D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Mort]

But that is not what is commonly accepted as the definition.

I've told you the definition before, and so have others: it's when you have no choices as to what you're going to do, because all of your choices lead back to the GM's decision.

Having the GM make a world is not railroading, unless that GM refuses to let any of your choices change that world in a way they don't want it changed.

I've always understood Railroading to be narrower than that. Railroading is the ILLUSION of choice.

If an adventure goes from A-B-C-D with no deviation allowed by the PCs, but the players know the path and just choose to follow it - it is a linear adventure.

If the GM tells the players, ok you can pick A-B-C or D. But , B,C and D are actually ALSO A - that's railroading.

I think that's where the big conflict is being generated here.

(@Oofta @Micah Sweet) go with the fact that as long as the players have REAL choices to make it's not railroading.

@pemerton is saying that in games where the content is SOLELY GM generated (ALL the content and ALL of the consequences) ALL the choices made from there are actually an illusion. And thus a Railroad.

Pemerton's definition is too broad for my liking. I prefer the narrower definition. But I can certainly see where Pemerton is coming from and have struggled a bit with it in 5e.

 

[occam]

The problem with your sniper example entails the fact that the GM is not playing by the rules. That is the fundamental problem you are failing to mention in the above.

In D&D the play process of the game dictates that the GM make an attack roll for the sniper against the PC's armor class. It would break the rules if the GM bypassed the attack roll to declare a hit.* It's the equivalent of "rocks fall, you die!"

In Dungeon World, the play process of the game dictates that (1) the GM declares that the sniper attacks, (2) the GM asks the PCs what they do, and then (3) the PCs react to what's happening, and then possibly (4) triggering an appropriate PC Move, such as Defy Danger. The results of the PC's move roll determines the results, which may possibly include damage but also avoiding the hit entirely. So it's not an auto-hit at all. It can only become an auto-hit when the GM bypasses the rules to Cause Harm right out of the gate and ignore the required play process, which is equivalent to "rocks fall, you die!" This is what you were doing with the sniper causing damage. You were breaking the rules of Dungeon World.

* A key difference is that the GM in D&D is potentially authorized to fudge the dice and declare that the sniper hits - even if we may both agree in our dislike of fudging - and fudging is not possible in Dungeon World since the GM doesn't roll.

I just wanted to say, as someone unfamiliar with PbtA games, and generally not getting a very clear idea of them from this thread, that I thought this was a great explanation of how it can work. Thank you.

 

[TwoSix]

In what TTRPG does anyone describe every detail of every person on the street: the buttons on their clothing, the materials from which they're made, the person's complexion and hairstyle, whether they're sneezing or coughing or laughing or in conversation with another person (also so described), etc.? Plus every detail of every cobblestone on the road, and every brick and tile on nearby buildings, every sign, everything that one might observe in real life? I'd like to know, so I can try it out! (Although I don't know how much time I'd have for it; seems like it would result in pretty long play sessions.)

If there is no such game, then I don't really follow what you're arguing for or against.

The point is this. If we're playing a game where my character is in the town they grew up, what is the benefit of asking the GM where the blacksmith versus the player just saying where the blacksmith is?

Some people are saying that being able to say that information as a player ruins their immersion, because they can only be immersed when the fictional situation is described to them by an outside narrator. Some other people are saying the opposite, that not being able to roleplay knowing the layout of the character's home town takes them right out of the fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I disagree.

Let's say that in reality I find myself in a strange building in a hallway with six unlabelled doors*. I'm there looking for a small business, which I know is behind one of these doors but I've forgotten which one. I also know that one of the other doors is alarmed; I don't want to open that one! So, how do I decide which door to open? You guessed it - after what little observation I can bring to bear, it's good old trial and error; and if I set off the alarm well so be it.

Both the store and the alarmed door were in place ahead of time, and nothing I do now is going to change their locations. I've no idea which door is which, and yet I still have the personal agency to choose which one I'm going to try first regardless of how I make that choice.

And the same is true for a character in a D&D setting. It doesn't know what's behind any of these doors (and thus neither should its player); the player just has to trust the DM to honour her own prep and leave things in their assigned locations instead of changing that prep in response to the player's choice. And a good DM doesn't break that trust.

* - a situation that more or less existed many years ago when a friend had a store in the upstairs of an old building - there was a sign for the store on the outside wall above the street but for the longest time there wasn't a sign on the door, meaning unless you already knew how to get there it really could become an exercise in trying random doors once you got to that floor.

All I can say is that NOBODY outside of traditional GMs holds this position. In all areas of society that I was able to get any sort of information on standards of agency, consent, or culpability (all of which are defined in terms of agency, that is ability to act) do these standards ignore being informed nor do they ignore questions of consequences, etc. Thus your example is perfect, should you open the alarmed door you would simply explain the situation, that you lacked necessary information to avoid tripping the alarm. This will suffice to legally absolve you of any associated infraction with intent as a requisite (modulus credibility etc.). This it's established as a fundamental principle that agency is dependent on relevant information being had. Heck, this is a major basis of contract law too!

 

[Faolyn]

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'm pretty sure the term wasn't in common use when Moldvay wrote his book, and from what I've read of Gygax's play style, he probably had no problem with it.

 

[TwoSix]

Pemerton's definition is a too broad for my liking. I prefer the narrower definition. But I can certainly see where Pemerton is coming from and have struggled a bit with it in 5e.

One of the core product lines for all versions of modern D&D are adventure modules/adventure paths. It might seem hurtful, but I think it's entirely fair to say that adventure paths are simply the DM suggesting a railroad trip and all the players agreeing to buy a ticket.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope! Just because you have agency doesn’t mean you’ll automatically succeed. It means you have the chance of success.

