D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Hussar]

Even if those spells are upcasted to 7th level?

What about a rogue with Investigation Expertise with a minimum roll of 18 Investigation that takes an action to discern him?

I don't consider it railroading if its part of the game (I still don't like the surprise! Nature of it). But when a player clearly should have succeeded when they failed to withhold information, that's railroading.

None of those spells are upcastable.

There is zero requirement to set a DC for an action that the DM decides will fail. That's as per the skill rules in 5e. That's not railroading. No matter how high your skill check, you can't do something impossible.

I do agree with your final point though. If the player's succeed, then they succeed. But, I was simply pointing out the problems with your specific example.

 

[Composer99]

A few points on the general discussion.

- People really need to be clear if railroad is inherently a dysfunctional state or not. The term was certainly invented to describe dysfunction so it seems a little bit weird with people saying "this type of gaming is a railroad and that's ok.". It's a little bit like saying "this form of dysfunction is not dysfunctional". I think the distinction between linear storyline (potentially functional) and railroad (dysfunctional) is a useful one.

- People seem to be leaving out a big middle between an open sandbox hexcrawl and the most extreme linear form of story; there's continents between the two.

- At the same time, I know from experience that the fact that the GM is theoretically ok with the players ditching the adventure and moving to Chult is not sufficient to avoid players feeling like they're being railroaded. If the GM is relying purely on social pressure (ie. the expectation of the players themselves that they won't be a dick and completely derail the game for each other and not just the GM), then you may still end up with acrimony and accustations of railroading. If it turns out that there is only ever one reasonable choice, then you still have issues. And insisting after the game breaks down that actually you would have been perfectly ok with anything the players chose to do, really, is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

I know that I myself would prefer to strictly limit the verb "railroad" as a gaming term of art to DM/GM misbehaviour.

Again, to abuse the obvious metaphor conjured by the term, if the players buy tickets to board the train and enjoy the ride down the tracks, what is happening just isn't railroading.

Or put another way, when you go to someone's house and take something out of it with their permission, no one calls that stealing.

 

[Asisreo]

None of those spells are upcastable.

Dispel Magic is upcastable.

All of them can be upcasted and treated as a spell of the level slot you used to cast it, though. Use True Seeing with your 7th level slot, its a 7th-level spell and can bypass Rakshasa's Magic Immunity.

There is zero requirement to set a DC for an action that the DM decides will fail. That's as per the skill rules in 5e. That's not railroading. No matter how high your skill check, you can't do something impossible.

The Rakshasa, assuming the DM is playing it RAW, disguises itself with Disguise Self. That means its under the effects of that particular spell. The spell states that the DC to discern the illusion is equal to the spellcaster's DC. In the rakshasa's case, that's a DC 18. So unless the DM decided in advance that somehow the rakshasa has a higher DC or that the spell works differently, its railroading when the DM turns around and says something doesn't work when by all accounts with RAW, it should have.

 

[Malmuria]

Is Matt Colvile indicative of a typical 5e playstyle, at least in terms of what the dm should be doing? I do like a lot of his videos, but then he comes up with things like this, in which he turns the deck of many things into a literal magic trick for his players, which I find very confusing advice. His advice also seems to be that the dm designs the scenario which the players more or less must do, but they get agency in how they go about addressing the scenario.

 

[Composer99]

It is so weird to keep being treated like I'm being unreasonable for staking a position that people should be treated as adults and not like children in need of supervision, just because they play an RPG. I mean, you're infantilizing RPG players, here, and then trying to treat me as if I have a bad take and am too certain of my own position because I'm not agreeing with you that this is the best way to treat people who play RPGs.

I'm at a complete loss that this is even a thing, and deeply concerned as well.

The only bright spot here is the unintentional irony at the end of this post.

You're being treated as unreasonable because you are coming across as insisting that other people are taking the position that gamers writ large are "children in need of supervision, just because they play an RPG", and coming across as not at all reading what they are writing, largely because the plain, unambiguous meaning of the words those other people are writing is that they are not taking that position.

 

[Hussar]

As I've said earlier, the issue is that people want to conflate railroading with linear. Generally, IME, because of this fetishization of sandbox play. "Well, I have no pre-determined plot, and all I have is this sandbox, so, I cannot possibly railroad", generally goes the argument.

That's why I usually go to my story about the gem merchant in Keep on the Borderlands. Keep is about as sandbox as it gets. You have virtually no prescripted plot in KotB. Yet, my DM very clearly railroaded.

And, the funny thing is, several people here tried to defend it. The players were being unreasonable by doing something the DM didn't want them to do. But, that's the entire point about railroading. DM's railroad when the players do something that the DM doesn't want them to do. That's the entire reason to railroad. Doesn't matter if you're in the most strictly linear or most wide open sandbox. The players are doing something that the DM doesn't like and the DM abuses his or her control over the game to enforce a specific outcome that is preferable to the DM.

This is why railroading as a gaming term is always negative. Let me repeat my point here. Railroading occurs when a DM abuses his or her authority at the table over the game world for the sole reason of achieving an outcome that is preferable to the DM. It's always a bad thing.

See, sure, you could handle this sort of thing at a Session 0 or outside the game. FANTASTIC idea. Totally avoids railroading and there's no abuse of authority going on. Granted, my example was from the early 1990's. The notion of "social contract" and "session zero" wasn't even a gleam in the eye of DMing advice. But, we have moved on considerably since then.

