D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

I repeat: if the only person who gets to decide the content of the shared fiction is the GM, how can you be shocked that someone might regard that as a railroad, that is to say, an entirely GM-determined exercise?

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I was shocked was that I had never heard anyone claim that the most common, decades-old method of play in the majority of RPGs is actually a railroad (a known pejorative). Not that you think it is, or that you see it that way, but that it is such, definitively. How could you not be shocked that there was considerable push-back to that idea? You just insulted a lot of people's games by stating your opinion as fact.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? Never ever?

So if I don't know what is at stake in an action declaration, and what in-fiction consequences might flow from it, that has no bearing on my capacity as a player to contribute to the shared fiction?

You will contribute regardless of what you choose to do. The contribution will often just vary depending on the level of knowledge you have.

Back to the door example. The contribution is at the same level whether you guess at the door or know that the door on the right has ogres before you guess. It's just that how that contribution causes the fiction to play out differs a bit.

As you describe this scenario, it is no different from a choose-you-own-adventure book.

No, because there are always other choices. Maybe you rest to gain strength before proceeding. Maybe you turn back and leave the way you came, failing to make it through to the other side. Maybe the two doors worry the group and they go back to take on the demon guarding the potentially magic sword in order to have it's power against what lies beyond. Maybe a million other things.

Choose your own adventures don't have that level of choice. There are one or two ways to succeed and the rest cause you to die and start over. It's a misrepresentation of what I'm saying to compare traditional play to a choose your own adventure book.

Those books are interesting as puzzles, but not from the point of view of authorship - all the authoring has already been done, and is there on the page.

I agree, but those are not anywhere close to traditional RPG play. They do mirror a true railroading situation, though.

 

[TwoSix]

A 100% agree, which is why it's so frustrating when people constantly drag out bad faith DMs as a reason to change the rules. As an example, getting rid of Rule 0 because these bad faith DMs use it to oppress the masses!

This is also why I fight so hard against those arguments and consistently point out just how rare they are. As you say, you don't play with jerks and it's assumed that those playing the game aren't jerks, which is almost always the case.

I tend to think it's just residual '90s trauma, when "As a GM, do whatever you need to do to tell your story" was common game advice and story-driven play was completely dominant as a paradigm. There were a lot more game horror stories back then.

 

[pemerton]

That's a very reasonable definition, in that it does encapsulate most every instance that comes to my mind. However, if you'll allow an overly semantic exercise, I think the pushback that you're receiving to your use of the term lies in the distance between your definition, and:

the GM unreasonably exercising authority to the detriment of the players' capacity to shape affect the fiction.

I think this one more closely tracks to the more common usage of it.

I don't see how "shape" and "affect" aren't synonyms in this context.

As for "unreasonably", I think I've made clear what my view of the reasonable and unreasonable is. Including via worked examples, plus references to a range of hardly-obscure RPGs: 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, AW and DW, etc.

I don't see that I am obliged to take the same view of what is reasonable as other posters, any more than they are obliged to take may view.

I write this just to try and to point as to why when you say:

I deliberately used the word "puzzled". Someone might disagree with my view, but that doesn't mean they should be puzzled that I hold it - are they really unable to envisage that someone else might draw the boundaries of reasonableness in a different place from them?

Your definition of railroading has nothing to do with the standard definition of railroading:

Railroading​

Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do, they will experience certain events according to the GM's plan. In general, this is considered a flaw, displaying a lack of flexibility, naturalness of the scenario, and lack of respect for meaningful choices by the players.​

Railroading as a pejorative​

Because railroading essentially negates the central activity of a role-playing game, it is generally used to refer to a dysfunctional role-playing style. Consequently, it is often used to characterize whenever the GM constrains PC choices to the detriment of the players' enjoyment.​

Why do I care what some wiki posts? I mean, that discussion of "meaningful choice" is terrible, and already assumes GM-driven play. It cites one person, MT Black. I rely on the ideas of brilliant RPG designers such as Vincent Baker and Luke Crane.

Here is a definition of railroad that informs the one I offered upthread:

Control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, by another person (not the player of the character) in any way which breaks the Social Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player. The term describes an interpretation of a social and creative outcome rather than any specific Technique.​

So I am interpreting social and creative outcomes, through my eyes as a player. And I am pointing to both opportunities for decision ("framing" and "stakes") and decisions themselves (ie what flows from them, their "consequences").

