Should this be fixed

[Hussar]

No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.

By the 'railroad' standard some people are giving here, having monsters kill the PCs because the PCs made poor tactical choices in combat is railroading. Having the PCs be wanted outlaws because they rob and murder is railroading. Apparently even shifting PC Alignment from G to E because they rob and murder would be railroading; if the player declares that murder and robbery is Good, then for the DM to declare otherwise is hashing his bliss.

Yes and no.

If you have two choices, A and B and if you choose A, you are rewarded, and B you get hit with a stick, then there really isn't much of a choice at all.

In Pemerton's scenario, the DM has decided beforehand, which choice results in A and which choice results in B. The player, OTOH, wants to explore the idea of whether or not A or B is the "right" choice.

Since the DM has already pre-determined the "right" choice, the player is being, if not forced, at least heavily influenced to choose a particular route.

 

[Hussar]

For example our group does not do wetworks nor do we use lethal force on corporate assets like wage mage's and their security forces when we are doing a run. We may be thieves for hire but we are not murderers.

But, that, right there, is the point. YOU decided that. If you murdered someone, would the DM directly apply negative effects to your character? Would you lose abilities? I don't think so.

Granted, there might be in campaign results, but, that's going to vary from campaign to campaign. You might get in trouble from the authorities, or you might not, it all depends on how things went down.

But, your group has decided that murder is bad and won't do it. Great. Now, imagine for a second that, instead of the group deciding that, the GM says, "Murder is Bad" and if you commit murder during a run, your character will automatically be captured by the authorities and thrown in prison.

Now, how much choice do you have about commiting murder?

On S'mon's point though about D&D specifically. I'd never, ever run this sort of game in D&D. It just doesn't work. Good and Evil in D&D are ontological. They aren't abstract in the slightest - they're actual physical forces just like gravity. To do this sort of narrativist game in D&D would require a HUGE amount of reworking of the mechanics.

That doesn't mean that I think D&D is railroading. It's railroading for a certain kind of game, possibly, but, most of the time, it's not. Thus my comment about not bitching about alignment if you play a paladin. You know what you're getting into when you sign up.

BTW, Elf Witch, I hope you don't take any of this as a specific criticism of your DM. It's certainly not. I think the only criticism I would have would be that there should have been a bit more conversation between the players at the outset of the campaign just to make sure that these sorts of issues that you're having don't come up later. But, meh, that's not a huge thing. Now you know how the group plays and you can work from there.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't understand how you can play a game where you want to delve into moral dilemmas without some kind of guideline. If everything is ambiguous then there is no dilemma.

The guidelines are provided by the people playing the game.

There are no guidelines in Burning Wheel, but I've played a lot of games of BW where moral dilemmas were the focus of play. It's because the setting provided a moral dilemma without stating anything about the validity of any course of action, and the system's mechanics create desperate characters.

One of the most satisfying moments in my RPG play to date was where, in a BW game, my PC was killed at the hands of another PC because I was taking a moral stand on a certain issue. (One that's actually politically relevant.)

*

This said, Elf Witch, I am not sure how this plays into your original post! I don't mean this as a critique or even a comment on the issues you're dealing with; I intend it only as a clarification of a certain reason why people play RPGs.

 

[Elf Witch]

But, that, right there, is the point. YOU decided that. If you murdered someone, would the DM directly apply negative effects to your character? Would you lose abilities? I don't think so.

Granted, there might be in campaign results, but, that's going to vary from campaign to campaign. You might get in trouble from the authorities, or you might not, it all depends on how things went down.

But, your group has decided that murder is bad and won't do it. Great. Now, imagine for a second that, instead of the group deciding that, the GM says, "Murder is Bad" and if you commit murder during a run, your character will automatically be captured by the authorities and thrown in prison.

Now, how much choice do you have about commiting murder?

On S'mon's point though about D&D specifically. I'd never, ever run this sort of game in D&D. It just doesn't work. Good and Evil in D&D are ontological. They aren't abstract in the slightest - they're actual physical forces just like gravity. To do this sort of narrativist game in D&D would require a HUGE amount of reworking of the mechanics.

