D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

I don't see Iserith, so no. Don appears to be speaking extemporaneously on the general topic -- there's no mention of Iserith, and he doesn't quote you. Your response is directly to Don, again, no mention of Iserith. Your comment is a continuation of the same arguments you were making to me. It appears to be a snipe because it quotes the comment I had had extensive discussion already regarding, and is extremely dismissive "lost cause" phrasing. I mean, you may have meant that only in regards to Iserith, but if I'm expected to understand you're having a conversation with someone I'm not seeing, then you should also have the duty to understand that your comments that aren't specifically directed are to be read in general.

I sympathize with the situation, since I have had similar problems in the past with someone who'd blocked me, but there's not much I can do when someone sees a post I do where because of that context is missing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Plenty of sandbox GMs and players would take issue with balance (not all all). But I think most would not consider it an issue of railroading. Balanced encounters are not railroads on their own. They are just the types of encounters some sandbox GMs avoid in order to make the game more exciting and to create a sense of a real world (but again it isn't universal and there is plenty of gray area here)

I'll just note I said "A fair number" not "all."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Eh, good sandbox designers understand that balance is an important tool for making different parts of the sandbox more dangerous than others.

I think you're using balance different than most people do, as this makes no sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, that is absolutely railroading. It is the text book definition IMO

Yeah, I've defended the Quantum Ogre situation as not being railroading in any significant way, as they're not the part of the decision the players make in that example, but if hitting or avoiding an encounter in general is it, I kind of agree that's railroading.

(Though you do get into the question whether blind decisions make that matter or not; that's just a fancy way of making a random encounter check and doesn't really have much to do with player/character volition. There are those who'd argue its a separate beast, and I think they at least have an argument).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@Ovinomancer I am in agreement with your general point but I am not sure there is any utility in the word "railroad". At this point it is a I know it when I see it kind of word but the definitions are so diverse as to convey little information.

It is like defining "perversion" on a range from "using a feather" to "using the entire chicken".
On the one hand we have people defining it as even s single instance of GM force = railroading, other it is only sandbox play and the dice fall as they may avoids the railroad and some see any kind of adventure plot (especially but not confined to linear adventures) as "railroading"

to add to the problem, players who like linear adventures and are willing to follow the DM's breadcrumbs do not like it, if it is too obvious what the DM is doing behind the curtains.

If you want "railroad as a term of art then, reject the negative connotations and accept it as a term for general use of illusionism and judicious DM Force.
Then perhaps a meaningful discussion could be had as to how to make the train invisible.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

No, that is absolutely railroading. It is the text book definition IMO

I definitely disagree; it is unreasonable to expect the DM to prepare encounters for every possible choice the players make. I would say most DMs have a list of encounters and NPCs they plan for the PCs to meet, and rearrange them to meet the player's choices.

For example, if you watch Brennan Lee Mulligan DMing the first season of Fantasy High; the encounters are all planned out ahead of time (they have to be, in order to get the minis and maps prepared). At no point do I think that game is a railroad, as the players have so many choices between encounters to get from one to another. The encounter is always going to happen no matter what choices are made (although I'm sure things change on the margins, like what NPCs are present), but I would not say that it is a "Railroaded Campaign." It's certainly not a bad game.

 

[Umbran]

Your comment is a continuation of the same arguments you were making to me.

Mod Note:
His comment was about his own behavior. It isn't about you. Please accept that, leave him be, and move on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer I am in agreement with your general point but I am not sure there is any utility in the word "railroad". At this point it is a I know it when I see it kind of word but the definitions are so diverse as to convey little information.

It is like defining "perversion" on a range from "using a feather" to "using the entire chicken".
On the one hand we have people defining it as even s single instance of GM force = railroading, other it is only sandbox play and the dice fall as they may avoids the railroad and some see any kind of adventure plot (especially but not confined to linear adventures) as "railroading"

to add to the problem, players who like linear adventures and are willing to follow the DM's breadcrumbs do not like it, if it is too obvious what the DM is doing behind the curtains.

If you want "railroad as a term of art then, reject the negative connotations and accept it as a term for general use of illusionism and judicious DM Force.
Then perhaps a meaningful discussion could be had as to how to make the train invisible.

It's useful only as a marker for saying that play is bad which should be, ideally, only something the table playing should be able to say. In the meantime, I'll talk to how you can use GM Force as a useful tool and what to watch out for when doing so. Primarily, it's to not rely on it too much, as it seems that the more you use it, the more likely it will cross the threshold for more people.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you're using balance different than most people do, as this makes no sense.

You need a concept of balance in order to intentionally unbalance things. A well-designed sandbox doesn’t just have completely random difficulty, it is consciously crafted to deliver a certain experience. The tools that are used to determine what a moderate difficulty encounter is for a party of any given level are the same tools you use to insure certain areas are easier or harder than the baseline.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know, it just occurred to me that the “quantum ogre” is poorly named. Quantum mechanics operate based on probability. A truly quantum ogre would be one that’s on a random encounter table. The ogre in the thought experiment isn’t in quantum superposition, it’s placed in one of two positions by a rational entity based on concrete criteria. It’s God’s Ogre, not Shrodinger’s.