My definition, set out upthread, and incorporating a helpful gloss suggested by @Xamnam, is this:

Railroading, of RPGing, means the GM unreasonably exercising authority to the detriment of the players' capacity to shape the fiction.​

I think that I have as much insight into this as does MT Black.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So you're arguing that the DM authored which race, class, abilities, spells, etc. of each PC? Because if he didn't, he can't have authored everything. At least some of those letters were authored by the players. Further the players inevitably bring up things the DM didn't think of that would be in the setting. The DM isn't the sole author of those things, either.

So let me get this straight. What you are arguing is that my picking of some stuff on my character sheet is tantamount to having narrative freedom to explore whatever thematic agenda I might have, regardless of the fact that the GM decides every single bit of the fiction which makes that relevant?

Do I even need to say more? LoL

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I tend to think it's just residual '90s trauma, when "As a GM, do whatever you need to do to tell your story" was common game advice and story-driven play was completely dominant as a paradigm. There were a lot more game horror stories back then.

That's true (although, c'mon, have you read the 1e DMG recently? that's practically a horrorshow of questionable DM advice) ... but here's the thing.

If you have played for any length of time, you've also ran into terrible, awful, no-good players. And yet there are the continuing recurrent conversations .... you know the ones ... where we must always accept as fact that DMs must be constrained, and yet players are always going to be "on" and "know the rules" and "act appropriately within the fiction" and "BRING IT!" and so on.

Again, some people are jerks. Some people suck. Those people can be the DM. They can also be the players. Discussions about play should start with the assumption that everyone is playing in good faith.

 

[pemerton]

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I was shocked was that I had never heard anyone claim that the most common, decades-old method of play in the majority of RPGs is actually a railroad (a known pejorative). Not that you think it is, or that you see it that way, but that it is such, definitively. How could you not be shocked that there was considerable push-back to that idea? You just insulted a lot of people's games by stating your opinion as fact.

In the post your replied to I use the verb "regard". In other posts I've said "I see it as", "I experience it as", have talked about how it feels, etc.

What more do you want in that regard?

And frankly, I'm surprised that it has never occurred to you that many RPGers regard what you describe as the "decades-old method of play in the majority of RPGs" as railroading. What do you think drove discussions at the Forge, and motivated the design of RPGs like DitV, AW, DW, Burning Wheel, etc?

For my part, it was an idea that I started to develop for myself over 30 years ago, and I wasn't on my own in doing so - I had friends. Though I needed help and advice to really master the techniques for avoiding it.

 

[Maxperson]

So let me get this straight. What you are arguing is that my picking of some stuff on my character sheet is tantamount to having narrative freedom to explore whatever thematic agenda I might have, regardless of the fact that the GM decides every single bit of the fiction which makes that relevant?

Nope! Not arguing that at all. I'm saying that you picking out those things makes it impossible for the DM to be picking out 100% of everything.

Do I even need to say more?

Probably, since you weren't actually responding to what I said.

 

[Xamnam]

I don't see how "shape" and "affect" aren't synonyms in this context.

To be fair, I did call out that it might be overly semantic. I was aiming to somewhat capture the divide Gradine mentioned between desire for Expression and Discovery/Exploration.

I don't see that I am obliged to take the same view of what is reasonable as other posters, any more than they are obliged to take may view.

I deliberately used the word "puzzled". Someone might disagree with my view, but that doesn't mean they should be puzzled that I hold it - are they really unable to envisage that someone else might draw the boundaries of reasonableness in a different place from them?

You're certainly not obliged to! Tried to caveat that heavily. Obviously you're right, different people will draw that line in different places. It's just that the idea of "Create a character who is willing to undergo adventure" is now such bog standard advice for building D&D characters that won't disrupt the table, I'm legitimately surprised to find someone put it on the far side of that line. So yes, I was puzzled. Not offended, or personally impugned, or filled with a need to correct, just puzzled.

Granted, this is partly just due to the fact that we're considering a character being built for a very different system with different goals being asked to undergo an old D&D adventure. In the context of BW, I'm guessing it might be unreasonable for the GM to say that. Transplanting them into a different context is inherently going to make questions like this much trickier.

 

[Maxperson]

Here is a definition of railroad that informs the one I offered upthread:

Control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, by another person (not the player of the character) in any way which breaks the Social Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player. The term describes an interpretation of a social and creative outcome rather than any specific Technique.​

That's the same definition that we are using. Control of a PCs decisions = removal of choice from the player. Control of opportunities for decisions = the quantum ogre or other ways to force the PC/Party down the route the DM wants.

None of that says that you have to have opportunity for informed decisions, only the opportunity for them. The informed portion is your playstyle preference and has no business in the railroading definition, UNLESS it breaks the social contract(ie your group has agreed to be informed first).