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

[soviet]

More interesting, yes. But is it true? There are some people who would easily cave. And there are people who would rather die than break that kind of precept.

I think this is vanishingly rare. Most people will cave eventually.

But this is what dice rolls are for, right? 'It's DC 20 to persuade this guy, because of his oath never to drink'.

I'm not saying the players will do this. Just that if our definition of railroading leads us to believe a king unwilling to give up his kingdom is a railroad, then it is not a useful one.

We're starting with a presumption of good faith though right? Why are players asking for things that are completely unreasonable in the context. 'I try to tempt the old priest with some elven wine so he'll answer my questions' is pretty far away from 'I climb a rainbow and become an angel'

 

[AlViking]

I have asked this question many, many, many times.

I have never, not once, gotten a good answer.

You've got plenty of reasonable answers and explanations but you remain unconvinced. No matter how much people attempt to convince you otherwise you have not changed your opinion. Seems like maybe that's similar to what we're talking about when it comes to not being able to convince NPCs to accept something they disagree with.

 

[Remathilis]

Discussions of railroading always seem to get lost in the weeds.

Before we can make any reasonable discussion of railroading, we have to have a working definition that we can all live with. Otherwise, there's no point. To me, railroading is a degenerate form of play where the DM (I'm going to stick with DM here because I know that there are player side ways to force actions, but, generally speaking, we're talking about DMs here) uses the authority of being a DM to enforce specific outcomes when alternative outcomes are plausible.

Linear does not mean railroad. Again, going back to the typical 5 room dungeon where you have an entrance, then four sequential rooms - ie. a natural cave - is 100% linear. Every single group playing that scenario will encounter those encounters in that order (barring some outliers of course). That's not a railroad though. Those encounters being encountered sequentially are perfectly plausible because no alternative outcome can happen. You can't "skip" forward in the sequence without having some sort of means that allows you to do so.

If you are traveling from New York to Boston, there are realistically, only a couple of plausible routes. None of those routes should take you through Houston. Again, travel scenarios are, by their nature, typically linear but, not railroads - even the ones that are on literal trains.

Trying to define railroads in such a way that encompasses perfectly legitimate linear adventure design is not helpful.

Like most things, it's a spectrum. A railroad has a preordained outcome (no matter what the PCs do, Venger will escape). A linear adventure sets up a single endgame, but leaves the particular path and ending flexible (the PCs will at some point find and confront Venger, what happens then is the fate of the dice). A sandbox allows for multiple potential paths with no one being the focus (investigation of the cult headed by Venger could lead to a confrontation with him, or some other outcome, or the PCs may abandon that plot line and decide to start a business selling rations). A True Sandbox isn't even that far thought ahead (the group stumbles across rumors of a cult, and as the game grows the need for a leader, named Venger, develops. If the PCs stop that line of adventure, nothing more is created).

I think most people run something in between a linear adventure and a sandbox without being true to either.

 

[AlViking]

Adherence to real-world logic is a non sequitur.

You can adhere to real-world logic while using systems which restrict the "how". It's not random-butt bull-crap invented at the drop of a hat, which is a baseless canard against systems you don't use. Given how much has been made of "insulting" your style of play, I should hope that baseless canards against other styles of play would upset you just as much, yes?

I'm not upset, I disagree. My decisions are not random or at the drop of a hat. But yes, when you use inflammatory descriptions it is insulting.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree with this. I’ve read plenty of rule books that have said “never do this” or “always do that”.

Such as? I'm not doubting you, but I either haven't read those games or glossed over those parts of them.

Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark both spring to mind. They both include advice about changing the game... so it's not that either is saying that every single rule needs to be followed absolutely at all times. But each has plenty of direction on how to GM and what to do or not do, and why.

I've quoted Burning Wheel upthread (BW Gold, p 30):

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

The idea of a RPG saying that GMing means doing this thing (always) and thus not doing this other thing (ever) is pretty familiar to me. That's how games state their rules!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Inventing examples like this doesn't do you favors.

Because this is exactly the kind of thing I would hear and think, "Oh. So the DM is railroading me. Gotcha."

I wouldn't think this at all. I would just assume the GM created an NPC who had a very rigid 'virtue'. And maybe the GM did that to make him interesting or even a bit funny (a character who will go to ridiculous lengths not to drink). It would only be an issue for me, if this sort of thing were regularly happening and it was being done at points where the GM seemed to be thwarting finding a faster way through the adventure or a different path for the adventure to go down

 

[soviet]

(Not a response to any specific poster)

'The decisions I make take into account all relevant factors within the setting, and they are either the only possible outcome, or by far the most likely outcome, my thumb is not on the scales at all' is simply a delusion.

It is reasonable and possible to make your own decision about what you think should happen based on all these in-setting factors, and to try to make it as verisimilitudinous as possible, but at core this is still a decision you have made about what will happen. No-one is running a world simulation in their head.

'This is simply the logic of the gameworld' is the 'I was only playing my character' of GMing.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that 'Resists drinking alcohol out of a religious belief' is a much more interesting trait, and allows the system to determine when that works or doesn't.

'Will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief' is just a stonewall. The PCs threaten to abandon their meeting if he won't drink with them. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten him with violence. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten his family with violence. The PCs enact violence on his family. The PCs threaten to murder the entire village. The PCs threaten to remove all of his limbs and banish him to hell. The PCs dangle seven potions of resurrection for his family and a million gold pieces if only he will have a drink. Nope, no roll, he won't.

Flip the scenario: is there ever a situation where you would force a player to roleplay his character a certain way because the NPC used a skill on them. For example, the PC must back off because the NPC successfully intimidated him. Or he must believe the NPC because he failed an insight check against the NPCs deception. Would you allow an NPC to seduce a PC or have the PC give the NPC a treasured item just because they do well on a persuasion roll? And if not, why?

 

[CreamCloud0]

the definitions of sandbox and railroad that i have come to understand from my years of exposure to them:

sandbox: a game without a planned path or hard meta goals, where the characters just exist in the setting and are free to travel and do what they wish to (as much as an inhabitant of that setting is free to do anything), any goals are self-appointed.

railroad: a game where the player's choices, actions and rolls have little to no impact on how events will unfold from the way that the GM decides they should happen.

 

[The Firebird]

Inventing examples like this doesn't do you favors.

Because this is exactly the kind of thing I would hear and think, "Oh. So the DM is railroading me. Gotcha."

I don't agree with that. I know people who would do this; or at least, who would like to think they would.

But this is what dice rolls are for, right? 'It's DC 20 to persuade this guy, because of his oath never to drink'.

I think making it a d20 roll at all implies a substantially greater chance of convincing someone than there really is.

We're starting with a presumption of good faith though right? Why are players asking for things that are completely unreasonable in the context. 'I try to tempt the old priest with some elven wine so he'll answer my questions' is pretty far away from 'I climb a rainbow and become an angel'

It's just using an extreme case to show that the general principle is unsound. If the king holding onto his kingdom isn't railroading, then the priest upholding his vow isn't either.