D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

No, but the point is if you’re not using the same agreed upon definition that everyone else is using you don’t get to be upset when people disagree and tell you that what you’re calling railroading is not actually railroading

I'm not upset. It's other posters who seem to be upset, suggesting that I'm insulting them merely by sharing my feelings about what I find to be railroading.

 

[Oofta]

It's definitely a different way to wrap your head around the concept of role-playing. But on the other hand... I can't remember a single piece of fiction I've consumed where somebody has tried to pick a lock and completely failed that wasn't also based on D&D.

Huh? It happens plenty of times in fiction. Having to go to plan "B" is a common trope.

The idea that somebody proficient at picking locks will find some basic locks easy to open and other, nearly identical locks fully impossible... that feels more artificial to me than a lot of the ways a "fail forward" approach would take. Creating complications like making noise, taking longer than usual, breaking a tool, etc.

According to actual lock smiths sometimes a lock is easy to pick and only takes a few moments other times it can take a half hour. I based my "fail by up to 10" house rule on it. In other cases a lock may just be beyond your skill to open.

I'm not saying one approach or the either is universally "better" or "more natural" or "more rewarding" than the other. They are definitely different preferences, and it's awesome that there are plenty of options out there for fans of both (and others as well!)

I think options are great. For some people always having a complication will work better, it just doesn't work better for me.

 

[pemerton]

Because I'm using the generally agreed upon definitions of those words, even if you don't agree they should be used, which your specific definition of "railroad" is not.

"Railroad", used of RPGing, describes a game in which the GM drives or coerces or forces the players into some predetermined thing.

I am identifying a type of play in which the whole game space is some sort of combination of, or pathway through, things predetermined by the GM (plus the GM's "logical" extrapolations).

QED.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I hold a different view.

I haven't said that the player would author that bit of fiction.

The player authors the action declaration, "I search the upper floor of Evard's tower for spellbooks". Now, this happened in BW, so the rule for the GM is "say 'yes' or roll the dice". The GM is expected to say "yes" if nothing is at stake (where what is at stake is relative to the players' evinced concerns for their PCs). In this case, there clearly was something at stake: Aramina, Thurgon's travelling companion, had brought them to the tower to find spellbooks, and that was why Thurgon was searching for them. So the GM called for a check (my guess would be Scavenging, though I can't recall for certain anymore).

If the check succeeds, then intent and task are realised: Thurgon finds spellbooks for Aramina.

If the check fails - which it did - then Thurgon's intent is not realised. What he actually found were letters, that appeared to reveal that his beloved mother Xanthippe is, in fact, the daughter of the evil wizard Evard.

The player (me) did not author the fiction, but plah was not a railroad: the stakes and consequences are not being established solely by the GM. They are being authored having regard to my (the players') evinced concerns for my PC - his Beliefs (about Aramina and Xanthippe), his Relationships (to Aramina and Xanthippe), etc. To use the language of AW/DW, this is an example of the GM being a fan of the characters.

Now, when you (@Micah Sweet) say that play should not revolve around the PCs, I take you to mean that play should not play out in the fashion I've just described, and that if the GM has made a decision about what is in the tower (spellbooks, letters, whatever) then that's that. The players can learn about what the GM has decided is there; and the players can choose which "there" to poke around in; but the GM will not author fiction about what is there in response to the players' evinced concerns for their PCs.

The sort of play that I have described in the previous paragraph is what I regard as a railroad. (Again, I repeat this caveat: if essentially we're playing a wargame, like Isle of Dread or White Plume Mountain, then the whole logic of things is different, and the characters are just player pawns. That's not a railroad, but it's not really a game with characters at all in any meaningful sense. It shares a basic similarity of form with the sort of RPGing I enjoy, but in its details is a completely different activity.)

EDIT:

This post provides an illustration. There are many more that you could see in my numerous actual play threads on these boards.

