D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Campbell]

I think this is fighting the tide, at least in games with an even quasi-traditional role for the GM in managing the game; he's always going to be the one who ends up holding that bag unless the group is abnormally good at managing it internally (and I use the term "abnormally" deliberately).

I tend to agree that too much authority is assumed to the GM, with the sometimes accompanying expectations, but this is an area where I don't seriously see much better options for most people that are going to actually work.

My personal opinion is that in any game with a dedicated GM role taking on that role also means taking on a leadership position. Not just authority, but also accountability and responsibility. The issues we run into are not generally about one party having too much authority, but about not being accountable to the other people at the table. Does that make any sense?

 

[Thomas Shey]

My personal opinion is that in any game with a dedicated GM role taking on that role also means taking on a leadership position. Not just authority, but also accountability and responsibility. The issues we run into are not generally about one party having too much authority, but about not being accountable to the other people at the table. Does that make any sense?

Yeah, most problems with the traditional GMing position come back to a combination of unquestioned authority (GMs are sometimes extended authority in areas where there's no obvious reason they should have it) and the fact the only practical recourse players usually have if talking to them doesn't work is to take a walk. This isn't as toxic in its results as it was early in the hobby, but I think there's still a lot of shrapnel from it laying around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this is fighting the tide, at least in games with an even quasi-traditional role for the GM in managing the game; he's always going to be the one who ends up holding that bag unless the group is abnormally good at managing it internally (and I use the term "abnormally" deliberately).

Why is this? The guy being a ref at a basketball game isn't responsible for clearing up inter-personal beefs between players, nor are the responsible if one player continually plays in an aggressive manner not appreciated by the other players. They just enforce the rules of the game. Same with just about any other social engagement. I find it damaging to continue to put the onus on the GM to manage the social contract at the table with none of the players taking any responsibility for this. It makes the job unnecessarily harder, and actually acts to enable abuse of the position. It's time we stopped treating GMs as the leadership of the social group, and just a special role in a shared social activity.

I tend to agree that too much authority is assumed to the GM, with the sometimes accompanying expectations, but this is an area where I don't seriously see much better options for most people that are going to actually work.

That makes me sad, that you don't see better options that having the GM control the social contract according to their interpretations. It's a shield for abuse of power, and an unnecessary onus on an already hard job (for D&D, other systems do better).

 

[CleverNickName]

My personal opinion is that in any game with a dedicated GM role taking on that role also means taking on a leadership position. Not just authority, but also accountability and responsibility. The issues we run into are not generally about one party having too much authority, but about not being accountable to the other people at the table. Does that make any sense?

Agree. I think the role of Dungeon Master involves a lot more than just describing stuff and enforcing rules. To borrow an analogy from theatre: the players are improv actors who do their own costuming and props. The Dungeon Master is an improv actor on the stage, same as the players...but also the narrator, the playwright, the director, the set designer, the stage manager, the producer...

Even in a collaborative story, where all actors are writing the script as it moves from Scene to Scene, there still needs to be a director to keep the action on the stage, keep the actors in their light, feed lines and direct the attention, and connect all the different pieces of narrative into a single story. Without that leader, you don't really have a story, you have something more like a variety show or talent contest. Even "Who's Line Is It Anyway" needs a Drew Carey to hit that buzzer and pull scenes from a hat...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agree. I think the role of Dungeon Master involves a lot more than just describing stuff and enforcing rules. To borrow an analogy from theatre: the players are improv actors who do their own costuming and props. The Dungeon Master is an improv actor on the stage, same as the players...but also the narrator, the playwright, the director, the set designer, the stage manager, the producer...

This is coming from a specific approach to play, that isn't required, and doesn't require authority in over the social contract, either. If you look at other games, the GM is just a player with a different role, and doesn't have these other authorities. But, in D&D, the GM does have massive authorities over the game, such that I usually describe play in 5e as "the GM decides." And this works, in play, but the extension of this to the social group, to deal with problems that are not within these authorities, is toxic, in my opinion, because it usurps what should be a shared and comanaged social space with authoritarian themes invested in the person that already has authoritarian themes in the game role. It's a great reinforcement system for one person being dominant over the group (and held up by the concept that you shouldn't challenge the GM in play, but that the GM can challenge you at any and all times).

We don't see these same situations in other games -- the banker in Monopoly isn't looked to as the leader of the social contract when playing that game, for instance. Referees in sports events are not looked at this way (if anything, they're viewed negatively in the social contract). Even in RPG near games that feature a GM role you don't see it -- games like Massive Darkness, for instance, don't privilege the GM in social contracts at the table. It's only in RPGs, and then only in those that follow the D&D mindset of the GM controls all that you end up with this strange assignment of authority over the social contract. A position that has long been abused, and still is, especially when it's claimed that the GM has the right to dictate the game because they put in the most work -- an abusive canard that continues to haunt the hobby.

 

[CleverNickName]

@Ovinomancer I think we are going to disagree here. You're taking a very strange tone, too, with your word choices. I don't think the hobby is "haunted," I don't see the DM as "authoritarian," and I don't think anything is "toxic" or being "usurped" here.

