D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Don Durito]

I disagree it's in the GM's remit solely (obviously).

I didn't say solely. I have no interest in who's responsible theoretically. I'm interested in how these things are best dealt with practically.

Yeah, I think that if someone steps outside the bounds of what was agreed upon as acceptable play for that group, it's really on the whole group to point it out and take steps to correct it, not just the DM. It's not a violation of the rule of the game, but an agreement as to how the game will be played (table rules). If they don't have such an agreement, then that's a different issue that bears addressing in my view. (I took years of abuse on the old WotC forums for daring to suggest Session 0 and player buy-in be a thing. Now it's more mainstream, thank goodness, at least online.)

I still think it's better if the GM acts first in this kind of interest regardless of whatever else has been agreed upon. For the simple fact that the general mode of play is player declares an action, GM resolves it. If a player objects quickly enough to interrupt that then fine, but I suspect that in many cases that's not likely to happen, it's against the natural flow of play. If a player is going to object it will probably be after they see what the GM does, and by that point the situation will have become worse. (It's now two people who have to be reminded what you agree upon at the start - it's beginning to look like you took that agreement more seriously then the rest of the table.).

Also session 0 is important but it's not the universal panacea that people online think it is. How familiar and comfortable people are with the people around them is of vastly greater significance than any explicit assurances.

 

[iserith]

I didn't say solely. I have no interest in who's responsible theoretically. I'm interested in how these things are best dealt with practically.


I still think it's better if the GM acts first in this kind of interest regardless of whatever else has been agreed upon. For the simple fact that the general mode of play is player declares an action, GM resolves it. If a player objects quickly enough to interrupt that then fine, but I suspect that in many cases that's not likely to happen. If a player is going to object it will probably be after they see what the GM does, and by that point the situation will have become worse. (It's now two people who have to be reminded what you agree upon at the start - it's beginning to look like you took that agreement more seriously then the rest of the table.).

Also session 0 is important but it's not the universal panacea that people online think it is. How familiar and comfortable people are with the people around them is of vastly greater significance than any explicit assurances.

I see what you are saying with regard to the play loop, but I still think in a practical sense anyone can jump in and say "Whoa, time out, are we really doing this?" and have the discussion. And I've seen that happen before to fine effect.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't say solely. I have no interest in who's responsible theoretically. I'm interested in how these things are best dealt with practically.


I still think it's better if the GM acts first in this kind of interest regardless of whatever else has been agreed upon. For the simple fact that the general mode of play is player declares an action, GM resolves it. If a player objects quickly enough to interrupt that then fine, but I suspect that in many cases that's not likely to happen, it's against the natural flow of play. If a player is going to object it will probably be after they see what the GM does, and by that point the situation will have become worse. (It's now two people who have to be reminded what you agree upon at the start - it's beginning to look like you took that agreement more seriously then the rest of the table.).

Also session 0 is important but it's not the universal panacea that people online think it is. How familiar and comfortable people are with the people around them is of vastly greater significance than any explicit assurances.

Why is it better that the GM act first? I don't get this. If the GM acts, and the problem is addressed, how is that better than if a player acts and the problem is addressed? What is better about the GM acting over someone else?

 

[pemerton]

Why is it better that the GM act first? I don't get this. If the GM acts, and the problem is addressed, how is that better than if a player acts and the problem is addressed? What is better about the GM acting over someone else?

I think that @Don Durito is saying that because the GM has a special - as in role-specific - responsibility to consider the action declaration and its implications for the fiction, the GM also has a distinctive opportunity, both in terms of having the matter made salient and having the momentum of play on his/her side, to indicate that the declared action might be at odds with the table's understanding.

I don't think there's a further argument that other players shouldn't step in if they realise what is or is about to happen in the shared fiction, and want to express a concern about it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that @Don Durito is saying that because the GM has a special - as in role-specific - responsibility to consider the action declaration and its implications for the fiction, the GM also has a distinctive opportunity, both in terms of having the matter made salient and having the momentum of play on his/her side, to indicate that the declared action might be at odds with the table's understanding.

