I have been DMing for a while, but I have recently come across a method of worldbuilding that has transformed how I create campaigns. This method also allows me to make shorter campaigns that have a end-point trajectory, rather than one that is open ended, and helps me to create satisfying stories. Additionally, this helps to reduce the amount of effort that needs to be performed from session-to-session, by frontloading the most important parts of the campaign preparation before the start of the game.
In short, the process has 3 phases
Phase 1
You get the idea for the kind of world the adventure will take place in. The general story themes and concepts you would like to play around with as well. Write a 1 page treatment for what the world is like and what the broad locations in the world appear to be, and send it to your players. 1 page is important, because it forces you to distill down what is unique and interesting about this world.
For example, in my most recent campaign prep I made a treatment of what the factions in the world are, the virtues of the different areas of the world, and a statement of what is common historical knowledge versus what are secrets that are not commonly known. I ended with a statement of what the themes are going to be for this world as well. NOTE: You should not know what the plot of the actual game is at this stage.
Phase 2
After the players have read your brief 1 page treatment of the world, ask them what kinds of characters they want to play. Work with them on their backstories to make sure they bookend with eachother for a matter of convenience, and ask them to provide information about their families and what aspirations and goals their characters have, or what kinds of stories they want for their characters.
This allows players to either lean into, or purposefully away from the elements of your world. As long as they do one or the other, this process has worked, as they can be part of the established culture of the world, or part of the counter-culture. Either way, you have material and character motivation to work with. The only way this does not work, is if they clearly did not actually engage with the world in some fashion during their character creation. If you notice that, try to gently encourage it with additional requests for information from them.
Phase 3
Use all the information your players gave you to worldbuild and plot out your campaign. Did you have a player who wrote a lot? GREAT! The NPCs will become major plot NPCs, the events depicted will become common knowledge, with some hidden truths that player didn’t know. But before you know what your players want to do, you can’t know what kind of plot will engage them. This is where the actual plot for your campaign is written.
This makes your players into collaborators for your story, which will make them invested in the goings on. Additionally, if you know exactly who their characters are and what they want, then you simply need to place obstacles within the plot between them and their desires. Or better yet, present them with interesting decisions or bespoke antagonists that challenge their sense of self. This allows you to be INCREDIBLY detailed and plan out plot beats ahead of time because you are essentially building a railroad to exactly where the players want to go.
Railroading is bad because it usually doesn’t honor the choices of the players. This is railroading, but it honors the players’ decisions.
Finally, I should credit where this idea came from, as this is the method that Brennan Lee Mulligan of Dimension 20 fame has described in multiple instances. My latest games have actually been the easiest to prep from session to session, because I have done a lot of the hardest work prior to the start of the campaign.
And as for the game-to-game prep, I have to credit Slyfourish. His ‘Lazy DM Guide’ series also keeps my ‘procrastinating’ work down to a minimum as I focus on what is the most important for the game sessions.
As with many of my other posts, I have crossposted this to the /r/dndnext subreddit. Feel free to upvote it there for higher visibility.
Here’s how it usually works in the groups I’ve played with.
DM: I’m going to run a game.
Everyone else: Awesome! No one else has time/energy/desire to be the DM.
DM: I’m going to railroad you because it’s the best/quickest/easiest way for us to get going. Is that ok with you?
Everyone else (grateful for someone else being the DM): Chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga. Choo choo!
I agree. I think most players want to be there for the story the DM intends to tell. The worst thing that usually happens is that the players get over-invested in a throwaway NPC and the DM has to make up some lore.
The one group I was part of that did just want to goof off ended up flaming out after they inadvertently summoned the avatar of Gruumsh, but that’s a story for another time.
That other time is now, my dude
I am unfortunately on mobile and cannot type out the whole thing. If I remember tonight I will edit this post with the full story.
For now, I’ll just say that it involved a Deck of Many Things, as these sorts of stories tend to.
it involved a Deck of Many Things
Oh no
Yeah it’s pretty rare that I actually have players that want to fuck off and explore the sandbox. Occasionally I will have a player joke about it, but none of them ever follow through.
Unless that player is an exDM. Then they do the things they wish their players would have done.
Lol I have a buddy who used to DM and we’ve played in each other’s games. We both work in tech and he describes me as being the “QA of players”
TBH, my first campaign struggled largely because I tried too hard to make a sandbox. There was a little intro adventure, set up some lore and conflict, then I told them they could go wherever. They decide to travel to a nearby town thay mysteriously cut contact with the village they saved. Oh, there’s a cult and supernatural plague here? Cool, lets dip and wander to the active battlefield to the west, run into an imperial patrol and get drafted into the army. The enemy army is made up of strangely changed soldiers that refuse to stay dead. Spooky. Lets desert and go back to the first village, and investigate the strangely coordinated goblins that had them under threat. >> This all happened over the course of about five sessions. Their ability to run into, and then immediately drop, plot threads was unparalleled. :P
It helps a lot if you can understand the character’s motivation ahead of starting the campaign. You can even tell them during character creation “write into your backstory a reason why your character cares what happens to XYZ”.
I’m starting my first big Pathfinder campaign this weekend, and I instructed all of the players to write into their backstories:
-
a connection they have to the large city (which they will learn during the adventure faces an existential threat),
-
a reason why their character finds themself in the small town where the adventure begins.
