (the ones who have actually GMed) all the railroading they have already done.
So long as player agency is preserved all is well.
Fuck Transistor
Got way too artsy fartsy for me and imploded on some of the themes and shit it seemed to go for.
I take them to the city cleric to have them resurrected and my entire party pitches in to pay for it.
What now.
>What now.
Try not playing D&D.
>railroading
>player agency is preserved
Pick one.
You misunderstand the post, if player agency is preserved then there is no railroad.
Alright, so opinions on this seem to be kinda split. What about the choice between your character dies/you HAVE to kill him (he gets possessed by megadaemon, or his soul needs to be put to the torch Dark Souls style to prevent apocalypse).
Would railroading friendly NPC into a boss encounter piss you off? If done with proper explanation of cource.
You can't railroad NPCs. They have no agency to railroad.
It's railroading if the PCs can't keep them out of the fight through any means, no matter how hard they try or how well they roll.
>It's railroading if the PCs can't keep them out of the fight through any means, no matter how hard they try or how well they roll.
Yes, I meant exactly that.
One: this. NPCs are in your full control. Just don't make them do face-heel turn once you defined and established them.
Two: okay, so, we people are looking for a good story, a satisfying narrative. That's pretty normal. But the way to construct an enjoyable story in a game is not to enforce your narrative by railroading.
I get the desire to go for the drama, I really do. But GM trying to be a movie director isn't the strength of traditional TRPG medium. Endanger the NPC, make it really difficult to save him, make it a race against the clock. But leave a chance, however small, that players can actually save him. You see, that's narrative tension for both you and your players.
I can also see it as a more or less enjoyable twist to kill someone offscreen and turn it into a murder mystery and introduce some new threat or something. But if any scene involves players, they should have a say in it.
And yeah, if the character doesn't want to sacrifice himself for the sake of preventing the apocalypse, it's entirely up to the player. I mean, you said "choice". If that's a choice, then I let him choose.
Eh, I'm fine with my games having the occasional thing out of the player's control. Maybe throw them a bone or something and have the NPC be weaker or demonstrate that the evil magic or w/e is just that strong.
To think in a less-railroady way:
If you are dead set in getting said NPC to die, let the players' actions decide how the NPC dies.
For example, said NPC was captured by the BBEG's forces. If the party acts hurriedly, they could raid the prisoner transport of the BBEG, only to have said transport careen off into a cliff. If they spend too long planning/delaying ransom, have the BBEG execute the NPC for the party's cowardliness. But if somehow, they can rescue the NPC in a timely manner, reveal that the NPC has a terminal illness anyways, but have them thank the party for making them realize the life they've got left is worth living.
tl;dr don't railroad how the NPC dies, let it happen via player input. Maybe also useful to 'fix' player problems by having their mistake cost.
>substituting obvious railroad with an illusionism
best ideas itt
Fairly good points. If players would chose to doom an entire campaign resulting in bad end I'd be happy in fact : it means that they got attached to NPC just that much.
>But if any scene involves players, they should have a say in it.
What about any movie/game scene where protagonists friend dies just infront of him? Captain Titus and death of Sidonus for example. I mean players don't really get to act but it is because it is impossible to act. Like NPC in danger is too far away or in the indestructible tank full of water. Is this railroading (and I bet it is) when players don't even get to roll anything to prevent bad stuff from happening? I mean, you can't really prevent a rain from happenning when there are black clouds and thunder in the distance, right?
I actually find this solution to be a great compromise here, thanks!
>What about any movie/game scene where protagonists friend dies just infront of him?
Yeah, you can make those things happen sometimes. But you shouldn't rely on those. Movies and videogame stories are constrained. Movies are a passive experience, games can only offer so much different choices. You on the other hand are constrained only by your imagination. The ability to affect almost any outcome is what makes TRPG so enjoyable in comparison to videogame.
I see. To be honest, the only thing that I want to railroad is the beginning of a campaign and it's ending. I have a feeling that well prepared ending >>> improvised ending with "meh, made uip on the spot to fit the situation" dialogue. Everything else is up to players and I'm not going to hold their hands.
Only prepare the ending just before the last session. If you do it before that, the players can and will make it unusable.
Noted, thanks
Well, that's another problem and I urge you to listen to me.
No matter how "well prepared", the ending you decided on _in the beginning_ just won't compare to an organic ending created by choices your players made.
What you need is a clear long-term goal players can invest in. Whether they succeed or fail is the story of the game.
Why should an ending be predetermined? Why don't you believe in yourself and your players to reach a satisfying conclusion? It's about letting go of your preconceptions about the story. It's about the shared creativity that happens when your world + players decisions + dice results
create an unexpected and gripping scenario you could never saw was coming.
Design your game with a strong central goal. Make sure everyone's into it. It can be as simple as looking for macguffin or as complex
as trying to ensure a rightful heir of the crown gets his throne back.
Then design interesting NPCs and adversaries. Give them clear goals and make them act on those goals. Design interesting places. Then let players interact with them.
Trust me, preparing a clear campaign goal and a few points of interest to go with it isn't harder than doing it in a more linear way. And it's infinitely more enjoyable than to try and force everything the way you want it to be.
Hm. Maybe I am sticking too much to the videogame/movie thropes. I'll look into the whole improvisation thing then. If it won't work out I'll end with predetermined ending.
It will work out. Because without at least some degree of improvisation enjoyable TRPG campaign just isn't possible. So good luck.