That doesn't mean that I think D&D is railroading. It's railroading for a certain kind of game, possibly, but, most of the time, it's not. Thus my comment about not bitching about alignment if you play a paladin. You know what you're getting into when you sign up.

BTW, Elf Witch, I hope you don't take any of this as a specific criticism of your DM. It's certainly not. I think the only criticism I would have would be that there should have been a bit more conversation between the players at the outset of the campaign just to make sure that these sorts of issues that you're having don't come up later. But, meh, that's not a huge thing. Now you know how the group plays and you can work from there.

I guess I am being a blond here but I don't get it. Yes we shadowrunners decided that murder is bad for us. But the DM of that game runs the game based on the world and in that world murder is bad and is illegal and can get you thrown in jail or worse for doing it.

If we murdered someone in game I am sure that depending on how well we covered our tracks we might get caught and have Lone Star or one of the other law enforcement corps try to capture us or take us out. Or worse have the corporation hire other runners to take us out.

It is not the only way to play a lot of groups have no hesitation about killing and do it all the time. It does not change the fact that under the laws of the game murder is illegal.

In DnD the only characters who lose abilities are paladins and maybe clerics. And in DnD if played by the RAW evil and good are not just concepts they are a tangible force.

I guess I look at it this way the DM gets to decide what is good and what is evil in their world. That is part of their job. The players get to decide how they approach the world. Take for example the players find out that a baby is destined to grow up and destroy the world. If in this world killing innocent babies is evil. Then killing that baby now could be an evil act. The party could be caught and prosecuted for it. The paladin and clerics may lose their powers over it. Depending on how the god views their actions.

Or the DM may decide that it was the paladin's god was who sent the message and killing the baby while getting the paladin in trouble with the secular authorities will not cost him his paladinship in the eyes of the god.

The point is the DM has set up a moral dilemma and has let the players know what is considered good and what is considered evil in the world. The players then have to make a choice a very hard choice on what to do. That is what makes moral dilemmas challenging.

Using a paladin as an example say killing the baby is going to cost him his abilities but he feels that it is still the right thing to do. Then the consequences of losing his abilities is the cost of his choosing what he thinks is the morally correct thing to do. If it is up to him alone to decide of it it effects his abilities then there is no challenge being presented.

I have a caveat here with concerns to actually taking away things from players the players and DM have to have open communication going on. If it is going to totally upset and piss off the player then the DM should rethink the challenge or consequences.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread we did talk about what we all wanted. I think the player of the dwarf has changed what he wants. I think he right now wants to play what we call DnD lite. More killing more rewards less gray areas. Which is why I am thinking of running something short and more light hearted like Chill.

 

[S'mon]

The reference to Neitszche is interesting. Because in the actual play of a traditional RPG it won't be an actual divinity, nor socially diffused tradition, that enforces alignment. It will be the GM. That's what makes the notion of railroading apposite, in my view.

The D&D DM plays the universe with its Alignment rules, yup. Of course he can play a universe with a different morality from his own. And all definitions of D&D have different views of what G & E are, esp the leap from 2e to 3e, so if you play by RAW then of necessity you'll be enforcing a different morality in different editions. It's not much to do with Nietszche though, the DM should not be on a power trip. He's there to facilitate the players' power trip, if anything.

 

[S'mon]

Yes and no.

If you have two choices, A and B and if you choose A, you are rewarded, and B you get hit with a stick, then there really isn't much of a choice at all.

I completely disagree. Sometimes I want to get hit with the damn stick! At any rate, it's my choice. Maybe I have good reasons for the choice. I might choose to kill a man I hate, even knowing I'll be executed for it. Railroading is when the DM says "No you can't kill him, he's a Plot NPC".

 

[Hussar]

I completely disagree. Sometimes I want to get hit with the damn stick! At any rate, it's my choice. Maybe I have good reasons for the choice. I might choose to kill a man I hate, even knowing I'll be executed for it. Railroading is when the DM says "No you can't kill him, he's a Plot NPC".

Then what do you call it when the DM specifies certain outcomes for specific actions?

