D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Maxperson]

The thing that you don't get is that the players don't want to expose the DM in any case, they just want to play an epic story. It's a game of make believe anyway, and the DM can create whatever they want, on the spot, just "because". He does not even need to lie to destroy you, if that is what he wanted.

I don't agree with that. I want to know that the epic story happened because my game play mattered, not because the DM lied to me, railroaded me, including through the use of illusionism.

If I find out the DM is like that, I'm done with that group.

Honestly, sometimes the defensiveness of some people (not specifically you) on these matters makes me think that they don't understand that the DM does not play against the players. It would be really silly if he did, because he would win instantly every single time.

His benevolence and good will doesn't make railroading and lying to the players okay, though.

Now, the DM sometimes makes mistakes, who doesn't. But again, the players forgive him because even when he made mistakes, it's still with the intent of making the best game he can for the players.

I don't think anyone here is talking about mistakes.

 

[Lyxen]

There are plenty of people who argue linear adventures are fine, as long as they are done well and as long as everyone is on the same page.

And yet, I'm pretty sure that in general, people will think that linear adventures are inferior to non-linear ones, all other things being equal. Linear is NOT a positive word either.

How do you roleplay around a railroad. If a situation is linear and you know it - then you can roleplay.

No, there is no roleplay, you just move to the next station.

If there is a true railroad situation, you THINK you're roleplaying around it but the DM has 1 and only 1 conclusion in mind regardless of what you think or do.

No I roleplay around the fact that I've been lucky or unlucky again, for example.

We're discussing a very straightforward example, but that's not always the case. You "might do this" because the players have caught on that you are railroading them (it's rarely as seamless as most DMs think) and have complained about it.

And then, once more, it has to be a terrible crime ? The players don't even try to understand why it was done, they just slam the door, walk away and use the DM as a "bad DM" example until the end of their days ?

I have a different take on this, which is that there was a REASON for which the DM did what he did. But honestly, people in here are much too self-righteous and theoretical to ask WHY the DM did it. Because in my experience, it's because he looked for another solution to try and please the players and did not find one. So does it make such a terrible crime ?

God, reading about this, I'm getting angry again. We are not talking about abuse here, it's just a game, with zero consequence. If there cannot be a bit of understanding and friendship around this, I really wonder with who you guys are playing.

And the part which annoys me the most is that I'm sure that in most cases, it's not even detected, and that most people are not so inhuman about it in real life.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't agree with that. I want to know that the epic story happened because my game play mattered, not because the DM lied to me, railroaded me, including through the use of illusionism.

But your game play mattered, because of that collaboration you all got to create a totally epic story, along with the DM.

If I find out the DM is like that, I'm done with that group.

Too bad, you might be missing a lot of interesting games, but from what I gather your playstyle is totally different and based around rules, so in the end, it might just not be the kind of games that you enjoy. But still be careful, don't even try to badwrongfun it...

His benevolence and good will doesn't make railroading and lying to the players okay, though.

Why ? Please explain where in the rules it is said that it's not okay ? If it's not in the social contract (and you will notice that it's not even in the example social contract in Tasha's for example), and I see no reason for it to be there, then where is the problem ? Is it even in YOUR social contract ?

I don't think anyone here is talking about mistakes.

Then, that is a grave mistake in itself. The problem is that you never ask yourself why a DM would choose to railroad.

 

[prabe]

The thing that you don't get is that the players don't want to expose the DM in any case, they just want to play an epic story. It's a game of make believe anyway, and the DM can create whatever they want, on the spot, just "because". He does not even need to lie to destroy you, if that is what he wanted.

Honestly, sometimes the defensiveness of some people (not specifically you) on these matters makes me think that they don't understand that the DM does not play against the players. It would be really silly if he did, because he would win instantly every single time.

The DM is playing alongside the players, in fully cooperative mode, to tell an incredible story. Assuming that he would harm you would be akin to your trusty coach sabotaging you. But even your trusty coach can lie now and then if he thinks you need it, and although you might see through it later, you will still be OK with that, because he told you exactly what you wanted and needed to hear.

Now, the DM sometimes makes mistakes, who doesn't. But again, the players forgive him because even when he made mistakes, it's still with the intent of making the best game he can for the players.

Really, this time, trust me, it makes the game much better.

Lying rarely makes anything better, in my experience.

I find that tables work better based on honesty and trust than based on lies. It's not a matter of whether the GM wants to "destroy" the PCs; it's a matter of what and whom the story is about.

I strongly prefer--as player and GM--for the game not to be about anything the GM creates, but about the PCs and what they do. The sort of lying to them that you're advocating seems to me as though it'd be lying to the players that the game was about their characters, and I will not do that.

So, no. I don't think I'll trust your judgment on this.

 

[Lyxen]

The Grimtooth version might go more like: opening either door causes an Ogre to be immediately summoned to the space just behind that door. Which means if you open both doors you're gonna get two Ogres. Double the fun!

At least someone who gets it. Why would a DM who wants to really be nasty just railroad you when he can Grimtooth you ?

