D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Crimson Longinus]

No. It's about the GM improvising the encounter on the spot.

Think about it this way. The GM for some reason decides to roll a random encounter before the session. He rolls a 4. He doesn't even check what that encounter is. He just rights down a 4. It so happens that 4 means an Ogre. So long as the players go somewhere and trigger a random encounter they will meet an ogre.

There is no loss of agency. The random encounter table is a part of the game and it was rolled fairly.

There is no loss of agency in either case as in either case the characters had no ogre-related agency to begin with.

 

[Don Durito]

This seems like weird distinction. Everything happens because GM decides so. Even if the encounter that killed your character was randomly generated, it was the GM who decided to roll that random encounter, what table to use etc.

Ok think about it this way. My character has 1hp and this is an old school game where 0hp is death. I know that if I have to fight a monster my character will probably die. However, we are this close to finishing the adventure. I decide that even if the chance of finding the macguffin is only 1/3 I'll take the risk.

But I don't have 1/3 chance of find the macguffin. I have 0 because I am deceived.

If I enter the deadly forest of Yoth and the DM rolls on the encounter table and a beholder attacks me, I may figure, well them's the breaks. I knew the forest was dangerous and we just lucked out. If instead the GM just pretended to roll on the table and made the decision to just have a beholder attack then again I am deceived. If the GM openly decides to have a beholder attack, then I may curse myself for not taking the rumours seriously enough but at least I am not deceived - I'm not under the impression that there was a possiblity that I could not encounter a beholder.

The difference here is whether I know the DM is making the decisions about what to encounter or not. Even if as the player I am not making the decisions I am still being deceived if the DM is pretending things are happening due to random chance when in fact they are not.

 

[loverdrive]

This seems like weird distinction. Everything happens because GM decides so. Even if the encounter that killed your character was randomly generated, it was the GM who decided to roll that random encounter, what table to use etc.

Sure. There's still a difference between introducing something into the game world and letting the players deal with it and enforcing a particular outcome.

To hell with ogres and encounters.

Let's imagine. The party is captured, imprisoned and shackled by some kind of vile cult.

There's at least three ways we could end up at such situation:

1. We've started here, in medias res. That's completely OK.
2. The players lost in a conflict with the cultists and got captured. Nasty stuff, but that's still completely OK.
3. The players were winning in said conflict, so the GM put her thumb on the scale by fudging some numbers behind the screen. Totally not OK.

From the players' perspective it's pretty hard to surely determine whether it was 2 or 3, especially if the GM isn't a complete moron, but they'll eventually feel the deception. And even if they don't, the GM knows that she lied.

 

[Don Durito]

There is no loss of agency in either case as in either case the characters had no ogre-related agency to begin with.

It doesn't have to be ogre related. In the original situation the GM gave the players a choice - but that choice was meaningless.

That's the loss of agency. The GM could have just skipped asking the party where they wanted to go first and aggressively framed the scene.

"Ok so you choose one of the three woods at random and arrive. You encounter an ogre".

Now if it seems likely the players would balk at that then the problem should be clear.

 

[TheSword]

The suggestion that random tables are somehow superior to well thought out and detailed but selected encounters is very peculiar. As if dice are pure but DMs are flawed…

It totally neglects to remember it was the DM writing/approving the random encounter options in the first place.

Nothing in the Quantum Ogre example suggests that the players knew ogres were predominantly in the cloakwood and not the wood of sharp teeth.

A choice with nothing to inform that choice is meaningless and therefore can’t be invalidated. As has been said by wise souls in previous posts.

 

[Don Durito]

The suggestion that random tables are somehow superior to well thought out and detailed but selected encounters is very . As if dice are pure but DMs are flawed…

No one has suggested such a ridiculous thing.

It totally neglects to remember it was the DM writing/approving the random encounter options in the first place.

Nothing in the Quantum Ogre example suggests that the players knew ogres were predominantly in the cloakwood and not the wood of sharp teeth.

See the post right above yours. That's not relevant to the issue at hand,

 

[TheSword]

No one has suggested such a ridiculous thing.

See the post right above yours.

That’s your example not the actual quantum ogre case study linked to in several test.

Sure if you want to change what the quantum ogre is then it’s going to change people’s response to it.

On the other hand, the DM isn’t bound to limit bandits to Peldvale simply because they slipped the rumour that bandits have a camp in Peldvale.

 

[TheSword]

No one has suggested such a ridiculous thing.

Lots of posters do in the comments of the quantum ogre article. I believe the phrase ‘the dice are a DMs greatest protection’ is used in the context of random monster tables.

 

[Don Durito]

That’s your example not the actual quantum ogre case study linked to in several test.

Sure if you want to change what the quantum ogre is then it’s going to change people’s response to it.

On the other hand, the DM isn’t bound to limit bandits to Peldvale simply because they slipped the rumour that bandits have a camp in Peldvale.

My example is directly equivalent to the orginal quantom ogre situation. Or if you think it's not you can explain why you think I've got it wrong.

Now if you have the wrong understanding of what the quantom ogre situation actually is then I have provided quotes and links so you can rectify that.

 

[Don Durito]

Lots of posters do in the comments of the quantum ogre article. I believe the phrase ‘the dice are a DMs greatest protection’ is used in the context of random monster tables.

So? Go back to 2011 and take it up with them then.