D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[Hussar]

I have a sneaking suspician that @Paul Farquhar has me on ignore,but, I'll take a stab anyway.

The lack of character arc mechanics means that there is no reason for players to actually have a character arc. They can if they choose to, but, by the same token, they don't have to at all and the game works exactly the same.

By having character arc mechanics, you are signaling to the players that not only are they expected to have these arcs in play, but, they will actually be rewarded in game for having these.

It's not a right/wrong thing. Just that it's difficult to say that a game promotes a kind of play when the game doesn't actually acknowledge anything about a kind of play.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IF you want to go into story arc with rules. Go see how Vampire the Masquerade (1st ed) handled it. It is extremely satisfying. As for the game you describe... I would not let another player decide the fate of other players in such a way. Nor would I allow a player to kill the character of another player under any circumstances if the other player was against it. This can lead to internal friction which I try to avoid at all costs. I have seen what it can do to friendship and I want to avoid this at all costs.

Apocalypse World rules have quite a lot of safeguards built in. I'd have told the players no in D&D because D&D doesn't provide anywhere near as good tools for character development.

First on the mind control, the mechanics for mind control in Apocalypse World aren't those of D&D. What you can do is create commands that the victim has to obey or take damage. Not the domination and taking over the character of D&D - instead it adds weighted choices. The player decided that as his character was at a low they were going to obey the instructions rather than fight them off at the cost it would imply. I also checked in with the player.

As for killing a character, remember that I mentioned that you got four choices when life becomes untenable of which only one was to create a new character. If the creepy psychic had died permanently that would have been the choice of the player controlling the creepy psychic rather than the choice of the player killing the creepy psychic. As it was they had a choice of multiple consequences, but the becoming a Faceless was the one they found most appropriate.

Which meant that whereas I'd have done what you suggest and banned both actions in D&D, Apocalypse World constrains roleplaying much less and allows options that are not on the table for either of us in D&D.

And no I don't find the Vampire: the Masquerade story arcs satisfying so much as a crude, clunky, and intrusive prototype. Those character arcs I mentioned in Apocalypse World were not planned as character arcs - they were things that happened and the results of consequences.

That said I fully agree Apocalypse World isn't for everyone and the characters are meant to be on the same side - but only about as much as the Babylon 5 protagonists are. Can I imagine that if one or other of Londo or G'kar was psychic they'd have done that to the other? Yes. Can I imagine one having left the other for dead? I'm thinking of the stuck-in-an-elevator episode where G'kar tried to let both of them die. Which is part of why Apocalypse World would be a vastly superior base-game for Babylon 5 than D&D ever would.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I have a sneaking suspician that @Paul Farquhar has me on ignore,but, I'll take a stab anyway.

The lack of character arc mechanics means that there is no reason for players to actually have a character arc. They can if they choose to, but, by the same token, they don't have to at all and the game works exactly the same.

I think you answered the question yourself.

By having character arc mechanics, you are signaling to the players that not only are they expected to have these arcs in play, but, they will actually be rewarded in game for having these.

It's not a right/wrong thing. Just that it's difficult to say that a game promotes a kind of play when the game doesn't actually acknowledge anything about a kind of play.

Why would I want to expect anything from my players?

 

[NotAYakk]

I have a sneaking suspician that @Paul Farquhar has me on ignore,but, I'll take a stab anyway.

The lack of character arc mechanics means that there is no reason for players to actually have a character arc. They can if they choose to, but, by the same token, they don't have to at all and the game works exactly the same.

By having character arc mechanics, you are signaling to the players that not only are they expected to have these arcs in play, but, they will actually be rewarded in game for having these.

It's not a right/wrong thing. Just that it's difficult to say that a game promotes a kind of play when the game doesn't actually acknowledge anything about a kind of play.

Similarly, the lack of combat mechanics means there is no reason for monopoly pieces to have duels to the death. They can if they choose to, but, at the same token, they don't have to at all and the game works exactly the same.

By having combat mechanics, you are signalling to the players that not only are they expected to have combat in play, but, they will actually be rewarded in game for having these.

It's not a right/wrong thing. Just that it's difficult to say that monopoly promotes combat and duel between tokens when the game doesn't actually acknowledge anything about that kind of play.

HAVE AT THEE, TOP HAT! TURN AROUND, AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE MY SHOE, WHICH IS MY ENTIRE BODY, GOES!