Granted, this is a pretty mild form of railroading that most groups probably have zero problem with. But, when you've said, "If you do X, I will mechanically penalize you for it" then you've pretty much said, "Don't do X".

I guess I look at it this way the DM gets to decide what is good and what is evil in their world. That is part of their job. The players get to decide how they approach the world. Take for example the players find out that a baby is destined to grow up and destroy the world. If in this world killing innocent babies is evil. Then killing that baby now could be an evil act. The party could be caught and prosecuted for it. The paladin and clerics may lose their powers over it. Depending on how the god views their actions.

And there is zero wrong with that approach to play. I've played that way and will probably play that way again. It's fun.

The point that's being made here is that it's not the only way to play. Instead of the DM deciding what is good or evil, the group does. It's simply a different approach to gaming.

There is certainly no right or wrong fingers being pointed here. I've played both styles and enjoy both ways of playing.

Think about it this way. Is an Adventure Path a railroad? Some people say yes, some say no. It really depends on player expectations. If you expect to be able to do virtually anything in a given setting, then, sure, an AP is a railroad because your choices are constrained within a fixed framework. OTOH, if you accept the initial parameters of the AP, you can still have a great deal of freedom within that fixed framework and you probably don't consider it a railroad.

The same goes for this style of game. If you expect that your decisions and your actions will define the alignment of a given concept, then having that alignment dictated from the outset would be seen as railroading, for that style of game. OTOH, if you accept the initial parameters, then you wouldn't see it as the DM enforcing (or certainly strongly directing) a specific outcome.

---------

I do agree with Lost Soul that we've wandered very far afield and away from your initial premise Elf Witch. And, I also totally agree that D&D is NOT the system for the style of play that I'm talking about.

 

[Hussar]

After a bit more thought.

Elf Witch - maybe an example might help. Sorry for the gaming story. I recently ran an SF campaign where the PC's were interplanetary ... I guess secret agents would be the best description. They were tasked by their superiors to perform various tasks around the galaxy.

One of the tasks was to travel to a world and city, find a specific woman, observe the woman and, once the woman left the city, ensure that she arrived at her destination. During the mission the PC's were not to be observed and they were not to make contact with the woman. They were given various high tech toys in order to accomplish this goal.

During the mission, they find the woman and observe her. It turned out that the woman was a terrorist and was going to detonate a bomb at a political rally. The PC's knew this for a fact.

Now, this is where the exploration of morality comes in. Do they obey their orders, trusting that their superiors have sufficient reason for the orders, or do they disobey and prevent the bomb from detonating. In order to ensure that this choice is based on their own perspectives, both choices have to be valid. It can't be that choosing one results in their incarceration while the other makes them heroes.

Both choices carry consequences, but none of those consequences are directly negative to the PC's. The PC's will not be drummed out of the service if they disobey orders (although they might get a good dressing down from their superiors), nor will they be excessively punished regardless of their decision.

Their decision was entirely up to them. Had I put in place something along the lines of, "Failure to obey orders will result in your execution" then I've pretty much forced the issue towards a specific result. Or, IOW, I've railroaded to a degree.

I hope that makes the style of play a bit clearer.

 

[S'mon]

In order to ensure that this choice is based on their own perspectives, both choices have to be valid. It can't be that choosing one results in their incarceration while the other makes them heroes.

This is just ridiculous. You really believe that?

I was playing a German soldier in a WW2 game. I had a choice - one path led to me being a hero (of the Third Reich) as a Brandenburger, the other to the Penal Battalion and a likely miserable death on the Eastern Front. I chose the latter.

This was not a raiload. Railroading would have been if the GM had negated my choice and made me a hero anyway.

 

[S'mon]

Now, this is where the exploration of morality comes in. Do they obey their orders, trusting that their superiors have sufficient reason for the orders, or do they disobey and prevent the bomb from detonating. In order to ensure that this choice is based on their own perspectives, both choices have to be valid. It can't be that choosing one results in their incarceration while the other makes them heroes.

IMO it would have been a genuine serious choice if letting the bomb go off meant things went on as usual, while stopping the bomb made the PCs wanted fugitives - and the GM was ready to run with either decision.