D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

Making the game world respond realistically to player choice is not railroading.

On this we disagree, I think, at least to this extent: making the game world respond realistically to player choice can be railroading, depending on things like (i) at what point do the players learn what sorts of responses are likely, and (ii) who gets to decide what counts as "realistic".

In case it needs to be stated expressly, "can be" is not a synonym for "always is".

The GM saying something is impossible for some reason related to the setting, isn't a railroad.

Again, it can be.

For instance, if the players are trying (via the play of their PCs) to persuade a NPC to do something, and the GM has decided in advance, and secretly, that the NPC will never do that thing, that can clearly be an instance of railroading. I've experienced it, and I imagine so have others posting in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

It is based on the character's description and the setting details relevant to the circumstances under which the ruling is needed. The system plays a role in this as a useful aid to make the adjudication process easier and more consistent. However, it is not a definitive reference as to what players can do as their characters. That is found in the description of the setting and its elements.

Fairness and consistency with this approach come from staying true to the setting’s established facts and how the characters fit into it.

The system is an aide that provides procedures for resolving uncertainty, but the world logic, geography, cultures, factions, and character capabilities define what actions are possible and how outcomes make sense.

It's not arbitrary; it's grounded in the details of the setting.

So you're describing one process here - obviously it's not the only one that a GM might use, when having to apply the rule call for a roll if the outcome is uncertain.

It's also pretty obvious that, for any given set of established facts/details, there are probably multiple ways of staying true to them. This seems true for things ranging from the technical/scientific - say, the risk of a bushfire being caused by lighting a campfire in a forest - though to the interpersonal and intimate - say, the likelihood that a person will respond to a proposal of marriage.

Sometimes "staying true" to something also involves notions of aesthetic or even moral value - I don't know if you intend to include that, but common human experience tells us that this is also something where multiple ways forward can be seen to be ways of staying true.

In my experience of GMing sandboxes using "realism" or "what would make sense in the setting", these multiple possibilities for staying true and making sense and being realistic, given the context can generate disagreement between players and the GM. Depending on the point in the resolution process that the principle is invoked and applied, it can also produce a sense of unfairness or capriciousness, if the GM imposes a consequence that they believe would make sense, but that was not anticipated or expected by a player whose PC is affected.

That's not a reason not to do it, although it's a reason that I no longer GM using that method. I think even for those who do GM using that method, I think it is a reason to be thoughtful about how the principles is applied, to what extent the GM should act unilaterally, how to go about establishing clear stakes before the dice are rolled, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is there a point to this analogy? Because I think the 5e "engine" works just fine for a sandbox, as do many other games.

The point--going back to the original use of the analogy--was that someone else had asserted that the rules are "just one element" of the game, and that it is incorrect, or even harmful, to say that those rules do not have primary significance.

If the rules of 5e did not "work just fine for a sandbox", would you not have to build your own? Would a 5e stripped of all travel rules, for example, not cause you to either look for a different system that did have such rules, or to invent your own travel rules, rather than relying purely on, as you said originally, "non-prescriptive guidelines and advice"? I don't think "non-prescriptive guidelines and advice" would be adequate to carry a sandbox campaign. Some rules have to be in place before you can focus your attention on guidelines and advice. Guidelines and advice can still be critical. Every game I play and enjoy has them. But they only operate when there's already rules to work with.

That you think the 5e engine works just fine isn't in question. You need a car that can drive before it matters whether that car has any safety features or not--for exactly the same reason that "a structured framework that integrates adjudication tools, referee coaching, and worldbuilding techniques" cannot produce a sandbox campaign without there already being a foundation of rules for that "structured framework" to stand on.

The rules are the engine that makes the car go. That doesn't mean nothing else can ever possibly be important. But it is still most certainly the first thing you need in order for a car to be more than a badly-made, overly-heavy Radio Flyer. First--primary. Hence, primacy. Rules happen first. Advice, coaching, best-practices, guidelines, etc. happen second. That doesn't make them bad, wrong, pointless, or any other negative words I'm sure folks will try to stuff in my mouth. It simply means they happen second in sequence.

 

[dave2008]

I am not sure what it means either, being perfectly honest. That sounds to me like cognitive dissonance.

Well, I didn't expect you to know why I'm crazy. I just thought I would share some of my own oddities. I usually think of cognitive dissonance as a bad thing, but this works for me - as I enjoy both. I think I just get a different type of enjoyment from designing something versus playing something. That satisfy different desires so I a guess it seems pretty natural, now that I think about it, I would approach them differently.

 

[The Firebird]

For instance, if the players are trying (via the play of their PCs) to persuade a NPC to do something, and the GM has decided in advance, and secretly, that the NPC will never do that thing, that can clearly be an instance of railroading. I've experienced it, and I imagine so have others posting in this thread.

Is it reasonable in character for the NPC not to? Most people have things that they will not do.