 

[Helldritch]

And no I don't find the Vampire: the Masquerade story arcs satisfying so much as a crude, clunky, and intrusive prototype. Those character arcs I mentioned in Apocalypse World were not planned as character arcs - they were things that happened and the results of consequences.

That said I fully agree Apocalypse World isn't for everyone and the characters are meant to be on the same side - but only about as much as the Babylon 5 protagonists are. Can I imagine that if one or other of Londo or G'kar was psychic they'd have done that to the other? Yes. Can I imagine one having left the other for dead? I'm thinking of the stuck-in-an-elevator episode where G'kar tried to let both of them die. Which is part of why Apocalypse World would be a vastly superior base-game for Babylon 5 than D&D ever would.

You can force story and character's arc or you can rely on your players. Your system is "good" for new players. But as a player matures in RPG, the player wants to go into story arcs naturally without any mechanics needed.

Vampire was crude? For its time it was a revolution and it is still something to take into account (and the fifth edition is simply great). Rules without harsh punishments. You were rewarded to play your nature and demeanor (and incentived to) but you were not punished for not doing so. It was good if you did. But not darn if you didn't. Which at the time had not been seen. Your system seems to punish you for not choosing arcs. But not choosing is a choice too.

Similarly, the lack of combat mechanics means there is no reason for monopoly pieces to have duels to the death. They can if they choose to, but, at the same token, they don't have to at all and the game works exactly the same.

By having combat mechanics, you are signalling to the players that not only are they expected to have combat in play, but, they will actually be rewarded in game for having these.

It's not a right/wrong thing. Just that it's difficult to say that monopoly promotes combat and duel between tokens when the game doesn't actually acknowledge anything about that kind of play.

HAVE AT THEE, TOP HAT! TURN AROUND, AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE MY SHOE, WHICH IS MY ENTIRE BODY, GOES!

??????????????????????????? I simply fail to see your point. Monopoly is not an RPG. Using the absurd to prove your point is lost to me. Could you please clarify?

 

[Umbran]

Why would I want to expect anything from my players?

Everyone has a stack of expectations of each other at the table. Many of them are unspoken or implicit, which means we can deny them, but the expectations are there.

To be a bit absurd about it to prove the point, if your players started dumping plates of spaghetti and meatballs on your head every time you called for a saving throw... that'd probably surprise you. So, you have an expectation that they'll respond to a request to work in the game mechanics with an attempt to do so - you ask for a saving throw, they'll roll a die.

 

[Umbran]

You can force story and character's arc or you can rely on your players. Your system is "good" for new players. But as a player matures in RPG, the player wants to go into story arcs naturally without any mechanics needed.

I think I know several veteran players who would like a system that is specifically designed to generate and include such arcs, and have mechanical support for them.

Really, speaking for broad groups of people without data behind your assertion? Not a great discussion tactic.

Vampire was crude? For its time it was a revolution...

So was the Ford Model T. Today, that car is an example of history, not of good design.

 

[Hussar]

I think you answered the question yourself.



Why would I want to expect anything from my players?

You play a sandbox game, as you have described. You expect your players to be proactive and go looking for adventure no?

Try having a table where three of the four players are completely passive and expect you to provide everything from motivation on downwards and see how long your sandbox lasts.

 

[Hussar]

??????????????????????????? I simply fail to see your point. Monopoly is not an RPG. Using the absurd to prove your point is lost to me. Could you please clarify?

I believe he thought he was making a joke.

But the point does remain. Monopoly in no way is a role playing game. Why not? Because it contains absolutely no mechanics to make it a roleplaying game. Could you somehow kitbash it into a roleplaying game? Probably, somehow. But, the game itself is not a roleplaying game. Being able to add to a system and then kitbash it into doing what you want is not a property of that system, but, rather, an example of your creativity.

 

[Mort]

IF you want to go into story arc with rules. Go see how Vampire the Masquerade (1st ed) handled it. It is extremely satisfying. As for the game you describe... I would not let another player decide the fate of other players in such a way. Nor would I allow a player to kill the character of another player under any circumstances if the other player was against it. This can lead to internal friction which I try to avoid at all costs. I have seen what it can do to friendship and I want to avoid this at all costs.

Totally agree.

IME, even when people expressly say they're fine with PvP when things go down they're really, really not.

On the actual thread topic, as has been stated a few times in this thread: linear and railroading are not the same thing. Speaking as if they're interchangeable just adds confusion and leads to misunderstanding.