The problem comes when people try to apply the term railroading to situations that clearly aren't abuse of authority by the DM. That's where arguments over definitions come from. If I decide not to call for a skill check because the action is impossible, that's not an abuse of authority by the DM in 5e. That's what the DM is SUPPOSED to do. However, if I do call for a skill check, I should act in good faith if the check succeeds.

It's when the DM is no longer acting in good faith that we enter railroading territory.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The Rakshasa, assuming the DM is playing it RAW, disguises itself with Disguise Self. That means its under the effects of that particular spell. The spell states that the DC to discern the illusion is equal to the spellcaster's DC. In the rakshasa's case, that's a DC 18. So unless the DM decided in advance that somehow the rakshasa has a higher DC or that the spell works differently, its railroading when the DM turns around and says something doesn't work when by all accounts with RAW, it should have.

This I agree with. Sorry, hadn't actually looked at it in that level of detail. So, yeah, if the check succeeds, then it succeeds. A DM is acting in bad faith otherwise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're being treated as unreasonable because you are coming across as insisting that other people are taking the position that gamers writ large are "children in need of supervision, just because they play an RPG", and coming across as not at all reading what they are writing, largely because the plain, unambiguous meaning of the words those other people are writing is that they are not taking that position.

Um, the other poster that was directed at agreed that this was a suitable description of their position. They've caveated it only by saying that other people won't stand up for themselves and need a protector in the form of the GM, which is the same thing in a different phrasing.

The argument that someone might avoid conflict is not a valid complaint to my position, either. Everyone at the table is responsible for standing up for the social contract -- the GM is not privileged with authority nor burdened with duty any more than anyone else at the table. If no one at the table is speaking up, then there's a problem that putting the GM in charge won't solve, either. And what if the GM is the one abusing the contract?

No, stating that it is the duty of the GM and that they have special authority to enforce the social contract merely because they've shown a modicum of ability to run a game is tantamount to just handing a random person the responsibility -- there's nothing at all that qualifies a GM for the duty over anyone else at the table, and nothing about their role in the game that does so, either. Instead, everyone is responsible for calling out behavior they see as a problem or leaving the situation. The idea that this is not feasible because people usually are unable or unwilling to do so is part of the reason the unhealthy assumption that the GM will supervise the social space (and do a better job of it, which is just silly) persists. And why we get arguments that cannot avoid the statement that you need to treat fellow RPGers as if they are in need of supervision by a GM.

But, please, if you have a different take, explain how you think a GM is best qualified for the duty to supervise the social contract and why the other players need such supervision. @Thomas Shey is on the record that this is so, and hasn't shown it at all, just insisted that this is how he's seen it needs to be -- RPGers need protection from GMs because they're largely unwilling to stand up for themselves.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I've said earlier, the issue is that people want to conflate railroading with linear. Generally, IME, because of this fetishization of sandbox play. "Well, I have no pre-determined plot, and all I have is this sandbox, so, I cannot possibly railroad", generally goes the argument.

That's why I usually go to my story about the gem merchant in Keep on the Borderlands. Keep is about as sandbox as it gets. You have virtually no prescripted plot in KotB. Yet, my DM very clearly railroaded.

And, the funny thing is, several people here tried to defend it. The players were being unreasonable by doing something the DM didn't want them to do. But, that's the entire point about railroading. DM's railroad when the players do something that the DM doesn't want them to do. That's the entire reason to railroad. Doesn't matter if you're in the most strictly linear or most wide open sandbox. The players are doing something that the DM doesn't like and the DM abuses his or her control over the game to enforce a specific outcome that is preferable to the DM.

This is why railroading as a gaming term is always negative. Let me repeat my point here. Railroading occurs when a DM abuses his or her authority at the table over the game world for the sole reason of achieving an outcome that is preferable to the DM. It's always a bad thing.

See, sure, you could handle this sort of thing at a Session 0 or outside the game. FANTASTIC idea. Totally avoids railroading and there's no abuse of authority going on. Granted, my example was from the early 1990's. The notion of "social contract" and "session zero" wasn't even a gleam in the eye of DMing advice. But, we have moved on considerably since then.

The problem comes when people try to apply the term railroading to situations that clearly aren't abuse of authority by the DM. That's where arguments over definitions come from. If I decide not to call for a skill check because the action is impossible, that's not an abuse of authority by the DM in 5e. That's what the DM is SUPPOSED to do. However, if I do call for a skill check, I should act in good faith if the check succeeds.

It's when the DM is no longer acting in good faith that we enter railroading territory.

Here's the insidious part, though -- the GM almost never asks if it's okay to do the railroading. They just do it. This also can often escape detection (unless it's blatant, of course, which isn't uncommon, either). So, if the players knew about it, they may object, but they don't, so they don't. Is this railroading? I mean, I feel like I'm asking what sound a lonely falling tree makes, but it's worth thought.

 

[Stalker0]

Here's the insidious part, though -- the GM almost never asks if it's okay to do the railroading.

I also don’t ask my players if I can use monsters that utilize weaknesses from my knowledge or their character sheet….or vice versa monsters that they are strong against and will kill with ease.

I don’t have to ask permission to use DM tricks, if I’m making it fun for the group.