[D&D 3.0] on being railroaded when you want an airlift

[Joshua Bearden]

Last Saturday I was back with my slow and ponderous D&D game run by the very person who first introduced me to D&D 30 years ago.  After being out of touch with him for 37 years I recently joined his current group who are just about to finish up a multi-year old campaign. Time and time again I swear I'll just quit the game, not because I hate it but because I don't love it and I'm getting more and more stingy about how I spend my free time. Never the less I've found a new pleasure in that attending these sessions provides me with more material for discussion here. (How's that for a non-shared creative agenda? )

But back on topic.  I noticed something particularly hilarious about the nature of the railroad.  The DM has provided us with some horrific examples of classic railroading.  A few months ago the party was split up and fighting on two fronts and losing.  The 17th level paladin was about to bite it going solo with against a special type V demon and declared on his turn that he was going to do the thing with a portable hole and bag of holding ... he had both ready just for this sort of eventuality. This utterly enraged the DM.  He pleaded, he begged, he bargained with and threatened the player.  He had the paladin's god (Torm I think) appear to him in his mind (the two stepped outside to discuss) and order him not to suicide.  I thought all along it was a totally cool and narratively interesting way to resolve the encounter but I kept my opinion to myself.  After a few weeks emotions cooled and things were resolved to the DM and players mutual satisfaction.  I realized in retrospect the conflict between the player and DM was not about the railroading or the players desire for agency, but a conflict over encounter balance.  The player's move was not a "legitimate play" but apparently a protest about the imbalance of the encounter. The DM was angry the player didn't trust him enough to preserve his character by other means.  I'm not entirely sure what the DM had in mind, but by the start of the next session we had a new player, coincidentally a "demon-hunter" who was perfectly positioned to backstab the Type V and ultimately drive her off long enough for the whole party to come back together. 

A new insight into the kind of railroad this group is on came out last Saturday. Fresh from a recent battled, spells greatly depleted we were all planning to leave town in pursuit of a clue at a distant temple that somehow relates to our universe-saving quest (characters are all at 18th level at this point). Thanks to copious information and clues the whole party has a pretty good idea about what sort of fight will be waiting for us and we're all eager to get to it.  We gone so far as to start picking new spells when the DM interrupts and informs us that a friendly NPC is about to be executed and makes it clear that the party has to help before continuing the quest. The general groaning around the table makes it clear that no one really wants to pursue this side quest but the DM is adamant. After a tediously easy battle, the party defeats a succubus who had enslaved the baron and by proxie the town and rescues the vulnerable friend.  Now we're ready to get on with the main quest but NO, the DM feels like role-playing and has the Baron pester the party with all kinds of D&D metaphysical/ethical dilemnas like what to do with his infant daughter and heir, now that he knows its mother was a fiend. The party doesn't care and doesn't feel like wasting their 18th level precious time on

[Joshua Bearden]

[accidentally posted part way without even noticing]

... minutiae especially when they know its "not officially part of the module". 

The rest of the session turns out to be an epic battle with a trio of balrogs (or is it balors) who's sole purpose seems to be to make sure that the scene at the temple is put off to another session. At one point a balrog gates in a fourth balrog and the player scolds the DM for 'dragging this shit out' longer than it needs to be.

What strikes as funny about the whole thing is that the players are eager for big set piece battles and also to "get through" the module as quickly as possible. The order of play is this: have a big fight, get hurt but win, uncover a large block of explanatory module text with directions to the next fight. Go have that fight... rinse repeat.  Anything that slows down the process infuriates the players---especially slow side trips off the main line into DM-created sections of drama.

I've been invited to start out DMing the first couple of modules in the next campaign.  The chance to do so is one of the things keeping me in the group. But in light of my new insight into the expectations of this group, I'm not so sure.

[Ron Edwards]

Good old Story Before, with "god damn it you're in it" keeping it in line. I confess to speaking from experience in this regard, enough to speculate as to the mind-set powering it.

1. Stories have rising action, and rising action can't be too fast - pacing, pacing, keep the pace. Next you do this - that'll ramp up the tension. Next you do that - which based on the ramped-up tension will be really exciting. This is a five-step story, and this is the next step. Mess up the steps and you mess up the story. Don't mess it up, and you'll thank me in the end.

2. You're going to survive, but it has to be dangerous, you have to suffer and sacrifice, and to do that, you have to think that you might not survive. Work with me here, don't go makin' stuff up that makes this dangerous situation easy - I know you can do it "by the rules," but this is about the story. You're the hero of the story, why must you persist in doing things which diminish that?

3. I have plans! When (not if) this happens, I've got that totally ready to go to counteract or solve it. Don't mess it up! See? I brought in the demon hunter! We have a new player and a cool new character, and that's awesome! Now aren't you sorry you tried your stupid little "I know the rules" trick.

