Sure. Assume the DM was unwilling to improvise, but the need to improvise just never arose because the things the players wanted to do happened to be the things the DM had already prepared for.
It still wouldn't be a railroad unless a player tried to do something and was told no. The defining feature of a railroad is a player being unable to do something he wants to do for no other reason than the DM doesn't want it to happen.
I find this sort of stark separation between “the portion of the game where there is minimal dice rolling” and “the portion of the game where rolling happens” to be not to my taste. It is my preference that, in all portions of the game, dice rolling should be kept to the minimum necessary because it disrupts narrative flow. By the same token, in all portions of the game, dice rolls should be used when necessary to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes.
Whether it's to your taste or not, they exist in D&D. Combat being the major guilty party. Skill challenges being another. Those are set up to require a lot of die rolling to complete the task at hand. General roleplaying between say the DM and a king would not be one of those, even thought here may be the occasional roll for things that are uncertain.
It is also my preference that the things players have the option to spend money on have clear, obvious impact on the game, to better align the player’s desires with their characters’ desires. For example, when considering what lifestyle to maintain, it is obvious my character would prefer a Comfortable or better lifestyle. On the other hand, as a player, the benefits of a comfortable lifestyle are not obvious to me, particularly when compared to, say, the benefits of a set of full plate. With the latter I know exactly what I’m getting for my money - a lower percent chance of being hit by attacks. With a Comfortable or better lifestyle, the benefits are not spelled out to me. Maybe my DM will take it into account when I’m interacting with various NPCs, maybe they won’t. And if they don’t tell me to roll with advantage due to my lifestyle or something, I won’t know even if they do take it into account. That makes it a less appealing option to me as a player than the armor is, potentially less appealing than it should be to my character. Currently, there is very, very little that a player can buy that has clear, reliable benefits, so players are often left with nothing they feel like isn’t a waste of their gold.
Whereas my preference is that players choose things like lifestyles based on what their character's concept and desires, rather than just "What mechanical goodies can I get out of this."
Player: Well, I was going to pay for the aristocratic lifestyle for my PC who enjoys being a pampered noble and can't stand the squalor of those beneath him, but since I don't know what I will get out of it mechanically, I'm just going to pay for a squalid lifestyle.
That sort of thing doesn't cut it for me as a player or DM. I feel that choices should be made with roleplaying in mind first, and mechanics second.
Did you quote the wrong section of my post here? Because the section you quoted was in response to your assertion that lack of things to spend gold on in 5e should not be treated as a general problem because you think the players who see it as a problem are in the minority and you can’t please everyone.
You were also challenging how great of a minority or majority it was, so I brought up that in 1e and 2e it was a very small minority, 3e and 4e over regulated it to the point where this wasn't really a problem, and 5e went back to 1e and now you are hearing about it more. That makes the over regulation of 3e and 4e the culprit. They spoiled people by spelling out the mechanics in detail, and when we go back to 5e where players have to think about how they want to spend gold again, people are complaining.
As for whether it should be treated as a general problem, it's not a general problem unless it generally occurs to those who play the game. Since it still only occurs to a minority, and possibly still a small minority, it's not a general problem.
WotC has limited space for new mechanics, and I would rather see that space taken up by new classes, paths, feats, etc. that will be useful to a greater number of people than gold spending mechanics would.
Right, but what I’m saying is, even if we proceed under the assumption that they’re in the minority, I still don’t think it isn’t something worth talking about. If you don’t see it as a problem, fine, but then why do you feel the need to detract from conversations between people who do see it as a problem about how to fix it by telling them you don’t think it’s a problem? They don’t really care if you think it’s a problem or not, they’re just looking for advice from other people who have confronted the problem about how to deal with it.
Sure. We can talk about it. Offer up solutions, and so on, but you've made it clear that it's not talking about it that you want to do. You've said repeatedly that the only solution you are really interested in is official mechanics in a WotC release, rejecting the solutions offered to you by people in this thread. That sort of limitation on your part is not conducive to a conversation about a problem and how to fix it, so I'm not detracting from anything with my statements.