One thing I can say is that you seem to dislike most forms of D&D (4e seems to be an exception) as much as I dislike your favored games. I understand where you're coming from and, while I strongly disagree with much of your perspective, I respect it and appreciate hearing what a very different style of gamer has to say.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm not upset. It's other posters who seem to be upset, suggesting that I'm insulting them merely by sharing my feelings about what I find to be railroading.

It’s not railroading though, because you are not working by the agreed upon definition and you’re just making things complicated and unclear by doing that

 

[pemerton]

Cute. You don't think at least that the phrase, "to visit grief upon them" would engender a little question or comment? Its not like you hear people say that every day outside of period romantic literature.

I dunno. I hadn't come across the phrase until I read it in the context I quoted. To me it seemed fairly clear.

 

[pemerton]

The disconnect here, I think, if you're taking "the GM is providing a choice for this particular moment" to mean "the players are only allowed to pick between those two choices and only follow the GM's story." Those are actually two very different things, and only the latter is actually a railroad.

I don't agree.

The disconnect is that I am saying it's a railroad if all the possible event of play are merely combinations of elements pre-authored by the GM (plus the GM's logical extrapolations from those things).

I'm not making any assumptions about what the players are "allowed" to choose. But I am making an assumption about how stakes and consequences are established, namely, by the GM in authoring the setting/situation and then extrapolating from it.

To me, it is telling that not far upthread @Pedantic said that if you rule out what I am calling railroading, there's nothing left!

Whereas to me, when I rule out what I am calling railroading, I see vast quantities of RPGing remaining: 4e D&D (with player-authored quests), AD&D (the way I played it from around 1986 to 1989 - I wouldn't use it anymore, because I've discovered better systems, but I know from experience it an be done), AW, DW, Burning Wheel, Agon, Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller (which I discovered a few years ago can be played as a type of PbtA precursor), etc, etc.

This is why I have repeatedly said, in this and innumerable other threads, that the difference between what I am calling railroading, and the sort of RPGing I prefer, is not about what powers the players enjoy (notwithstanding that @Oofta continues to falsely attribute to me a belief about that), but rather is about the techniques that are used to establish stakes, consequences, and "what happens next". Which are all about the GM, not the players.

 

[pemerton]

It’s not railroading though, because you are not working by the agreed upon definition and you’re just making things complicated and unclear by doing that

I've explained why it is railroading within the ordinary meaning of that term: ie everything is built up of elements predetermined by the GM.

Others don't agree: that's fine. I don't agree that AW is artificial. But I don't try and tell people they're using the word "artificial" wrongly, even though there is no dictionary definition of artificial that will capture AW but not D&D. (Both are artefacts.)

 

[pemerton]

Well, for one thing, you're not presenting your bespoke definition of railroad as an opinion, but rather as an objective fact. You have to know that a lot of other people here don't agree with that definition, yet you continue to use it casually, as if that's just what the word means.

It's not a "bespoke" definition, any more than your use of "artificial" is bespoke.

The thing is that you don't object to calling things artificial that I don't find so, but seem to get bent out of shape when I call things railroading that you don't find so.

EDIT:

I understand where you're coming from and, while I strongly disagree with much of your perspective, I respect it and appreciate hearing what a very different style of gamer has to say.

So maybe "bent out of shape" is unfair - I apologise for that. Still, I hope that you can see that I don't see my use of "railroading" as any different from your use of "artificial". Both describe the way a certain sort of RPGing is experienced, due to its structural features.

The fact that you don't find the sort of play I regard as railroading to be railroad-y doesn't affect my experiences, any more than the fact that I don't find the processes in my preferred RPGs artificial has any affect on your experiences.

 

[pemerton]

One thing I can say is that you seem to dislike most forms of D&D (4e seems to be an exception) as much as I dislike your favored games.

As I've posted, multiple times now in this thread, it is possible to play AD&D in my preferred style. I know, because I've done it.

But that was some decades ago, and since then I've discovered systems that are better for what I want.