This means that I’ve effectively pre-railroaded them. But rather than railroading their character’s decisions or the choices they have in play, I can railroad their character concepts, which in my experience players are far more likely to be okay with. Once the story starts they can do whatever they want, but they will be aware that their character should want to tackle the primary objective of the adventure.
-
And this is absolutely enough for most groups tbh!
The method I described is a lot of extra work than the normal expectation, but it is work that does not go to waste due to it being built around you players and their characters. It should be used as a tool to make sure that extra efforts are less likely to be discarded.
But of course, following with slyflourish’s advice, be prepared to abandon anything the players do not engage with.
Oh yeah, I wasn’t trying to crap on your post. The stuff you described is A+ DMing and will get a really strong, fun campaign going.
My comment was more about the perception of railroading as a huge problem. I think potential new DMs might be dissuaded from DMing if they fear the players’ reaction to railroading and don’t have the skills or time to take the approach you described.
Ultimately, most players are just happy to immerse themselves in the story and go along for the ride when the DM asks them to board the choo-choo train.
There is an undue expectation of high performance that many GMs feel, and admittedly my post here isn’t helping that! So I absolutely endorse your response to making sure that GMs don’t feel the need to do that much work.
In that case it would be helpful to give the players options of backgrounds to select that would be appropriate for the adventure at hand.
Cheers!
Thanks for writing that down, that could indeed work out fairly well quite reliably.
I’d argue that, as far as those terms are being generally understood in the community, this isn’t railroading - it’s a linear adventure.
Railroading ignores player choice and agency (“You want to liberate the princess before attempting to destroy the Death Star? No, you find out security is too tight and return to the rebel base to prep the final assault, no discussion allowed.”)
A linear adventure is just a scenario where the order of encounters is fixed - a race, a linear dungeon or a scenario where the party are employees of the king and get just assigned to missions are good examples of this. It’s the opposite of a sandbox, but it works perfectly well and is an excellent choice for newer DMs or more time-constrained tables.
As long as everyone is fine with this and player choice within those encounters still matters, it’s not railroading (in the sense the term is usually used.)
Yeah, conflating an adventure that’s on rails and “railroading” seems to be really common lately. The idea that you’ve got a straight through-line through your adventure without a ton of options how to proceed differently is not only pretty common, it used to be pretty explicitly how you’d run a game. Most published adventures would start you off, give you a goal, and most of your options on how to complete it would be like a video game; you might talk your way out of a confrontation or you might fight your way out, or you might sneak past it. Simply avoiding it altogether though? Not really an option, or if it was, it was only because you could choose one of two or three “tracks” to get to the same endpoint. “Sandbox”-ier games did exist and even sandbox-style published adventures existed. But they were decidedly less common and certainly not the expected product.
Frankly when I’m starting a campaign, I tend to start off with a short premade adventure in this style anyways. If the players don’t gel or find they’re not interested in D&D, or we just can’t get a schedule together, then I haven’t invested a ton of time in building a playhouse that won’t get used. But also being able to hold new players’ hands through the really overwhelming part of learning a whole new system and a character and also coming to terms with the things you can do in a TTRPG, by limiting their options to “one way in, one way out, follow the tracks and you’re going the right way” is just one thing they don’t need to flounder through. If it sticks and they like it, then when the first part of the adventure is done, then they get access to the bigger world and can start to make decisions about what they want to do and where they want to go.
Is this really railroading though? I feel like railroading is when the DM says “you want to find a barber instead of visiting the king and queen? Alright, on your way to the barbershop, the royal footmen see you and say “adventurer! Come with us! The king and queen are looking for you!”. Perhaps in a more strategic context, it would happen when you say “actually, I think the king and queen are bad and I want to join the other faction” so the DM has the other faction kill your parents, friends, and pets before an overly sympathetic royal agent finds you in the other faction’s dungeon and says “the king and queen are busting you out of prison! Let’s go speak with them!”
It’s not always bad, but afaik, it’s defined by a DM not letting players do what they say they want to do.
I feel like the campaign plan from OP is just how to get your players to help you write the campaign lol
It is railroading in the fashion that you are setting out a constructed plot ahead of time.
It is not railroading on the fact that you are not taking actions that nullify your players’ choices, which is the bad part of railroading.
And yes, this is explicitly involving the players in the writing process in a way that makes a bespoke plot they will enjoy while ensuring little of your effort goes to waste.
My favorite DMing style is what I like to call “train line DMing.” The train goes to all the stops but you can do whatever you want at them.
There is a plot, no crazier than any purchased campaign, but it’s structure consists of a chain of open-ended* scenarios. Its a contract: the players are willing to follow the general and well telegraphed line of plot hooks and in return they do whatever they want in the scenarios and I do my best to incorporate their interests and backstories.
And like all contracts it starts with explaining that and seeing who is interested. Example: “I want to run a short campaign where you explore X looking for Y. Be whoever you want, except one key part of your character is they want to find Y.” Then we do it if people want.
*Open-ended here means “no right/pre-planned answer” not “no ending to lead to the next part.” For example, city A has a cult to deal with and the leader has a letter pointing to city B. Whether they kill the leader, join the cult, plan an economic take down to render the cultists penniless and impotent, or something weirder, they get the letter.
Me: “You see a shadow slipping around the corner.”
Players: “We’d better follow it, the DM clearly has spent time preparing this.”
Me, having spent all my prep time playing video games: “Ummm yep,” rolls on table
