D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

I want to have a conversation too.

I don't type all flowery and I type direct. And lots of people react to that.

I don't want to argue, and avoid it.

Ok. I am telling you that, imo, your rhetorical style is riling people and leading to argument. Do with that what you will.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right?

My bigger point is that if a player can just Alter Game Reality on a whim then they don't have to pay attention or even really play the game. They can goof around for six hours, and then when the GM says "oh who will you get through the Door of Doom?" they can just sit back and say "My character Knows a Guy that gave him The Key of Doom" and the player overcomes that challenge in just a second.

Why bother to play a game like football, when right before the end you can just give your team 200 points to auto win every time?

Because that's not the way the games are played? I realize you aren't familiar with the rules, but they don't involve players just narrating solutions to all their problems.

If I'm not talking about your players, why do you talk about mine?

Did you not just describe how players in those games behave?

I don't agree with any truth regarding @pemerton 's definition of railroad, and really wish they would use a different word to describe their feelings, which in and of themselves I have no problem with them expressing. The difference is that @pemerton is actually trying to have a conversation about the style of gaming they prefer, and as far as I can tell @bloodtide is just trying to get folks riled so that they'll argue with them.

But he's explained why he uses the term. He's been painfully clear on that. Other than possibly contradicting the common usage of the term, do you disagree with his assessment? Do you agree with it and it's just the label that bothers you?

 

[bloodtide]

Because that's not the way the games are played? I realize you aren't familiar with the rules, but they don't involve players just narrating solutions to all their problems.

So I guess here you are just talking about your game, right? Your not saying you know the way all games are played, right? Or do you have some proff all the games are played that way you can share?

Did you not just describe how players in those games behave?

I did in general.

But he's explained why he uses the term. He's been painfully clear on that. Other than possibly contradicting the common usage of the term, do you disagree with his assessment? Do you agree with it and it's just the label that bothers you?

Yes. I posted pages and pages ago that I disagree. I'm pro Railroad, as I don't think it's a "wrong word" as many others do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I didn't say anyone has to stop saying what they are saying. But this is why there is pushback IMO

No, I know you didn't, and I wasn't trying to imply that you did or would! But most of the pushback consists of that. It's not "I disagree because of X, Y, and Z" it's "Don't say that" or "Use another word" or "That's not what railroad means". None of these statements actually address the idea that @pemerton has put forth.

People are tribal in these conversations which is very unfortunate because they will do as you point out: push against someone they disagree who says something that bothers them or seems impolite, but not push against someone on their side for the same thing. I don't think that kind of partisanship is healthy in gaming discussions. Sometimes it is easy to fall into because you are mostly paying attention to just one or two threads in a discussions and you don't always see the posts by people who agree with you (or if you do you stop before getting deeply into the points they are making).

Sure, I agree. And we all get caught up in that at times, and we miss some posts, or conflate who said what because we're treating multiple people as "the other side".

I don't think it is that. I think, at least for me, it is the rhetorical approach he is taking of going after peoples language. This started with terms like immersion and other common language for things such as sandbox, old school play, etc. And the way it is being used here with railroads feels very similar. Also, I don't think this is an issue of people not wanting to face something. We have all been in this hobby a very long time and we have all been exposed to these arguments in their various forms, seen things play out at the tables, and had time to decide what we like. The problem I tend to have with arguments like the one pemerton is making is the rhetorical angle that reworks the terms so people are almost forced to agree with his style preferences. i just don't think that is a good way to have a discussion about playstyles. I also think the hostility in these threads can be an issue. I have been guilty of that myself and I try to pull back on it, because I do think any playstyle can become bad when taken to extreme, when not adapted properly to a group or when it closes your mind off to other approaches

I think there's a natural inclination to resist criticism of things we enjoy or things we do, for sure. And I know that's a big part of the pushback. But we've done that for many pages across several days. At this point, I'd like to see someone address the ideas behind the assessment. Not just point to another definition, but to respond to the critique.

Every critique has some validity. One of the reasons I am always adapting my approach and rethinking how I handle things is because I don't want to slip into habits that take away the agency of the players or aren't offering them real choices. But that doesn't mean that Pemerton's definition of railroad is sound. And a critique built off a faulty definition or assumption is going to be a problem. We can and should critique our own style of play. But I think when its being done simply to destroy a style or convert someone to another style, it is unlikely to yield anything truly beneficial

Okay... so this is moving towards what I'd like to see. What is it that makes pemerton's definition of railroad unsound?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I guess here you are just talking about your game, right? Your not saying you know the way all games are played, right? Or do you have some proff all the games are played that way you can share?

I don't know. Are you talking about a specific game? I've played several games that I expect you'd describe as you have. You didn't name any games, so I can't be sure.

But if so, my experience in those games is that they engage players more consistently and thoroughly than D&D typically does.

