Do Dungeons & Dragons Players Hate Linear Adventures? Not When DMs Avoid Two Pitfalls

A linear adventure is written, or at least planned, so every play group follows the same plot thread, through the same scenes, to the same conclusion. In Dungeons & Dragons, linear dungeons set the pattern, with walls and doors that channel players along a single route. Without walls, a linear adventure only ever shows players one course of actions to a successful end.

At best, critics accuse linear adventures of robbing players of choices between scenes. At worst, critics say linear adventures require dungeon masters to abuse their power to shunt players along a railroad. Instead of steering the adventure, players follow a fixed story.

Despite the criticism, players don’t hate linear adventures as much as DMs think. We tend to judge harshly because we see the lack of options. But in a successful adventure, players never see the walls.

When the walls become plain, players may complain about a lack of freedom. Linear dungeons, with their obvious walls, always risk criticism. Adventures without walls can also flaunt a lack of options. Imagine an adventure where players follow a patron’s plan or a commander’s orders from scene to scene. Unless catastrophe upsets the plan—or assassins reach the commander—the adventure would feel scripted and less satisfying.

Linear adventures work best when success in each scene brings the clues that lead to the next scene. Then, for all the players know, a different choice in the scene or unseen clue could have spun events in a different direction. To players, each success leads to the clues needed to set a new objective. Players favor one choice over an overwhelming number of choices, and certainly over feeling stuck without a direction.

Make no mistake, players still like to face a few, clear choices. Linear adventures grow better when they include decision points that pose options. (Of course, such adventures no longer qualify as linear.)

For adventure creators, linear adventures bring advantages. They’re compact. Authors can devote their energy—and a published adventure’s pages—to developing content that reaches play. No DM with an ingenious dungeon room wants players to miss it.

The limits of a convention time slot makes linear adventures particularly common in programs like the D&D Adventurers League. Linear adventures can consistently fit in a convention time slot. Players in organized play tend to forgive the limits imposed by a 4-hour session, but some do complain when adventures reveal a lack of choices.

But organized-play adventures with more options draw complaints too.

Adventurers League administrator Claire Hoffman explains that when adventures offer more choices, some DMs gripe about prepping content that may not reach play.

Most DMs understand the value of extra prep, but some players fuss too. Those who enjoy the accomplishment of clearing a dungeon or of completing every quest feel frustrated when an adventure teases them with more options than they can explore. The Howling Void by Teos Abadia sets a brilliant example of a 4-hour adventure with a wealth of options. In an elemental node, Earth motes float like aerial islands. Players must choose which to visit. Teos explains that some players left the adventure disappointed because they could not explore every location. The adventure proved so fun that players wanted it all. Still, adventures shouldn’t cater to completists. Better to leave players wanting more.

Linear adventures may fall short of an ideal, but if they avoid flaunting their limits, players seldom mind. One exception bothers players. When the only choice suggests a style of game that players dislike, they will resist.

During these rebellions, the players telegraph what the want to do in the game. In a podcast, Mike “Sly Flourish” Shea explained, “If the king is speaking, and the barbarian charges him, maybe you ought to start the players in the dungeon.” Clearly players crave a fight. “I’ve seen it the other way too, where in my DM-head I’m thinking, now they’re going to fight 12 orcs, and the players are doing everything they can to negotiate with the orcs. ‘Just fight the orcs!’ But the players are telegraphing their desire to have an interaction.”

If your players dislike intrigue, and the next clue in a linear adventure suggests they infiltrate a masquerade, that’s when they rebel.

You can avoid such problems by setting up situations tailored to the style your players favor. If you know your players, such tailoring probably becomes natural. If not, then an ideal episode lets players choose styles. Let players enter the castle by infiltrating the masquerade, sneaking over the walls, or battling through a secret entrance into the dungeons below.

Players don’t hate linear adventures; players hate being driven into a style of game they dislike. Players who read gaming blogs may resist by accusing your adventure of railroading, but the rest will start a fight at the masquerade.

6 thoughts on “Do Dungeons & Dragons Players Hate Linear Adventures? Not When DMs Avoid Two Pitfalls

  1. The Grymlorde(TM)

    I agree 100%. Aside from writing scenarios for cons or publications, it really comes down to expectation management. The DM really needs to talk with his players first. As you mentioned, it’s not practical to prep an adventure that could be run several different ways. Either the DM is really good at anticipating which approach his players will take (assault, infiltration, etc.) or he has to get an agreement from the players that they want to play a scenario a particular way. The worst time to is do that is during the game. I can guarantee that the barbarian wants to storm the castle, the thief wants to infiltrate it, the magic-user wants to scry it. You could waste the entire session waiting on the players to reach an agreement on how to approach the castle.

    So talk to the players ahead of time! Or at least do it by email prior to the game. 🙂

  2. alphastream

    Thanks for mentioning Howling Void. I am very fond of that adventure. It isn’t perfect (and no adventure is), but I’m happy with its imperfections because they were tradeoffs I was willing to make to achieve a result. At the time, the admins wanted more AL adventures that achieved a sandbox feel. The theme of my adventure was elemental air, and that element is all about chaos. I set to capture that swirling chaos through a multitude of options combined with foes that moved.

    I wasn’t alone in my work. I channeled the awesome Will Doyle and his work on Tears of the Crocodile God (Dungeon 209, available on the DMs Guild). In it, the party enters a maze-like dungeon to save various NPCs. However, the NPCs move and will trigger a few foe actions/changes as well. I really loved that concept and implemented my own version. I added to that the idea that the rooms swirled around in the node. This made it obvious that the party had to choose where to go, with no obvious order. And yet, the rooms have different impacts on the foes’ plans, which they are trying to stop.

    The downside is that there are some really fun encounters the party will never see. And, when they are having a great time, the players know they missed out on some fun. DMs certainly commented that they had to prep more rooms than they will actually run. One upside is that the DM can run this several times and still feel like every run is fresh and different.

    Was it worth it? I think so. I won’t use this approach every time, but I think some adventures should work this way to keep players on their toes, to have a strong feeling of player action and choice mattering, and to break away from a linear style. Programs like AL are stronger when they include different approaches from time to time. I am always inspired when an AL adventure experiments with different design ideas, even if the result is imperfect. (I could talk forever about how my brain has been stimulated by Will’s work on recent Epic AL adventures).

    And, hey, it was super-awesome to get to play with you several times at Winter Fantasy! I hope we get to do that again soon!

  3. Sapphire Crook

    I forgot who it was (That guy from Taking20, I think), but I think it’s golden advice: Expectations are king. Fool characters, not players. If everyone knows ahead of time it’s going to be intrigue heavy, guess what ,they can stop you before they even GET the idea to charge the king for a good fight.
    If you come to the table, and everyone agrees to have a linear adventure, that’s fine. Though even then, remember to flex. DM’s must bend with the whims of its players, so even if the module says “and now they fight because they need to set up the rival”… maybe the rival becomes a rival not because he lost, but because he missed a chance to prove himself, or that you turned his men against him? Bam, you get to keep the module on track without work, and the players feel like they got to do their thing.
    Modules aren’t the godking, the GM is. It is a premade statue that may or may not fit the upholstery. And with any good linear adventure, left and right are both still single directions.

  4. Pingback: 5 Situations That Tempt Every Dungeon Master to Railroad Their Players | DMDavid

  5. Pingback: Are the Authors of the Dungeon & Dragons Hardcover Adventures Blind to the Plight of DMs? | DMDavid

  6. Pingback: The Grand Campaign, Dungeon Master Gear, Fourth Edition D&D, and Other Reactions From the Comment Section | DMDavid

Leave a Reply