4. Here is a designated Ethical Dilemma moment. This is called "drama." It is really important and shows why you are the right heroes for this amazing story. So get into it, it's really twisted and original and baffling - except that you won't be baffled, because you are the right heroes and will do the right thing. Show me you know that you're the right heroes! No, no, it's not a side thing or a distraction. This is where you get to role-play. Like this.

It's all, all about visualizing play beforehand. He visualizes the way event A gets resolved by event B. He visualizes the emotional content of various scenes, whether combat or social or logistic. He visualizes the ultimate climax. You're supposed to appreciate the vision and participate in it, basically acting it out, and this is a privilege, because the story is Very Very Good and he worked So Hard to put it all together for you guys.

I would dearly love to know precisely what D&D publication(s) he is using most actively, and if any, which older ones saw the most use when he was first playing the game 30 years ago. And of course, what significant modifications he has imposed himself.

[glandis]

Though when/if you get to GM - I think Ron's 4e plans point a way to make "have a big fight, get hurt but win, uncover a large block of explanatory module text with directions to the next fight" into something better by making the "explanatory module text" step into a meaningful opportunity for player choice, and expanding on what "get hurt but win" means both in itself and as it impacts those opportunities for choice.

No way to know if this group will enjoy those changes, but they might.

[Joshua Bearden]

Ha I think Ron has it exactly! What I also like about your post Ron is that even as I was reading your characterization I realized I actually do appreciate what the DM is doing and I am having a degree of fun.   I'd like more, but its enough to keep me coming back for now.

To answer your questions the probably DM owns or owned every single TSR and WoTC D&D publication up to and including 3.0.  His career path included being manager and part owner of a game store for part of the 90's. When the business wound up he moved a greater part of its inventory to his well appointed game room in the suburbs. I think his eager consumption of official product and rules upgrades came to an abrupt halt as 3.5 was released. At the table, we play strict 3.0. Occasionally there are discussions about house-ruling a certain 3.5 modification in... but it rarely happens.  Over all I would call it highly orthodox play, very strict reverence for the rules but with ultimate priestly authority imbued in the DM. That said, his players are very willing to get into intense and acrimonious debate with him about certain decisions. (The social contract was recently amended to prohibit the DM from getting drunk during games, this saved the group from imminent implosion early this summer. [Damn I realize that is a very loaded aside, I'd be willing to explore in another thread perhaps.])

Another interesting piece of orthodox ephemera happened last session which I almost missed. Early in the combat with the balrogs the player with the thief character ran out and closed to melee distance before anyone had achieved a flank, (this is generally agreed to be a Foolish Move).  The balrog counter attacked with its vorpal sword, scored a critical hit, and decapitated the 18th level thief. After a bit of review to make sure we hadn't missed a save or something it was apparent that according to the rules, he was completely (not mostly) dead.  Everyone said something to the effect "whoa... condolences".  The player smiled, said goodnight and went home.  There was a moment of awkwardness, we shook it off, and continued to play for 4-5 more hours. [I'm pretty sure the party has the resources to resurrect the thief by the next session]

Later in the evening another "threat" was scored by a Balrog (this is the precursor to an actual critical hit roll which if successful leads to the instant kill) on a players beloved familiar.  After a brief argument about positioning, the DM asked the player whether he wanted the roll to be in the open or behind the screen.  Nothing more was said but it was clear to me that "behind the screen" was code for "I wont let your familiar die this round". The player opted for a hidden roll, and surprise, the crit was unsuccessful.*  Only at this moment did a vague memory come back to me of the DM saying something about "rolling in the open" before the first player's character bit it; but I honestly don't recall the first player being given a meaningful opportunity to request a hidden (ie. fudgeable roll). I'm not entirely sure what the difference was between the two situations but it seemed to make perfect sense to all the other players.

I'm pretty sure, in this group, it is believed that this practice is an essential part of How the Game is Played. Why else have a DM screen?  The more I think about this campaign in relation to our discussions about the religious metaphor the more orthodox it all feels to me. I wonder how they'll react to my fundy/revivalist 'great awakening'. 

* [The familiar ended up dying anyways because when these demons die they explode dealing 100pts damage to every living thing in 100 feet.  As we started winning the fight we realized we were about to start a chain reaction leading to TPK if we didn't watch ourselves.  The final tactic was to hector the DM into making the final (gated in) balrog to retreat on his own accord and enjoy his 1 hour free time on the Prime Material out of sight of the party.]

[Christoph]

Hello Joshua

What was the social status of the player with the thief? How do you understand him fitting in and what he feels about his position in the group? It could be that he is slightly "deviant", or perhaps just bored. It could also be that he likes to change characters frequently (I had a friend that killed off his characters so he could try other ones, way back). What about the player with the familiar?

[Joshua Bearden]

                                             
Christoph, thank you, I'm glad you asked because I realize I really want to explore social contract through my experience with this group.

