D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Paul Farquhar]

Thing is with things like robbing shopkeepers, it's not just the GM's fun that is at stake. It's potentially destructive of the other players fun too.

Of course there's better ways to handle that situation then railroading. But it isn't necessarily something the GM should just be a neutral arbiter of either.

If the players go into a magic shop, I generally hint that it is well defended, with shadowy stone statues in the corners (which detect as magic if the PC has detect magic running) and suchlike.

That saves on the "stone golems pound you to death the end" outcome.

 

[Don Durito]

If the players go into a magic shop, I generally hint that it is well defended, with shadowy stone statues in the corners (which detect as magic if the PC has detect magic running) and suchlike.

That saves on the "stone golems pound you to death the end" outcome.

I'd be more along the lines of: "Is everyone else really cool with taking the game in this direction?"

 

[Lanefan]

Because I don't like crooks.

What about the other players who do like crooks, and-or want to play one? If - as you say just upthread - you're the only DM around then it's not like those players have much choice.

Because D&D is a co-op game. You fight and kill each other the end is a short and unenjoyable game.

Short? I'm 13 years into my current campaign with no end in sight; and during that time I can quickly remember at least ten different major in-party brawls* leading to something like 8 or 10 character deaths in total. The survivors recruited replacements, and things went on from there.

Unenjoyable? Then why were we all laughing so hard every time these things broke out?

* - most of them in the first 5 years or so, things have stabilized somewhat since (and very much so during covid when I've only had one player!) but once we get back to full-group play I've no way of knowing how long that stability might last...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'd be more along the lines of: "Is everyone else really cool with taking the game in this direction?"

I prefer to stay in character if possible.

 

[Lanefan]

Thing is with things like robbing shopkeepers, it's not just the GM's fun that is at stake. It's potentially destructive of the other players fun too.

Depends whether all the players have bought in to the robbery idea, I suppose.

Of course there's better ways to handle that situation then railroading. But it isn't necessarily something the GM should just be a neutral arbiter of either.

My take is that the DM should always be a neutral arbiter.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What about the other players who do like crooks, and-or want to play one? If - as you say just upthread - you're the only DM around then it's not like those players have much choice.

Then they need to find a DM who does like crooks, or DM it themselves. The DM has no obligation to run a game they don't enjoy.

Unenjoyable? Then why were we all laughing so hard every time these things broke out?

Which just shows you move in very different circles to me. I wouldn't enjoy that game, and neither would my players.

 

[Don Durito]

Short? I'm 13 years into my current campaign with no end in sight; and during that time I can quickly remember at least ten different major in-party brawls* leading to something like 8 or 10 character deaths in total. The survivors recruited replacements, and things went on from there.t...

The reason for that is the 13 year campaign though. That's not a universal situation. Everyone knows each other really well.

If I'm running an open game at a meet-up I'm a lot more pro-active in having the DM job be also a leadership position then I am with either of my longer term regular groups.

 

[Lanefan]

I prefer to stay in character if possible.

Agreed.

 

[Lanefan]

Then they need to find a DM who does like crooks, or DM it themselves. The DM has no obligation to run a game they don't enjoy.

Agreed to a point. Here our situations differ - if someone here doesn't like my game there's other options, where in your case it seems to be you or nothing. What this tells me is I maybe don't have to be as flexible as you might, in terms of accepting and-or catering to a wider variety of players/playstyles.

And telling someone to DM it themselves is only of any use to a point; in that even if you run the game you'd love to play in, DMing isn't playing in the same way and doesn't give the same type of enjoyment.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My take is that the DM should always be a neutral arbiter.

Maintaining neutrality is why I prefer to have adventures prepared in advance. I don't feel you can be neutral if you make stuff up of the cuff. "The shop is guarded by four stone golems. You don't have any magic weapons?". I feel it's a lot easier to be neutral if I have all the defences written down on paper before the adventure starts.