I'm pretty new to narrating and I've noticed a tendancy I have for railroading my players and not giving them as many options as rpg's are meant to have. Does anyone have some good ways of preventing this?
I found in my earlier Trek adventures I tended to put too much detail into them -- trying to predict what the players would do. But in so doing so, I tended to force players to take that route. An honest player once described it as a funnel -- it doesn't matter what you did, you always wound up going out the same hole...
I've since changed my style and tend to set adventures up not knowing how they will end. This requires me to abandon the "three-act" structure given in the TNG rules. Instead, I try to know the motivations of all the NPCs (which can include natural enemies, like plasma storms, systems failures, etc.) so I can adapt to what the players do. Obviously I have my suspicions on how my players will act, but I find the adventure works better if I try to avoid incorporating that into the plot.
This does put narrators in the same boat as players - being forced to adapt to what is thrown at you. It can be a little rough, as players have each other to bounce ideas off of while narrators are "alone in the center seat". Thankfully we have this board.
Well adaptibility is the key.
I play by ear. I have pre set adventure points and a detailed ending, everything else is as it happens and every so often I pull the PCs back into the fold.
But this is from years of experience as a Dungeon Master and Players Ive played with for a long time.
Oh and a good knowledge of trek and technobabble can really leave a player thinking 'man he mast of made the show'
Nowadays, I show up with a rough outline of the evening's session and stats on anything that the characters might face in combat. I usually end up jotting down notes on the outline detailing where things start to diverge. However, the endings that I plan are almost always the endings that happen.
One of the keys is to listen to your players at all times. If they start asking questions about a particular NPC or get curious about something not in the main plot, then take the hint and make finding out a subplot of your adventure. If it looks like what they want will take an entire session, then plan the next session around it.
Another thing to consider is that you can always reuse a good idea later, in slightly modified form. For example, your player characters manage to avoid the climatic encounter that you had planned by going off in a completely different direction. Rather than tell them that they can't go off in that direction, simply change the location or timing of your planned encounter. Put it off for another session if you have to. You can always steer things back into the direction you planned later.
I too found that after years of running structured adventures, that it was turning out much better once I started running more 'on the hoof' sessions. ALthough it largely started out from me being too lazy to prepare properly one night.
Now I too just have the NPCs and the locations arranged. Although even then, my players stil lsometimes manage to surprise me, and I do have to 'rewrite' on the fly. While a lot harder to do, when it works well it is much more satisfying than having an adventure plotted out in every detail. It also feels as if you're more interactive with the game, more a part of the action, rather than just the deus ex machina.
I'd recommend the freeform style to anyone. Although I'd suggest it's best to get more experience as a GM first.
As far as having your players too strait-jacketed with the plot, have you tried producing 2 or 3 optional endings to your adventures, letting the players actions guide them towards an alternate ending, rather than you guiding them towards a specific ending.
------------------
Captain Daniel Hunter
CO NCC-73602, U.S.S. Intrepid
http://www.ussintrepid.org.uk
Just think of an interesting situation to put the characters in, ask yourself what your players are likely to do in that situation, and think up some complications that will prevent the players from taking any obvious easy ways out. Let them invent their own solution to the problem.
------------------
<<<<
LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.
A Starfleet campaign already has a fair bit of direction built into it - the PCs have their orders (explore Planet X, or rescue the colonists, or defend Sector J...), and a set of behavioural guidelines (Starfleet regulations, the Prime Directive, etc...).
In many ways, this makes for a liberating situation for the Gamemaster/Narrator. It means that he can map out Planet X and Sector J, and create NPC profiles for the colonists and the hostage takers. Since he doesn't need to worry that the PCs are going to go haring off after a bunch of Cardassians three sectors away, he can relax and allow the PCs a lot more leeway in how they accomplish their mission. He doesn't need to map out Planets U,V,W,Y and Z, or Sectors H,I,K and L. He doesn't need to formulate a lot of artificial constraints to keep the characters on track, since certain constraints are inherent in the choice of game and character - if the players weren't willing to behave in a certain fashion they'd be off playing Rifts or XD&DXE...