Let’s look at some card games? Can you suck at poker? Absolutely. Can you suck at war? Nope… all you do is flip cards. There’s no skill involved. You have no say in the outcome.

War is a bad example. I used full agency to decide to enter into the railroad game known as war. I chose it. As I said earlier in the thread, the one time a railroad is okay is if you agree to it ahead of time. Once I agree to war, turning the cards isn't relevant.

So it’s binary because people’s opinions on agency levels will vary?

This doesn’t make any sense.

You seem to have missed the first part. I'll quote myself so you can see it. "Either you have agency or you don't."

Once you have agency, the level of agency is subjective. You view picking the door randomly as low agency. So do I, but it's still agency. You get to choose which door you want. The outcome is dependent on the door you pick, so you did have a say in the outcome, but it was low.

I don’t see how it’s all that subjective. I mean, who’s going to say that a blind choice between two doors represents more agency than an informed choice between two doors? No one.

Perhaps. But I will bet you that I could, if I wanted to put the effort in, find a lot of people who will say agency is purely binary and either you have it or you don't, making the choices equal. If you don't view it as binary, then I think you are correct and people will view the doors as lower agency(but still agency and therefore no railroad in volved) than an informed decision.

The two things I'm taking exception to in this thread are the mistaken ideas that 1) traditional play = railroad, and 2) choosing the doors is no agency at all when it is, even if it's low agency.

What’s the meaning to a player making a blind choice? The choice needs to involve something for it to be meaningful. Not just the outcome, but the choice itself.

The choice itself does have meaning based on the outcome. Being ignorant of the meaning doesn't mean that there isn't any.

But then we’re back to the question @pemerton has raised about the base level of what’s expected in an RPG. That a player says what his character does. No game would be a railroad according to your logic unless the GM usurps the players’ characters.

You left out the second part of what I said. And removal of agency, meaning that no choice matters and you are being forced down the path the DM wants you on.

Going back to the two doors if you say to the DM that you open the door on the right and the DM doesn't want you to go left, if he puts in a stone block preventing you from going left, he has forced you left. He invalidated your choice and agency and moved you where he wanted to go. Then if he puts in a wand that destroys stone in the ogre treasure so that you can go right and leave the dungeon after the fight, he has forced you down that path as well.

That's railroading.

I think there are far more subtle ways to railroad players. Blind choices are among those.

They aren't. They literally cannot be. Railroading is the DM forcing you down a path. Blind chance doesn't force you down a path. They can be low agency, but not railroads.

They’re not the same. Plenty of games allow for rules changes without granting absolute authority to the GM.

I'm going to repeat what I said, because it more or less agreed with you, but with a clarification.

"They are the same, though, when the DM can unilaterally make any change he wants at any time he wants. If the DM doesn't have total authority and/or cannot make any change he wants to the rules, then it's not Rule 0. It's whatever rule the game gives the DM or table to change a rule under limited circumstances."

I 100% agree with you that games can give the DM limited ability to change rules. That's not rule 0 as rule 0 grants unilateral and unlimited authority to the DM to make rules changes. If he doesn't have that unlimited and unilateral ability to make rules changes, but can still change rules, it's not Rule 0. It's a different rule.

I don’t think that understanding why the game works the way it does should be considered problematic. People aren’t perfect. I’ve questioned people I trust many times.

Expecting people to just shut up and do what I say without having to offer any insight? That seems really odd.

That isn't what I said or meant.

Presumably is telling. Also, “expert”? I’m not sure if that’s really the right way to view the GM.

Do we view players as experts?

Generally I do unless it's a new player. If I'm running a game at the convention and the person who sits down at the table to play doesn't tell me that he's a new player, I'm going to assume that he knows what he is doing.

Sure… it just doesn’t need to go hand in hand with absolute GM authority.

It does for it to be Rule 0. It's the unlimited, unilateral ability to make changes to the rules that got labeled Rule 0. If you don't have that absolute authority, then it's some other rule that allows the DM to change the rules.

 

[Mort]

One of the core product lines for all versions of modern D&D are adventure modules/adventure paths. It might seem hurtful, but I think it's entirely fair to say that adventure paths are simply the DM suggesting a railroad trip and all the players agreeing to buy a ticket.

But there's is no illusion of choice there. There simply is no choice (mostly) and the players accept it.

That's why I prefer the narrower definition. If the players recognize they do not have a choice and go with it anyway, there is no illusion so I don't label that the generally derogatory term Railroading.

 

[Enrahim2]

This is what I am calling a railroad. When I play a RPG, I want the fiction to be a joint creation of all the participants.

Yes, I am keenly aware this is what you are calling a railroad. And it is excactly calling this a railroad we in this thread is trying to tell you is a bad habit. We try to help you getting easier understood, and not offend people that you don't intend to offend. Noone is having an issue with you wanting your RPG to be a joint creation of all the participants. There are however some of us that is bothered by you effectively polluting a public forum with a word some find offensive despite being repeatedly told that some people are finding it deeply problematic. I am trying to help you find more a more helpful word for your concept to use instead, that would not be similarly pollutive.

As you appear to agree that my sightseeing analogy describe what you call railroading, any reason you can not start calling your concept sightseeing instead?

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the core product lines for all versions of modern D&D are adventure modules/adventure paths. It might seem hurtful, but I think it's entirely fair to say that adventure paths are simply the DM suggesting a railroad trip and all the players agreeing to buy a ticket.

That's both true to my knowledge and unfortunate. But published adventures don't encapsulate how to play the game. They just represent what the publisher thinks they can sell, and  possibly what they consider the core gameplay to be.

And you have admit a traditional railroady adventure path is a lot easier to write than any other sort of adventure. That probably has a lot to do with why people keep publishing them.