D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Maxperson]

Hussar’s earlier post was the best definition I’ve seen yet. And it really should end the debate IMHO.

What was it?

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I’m too busy to spend an entire session shopping, or have the party split up and have to be a spectator for 2/3 of the game. Or indeed have one massive battle after another continuously.

I see it as I've got the rest of my life for this, and as I expect to live a good long while yet I know there'll always be many more sessions in which to do what wasn't done in this one.

 

[Lanefan]

The rules are rulings OVER rules. Why waste the time of the players on a non-battle battle? A corner case scenario where the PCs are low on hit points and resources in the middle of a city is just that, a corner case. It could and should be ruled differently. Generally, though, the DM should just narrate the speedbump victory and move on.

I disagree; particularly in systems where any combat no matter how trivial can potentially result in broken gear, significant injury, and so forth.

In 5e it's not as big a deal - there's no real mechanics for gear breakage, and any damage you take is pretty much recovered overnight - but in grittier systems where gear isn't evergreen and hit points and-or healing are scarce resources, even the most banal of combats needs to be played out in full.

Further - and this applies to 5e as well - depending how long it lasts and-or how much noise it creates a supposedly-trivial combat like the Kobolds-in-the-alley example could very easily be the start of a one-thing-leads-to-the-next escalating catastrophe that ends with three PCs in jail, two more PCs hiding in fear for their lives, several local constables dead or injured (along with the Kobolds and maybe a few innocent passers-by), and a couple of buildings on fire......

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree; particularly in systems where any combat no matter how trivial can potentially result in broken gear, significant injury, and so forth.

A level 12 group against 7 kobolds isn't going to result in any of that.

In 5e it's not as big a deal - there's no real mechanics for gear breakage, and any damage you take is pretty much recovered overnight - but in grittier systems where gear isn't evergreen and hit points and-or healing are scarce resources, even the most banal of combats needs to be played out in full.

In grittier systems, sure. But you have to add in those systems which alters things. I'm talking from a standard rules position.

Further - and this applies to 5e as well - depending how long it lasts and-or how much noise it creates a supposedly-trivial combat like the Kobolds-in-the-alley example could very easily be the start of a one-thing-leads-to-the-next escalating catastrophe that ends with three PCs in jail, two more PCs hiding in fear for their lives, several local constables dead or injured (along with the Kobolds and maybe a few innocent passers-by), and a couple of buildings on fire......

Ahh, but that can happen even if combat is glossed over due to it being trivial. We don't have to roll it out in order for the noise to happen and repercussions to come.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t believe random encounter rolls are just gambles.

The player doesn’t know the odds, the stakes, or the rewards. If its anything it’s blind, and therefore meaningless.

This is the issue with wandering monster tables. Typically players have no idea what is on the table, or even what the chance of an encounter is.

The premise of classic D&D is that players do know the odds (1 in 6 every two or three turns, depending on which version of the rules you're using), do know the stakes (at least in Moldvay Basic, it is assumed that players read the whole book (except the sample dungeon, unless they're GMing it) wich includes the encounter tables; in AD&D the players are not assumed to know the charts but are assumed to know that there are charts corresponding to 10 levels of monsters with a greater chance of higher-leve monsters the deeper in the dungeon you are), and do know the rewards - wandering monsters are notorious for carrying little or no treasure and therefore are largely an obTstacle to successfully exiting the dungeon with the loot already collected.

Because the stakes are, in part, a function of dungeon level there are rules for both revealing information about levels (going up and down stairs, etc) and for concealing that (sloping passages, elevator rooms and the like) and for penetrating such concealment (dwarven or gnomish abilities, intelligent sword abilities, etc).

Now if you drop all this apparatus, so that the whole regime of random encounters really is opaque to the players, I agree that they become meaningless. I think this happened in a lot of D&D play around the mid-1980s and that, since then, random encounters linger on as a type of relic or fetish divorced from their original rationale. But there are other aspects of D&D - like the continued obsession with map-and-key resolution despite the widespread abandoning of dungeon crawl or hex crawl play - about which the same could easily be said!

 

[robus]

What was it?

https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-defend-railroading.681253/post-8338603

 

[Lanefan]

A level 12 group against 7 kobolds isn't going to result in any of that.

Every time you swing a weapon you run a slight risk of a fumble, in systems that have such (mine does); and a fumble has a pretty good chance of damaging or breaking said weapon.

In grittier systems, sure. But you have to add in those systems which alters things. I'm talking from a standard rules position.

Standard rules?

Remember, this is a D&D general thread, not just 5e. In 1e or Basic, for example, hit points and healing can often be at a premium.

Ahh, but that can happen even if combat is glossed over due to it being trivial. We don't have to roll it out in order for the noise to happen and repercussions to come.

Yes we do; in that there's going to be much less noise if the PCs efficiently put down the Kobolds quickly compared to if they're not efficient (e.g. due to a bad run of to-hit rolls) and the Kobolds have time to raise a racket.

 

[pemerton]

But a game where the GM has overwhelming control over what happens next, based on extrapolation by him/her about fiction that only s/he is aware of or able to invent, whether or not a railroad in the strictest sense, is going to be GM-driven in most cases, I think.

That way lies madness… if everything a DM does and everything a DM doesn’t do is railroading, railroading no longer has any meaning.

Huh? There are RPGs, including versions of D&D, where the GM does not have overwhelming control over what happens next based on extrapolation by him/her about fiction that only s/he is aware of or able to invent.

The only madness I can see would be to deny the existence of those RPGs (eg classic D&D a la Moldvay or (most of the time) Gygax; 4e D&D, at least approached in one fairly typical way; most PbtA games; Burning Wheel; just to name a few).

 

[Ovinomancer]

All right, let me rephrase it "A disagreement about whether the cost to benefit risk of having the GM handle these problems is better than trying to see if you can get the player group as a whole to do it." You and I see that very differently, because I have absolutely no faith in most groups doing even a half-decent job of it if left to themselves.

What do you think happens? I'm genuinely curious, because the GM, who apparently solves the problems in your concept, is still part of the group and just as enabled as they were before, they just lack the sole enablement or expectation that it's their job automatically to parent everyone else. Somehow, removing this sole investment of duty and responsibility suddenly means this super-problem solver that fixes issues when in charge suddenly can't contribute? This is extremely weird to me.

Help me through this: We have Bob, Betty, Jack, Dan, and April.
1) April is the GM, and has sole duty and authority to mediate social conflicts at the table.. Bob and Jack get into a spat at the table, sniping at each other over who should have gotten the Phat Lewt, a large musical instrument of dubious enchantments. Everyone turns to April, and April steps up and solves the problem -- yay April!
2) April is the GM. The duty and authority to mediate social conflicts at the table has been expressly made clear to be everyone's. Bob and Jack get into a spat at the table. Why can't April help? Why does this turn into a sad day? I mean, maybe Betty helps this time -- is this a horrible thing? You seem to imagine that since no one is solely responsible, the result is everyone staring at each other while Bob and Jack turn to blows?

 

[Maxperson]

https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-defend-railroading.681253/post-8338603

I can't see his posts. He has me blocked.