Agree that if they would reasonably do that and the GM says no it can be railroading. In that case the GM is not making the world respond realistically.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, it can be.

Sure if he is just using some kind of setting rationale to railroad, then yeah it could be. But if that isn't the reason, the players are just coming up against the limits of the setting itself, I don't think it is railroading.

For instance, if the players are trying (via the play of their PCs) to persuade a NPC to do something, and the GM has decided in advance, and secretly, that the NPC will never do that thing, that can clearly be an instance of railroading. I've experienced it, and I imagine so have others posting in this thread.

This would be an odd NPC characteristic to create. So it is a slightly unusual example. But if you did have a character who had something they would never ever do, I don't know I would consider it railroading. We could certainly talk about whether it is good characterization. And it might depend on the system of course because some systems give things like social skills more control here. And there is a point where even the most staunch person might act (I wouldn't ever swim in the ocean, but if someone threatened to kill my family if I didn't, sure I am going to do it. But you are never going to persuade me through argument to swim in the ocean. Some just people won't do certain things unless the party physically forces them or coerces them (and coercion doesn't work on every single person, just ask Giles Corey)). Now if it is being done simply to obstruct the party, that is different. But staying true to an established character trait in an NPC, I wouldn't regard as railroading.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The point--going back to the original use of the analogy--was that someone else had asserted that the rules are "just one element" of the game, and that it is incorrect, or even harmful, to say that those rules do not have primary significance.

If the rules of 5e did not "work just fine for a sandbox", would you not have to build your own? Would a 5e stripped of all travel rules, for example, not cause you to either look for a different system that did have such rules, or to invent your own travel rules, rather than relying purely on, as you said originally, "non-prescriptive guidelines and advice"? I don't think "non-prescriptive guidelines and advice" would be adequate to carry a sandbox campaign. Some rules have to be in place before you can focus your attention on guidelines and advice. Guidelines and advice can still be critical. Every game I play and enjoy has them. But they only operate when there's already rules to work with.

That you think the 5e engine works just fine isn't in question. You need a car that can drive before it matters whether that car has any safety features or not--for exactly the same reason that "a structured framework that integrates adjudication tools, referee coaching, and worldbuilding techniques" cannot produce a sandbox campaign without there already being a foundation of rules for that "structured framework" to stand on.

The rules are the engine that makes the car go. That doesn't mean nothing else can ever possibly be important. But it is still most certainly the first thing you need in order for a car to be more than a badly-made, overly-heavy Radio Flyer. First--primary. Hence, primacy. Rules happen first. Advice, coaching, best-practices, guidelines, etc. happen second. That doesn't make them bad, wrong, pointless, or any other negative words I'm sure folks will try to stuff in my mouth. It simply means they happen second in sequence.

I don't play 5E, but when it came out, reading through it, it seemed quite friendly to sandbox play and to rulings. I didn't see anything that would obviously obstruct sandbox @robertsconley can probably weigh in as I believe he may have more experience with the system than me

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't play 5E, but when it came out, reading through it, it seemed quite friendly to sandbox play and to rulings. I didn't see anything that would obviously obstruct sandbox @robertsconley can probably weigh in as I believe he may have more experience with the system than me

Okay, we're getting lost in the weeds here.

Whatever system you do use, does it have rules? I assume it isn't FKR so it has rules beyond "DM says." What do those rules do? Do they fight you tooth and nail every step of the way? Or are they useful to you?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But staying true to an established character trait in an NPC, I wouldn't regard as railroading.

I think you're missing the point here.

Who establishes that the character has that trait? Why is it established so?

This is what I mean when I say the absoluteness of DM power in (some) D&D-alike games gets in the way. If the DM wants a specific situation to come about, they merely have to only allow things into the fiction that only permit that, and don't permit other things. The act of "staying true to the established character trait" is not and cannot be protection from railroading because the railroading can be any that trait was established in the first place. And, at least in some cases, the DM may not even realize they're doing this.

Also, having the following things in sequential order...

Is it reasonable in character for the NPC not to? Most people have things that they will not do.

This would be an odd NPC characteristic to create. So it is a slightly unusual example.

...kinda shows exactly what @pemerton is talking about. To Bedrock, this is so strange as to be almost alien. To Firebird, it's par for the course. If two people can understand the exact same thing to be weird to the point of almost inapplicable and common to the point of universal, surely you can both see how just "guidelines" and "coaching" and "structured frameworks" might not be enough to achieve a particular end.

 

[The Firebird]

This is what I mean when I say the absoluteness of DM power in (some) D&D-alike games gets in the way. If the DM wants a specific situation to come about, they merely have to only allow things into the fiction that only permit that, and don't permit other things. The act of "staying true to the established character trait" is not and cannot be protection from railroading because the railroading is part of establishing the character trait in the first place.

This seems such an expansive definition of railroading as to not be useful.