D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Like I said, when I get the faintest sign most gaming groups would be any better trying to police their social contract internally, I'll be right with you. But I'm afraid all my experiences point to the contrary.

 

[Lanefan]

I think there is a misapprehension amongst some players about what a story driven adventure involves, and the belief that they will be forced to act out roles written in advance by the DM.

To me the more valid concern is that in a heavily DM-driven game the PCs will in effect be led by the nose from one encounter/adventure/whatever to the next with little or no chance to change course. For a short sequence within a longer campaign doing this can in fact be quite OK, but if the whole campaign is run this way there's a problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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's not what the coach does, though. They direct how the team with play and assign training exercises. They don't mediate social disputes. And, I can't seem to thing of these outside agencies that monitor the social contract. Perhaps you can expound further?

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.

You think there should be an additional onus on GMs in 5e, what with their already full plate of pretty much everything in how the game runs? No, I don't think unnecessary is doing any excessive lifting -- it's not necessary. If you disagree, I'll definitely entertain your argument why it's necessary for the GM to also be in charge of the social contract in addition to the game duties.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like I said, when I get the faintest sign most gaming groups would be any better trying to police their social contract internally, I'll be right with you. But I'm afraid all my experiences point to the contrary.

Oh, my. You think that most game groups are full of children that need supervision? Really? I mean, I guess I'm okay having more faith in my fellow gamers that they don't need supervision at the table and can stand up for themselves. I'll take it, though.

 

[Lanefan]

There are no "End of the World" plots in my games. The players have to deal with the political, social, and military consequences of an undead lich kingdom arising and conquering the land, spreading their foul influence.

The threat of killing your PCs to get a desired approach is railroading.

"You're walking through a dungeon and come across a fork. On your left, you see a Glyph of Instantly Kills anybody that walks through the hallway. On your right, you see totally safe not bad path. Forward is also an instant death corridor. Where do you want to go?"

Clearly railroading, right?

Only if the threats are always real.

Here, maybe the Glyph is an illusion and that way is in fact the safe way, while the totally-safe-not-bad path is actually a well-hidden collection of Grimtooth's Greatest Hits.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't see how playstyle aligns to expectations of the GM's role in the social contract.
...
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
...

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.

Do you see how you are conflating "DMs have different styles of running their table" with "people who disagree with me must not want a healthy, less abusive game?" You aren't "strongly advocating for a more healthy overall hobby" here. We were discussing two different and equally-valid styles of gameplay until you started implying otherwise.

You can continue this without me; I think I've just about written all I can on this matter.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip

"You're walking through a dungeon and come across a fork. On your left, you see a Glyph of Instantly Kills anybody that walks through the hallway. On your right, you see totally safe not bad path. Forward is also an instant death corridor. Where do you want to go?"

Clearly railroading, right?

Any time I as much as hinted to my players that a particular path is insta death they have invariably ignored the safe path and made a bee line for the insta death route. Even when it was traps culled from Grimtooth.

 

[Lanefan]

I feel like we are replacing railroading players with railroading DMs.

Railroads do run both ways.

Dming is work, and that work needs to be respected. Some DMs are fine with a “anything goes” approach, but some DMs want to run a certain style of campaign, and as long as that is set at session 0…I think the players have an obligation to respect that.

I'm one of those anything-goes DMs, and I tend to carry that approach through as a player as well.

aka if in a heroic themed game the players decided to become murderous thieves…that’s not ok. Even if the DM can handle that, doesn’t mean they want to, and doesn’t mean they should have to throw away their desired style.

To me the fail there is trying to set (or worse, force) a theme like that up front, rather than let the theme - whatever it may be - organically evolve during play based on who the PCs turn out to be and what they end up doing.

I've seen it where a group of players will have a grandly heroic group of PCs in one party and those exact same players will have a bunch of cutthroats in another. Trying to force one of those parties to play the other way would be IMO foolish.

 

[billd91]

That's not what the coach does, though. They direct how the team with play and assign training exercises. They don't mediate social disputes. And, I can't seem to thing of these outside agencies that monitor the social contract. Perhaps you can expound further?

Sure they do. If the coach has interpersonal disputes in their team, they're going to squelch them whether that means benching someone, booting them from the team, or getting the players to comply.

But that's ultimately beside the point. I don't think it's necessarily damaging for a group to expect the GM to manage the problem players, though ideally everybody should feel empowered to do so. Calling it damaging is overstating the effect. I just think that a lot of gamers condition themselves to defer to the GM on a lot of issues not necessarily related to administration of the rules of the game and running NPCs/creating adventuring sites. They look at them as the Game Master and that includes managing the table as well.

 

[Asisreo]

Only if the threats are always real.

Here, maybe the Glyph is an illusion and that way is in fact the safe way, while the totally-safe-not-bad path is actually a well-hidden collection of Grimtooth's Greatest Hits.

Yeah, having stuff hidden behind what looks like a non-option is fine. Like a fake wall to a new path.

Though, I'd consider it strange DMing to have the threat of an Insta-kill glyph without any real opportunity for them to identify if its real.

Not railroading, just something that might not be seen as fun by most as the hoops might feel to abstract in order to know the path is safe.