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

[Bedrockgames]

(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.

I am sorry but this just isn't true in my experience. Especially if you are running the game trying to emphasize giving the players freedom to choose. The idea that we have to be worried about crypto-railroads is just absurd in my opinion. I think these conversations are much better if we take people at their word about this stuff. You aren't in my head, you aren't in @AlViking or @robertsconley's head. You don't know what is happening when we make these kinds of choices.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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?

This is the thing. And both are totally fine by the way. You can go with either approach. But if you are focused on character agency and having things arise out of what people actually said, not what they rolled, this is a consideration. Again, both approaches can work, but there are valid reasons for not wanting to use a strong social skill system

 

[AlViking]

(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.

The players rarely, if ever, know the whole picture. If they do not know who Bob the Rat Catcher really is, how can they decide whether an attempt to gather information should work or not? If that doesn't work for you there are plenty of other games out there.

I really don't see why people insist that every square peg needs to fit into the round hole.

 

[mamba]

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.

yeah, your ‘resists’ and their ‘will not’ are really the same thing. If the characters resort to most of your suggestions they probably will drink, before that they won’t

 

[Campbell]

All anyone is saying is that interaction design is important. That as GMs we are responsible for the way our setting and scenario design impacts the decision space available to people who play our games. That an analysis of how free players are to make choices includes that setting and scenario design. That does not mean any hidden backstory affecting resolution makes something a railroad, only that we should include it in our analysis of whether something is or is not a railroad.

All I have ever said is that as a GM if I design the world and the scenario/adventure then if my hands are tied it's because I tied them. I am accountable for these decisions.

I do not think sandbox advocates in this thread are railroaders, but I do think they provide cover fire for the sort of railroader I was when I started to running games based on the advice I found in games like Vampire. I have run the sorts of crypto-railroads mentioned upthread. Played in many of them as well. Thought that was how you run roleplaying games for a long time. Acting like these are not real concerns and not reflective of real play is silly.

 

[pemerton]

If the DM has a detailed world and then the player wants to be part of a barbarian clan that didn't exist previously, and the DM then modifies the world to fit them...they will feel less natural and less integrated.

I see this conjecture put forward from time to time. Maybe there are particular instances of it being true, but I don't find it to be plausible as a generalisation. I don't think most GMs are creating worlds that are such integrated wholes that new elements can't be added.

I mean, JRRT seems to have added new elements to Middle Earth all the time, and he was a much more sophisticated "world builder" than the typical RPG GM.

 

[mamba]

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."

one stubborn character does not make it a railroad, not even slightly. If this is your threshold for it, we will never see eye to eye on this or what is required to prevent one

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Then you shouldn't either. Don't accuse Ironsworn or similar systems of being ridiculous anti-realistic "anything goes", if you're going to get mad about "insulting" descriptions of your preferred stuff.

 

[pemerton]

What is it that YOU do? Specifically, what do you do? If you're starting a game of Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate... how do you begin? How do you get the players to drive play?

Like I said, if someone asked this about my game of Spire, I could talk about what I did for that game specifically. I wouldn't talk about making organic decisions or making sure that my decisions make sense and all that general stuff. I'd talk about what I did in that game as GM.

Right.

As an example that I think plausibly sits in the "sandbox" space, although there was no map at the start of play, here's the first session of a Classic Traveller campaign.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do not think sandbox advocates in this thread are railroaders, but I do think they provide cover fire for the sort of railroader I was when I started to running games based on the advice I found in games like Vampire.

We aren't giving anyone cover and we are discouraging railroading. A vampire GM doesn't need to lean on me or rob's explanations of GMing to railroad: those guys have been around since the Masquerade came out