D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

Then fix them right away.

Yup. But sometimes that requires being assertive to a GM, and some people consider that anathema.

 

[iserith]

Yup. But sometimes that requires being assertive to a GM, and some people consider that anathema.

You don't get what you don't ask for! I have no sympathy for those who don't stand up for themselves. (Of course, picking one's battles is important, too, as is the timing for said battles.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

You don't get what you don't ask for! I have no sympathy for those who don't stand up for themselves. (Of course, picking one's battles is important, too, as is the timing for said battles.)

Unfortunately, big parts of the hobby have taught them that doing that is unacceptable. As I've noted before, some GMs seem to consider it, effectively, lese majesty, and even less extreme cases there's always the "it takes up time and isn't worth it" argument

 

[pemerton]

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.

There's a sense in which this is true. But I think there can be reasons not to emphasise it too much, because it can then be taken - erroneously, in my view - to elide the differences between resolution frameworks which have "teeth", in the sense of generating downstream constraints on introducing the new "what happens next", and resolution frameworks that lack such teeth and hence leave the GM with a largely free hand in deciding what happens next.

 

[pemerton]

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 think the existence of the outpost might have been posited by a player - I can't remember now.

But anyway its existence was completely uncontroversial and flowed completely naturally from the prior established fiction, including the results of prior action declarations.

Whereas its location didn't follow in anything like that fashion - beyond being on the world's surface, it could have been anywhere (or at least anywhere within hundreds of kilometres).

One upshot is that rules that (I think) are meant to provide tension - will our ATV break down? will we run out of fuel? etc - lose that purpose, because I as GM have to make an entirely arbitrary stipulation of the distance to the base, and depending on what I stipulate the prospect of breakdown, etc, becomes either negligible or significant. It gets close to just stipulating an outcome.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You don't get what you don't ask for! I have no sympathy for those who don't stand up for themselves. (Of course, picking one's battles is important, too, as is the timing for said battles.)

Are we at that part of a DM power thread where we have to talk about unhealthy power dynamics as were massively encouraged early on in the game's history again?

 

[iserith]

Unfortunately, big parts of the hobby have taught them that doing that is unacceptable. As I've noted before, some GMs seem to consider it, effectively, lese majesty, and even less extreme cases there's always the "it takes up time and isn't worth it" argument

In many cases, it isn't worth it in my view. Or at least it isn't worth addressing "in public." Hence my comment on picking battles or timing them well to achieve the best results whenever possible.

I've certainly been critical in the past of people believing that the DM's authority extends beyond the game world and into the social setting e.g. the DM is responsible for dealing with player behavior problems rather than the group as a whole. As for believing raising an objection to the DM about something is unacceptable, this is obviously wrong on its face and anyone who believes that has nobody to blame but themselves for a bad outcome.

 

[Maxperson]

Are we at that part of a DM power thread where we have to talk about unhealthy power dynamics as were massively encouraged early on in the game's history again?

Much like alignment, things haven't been that way for decades. Old history isn't all that relevant now.

 

[iserith]

Are we at that part of a DM power thread where we have to talk about unhealthy power dynamics as were massively encouraged early on in the game's history again?

I don't know. I don't see this come up a lot personally, but I also don't read every thread. Anything to get away from the Forge waffle though is good in my view.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the existence of the outpost might have been posited by a player - I can't remember now.

Ah, then that's already more player input than was, honestly, typical for the time.

But anyway its existence was completely uncontroversial and flowed completely naturally from the prior established fiction, including the results of prior action declarations.

Whereas its location didn't follow in anything like that fashion - beyond being on the world's surface, it could have been anywhere (or at least anywhere within hundreds of kilometres).

One upshot is that rules that (I think) are meant to provide tension - will our ATV break down? will we run out of fuel? etc - lose that purpose, because I as GM have to make an entirely arbitrary stipulation of the distance to the base, and depending on what I stipulate the prospect of breakdown, etc, becomes either negligible or significant. It gets close to just stipulating an outcome.

Eh. I think that's only true if the range of numbers is such that the result is predictable. Honestly, unless the planet is particularly hostile, if its assumed the outpost is close enough to reach in a day there's probably not much point in engaging with mechanics anyway, and if its going to be far enough away that the breakdown or fuel depletion is a given, one should seriously think about whether going there by land is a good plan anyway. Its in the liminal space that the question is at all interesting.