 

[Maxperson]

And yet, I'm pretty sure that in general, people will think that linear adventures are inferior to non-linear ones, all other things being equal. Linear is NOT a positive word either.

No. I've seen in many different threads how linear has a place and can be very fun.

And then, once more, it has to be a terrible crime ? The players don't even try to understand why it was done, they just slam the door, walk away and use the DM as a "bad DM" example until the end of their days ?

It's not a terrible crime, or any crime at all if the players have agreed to the rails. It is a crime(how terrible is dependent on the severity and length of the railroad) if they haven't.

I have a different take on this, which is that there was a REASON for which the DM did what he did.

When I was in highschool the bully that was bullying me had a reason. And when I punched him in the face for it I had a reason. Those reasons don't make those actions okay.

 

[Lyxen]

Lying rarely makes anything better, in my experience.

Oh yes, what about the stage magician though ? Isn't he lying, deceiving you, for your greater pleasure ?

I find that tables work better based on honesty and trust than based on lies. It's not a matter of whether the GM wants to "destroy" the PCs; it's a matter of what and whom the story is about.

The fact that it's DM created and led doesn't mean that the PCs are not the people around whom the plot revolves.

I strongly prefer--as player and GM--for the game not to be about anything the GM creates, but about the PCs and what they do.

That discussion was had in the other thread, and I think that the general consensus is that most tables expect a more or less strong DM plot (or plots) to play around. The PCs can (and probably should, but again YCMV) be central in that plot, but denying the GM creation at the core does not describe D&D games in their vast majority.

But if you have examples of play along that line, I would be happy to see them...

The sort of lying to them that you're advocating seems to me as though it'd be lying to the players that the game was about their characters, and I will not do that.

You are assuming way too much and in the wrong direction. And you are not listening to what I'm saying. No-one is saying that players should be lied to about the role of their characters in the world and the plot, how could that be conducive of players fun ? Come on.

So, no. I don't think I'll trust your judgment on this.

Please read me in the right light, I'm not advocating lying all the time and about core things, I'm just trying to explain that some lying or railroading now and then are not so bad when done with the right intention in mind, i.e. the player's fun.

 

[Maxperson]

But your game play mattered, because of that collaboration you all got to create a totally epic story, along with the DM.

No. It wouldn't matter, because I would be on his rails. Collaboration requires the ability for the players to make choices that matter. Those choices, along with the situations the DM created and the responses to those choices are what makes for collaboration.

Too bad, you might be missing a lot of interesting games, but from what I gather your playstyle is totally different and based around rules, so in the end,

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don't take my discussions about RAW to be any indicator of what I do in my game.

Why ? Please explain where in the rules it is said that it's not okay ? If it's not in the social contract (and you will notice that it's not even in the example social contract in Tasha's for example), and I see no reason for it to be there, then where is the problem ? Is it even in YOUR social contract ?

Page 71 of the DMG.

"An adventure should allow the adventurers' actions and decisions to matter. Though it might resemble a novel or a TV episode, an adventure needs to allow for more than one outcome. Otherwise, players can feel as if they've been railroaded-set onto a course that has only one destination, no matter how hard they try to change it."

It's telling you to give multiple options and not to railroad. Note the negative connotation associated with railroading.

As for lying to the players, yes, that's covered in the social contract. People don't like to be lied to and will be playing the game with the understanding that the DM isn't lying to them about information. Note, this isn't the same as something in the game lying to the PCs.

 

[Lyxen]

No. I've seen in many different threads how linear has a place and can be very fun.

And do you still deny that, all other things being equal, a linear module will not be as well considered as one which is not?

It's not a terrible crime, or any crime at all if the players have agreed to the rails. It is a crime(how terrible is dependent on the severity and length of the railroad) if they haven't.

Why, I do believe that we are progressing. You see, the players agree to the principle that there might be rails now and then, because they know that the DM will not abuse it, and because they know it will be for the good of the game. So we agree that there is no crime ?

When I was in highschool the bully that was bullying me had a reason. And when I punched him in the face for it I had a reason. Those reasons don't make those actions okay.

Oh sure, how relevant, I'm sure both you and the bully had the other's fun in mind. Can you please explain how this example is even remotely applicable to what I'm saying or is it another huge strawman ?

 

[Maxperson]

And do you still deny that, all other things being equal, a linear module will not be as well considered as one which is not?

It really depends on the person and group. Not all DMs are good at running non-linear games.

Why, I do believe that we are progressing. You see, the players agree to the principle that there might be rails now and then, because they know that the DM will not abuse it, and because they know it will be for the good of the game. So we agree that there is no crime ?

As long as the players agree to the railroading, no harm no foul.

Oh sure, how relevant, I'm sure both you and the bully had the other's fun in mind. Can you please explain how this example is even remotely applicable to what I'm saying or is it another huge strawman ?

You really, really need to learn what a Strawman is. If I don't attribute the argument to you, it's not a Strawman. A counterargument like the one I gave, is not attributing anything to you.

It's applicable, because it shows that just because you have a reason for what you do, doesn't mean that the reason is justification for the bad act.