What was the social status of the player with the thief? How do you understand him fitting in and what he feels about his position in the group?

There are four players (including the DM) who I would call 'the core' of the group. They've been playing the longest, are most likely to show up at all sessions and most likely to get into serious quarrels with each other the rather tired expression 'like and old married couple' really applies to all four as a unit. I don't know how far back the thief's player goes with the core but I think his status is similar to mine. (I've been playing more or less regularly for the last year and a half.  Sessions happen a little less often than monthly.

The thief by the way is something of a 'guest character', I played him for the better part of the past hear and a half. Only at the start of the recent module did the DM invite me to create a new character for my very own (at 17th level). 

But when it comes to status, there's something interesting going on. I think his position in the group is similar to mine. We're made to feel welcome but there's also a sense that each of the core members looks at all new blood hungrily hoping to recruit us or use us as allies/pawns in their ancient grudges and subtle struggles. I've had somewhat discrete conversations with two of the core on separate occasions where on bashed the other severely and clearly hoped I would agree that the other one plays the game all wrong and needs to be brought in line.  I don't know if the thief's played has had the same experience.

What I think happened last night is that the group was caught off guard by the thief's death and no one could quite see how to make an issue of it.  The player perhaps took this as a good excuse to escape back home.  I don't know.  He's not a total newcomer and I expect he'll be back.

It could be that he is slightly "deviant", or perhaps just bored. It could also be that he likes to change characters frequently (I had a friend that killed off his characters so he could try other ones, way back). What about the player with the familiar?

The one with the familiar is part of the core and one whose talked to me privately. He's a formidable opponent of the current DM. In retrospect its not at all surprising that the 'fudged roll' was offered as a means of preserving peace.

[Ron Edwards]

H'mmm. I'm interested in unpacking these words from your last post, Joshua. Anything and everything you can tell me.

"module"

"current [DM]"

Do you know if the current game began with 3.0? Or have they re-tooled an existing game into that rules set?

Best, Ron

[Joshua Bearden]

H'mmm. I'm interested in unpacking these words from your last post, Joshua. Anything and everything you can tell me.

"module"

"current [DM]"

Do you know if the current game began with 3.0? Or have they re-tooled an existing game into that rules set?

Delightful!  Googling just one of the high powered NPCs by name informs me that we're playing "Bastion of Broken Souls" by  Bruce Cordell and published by WoTC in 2002 - for further info:

http://rpggeek.com/thread/702013/the-original-3e-adventure-path-concludes
and
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9901.phtml

(The second review contains a few more spoilers than I meant to see but it surprised me to find out that the conveniently appearing "demon hunter" I mentioned before  was actually included by the module author.)

In general the campaign I believe has progressed thus:  a number of years they created a party of 5th level characters and one of the core players DM'd an appropriately levelled published module. DMing responsibilities have shifted, at least between three of the 4 core players. Usually they each run published modules but I know at least one opted to run his own original adventure during his turn as DM. The players redistribute their characters when one is DMing so that the same characters stay in play.  Despite this, its pretty clear each player has their own

... wait a minute ... I'm realizing something as I write this.  The core is organized like this 
Player 1 = (current DM) plays the Barbarian; 
Player 2 = (DM when I first joined last year) plays the Paladin;
Player 3 = (DM who ran his own adventures; bitterest rival towards Player 1) plays the Elven sorcerer (with a familiar);
Player 4 is definitely part of the core but he never really gets into the fights and arguments, also I believe he might always play the character of the current DM - he's somewhat of a buffer role between the 3 main egos. I haven't been around to see whether the Player 3 lets him play the sorcerer... I'd find that hard to believe... perhaps he was the original thief player.

I am quite certain that they've been playing 3.0 since the beginning of the current campaign and perhaps for some time before. The two recent modules were definitely published for 3.0 rules.   There are very few acknowledged 'house rules' in effect. None-the-less there have been angry calls for or challenges to the DM to 'make a ruling' at times. As a lawyer in my daily life I initially tried to offer some help with these 'exercises in statutory interpretation".  In the aftermath of the summer blow outs however, I've been refraining from getting too drawn in.  To be honest everyone has.

More about the group:  We are all white middle-aged men over 40. Our professional backgrounds vary from military to medical.  Player 1 has lots of children, Players 2 & 3 are bachelors. I've got one child.

Player 1 doesn't only host D&D but has had other big game board game nights where they play Axis & Allies, Game of Thrones, Twilight Imperium, Descent, Civilization... for my first year of re-acquaintance with Player 1 I attended several of these, mostly hoping to eventually be invited to the D&D game. No one's spouses seem remotely interested in role-playing games. My own partner will occasionally indulge me by trying something at home, but bringing her to this is unthinkable.

Sometimes I feel like the group is obviously dysfunctional, but other times I have to admit that (a) it functions now, (b) it has for quite some time, and (c) I'm not willing to quit, yet.