D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just telling what google told me.

Yeah, I'm not saying FKR is this or that, its their term, they can define it to mean what they want. You just have to be careful not to draw too many conclusions about it from FK, which is a different beast entirely (though, as I say, there is a relationship there).

 

[Maxperson]

All of these definitions seem to have in common that they rely on a valuation of a degree of autonomy or lack of autonomy (and see below). Thus we are arguing about DEGREE, not KIND here.

It's really not. 2 choices, 5 choices, 20 choices or 100 choices, it's not a railroad unless the DM forces the PCs down the path that HE wants them on.

As an example, if the king asks the party to help him they have two choices. Help him or don't help him. If they get to choose, it's not a railroad. If the DM forces the PCs not to help him because that's what he thinks should happen in the adventure, even though they want to help him, they are being railroaded. Degree doesn't matter. Only force and lack of agency.

Yes it is. In fact this is a well-known principle of biomedical ethics, that an uninformed choice is equivalent to removing the agent's autonomy to act, and is usually seen as a violation of consent requirements, possibly even a criminal act in some cases. This is just basic stuff, no information, no choice, no autonomy, settled law.

Right. Every time the DM asks the players to roll a 20 sided die, he railroading them because they can't make an informed decision about whether the roll will be a 1, 2, 3, 4.......18, 19 or 20. I don't think so.

You're also present a rather gigantic False Equivalence there. Informed consent for healthcare reasons doesn't even come remotely close to being the same as pick the door on the left or right.

In the context of D&D your position is refuted trivially. If the GM simply rolls a d6 and picks a door based on the outcome, there is no material difference in the quality of the decision being made, yet magically their choice vanishes! This is clearly a pretty decisive reductio ad absurdum.

Dude. Whether the DM picks the door to force the group down or randomly picks the door to force the group down, he's forcing the group through the door of his choice, not theirs. It's railroading. If they get to choose without DM interference, it's not railroading.

Your reductio ad absurdum is just plain absurdum. It's not the same thing at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dude. Whether the DM picks the door to force the group down or randomly picks the door to force the group down, he's forcing the group through the door of his choice, not theirs. It's railroading. If they get to choose without DM interference, it's not railroading.

Your reductio ad absurdum is just plain absurdum. It's not the same thing at all.

It is EXACTLY the same outcomes, either way. So what you are saying is that the results of play, how it produces outcomes is meaningless. Agency magically exists even if there's no informed choice at all. Again, every biomedical ethics person on Earth is against you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Take the two doors. One is the exit out and one has two ogres behind it at the end of a hall. If that is set in stone, then regardless of the fact that the players don't know either fact, their choice still has meaning. It matters, because if they choose the left door they get out of the dungeon like they want, and if they choose the right door everyone could die. However, if it's a quantum ogre situation, then regardless of the "choice" the players make, they will be fighting ogres and they really had no choice or agency at all. Only the latter is a railroad.

But the decision is uninformed. At the time of the decision, there is no meaningful difference. There's no skill involved.

This is why signals are important. Or at least, the chance for signals. If the players are able to deploy skills or inventory to try and make the choice an informed one, then that may change the situation. This gives them agency.

I 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.

Rule zero is just as unnecessary for a GM who wants to change the game in some way as it is for the viking hat GM who wants to ignore the rules. No rules can stop people who are determined to break the rules, nor can they stop people from changing the rules. But they can help folks from going too far. They can serve as a guide for those who aren't yet sure how they want to play.

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).

I think it's more about signaling things to the players. This lets them know it's not a quantum ogre situation. This is what makes it a game, and that is where PLAYER agency comes in. The choices that players make need to be meaningful not just in their outcome, but in the choices themselves. They have to have some idea of what they are choosing, or some way to learn what they are choosing prior to the choice.

I think that part of the reason for this disconnect is that as D&D has moved along, there have been shifts in how focused the game is meant to be. How specific the experience is meant to be. In the early days of dungeon crawling, agency (such as it was) was about the player mitigating risks through clever use of spells, inventory, and other resources. So the whole of play was a test of player skill. Information was hidden, with the expectation that the players would have a means of learning the hidden information.

As the game has evolved, the scope of play has broadened. But the processes of play haven't always adapted accordingly. Combined with some odd ideas that have developed about playing the game being bad in some way... or labeling it as metagaming... leads to some strange ideas.

Why give the players a choice that at the time of making it, is totally arbitrary? That there could conceivably be significant consequences for this decision makes its uninformed nature even worse. Where is the game in this? It's just as much the illusion of choice as is the quantum ogre.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But the decision is uninformed. At the time of the decision, there is no meaningful difference. There's no skill involved.

This is why signals are important. Or at least, the chance for signals. If the players are able to deploy skills or inventory to try and make the choice an informed one, then that may change the situation. This gives them agency.



Rule zero is just as unnecessary for a GM who wants to change the game in some way as it is for the viking hat GM who wants to ignore the rules. No rules can stop people who are determined to break the rules, nor can they stop people from changing the rules. But they can help folks from going too far. They can serve as a guide for those who aren't yet sure how they want to play.



I think it's more about signaling things to the players. This lets them know it's not a quantum ogre situation. This is what makes it a game, and that is where PLAYER agency comes in. The choices that players make need to be meaningful not just in their outcome, but in the choices themselves. They have to have some idea of what they are choosing, or some way to learn what they are choosing prior to the choice.

I think that part of the reason for this disconnect is that as D&D has moved along, there have been shifts in how focused the game is meant to be. How specific the experience is meant to be. In the early days of dungeon crawling, agency (such as it was) was about the player mitigating risks through clever use of spells, inventory, and other resources. So the whole of play was a test of player skill. Information was hidden, with the expectation that the players would have a means of learning the hidden information.

As the game has evolved, the scope of play has broadened. But the processes of play haven't always adapted accordingly. Combined with some odd ideas that have developed about playing the game being bad in some way... or labeling it as metagaming... leads to some strange ideas.

Why give the players a choice that at the time of making it, is totally arbitrary? That there could conceivably be significant consequences for this decision makes its uninformed nature even worse. Where is the game in this? It's just as much the illusion of choice as is the quantum ogre.

Well, if you think about it, in the "explore the dungeons of Greyhawk Castle" days of classic D&D, the situation "there are 2 doors, you have no idea what is behind either one" is not really a PROBLEM. First of all the players should have the sort of experience necessary to try to find out (IE listening, etc.). Failing that, they aught to be prepared to slam and spike a door if they see some terribly monster behind it, etc. Finally, there's NO OTHER GOAL except to traverse every room of the dungeon and get all the treasures. Nor does a monster form an absolute guarantee of a bad outcome, you could roll really well on a reaction check. Maybe you just hand your iron rations to the ogres, close the door, and move on...

In other words, the open nature of the game, where you can try anything, is always supposed to be your answer to limited information and constrained choice. The problem is when you get into more trad play where the game becomes a LOT more open in one sense, but a lot more plotted as well, potentially. Then you can arrive at a point where, yes, you can 'do anything', but there's nothing to distinguish one thing from the other thing. I'd note that this also now drags in considerations of variability in goals, which classic Gygax D&D doesn't need to consider (lootz and XP, there is nothing else).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, if you think about it, in the "explore the dungeons of Greyhawk Castle" days of classic D&D, the situation "there are 2 doors, you have no idea what is behind either one" is not really a PROBLEM. First of all the players should have the sort of experience necessary to try to find out (IE listening, etc.). Failing that, they aught to be prepared to slam and spike a door if they see some terribly monster behind it, etc. Finally, there's NO OTHER GOAL except to traverse every room of the dungeon and get all the treasures. Nor does a monster form an absolute guarantee of a bad outcome, you could roll really well on a reaction check. Maybe you just hand your iron rations to the ogres, close the door, and move on...

In other words, the open nature of the game, where you can try anything, is always supposed to be your answer to limited information and constrained choice. The problem is when you get into more trad play where the game becomes a LOT more open in one sense, but a lot more plotted as well, potentially. Then you can arrive at a point where, yes, you can 'do anything', but there's nothing to distinguish one thing from the other thing. I'd note that this also now drags in considerations of variability in goals, which classic Gygax D&D doesn't need to consider (lootz and XP, there is nothing else).

Yup, this is exactly what I meant by pointing out that the game has changed in some ways, but not in others.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is just my point: just because you're playing Aedhros doesn't mean everything in the entire game has to revolve around him*.

Why not? What else would it be about?

* - and to suggest that it should really comes across as more than a bit self-centered, even though you probably don't mean it that way.

Expecting a D&D game to be about the characters is selfish?

What about the DM? Is his desire for the game to be about the stories he has in mind selfish?

For one thing, what are the other players supposed to think? If each of them takes this same attitude, hoo boy - I'd not want to referee that argument!

What argument? There's plenty of room for everyone. Especially once you eliminate hours spent trying to open an unopenable door and spend that time more effectively.

For another, it puts the GM in a very subservient position in that the role becomes merely one of catering to (or pandering to, whichever) the players' story arcs and-or whims, rather than being able to put her own idea for a story arc in there as well. And while I've joked elsewhere about AI GMs being the Next Big Thing, in this case it seems that's what you in fact would prefer to have: a GM that doesn't think for itself beyond the input you-as-player have given it to work with.

Do you consider your players AI-players? Seriously, is that how you view them?

This type of game doesn't limit the GM's input, just shifts it a bit. You're no longer free to just decide whatever you want whenever you want. You have to be creative. The GM still brings plenty to the table.

