D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

It's statement like the bolded that is insulting to everyone who enjoys playing D&D. You have to know that's not how virtually all people feel at the table.

Artificial: not like real life. Example: Having full knowledge of consequences of every action you take is artificial.

I mean, to me the game you say your prefer is artificial in this way: every PC is like a space alien who has no knowledge of their world, their society, their culture, their language, their history, their world. They have almost no friends and are alienated from their family. They wander around with no sense of what they are seeing or doing, or what it means, beyond what an omniscient narrator chooses to tell them. If they are a servant of a god, they have no sense of communion with that deity except by way of being warned by it, when they choose to do something, that they should not so choose.

I mean, I'm prepared to accept that you find that realistic and immersive.

I find it so artificial I couldn't possibly immerse. That's why I prefer games that I find make immersion in a vibrant, fully conceived situation and setting possible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In real life do you know all the consequences of your decisions? Does that make your decisions uninformed? Or do you have a decent idea about some while others are just a best guess?

Yes, of course. My choices in real life are made with varying degrees of information. With varying understanding of the risks.

If some of your choices are best guess does that mean you have no choice, that your life is a railroad you have no control over? If some decisions are done blind in real life, why should it be any different in a game?

Because we’re talking about a game. Someone playing a game. This idea gets lost a bit because players are also playing roles. But if we look at other games, it becomes clearer.

Imagine chess without being able to see your opponent’s pieces.

This is a losing battle. You know, I know, the vast, vast majority of people who play RPGs and know what the term railroad will disagree with pemerton. But as far as I can tell they'll never accept that their personal definition is not the accepted definition.

If you don’t think it’s accurate, then refute it with an actual argument. Present evidence that supports your claim. All you’re doing is saying “you’re wrong”. Explain why he’s wrong.

So far, no one has done that. And as someone who used to think as you do, but who stopped and considered it, I say his argument has merit.

If you don’t think it does, then say why.

Do you always have agency as your describing it in real life? If the answer is no, why is it required for a game? Because if I always have agency in a game I would personally call that "artificial".

First, I don’t know if the argument you want to make is “sometimes you get railroaded in life, so why not in a game as well?” It’s kind of the opposite of a counterargument.

Second, an RPG is largely artificial. If the point is to play the game, then there’s a certain amount of ability to affect the game state that’s expected. If that’s absent, then what do we have?

 

[pemerton]

perhaps many games don't require the player to author all the fiction to achieve that goal.

That's certainly true of my games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which ones. Moldvay Basic doesn't, as best I recall: in any event, the whole idea of railroading has no purchase in the sort of play Moldvay sets out. If the GM is doing what Moldvay says to do - ie designing a dungeon, and then refereeing the players' exploration of it - railroading doesn't come into it, any more than I can "railroad" you when playing hangman.

I don't recall Gygax talking about it in his rulebooks.

I've never read the 2nd ed AD&D or 5e DMGs so don't know what they say. My recollection of the bits of the 3E DMG about how to GM a game are pretty faint. I don't think it's advice had much impact on me.

I think that they are writing for an audience who don't have the same sensibility as I do, and hence take a different view as to what counts as excessive or unreasonable control of the fiction by the GM.

But given that nearly every WotC adventure I've read is a railroad, and likewise nearly every adventure published in the 2nd ed AD&D era, I don't really accept the proposition that the authors of D&D are against railroading!

Not your version of railroading anyway. That is clear.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't actually see much that the GM is doing in your ideal game, other than making sure the rules are followed.

I don't think that's the case at all; however, the funny thing to me is that this sounds more like a what typical referee does in sports and other games.

 

[pemerton]

You are not to my mind making clear in your phrasing that the above is your opinion of the situation, which leads me to conclude that you see your opinion as objective fact. I say "in my opinion" or "i feel that" or "in my view" all the time for example, because that's what my posts are, and I want people who read them to know that.

You're free to express whatever feelings you want of course, I would just prefer that they are presented as feelings.

How is this post of yours any different from the posts of mine you're criticising:

I'm sure it isn't intended to play that way, but I have played in a couple PbtA games and that was my experience. The mechanical framework simply felt artificial, like you have to constantly stop and check your move list when you want to do something.

You seem to be saying that the framework felt artificial per se, for everyone, like the ocean feels wet.

Or were you just talking about your own feelings, even though you used no first person but a universal second person in that sentence?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, to me the game you say your prefer is artificial in this way: every PC is like a space alien who has no knowledge of their world, their society, their culture, their language, their history, their world. They have almost no friends and are alienated from their family. They wander around with no sense of what they are seeing or doing, or what it means, beyond what an omniscient narrator chooses to tell them. If they are a servant of a god, they have no sense of communion with that deity except by way of being warned by it, when they choose to do something, that they should not so choose.

I mean, I'm prepared to accept that you find that realistic and immersive.

I find it so artificial I couldn't possibly immerse. That's why I prefer games that I find make immersion in a vibrant, fully conceived situation and setting possible.

How does the PC have no knowledge about the world? That's not true, at all. They just don’t have  complete knowledge of the world. They have what their character would logically know, and make decisions based on that. Just everyone in real life. I certainly don't have complete knowledge of the real world, but I know some things, and use that knowledge to help me make decisions.

Knowledge isn't a binary, it's a spectrum.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, to me the game you say your prefer is artificial in this way: every PC is like a space alien who has no knowledge of their world, their society, their culture, their language, their history, their world. They have almost no friends and are alienated from their family. They wander around with no sense of what they are seeing or doing, or what it means, beyond what an omniscient narrator chooses to tell them. If they are a servant of a god, they have no sense of communion with that deity except by way of being warned by it, when they choose to do something, that they should not so choose.

That whole paragraph is total BS and not at all the way the game works.

I mean, I'm prepared to accept that you find that realistic and immersive.

I find it so artificial I couldn't possibly immerse. That's why I prefer games that I find make immersion in a vibrant, fully conceived situation and setting possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think that's the case at all; however, the funny thing to me is that this sounds more like a what typical referee does in sports and other games.

Since the GM is deeply constrained on when and how they're allowed to contribute in these kinds of games, sometimes it does to me look like being a referee is mostly what you do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How is this post of yours any different from the posts of mine you're criticising:
You seem to be saying that the framework felt artificial per se, for everyone, like the ocean feels wet.

Or were you just talking about your own feelings, even though you used no first person but a universal second person in that sentence?

Fair enough, I'm certainly not perfect either. I meant to say it feels artificial to me, and omitting the "to me" was an error on my part, freely admitted.