D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

Humility had nothing to do with it. That was punishment for the outrage of Good characters killing the guys falsely imprisoning them.

Oh, I dunno - I kinda think there was some good ol' humility teachin' involved in there as well, even if not overtly stated by the OP.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This makes no sense: in any actual RPG play, for instance, a player can declare "I go outside, find a patch of bare earth, and dig a hole in the ground with my fingers." How an the GM "refuse" to let that choice change the fiction, even if the GM didn't want the fiction to include such a thing?

If "railroading" is defined such that it only ever occurs if the GM literally vetoes players' action declarations for their PCs, it becomes a useless term, because it describes no actual play of a RPG.

Upthread I posted an account of what railroading is: the GM unreasonably exercising authority to the detriment of the players' capacity to shape the fiction.

I recognise what is obvious, that different people have different judgements as to what is reasonable. But if the only bit of the fiction the players can shape is their own PCs' actions, and everything else that is part of the fiction - everything that happens next - is decided by the GM, making decisions about what "logically" follows in relation to all their various authored elements of the fiction, then to me that is a railroad. The players are doing nothing but prompt the GM to author some new stuff, based on that GM's pre-existing imagining.

 

[pemerton]

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 don't know, and don't see what it has to do with anything.

Real life: pemerton wants to buy some bread, leaves home, walks to one of half-a-dozen places he knows within easy walking distance of his house that sell various sorts of bread. May encounter people he recognises or knows during that outing.

In GM-driven RPGing: pemerton plays PC who wants to buy bread. pemerton asks GM whether and what his PC knows about any local vendors of bread. pemerton relies on GM to tell him what his PC remembers. pemerton relies on GM to tell him what and who his PC recognises during that outing. pemerton finds this utterly unimmersive because having zero resemblance to being an actual human being in one's hometown.

 

[pemerton]

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?

I don't accept that I am a "polluter". Nor do I believe that I am obliged to accept your opinion as the the correct range of use cases.

"Railroading" is a normative notion, in the sense that in many cases of its use (perhaps not all), it is used to describe something as not meeting some sort of implicit standard. The standard, in the context of RPGing, is sufficiency of player participation in establishing the shared fiction. When you call something a railroad you are pointing to a concern about such things. Likewise in my case.

I draw the line of the standard differently from you. I know that. You know that. There is nothing objectionable about me stating my point knowing that you don't share my judgement. I don't see why I am obliged to abandon my normative threshold in favour of yours.

There is ZERO difference in this respected between "is a railroad", "is artificial", "is an obstacle to immersion", etc.

I don't get offended by learning what was already obvious to me, that some people's standard for artificiality in RPGing is different from mine. I don't see why others should get offended - that's a strong word! - by learning what was already surely obvious to them, that my standard for sufficiency of player participation in establishing the shared fiction is different from theirs.

 

[pemerton]

you have admit a traditional railroady adventure path is a lot easier to write than any other sort of adventure.

Is it? I don't see any real evidence for that. I think that publishers publish them because RPGers want them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are plenty of games that have GMs roll for stuff but aren't D&D, and you know that.

Why do so many people insist on a binary for so many things?

I'm OK with either option frankly. In my own game which I wrote, the players roll everything because it is the story of how they become mythic figures. I want the focus on them. OTOH I'm sure it is fine for D&D games to do their thing for equally valid design reasons. However I think 'just because' isn't a strong reason and it often seems like basically the main argument for stuff. However, obviously if you happen to like those choices, then naturally you will play D&D. It's not a weird or bad choice!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know, and don't see what it has to do with anything.

Real life: pemerton wants to buy some bread, leaves home, walks to one of half-a-dozen places he knows within easy walking distance of his house that sell various sorts of bread. May encounter people he recognises or knows during that outing.

In GM-driven RPGing: pemerton plays PC who wants to buy bread. pemerton asks GM whether and what his PC knows about any local vendors of bread. pemerton relies on GM to tell him what his PC remembers. pemerton relies on GM to tell him what and who his PC recognises during that outing. pemerton finds this utterly unimmersive because having zero resemblance to being an actual human being in one's hometown.

What if, as @Faolyn said, you're not in your home town (as is very often the case in many RPGs). Do you still author fiction then, even if your PC has no reason to know about the fiction you are authoring?

 

[pemerton]

Like Micah said, your character has incomplete knowledge. However, you are not your character. Even if you're the type of gamer who completely immerses yourself in your character, you don't have your character's memories or experiences. You don't. The only way you could is if you were playing yourself in the actual, real world, in which case... that's kind of unusual.

So if you want your character to go to their favorite pub, you either have to make it up (potentially as part of their background, potentially on the spot) or let the GM make it up. This doesn't mean you're being railroaded! It just means that you are not your character.

<snip>

This is dependent on two things: how good the GM is on describing the scenary (maybe you haven't had many GMs who are good at that), and on how much the players are willing to sit there and listen to scenery porn (not every player has the patience for such a thing).

You are posting this as if it is disagreement with what I said: whereas it seems to me to be 100% in agreement. There is no resemblance between listening to an omniscient narrator tell you things and living and knowing those things via your own perceptions, memories, feelings etc.

What is actually much closer to my own perceptions, feelings, etc are my own imaginings, daydreamings etc! Hence the most immersive way for me to play my character is to imagine things, and then imagine what would might be there, or follow, or whatever. There are RPGs that build on that (to me) obvious fact so as to make genuine immersion in my PC possible, but none relies on omniscient narration.

Most D&D adventures that I've seen assume that the PCs are strangers to that area, not to the world; the adventures very rarely take place in the PCs' home town.

Or more to the point, most D&D adventures that I've seen do not assume that the players have encyclopedic knowledge of the setting. And why should they? You don't have encyclopedic knowledge of your own real-world suburb (since there are people you don't recognize), let alone the entire world!

Again, this appears to be agreeing with me. Space aliens. I just don't find that a very immersive experience.

(And the notion of encyclopaedic knowledge is a red herring. Everyone who lives in my neighbourhood knows where the main shops are, is familiar with basic customs around how one greets people, how one boards or alights from public conveyances, how to cross the road, navigate through crowds, approach a stranger for directions, etc. They don't have to ask an omniscient narrator to tell them how to do all those basic human things.)

 

[Oofta]

People can state a preference, explain why they like one type of game over another without redefining words. Redefining words muddies the water and makes it feel like people are just trolling and being purposely provocative. That or they're trying to shore up their preference as being something more than just personal preference.

I feel like people are redefining forks as spoons and then telling us that we can't eat soup with a spoon. When it's pointed out that their utensils have tines and there's a perfectly good word for that they just reiterate that they consider it a spoon.

I really don't get it. In any case this thread has denigrated into people arguing about nothing and dressing it up as something other than what it is. People play games for different reasons and want different things out of their leisure time activities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it? I don't see any real evidence for that. I think that publishers publish them because RPGers want them.

Are their published adventures for your preferred games? How does that even work, if the player is so involved on authoring the fiction?