And for another, approaching it this way also serves to put a hard end point on the game - namely if and when Aedhros dies - even though the GM might have other excellent reasons to want to keep it going.

I don't see why it must. Surely, Aedhros's story would end there (unless there was some way for him to return), but there's no reason that the entire game has to end at that point, unless all participants want it to. But if that's the case, then it's not a problem.

The way you described him and his goals etc., the story you seem to want to tell with him very much looks like a quest; that being to avenge his spouse. If I'm the GM I just take that and run with it.

So then what's the problem?

When you say run with it, do you mean use it as a means to prod the player through the game you already had planned? "There are rumors that Aedhros's father in law is across the seas, in the golden lands. You book passage on a ship there, but after a terrible storm you are shipwrecked.... on the Isle of Dread!!!!"

Or do you take this opportunity to get creative and craft something that's unique to this character? That suits his goals and what's been established about him?

 

[Maxperson]

It is EXACTLY the same outcomes, either way.

Outcome is irrelevant to railroading. The trip there is what matters.

So what you are saying is that the results of play, how it produces outcomes is meaningless.

HOW it gets there is what has the ALL the meaning when it comes to railroad or not.

Now the trip there can have more or less meaning depending on preferred playstyle, but that has nothing to do with railroading. It's the same with the end result. Clearly for you being informed to the point of knowing which door is the way out and which has the ogres is very important to your enjoyment. Not mine. Playstyle preference will put more or less importance on the end result.

Agency magically exists even if there's no informed choice at all. Again, every biomedical ethics person on Earth is against you.

Agency is the ability to decide what your character will say or attempt. That is removed if the DM forces you down a path. And again, medical information isn't relevant. You're making a huge false equivalence. What biomedical ethics people think is unimportant to D&D.

Why is it so important to you to railroad traditional play into being a railroad?

 

[Maxperson]

But the decision is uninformed. At the time of the decision, there is no meaningful difference. There's no skill involved.

This is why signals are important. Or at least, the chance for signals. If the players are able to deploy skills or inventory to try and make the choice an informed one, then that may change the situation.

Sure. No skill involved. Skill isn't important to this discussion, though. That's a different topic.

This gives them agency.

No. It gives them information. Agency is just the ability to decide what your PC says and tries to do.

If information = agency, then you would have to prep every adventure to an incredible degree and then inform the players of everything from beginning to end before the first session. That way they will have agency. Less information than all of it means that their decisions will be lacking and therefore, by your argument there, lacking agency.

Rule zero is just as unnecessary for a GM who wants to change the game in some way as it is for the viking hat GM who wants to ignore the rules. No rules can stop people who are determined to break the rules, nor can they stop people from changing the rules. But they can help folks from going too far. They can serve as a guide for those who aren't yet sure how they want to play.

So can a few paragraphs of advice in the DMG. The problem with your idea is that a lot of people won't alter rules if they don't have game permission to do so, but would change them and make the game better with such permission. I suspect that a hell of a lot more people would fail to make the game better with the lack of rule 0 than the number who make the game worse with it included. Your way harms the game.

I think it's more about signaling things to the players. This lets them know it's not a quantum ogre situation. This is what makes it a game, and that is where PLAYER agency comes in. The choices that players make need to be meaningful not just in their outcome, but in the choices themselves. They have to have some idea of what they are choosing, or some way to learn what they are choosing prior to the choice.

They don't need to know that it isn't a quantum ogre situation. If they are worried about it, then they don't trust the DM and have no business playing that game. That's why railroading is such a sin. It betrays that trust.

I think that part of the reason for this disconnect is that as D&D has moved along, there have been shifts in how focused the game is meant to be. How specific the experience is meant to be. In the early days of dungeon crawling, agency (such as it was) was about the player mitigating risks through clever use of spells, inventory, and other resources. So the whole of play was a test of player skill. Information was hidden, with the expectation that the players would have a means of learning the hidden information.

As the game has evolved, the scope of play has broadened. But the processes of play haven't always adapted accordingly. Combined with some odd ideas that have developed about playing the game being bad in some way... or labeling it as metagaming... leads to some strange ideas.

I disagree with this just a little bit. The scope of play HAS broadened, but it still includes skilled play. The broad nature of today's game means that you can play your way and I can play mine. The difference is that I'm not arguing to hurt your way of play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agency is the ability to decide what your character will say or attempt. That is removed if the DM forces you down a path. And again, medical information isn't relevant. You're making a huge false equivalence. What biomedical ethics people think is unimportant to D&D.

They are addressing exactly the same question, when is a person able to meaningfully decide things? To be an agent, you have to be able to control your fate in some meaningful way, not simply toss dice. Sorry, but you are never going to get anywhere with this argument, its preposterous.