Structure. It's good. You can never have too much of it. Always know what's behind the hill. Who comes rushing down when the alarm is triggered.
Improvising. Also good. Goes hand in hand with structure. It's not a choice to either improv or plan like some claim. It takes practice but it's made a lot easier when you have a structure to guide you.
Expectations. Don't have any. I never have
a clear ending in mind. I have goals set. For PCs if it's a 'you've been hired to do such and such' type of game and for NPCs in that case and others too.
Those principles laid down (and for the records, it works for me and my groups, nothing in the world of RPGs is a hard and fast rule.), here's how i plan a given session. (For that example, let's assume it's one of those games that contribute to the overall campaign and not those relaxing filler ones.)
A) Make a list of all dangling plot threads and villains that aren't dead.
B) Make a list of things my players usually do, what they are good at.
C) Come up with a few cool and new ideas.
Then, i come up with a hook, and a key of actions the villains will undertake, either as an event flow chart or timeline.
The hook in a Star Trek game is easy, you can have the PCs be where you want them, doing what you want them to. For others like D&D, i usually plan for a few hooks that go the same place and some that go elswhere, for which i have to plan too.
Then the fun starts, you know when, what and how the NPCs try to attain their goals. As a Gamemaster, you fun comes from watching how the players try to solve the problems. That's where you improv skills have to shine also.
Hoping that makes some sense to some of you out there
Melbourne, Australia. Winner of the First Trek Survivor Trivia Show, and Bearer of the Steve Long Pink Elephant Stamp of Learning. :)
Posts
526
I Narrate (GM, DM, whatever your flavour is... ) by the seat of my pants. I begin a scenario with a concept, a list of extras (more can be added as needed), and an ending - and that's it.
With the group I play with, the following saying has been proven more than a few times: When given options A, B, and C, any group of players will invariably go with option D.
The moral of the story is: Be Flexible. I find that if you, as GM, don't have notes to work from, then (a) the players can't stuff them up, and (b) you can't lock your players into them.
------------------
Why do banks charge you an "insufficient funds" fee on money they already know you don't have?
As a Narrator, it doesn't hurt to be prepared for a few terawats of flux in quantum realities. (Say WHAT?)
Here's generally how I set up an adventure (which may or may not work for your particular style of narrative):
1. Write the teaser. This is your hook, the moment that gets the characters into the story/problem/conflict du jour. Keep in mind that the 'obvious' problem is not necessarily the actual problem that needs solving by game's end.
2. Write Act One. This is where the characters receive orders and you can deliver expository as needed - planetary/cultural surveys, sensor sweeps, etc.
3. Write the ending, even an idealized one. "The characters reveal the traitor and narrowly avert a civil war."
4. Figure out the key points that will allow the players to get to that ending. Where interaction and decisions are necessary, sketch out your options. Star Trek offers an advantage that other games do not necessarily provide: our characters are the heroes, and they are bound by certain rules. So having to worry about 'what happens if the players knife the ambassador for being an arrogant putz' generally doesn't crop up.
If the players miss an important clue, is there some place you can reintroduce it? Where? Is a partial success attainable without that clue? How?
5. Always allow the players the illusion of choice (even if the choices suck).
PLAYER: "Can I use my Security 4(5) to hack the Dominion computer?"
GM: "You can try."
"You can try" covers a lot of ground. It could mean yes, it could mean no. It could be an absolute waste of the character's time. It keeps you from 'railroading' players, but also forces them to play their characters, and not their stats.
====
Don't be afraid to improvise and make a mistake. Note what went wrong and learn from it. It's much better to take a few lumps there than run a static, script-locked series.
Registered User
How do I prevent railroading?
Thankfully we have this board.
<<<<
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote