D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Ovinomancer]

What part of "I think I'm done with this" was unclear?

That that was your next post to the I responded to. You know, the one I didn't respond to.

 

[pemerton]

Well, with the old style pseudo-simulationist games, that was always based on the assumption the GM knew how far away it was and the speed of the vehicle per day, and voila (if, instead, you're saying OT didn't have speed-per-day listed for vehicles, I'm a little startled; skipping things like that is something I find pretty common in modern games (even ones where it might be relevant like post-apocalypse games), but I'm not used to it with games of that era).

No problem with kph - they're listed, as well as the duration the engines will run before needing a recharge from a ship's power plant.

No, the issue is that the assumption about the GM knowing how far away it is (i) just reinforces that this is the GM making stuff up, particularly because (ii) in a game premised on travelling from world to world it's inconceivable that maps will be drawn in advance.

I was disappointed, because in so many ways Classic Traveller is a modern system (eg its Streetwise skill anticipates, in outline, BW's Circles rules by more than 25 years; the rules for manoeuvring in a vacc suit anticipate the AW soft-move/hard-move sequence beautifully; I'm happy to give more examples if asked) and has the resources to handle the gameplay situations that it throws up. Onworld exploration has really been the only aspect of play where I feel I've been let down. (And again, to be clear, by "let down" I don't mean anything more than "It's not better than the other systems of its era that I don't find very satisfactory given that better is possible".)

 

[Thomas Shey]

That that was your next post to the I responded to. You know, the one I didn't respond to.

Fair. I was going to go back and delete the above post because of sequence, but the software doesn't seem to permit it.

 

[Campbell]

In pretty much any game that has a meaningful GM role what happens next in the fiction in any given moment is going to be dependent on judgements made by the GM. The interesting thing to me is not where authority enters the picture, but where accountability does. At what point does it become alright for one of the other participants to cry foul or voice concerns about the GM's exercise of their authority.

In pretty much any area of life when we invest someone with a measure of authority it's not carte blanche to do with what they wish, but rather to achieve some purpose or goal. So at what point can we say "That's messed up."?

 

[Thomas Shey]

No problem with kph - they're listed, as well as the duration the engines will run before needing a recharge from a ship's power plant.

No, the issue is that the assumption about the GM knowing how far away it is (i) just reinforces that this is the GM making stuff up, particularly because (ii) in a game premised on travelling from world to world it's inconceivable that maps will be drawn in advance.

Well, he's had to do that anyway in there being an outpost in the first place. Once he's done that, saying its a hundred kilometers away doesn't make much more difference.

I was disappointed, because in so many ways Classic Traveller is a modern system (eg its Streetwise skill anticipates, in outline, BW's Circles rules by more than 25 years; the rules for manoeuvring in a vacc suit anticipate the AW soft-move/hard-move sequence beautifully; I'm happy to give more examples if asked) and has the resources to handle the gameplay situations that it throws up. Onworld exploration has really been the only aspect of play where I feel I've been let down. (And again, to be clear, by "let down" I don't mean anything more than "It's not better than the other systems of its era that I don't find very satisfactory given that better is possible".)

I suspect its because those other mechanics were intended to handle, from lack of a better term, micro-focus situations where the travel rules were mostly designed to handle macro ones (theoretically you could use the planet generation on-the-fly but it doesn't really seem to have been designed for that.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

In pretty much any game that has a meaningful GM role what happens next in the fiction in any given moment is going to be dependent on judgements made by the GM. The interesting thing to me is not where authority enters the picture, but where accountability does. At what point does it become alright for one of the other participants to cry foul or voice concerns about the GM's exercise of their authority.

In pretty much any area of life when we invest someone with a measure of authority it's not carte blanche to do with what they wish, but rather to achieve some purpose or goal. So at what point can we say "That's messed up."?

Well, my own feeling is "Pretty much any time whatsoever", but that doesn't appear to be a popular view, and the tendency for it to be hard to find people willing to GM makes it hard to make stick.

 

[iserith]

In pretty much any game that has a meaningful GM role what happens next in the fiction in any given moment is going to be dependent on judgements made by the GM. The interesting thing to me is not where authority enters the picture, but where accountability does. At what point does it become alright for one of the other participants to cry foul or voice concerns about the GM's exercise of their authority.

In pretty much any area of life when we invest someone with a measure of authority it's not carte blanche to do with what they wish, but rather to achieve some purpose or goal. So at what point can we say "That's messed up."?

Anytime in my view, but one likely gets a better response if it's done privately (perhaps after the game or during a break).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Anytime in my view, but one likely gets a better response if it's done privately (perhaps after the game or during a break).

Its the ideal, but as I've noted before, sometimes problems need to be fixed right away, not when they've had time to create ripples.

 

[iserith]

Its the ideal, but as I've noted before, sometimes problems need to be fixed right away, not when they've had time to create ripples.

Then fix them right away.

 

[Campbell]

The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast was brought up a few pages back. I think it's important to also consider Jesse Burneko's Second Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

I consider both of these to be true :

1. It is impossible for the GM to control of the trajectory of the story while the other players control the protagonists/main characters.
2. It is impossible for the player of a PC to control the story while the GM controls the adversity they face.

There are a couple of ways we can skin this cat (if we are interested in narrative/story)

1. Embrace the things we each control and play to find out what happens when they both meet. Players of PCs play their characters like stolen cars and simply protagonize. GMs provide honest adversity. Lots of tension. Lots of risk.
2. Embrace the principles of improv theater. Lots of "Yes, And" and "No, But" style of collaboratively telling a story together.
3. Players subvert their play of their characters to the story the GM is trying to tell and the GM might weave in elements of their backstory, character concepts, desires for story arcs, etc.
4. Illusionism

None of these strategies gets away from the impossible things. They are just ameliorate the tension that exists between our narrative desires and the realities of gaming.