I did in general.

Okay, based on what? Have you seen such a game played? What game?

es. I posted pages and pages ago that I disagree. I'm pro Railroad, as I don't think it's a "wrong word" as many others do.

That's fine. I honestly don't see it as such a negative as many others, except if it's what the players and/or GM don't want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because that's not the way the games are played? I realize you aren't familiar with the rules, but they don't involve players just narrating solutions to all their problems.



Did you not just describe how players in those games behave?



But he's explained why he uses the term. He's been painfully clear on that. Other than possibly contradicting the common usage of the term, do you disagree with his assessment? Do you agree with it and it's just the label that bothers you?

What do you mean by agree? I don't agree that what he's referring to is a railroad.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I know you didn't, and I wasn't trying to imply that you did or would! But most of the pushback consists of that. It's not "I disagree because of X, Y, and Z" it's "Don't say that" or "Use another word" or "That's not what railroad means". None of these statements actually address the idea that @pemerton has put forth.



Sure, I agree. And we all get caught up in that at times, and we miss some posts, or conflate who said what because we're treating multiple people as "the other side".



I think there's a natural inclination to resist criticism of things we enjoy or things we do, for sure. And I know that's a big part of the pushback. But we've done that for many pages across several days. At this point, I'd like to see someone address the ideas behind the assessment. Not just point to another definition, but to respond to the critique.



Okay... so this is moving towards what I'd like to see. What is it that makes pemerton's definition of railroad unsound?

Because players don't need to make up facts about the world to have agency, and having agency means it's not a railroad.

 

[Lanefan]

In @Lanefan ’s preferred paradigm, exactly one person can demand that everyone drop everything and go on The Quest: the DM.

Well, not quite. Anyone can ask that the group go on The Quest, but the expectation is that those asked are free to decline if that's what those characters would do. This includes, most of the time, The Quests initiated by the DM: if they don't wanna do it then it doesn't get done, by them anyway (but it's then somewhat on the players-in-character to find something else to do if they haven't already).

If everyone acts like”the DM”, the game devolves into each person doing their own story and not finding reasons to work together, and it’s selfish to require that they sit around for hours doing nothing while waiting for their turn in the spotlight.

Sort of. It's the selfishness of making what seem like non-refusable demands rather than softer asks which can be declined, is what I'm getting at.

What several people on this thread have pushed back on is the idea that anyone should have the power to demand that everyone drop everything and go on the Quest, and that this is the only way anyone should play D&D.

I'd push back against that too.

Nothing wrong with asking, though. That's pretty much what an adventure hook is, really; a non-binding ask that in effect says "Hey, you guys interested in following up on this?".

There's also the trope of a character or even entire party having to fulfill a quest in return for a favour, or being forced to as punishment for some transgression or other; I've no problem with this unless it gets overdone such that every adventure is one of these.

 

[Faolyn]

You can't make people have fun. Sometimes they're just having a bad day or are distracted and are just not in a good place. It's inevitable, and when it happens it can feel like a failure as a GM if you believe that your purpose is to make sure the players are having fun. All you can really do is try to create an environment where, hopefully, fun can be had by everyone involved, including you. If all you care about is keeping your players happy, then more power to you. That's not all I want. There are all sorts of stuff in gaming that matters more to me than it does to them. If I only cared about their needs, than I wouldn't do those things (since they don't matter to them), and I would have a lot less fun at the table.

Well, my players are usually willing to say things like, "I'm having a bad day, so that's why I'm acting so grumpy/not participating much, sorry to take it out on the game." In the Before Times, we'd hug it out; nowadays, we just send virtual hugs. We've even called games off if it's the GM having the really bad day, or if it's more than two players having a bad day (any more than two missing players means we fail to meet quorum, so no game).

It's still different than just doing what I want to do as a GM even if the players aren't enjoying it, just as we'd call out a player who was doing what they wanted at the expense of the other players and GM.

 

[Lanefan]

There are GP prices for items in 2e, but they refer only to selling. Obviously you can do whatever you want, but 2e's rules for how you can acquire magic are extremely strict! Even if you have Enchant an Item (and probably Permanency as well as other spells) you STILL need esoteric ingredients that amount to "the GM can tell you to kiss off" as they are mostly stated to be things like the breath of a ghost or something that is going to be basically impossible to get. I think this was all somewhat of a reaction to the christmas tree of items everyone got in 1e, so 2e pretty deliberately lets you take away a lot of the magic if you want.

Gotcha.

That and magic items in 1e were like 95% of all XP since they equated to gold and had huge valuations.

They had huge valuations but the g.p. value didn't translate 1 = 1 to xp. I think* it was a 10 = 1 translation, and even then only if the item was sold.

* - I've never used xp-for-treasure so I'm going by memory here.