I don't think there's a further argument that other players shouldn't step in if they realise what is or is about to happen in the shared fiction, and want to express a concern about it.

The example posed wasn't about considering it for the fiction, it was about considering if it aligned with a player's expectation for what the game is about. In that example, the killing of an innocent isn't a fictional problem, it's a social contract problem at the table level as to whether or not this action is acceptable to the social contract. Here, the GM isn't in any privileged position vice anyone else at the table to check in on the social contract. In fact, the GM is someone who should be monitored more closely because they have the most opportunity to accidentally (or intentionally) transgress.

When the infraction isn't against acceptable fictional state, but instead about the social contract, in particular about an individual being uncomfortable, then expecting that the GM get first say, or most important say, or most effective say (pick which applies) is setting up for failure. And we've seen this -- this is exactly what the movement towards safety and gaming is driven by -- consent checklists, x cards, etc. I'm just arguing for letting everyone know they're empowered to speak up and for sharing the duty, and for moving from the auspices and expectation that it's the GM's job. It's a much milder statement than the larger movement, but it seems to face the same backlash.

 

[pemerton]

The example posed wasn't about considering it for the fiction, it was about considering if it aligned with a player's expectation for what the game is about. In that example, the killing of an innocent isn't a fictional problem, it's a social contract problem at the table level

Yes, I understood that. By the table's understanding I meant the table's understanding of what's in and out of the bounds of good taste etc.

As I posted, I think that the idea is that (i) because the GM is, in virtue of his/her participant role, especially attentive to the content of the fiction and the implications for that of action declarations - and (ii) because the GM is the person expected to speak next after a player declares an action, therefore (iii) the GM has a special opportunity, compared to other participants, to nip egregious action declarations in the bud.

So I don't see it - at least @Don Durito's version - as an argument for, or appeal to, and special authority that the GM enjoys; but rather as an appeal to a special capacity that the GM enjoys in virtue of the dynamics of play (i) and (ii). To the extent that (i) and (ii) don't hold - eg everyone is equally attentive to the fiction and thinking through the implications for it of individual action declarations (perhaps more common at "serious" than "casual" tables), and non-GM participants routinely engage with one another about their action declarations (perhaps more common among friends than eg at a pick-up game) - then there would be no special capacity and so (iii) wouldn't follow.

I don't know if Don Durito (or other posters) have pick-up/game-store type games in mind, but as my bit inside the dashes in the previous paragraph hints at, I think these are more likely to be situations where the GM gets that special opportunity, because more likely to be "casual" and less likely to have robust "horizontal" interaction among non-GM participants.

 

[Don Durito]

The example I gave was definitely not intended to be an X card sort of situations (although I guess it could be). It was purely about the direction of the fiction in the game. The concern was more about the game going in a direction that players or GM might not want.

If Bob's character starts murdering people then we probably have to either have pvp or just go along with the fact that everyone else's character is aiding and abetting a murderer. I guess if there's an X card you can just throw it in and stop that, but if it is not in fact making you uncomfortable, but just a fictional direction you don't find fun, then that would seem an abuse of the X card.

And by the by I would never as a GM accept the absence of an X card being played as an indication I shouldn't stop the game at certain points and check everyone is comfortable, if the game goes in a direction I think may be problematic for some.

 

[Cadence]

Four kids at summer camp at the next table playing a homemade RPG(?) around 10pm. It's somewhere between Fortnite, Minecraft, D&D, and Jurassic Park. It's hard to tell which parts are DM forcing and railroads and which parts are just rules that exist only in the GMs head. They sure are having a blast though.

 

[iserith]

Four kids at summer camp at the next table playing a homemade RPG(?) around 10pm. It's somewhere between Fortnite, Minecraft, D&D, and Jurassic park. It's hard to tell which parts are DM forcing and railroads and which parts are just rules that exist only in the GMs head. They sure are having a blast though.

Adults just overthink this stuff.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've mostly stayed out of this side-argument because it's been going on for twenty years and it bores me at this point.

Truth to tell, I suspect its a lost cause discussion mainly myself, but sometimes I'm just a dog with a bone about some things.