I think you and I play very different styles of the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer I think we are going to disagree here. You're taking a very strange tone, too, with your word choices. I don't think the hobby is "haunted," I don't see the DM as "authoritarian," and I don't think anything is "toxic" or being "usurped" here.

I think you and I play very different styles of the game.

I don't see how playstyle aligns to expectations of the GM's role in the social contract. I've played in heavy GM authority modes, both as a player and a GM. I current expect to use heavy GM authority in game when I run 5e. I also have played other games, and played D&D in other ways. My arguments about the GM's position in the social contract is irrespective of what game or style I'm playing in -- it's saying that whatever authorities afforded a role in the game do not result in additional authorities outside the game, which is where the social contract exists.

As for the words I've chosen, it's hard to deny that D&D is climbing out of a hole where it was the boy's club, or had racist overtones, or was a place where nerds, geeks, and social outcasts abused each other. These things are in the history, and part of the way they persisted are concepts like the GM having granted authority over the social contract in addition to their role in the game. This lets one person direct the conduct and culture of the table, if they are so inclined, with a much better chance of success. If this concept is internalized by the players, then it's even stronger of a position. If, instead, it's clear that game groups are social gatherings of peers to play a game where players have different roles, but the overall group is responsible for the group's social contract, then there's less chance that abuse can happen, regardless of how prevalent or not you think it is. Certainly, an approach that is more egalitarian and reduces possible abuse is better than one that clings to traditional views and doesn't prevent the abuse, isn't it? I think so. No big if you disagree -- again, we aren't policing each other's tables. But I'm still going to advocate strongly for a more healthy overall hobby.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why is this? The guy being a ref at a basketball game isn't responsible for clearing up inter-personal beefs between players, nor are the responsible if one player continually plays in an aggressive manner not appreciated by the other players. They just enforce the rules of the game. Same with just about any other social engagement. I find it damaging to continue to put the onus on the GM to manage the social contract at the table with none of the players taking any responsibility for this. It makes the job unnecessarily harder, and actually acts to enable abuse of the position. It's time we stopped treating GMs as the leadership of the social group, and just a special role in a shared social activity.

I'd argue that's because there are other outside agencies (specifically the coach) that do that. I agree that it doesn't need to be centralized in one position theoretically, but I don't see there being enough group space for a social intelocater in addition to the GM.

That makes me sad, that you don't see better options that having the GM control the social contract according to their interpretations. It's a shield for abuse of power, and an unnecessary onus on an already hard job (for D&D, other systems do better).

I don't disagree about the potential shield for abuse of power, but I'm afraid I think "unnecessary" is doing more lifting in this sentence than you do.

 

[Lanefan]

Which in turn penalizes the players.

Whereas if there is a general understanding that players don’t rob the merchants put there to enable them, everything works smoothly.

A lot of this depends on whether you think PCs are special in your world or not. If PCs are special (as I think they are) then it explains why PCs can easily rob a local shop but the local thieves guild can’t (because they are all NPCs with NPC level stats). There’s no break in world immersion.

Which right there means we're on different wavelengths: I don't see the PCs as being special within the game-world in the least.

Put another way, the inhabitants of the game world don't go around with little "PC" or "NPC" stickers on their foreheads and nor should they. If an NPC can try it, a PC can try it; and vice-versa. Without this, believability - and with it, immersion - kinda goes out the window.

What makes the PCs different is that through their actions over the long run they often tend to accrue powers and treasures that most other people don't. What they decide to do with said powers and treasures is entirely up to them.

I also don't care nearly as much about the balance issues you raise in another post. If the PCs manage to knock over the scroll shop and power up their wizard, good on 'em: they've found a risky way of gaining an advantage for themselves and managed to pull it off. So what if their wizard is made more powerful for a while. It'll even out in the long run; never mind the odds are high that if the whole party was in on the theft the whole party's going to want to be in on the returns, meaning most of those scrolls are highly likely to just be sold for dividable cash anyway rather than just given to ol' Wizzy.

Having something like this happen is, in meta terms, simply a risk I take as DM if-when placing a scroll shop in that town.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Ovinomancer I think we are going to disagree here. You're taking a very strange tone, too, with your word choices. I don't think the hobby is "haunted," I don't see the DM as "authoritarian," and I don't think anything is "toxic" or being "usurped" here.

I think you and I play very different styles of the game.

As you can see, I have a leg on each side of this fence. I do think some of the authority position of the GM has left some often-toxic remnants in parts of the hobby (you see this any time where the topic of players questioning GMs comes up when the reaction gets close to lese majestie).

But like it or not, that doesn't mean passing of the social dynamic problems to the group as a whole is a useful thing to do with most groups that need it in the first place. All that ends up doing instead of the GM being reinforced in authority is turning it into a side-versus-side thing at best, and a quieter voices overriden by louder ones at worst. Sometimes all you really do have is the lesser evil.

(This is assuming you have a GM role at all; I have some experience with environments where you don't, and I honestly can't say I think the way those fail is any more attractive than ones where you do).