Station Squatting (Player Railroading)

[Appleseeth]

Why? They've had plenty of chances to clarify if that's what they meant. I would be very surprised if those who say something and have repeated it several times in this thread don't actually mean what they say and not something else that someone else wants them to mean.

:shrug:

Here, I will clarify then: Running a bakery and not adventuring is not D&D. getting a group together for D&D is, at least an implied, social contract. The requirement of the DM is to come up with adventures and heroic moments for the PCs to perform, as well as play the role of NPCs. The player's are thus required to enact and react to adventures and heroic moments, even if the DM is forced to come up with them on the fly because the PCs didn't excatly follow the hooks and leads the DM was feeding them. But staying the the bakery and saying "Let the town guards handle it" when the city is being attacked by vicous flour-eating vampires-werewolves, is NOT D&D.

 

[S'mon]

Personally I won't run or play in baking-related adventures - there was one in Dungeon magazine as I recall, probably an April Fool's issue, and I remember being repulsed by it. Baking, for me, is not D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

See? I was perfectly correct in telling you how wrong you are rather than in assuming that you actually meant something other than what you said.

D&D is a set of rules for roleplaying in a fantasy setting. It has absolutely nothing to do with the stories told with those rules. The idea that there's an implied contract, implied story, or something like that is nonsense, quite frankly.

To use your example; running your bakery while the city is being attacked isn't D&D---would it be D&D if the PCs started looting someone else's bakery? How about if they wer the ones attacking the city? How about if the city is a goblin city? The problem with this is that you can't draw a line in the sand about what kinds of stories are D&D and what aren't, and you shouldn't anyway. D&D is a ruleset, not a genre.

Oh, and doppelganger: Yes. You responded to someone else other than me. And I responded to you. I should have the "decency" to quote the person you were quoting so people can follow the thread? They can read the thread to follow the thread. The nature of discussion, online or elsewhere, is that anyone can respond to anything anyone says. It doesn't follow clear-cut streams or channels. I'm responding to exactly what you said and the post you replied to is irrelevent to my reply.

Anyway, I don't have private message functionality, so I'm responding here.

 

[Alikar]

Here, I will clarify then: Running a bakery and not adventuring is not D&D. getting a group together for D&D is, at least an implied, social contract. The requirement of the DM is to come up with adventures and heroic moments for the PCs to perform, as well as play the role of NPCs. The player's are thus required to enact and react to adventures and heroic moments, even if the DM is forced to come up with them on the fly because the PCs didn't excatly follow the hooks and leads the DM was feeding them. But staying the the bakery and saying "Let the town guards handle it" when the city is being attacked by vicous flour-eating vampires-werewolves, is NOT D&D.

Bingo. This is Station Squatting.

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D is a set of rules for roleplaying in a fantasy setting. It has absolutely nothing to do with the stories told with those rules. The idea that there's an implied contract, implied story, or something like that is nonsense, quite frankly.

I agree there is no story. And the social contract thing totally rubs me the wrong way. It's like saying social contracts for all kinds of games. From AD&D to Zork, the only thing expected in an RPG is that you play your role.

To use your example; running your bakery while the city is being attacked isn't D&D---would it be D&D if the PCs started looting someone else's bakery? How about if they wer the ones attacking the city? How about if the city is a goblin city? The problem with this is that you can't draw a line in the sand about what kinds of stories are D&D and what aren't, and you shouldn't anyway. D&D is a ruleset, not a genre.

Just as you said before, there are no implied stories in a roleplaying game. Heck, there aren't any stories whatsoever. There is only the role you play in the situation you are in. D&D isn't about playing bakers, so it is perfectly justified for a DM to ask his or her players whether or not they would prefer a different game with a system that supports the role. One where you roleplay a baker not a wizard in a chef hat.

 

[Desdichado]

Just as you said before, there are no implied stories in a roleplaying game. Heck, there aren't any stories whatsoever. There is only the role you play in the situation you are in. D&D isn't about playing bakers, so it is perfectly justified for a DM to ask his or her players whether or not they would prefer a different game with a system that supports the role. One where you roleplay a baker not a wizard in a chef hat.

No doubt. DM's are perfectly justified, and should in fact be encouraged, to communicate their expectations for the game up front.

 

[Campbell]

I'll say this: a game of D&D* should be exciting. You're sitting around a table, most likely because you want an entertaining experience. If you don't want to bite any of the hooks the DM is feeding you, fine. Make up your own - do something that serves to entertain the rest of the group, including the DM.

D&D* is a cooperative game. If you want to bake pies in a manner that doesn't involve creating dramatic conflicts, do it on some other person's time or go play WoW. Or at least don't get upset when the DM adds some excitement to your activities.

* This message applies only to games of D&D that Campbell runs or plays in. If you are not playing with me I don't care what you do.

 

[Derren]

D&D* is a cooperative game. If you want to bake pies in a manner that doesn't involve creating dramatic conflicts, do it on some other person's time or go play WoW. Or at least don't get upset when the DM adds some excitement to your activities.

So when one player starts running a bakery in game and the other players join in and obviously have fun, whats you rationalization of why you lessen the players fun only so you can play what you perceive as typical D&D game?

 

[S'mon]

So when one player starts running a bakery in game and the other players join in and obviously have fun, whats you rationalization of why you lessen the players fun only so you can play what you perceive as typical D&D game?

My fun?

 

[Campbell]

So when one player starts running a bakery in game and the other players join in and obviously have fun, whats you rationalization of why you lessen the players fun only so you can play what you perceive as typical D&D game?

If I'm running the game my rationalization is that DMing is not a service, and I'm not going to run a game I do not enjoy running. If my players want to play a game focused on the type of stuff I do not enjoy they can find someone else to DM. I'm willing to work with players as long as they are willing to work with me. However, once that bridge has been crossed, there's nothing left for me to do. I simply wish them well in finding the sort of game they enjoy.

As a player, no rationalization is needed. If a game ceases to be an enjoyable experience for me I stop playing in that game. I don't need to waste my time.

This isn't about making sure the games I play in and run resemble some sort of typical D&D game. As far as things go, I don't give a damn about what a typical D&D game plays like. I'm interested in what Campbell's D&D game plays like. If I'm going to be happy with a game that means there will be an interesting narrative, tough moral decisions, dramatic conflicts, violence, and hopefully some amount of humor, personal horror, and tactical and strategic challenges.

I honestly don't see what's so controversial about taking an ownership stake in the games you play in.