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

[Lanefan]

Right... but most games would say to let the dice resolve that uncertainty. When it's just "well I envisioned this guard as a highly principled fellow with a young son who he strives to always teach to do the right thing, so he immediately turns you in" it's a bit dissatisfying.

Let the dice tell us. I roll low to bribe the guy, he looks at me and says "Something I tell my boy every day... you have to do what's right, no matter how easy it would be to do what's wrong. Move along... your coin has no value here."

Or he turns you in for attempted bribery. Or at the very least doesn't let you through the gate.

Or if it's important for some reason that this guy can't be bribed, then narrate a scene of him clubbing someone who attempts to bribe him as the PCs approach. Communicate this to them... they can then make an informed choice.

Where if the situation were real they almost certainly wouldn't have that information? Not bloody likely.

Then again, in the real world it's generally assumed (at least by me) that cops and customs agents etc. can't be bribed and thus there's no point even trying.

Now if the PCs choose to hang around outside the gate and watch proceedings for a good while then sure, they might see something like this - along with other things such as the general personalities of the guards, their habits, their way of dealing with folks across different situations, etc. - and learn from it. But they have to give themselves the opportunity to learn, by stating they'll stay put and watch rather than do the more usual thing of going up to the gate with everyone else.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. My point is more that if the NPCs are fixed and details are known, the players have ways to learn about them.

Sure, provided the players take the time and have their characters make at least some effort to do so.

 

[Lanefan]

If my action declarations are essentially blind, I'm not playing a game, in the sense that I am not exercising control over how the content of the shared activity - in the case of a RPG, that's the shared fiction - is unfolding.

There's a vast gulf between blind (i.e. knowing nothing) and transparent (i.e. knowing everything). Most if not all real-world interactions fall between these two extremes, it makes sense that in-fiction interactions would also.

Ideally, your character would have about the same degree and amount of information that a real person would have if in the same situation. That information may be anywhere from 0 to 100% complete and may also be anywhere from 0 to 100% accurate; you-as-player can almost always increase both percentages by taking the time in-fiction to observe and-or inquire, and learn. But you don't get to simply assume the info you have is either perfect or correct unless told otherwise, nor do you get to know things your character would and could not.

For example, absent prior information, on walking up to the guarded gate of a strange town for the first time your character (and thus you-as-player) has no way of knowing whether either or both of the guards on duty are bribe-able, how seriously they take their duties, how competent they are as warriors, what if any unusual orders they got this morning, etc. etc.; and thus your options are:

--- stop and watch the guards for a while* and see if anyone else pays them off
--- try and enter town normally, i.e. without bribing a guard
--- try bribing a guard anyway and see what happens
--- go around the town walls and see if you can find an unguarded entrance
--- bail out, come back after dark, and sneak into town somehow
--- or something else, there's loads of possibilities.

* - though hanging around and watching might arouse suspicion as well, depending on circumstance.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the key difference is you're looking for a sandbox which centers the PCs goals and desires. Imo that can hurt verisimilitude because the world does not revolve around the PCs.

That's the key piece, right there.

And with some on these boards, it's an unwinnable argument. Hell knows, I've tried.

 

[Lanefan]

By whom?

Not by me. Not by @hawkeyefan. I think not even by @EzekielRaiden.

And who has said this?

Not me. Not @hawkeyefan. I can't recall if @EzekielRaiden has discussed it.

'any NPC with strong motivations or immovable positions is evidence of railroading unless the players can predict in advance what will happen.'

'a GM applying a consistent internal logic is "arbitrary" unless supported by player-facing mechanics'

Both have been said in this thread and in very close to those words, but I can't be arsed to go back through 142 pages and find out where or by whom. It's possible 'soviet' said one or both but as soviet got punted from the thread a while back it'll be hard to confirm without a lot of digging.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm curious...
If one considers an immovable NPC on the bribe (unknown to the PCs beforehand) as an example of Railroading then is a dead-end (not the result of dice but GM is following a map) in a dungeon viewed in the same light?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

you had the following reply to a post




To me that sounds like what is referenced below

I have, repeatedly, said precisely why that example trips it. It isn't because this person has things they cannot be persuaded to do. It is because the reason--the thing "the DM already knows"--is so utterly ludicrous, I flatly do not believe ANYONE would have that religious belief. Condemning your entire family to eternal punishment because of consuming any amount of alcohol, no matter what? As noted, not even the most virulently anti-theist people I've ever heard of (like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins) would ascribe such a patently ridiculous belief to a religious person; it reads like either an extremely poor-taste parody of actual religious belief, or a double-subversion making fun of people who make fun of religious beliefs.

Hence why I specifically said that that example wasn't doing that poster any favors. I genuinely cannot believe that a serious, reasonable person could hold that belief. And it is that specific thing, the utter, ridiculous unbelievability of the DM's claim that that's why this NPC cannot be convinced, which tells me "oh, so it's a railroad. Gotcha."

Because I literally cannot tell the difference between black-box DMing where that belief is (somehow, by some incredibly twisted logic and bizarre circumstance etc. etc.) actually appropriate and justified, and one where the DM invented it on the spot to shut down reasonable pathways she simply doesn't approve of.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm curious...
If one considers an immovable NPC on the bribe (unknown to the PCs beforehand) as an example of Railroading then is a dead-end (not the result of dice but GM is following a map) in a dungeon viewed in the same light?

Well, to reiterate (since I have been dragged back into this thread quite against my preference in order to defend myself), I am not and have not ever been saying that ABSOLUTELY ANY form of "NPC who cannot be persuaded to do X task" is an example of railroading. Instead, I am saying that an NPC who cannot be persuaded for an utterly ridiculous reason is an example of railroading.

So let's apply that same analysis to this question!

Having a dead end here and there in a place that is rather close to the literal definition of "a dungeon" is quite reasonable. E.g. a moldering ruin of a building once inhabited/made use of long ago, but long since abandoned to time and the elements, or a crypt/tomb/etc. of a long-forgotten king/priest/general/etc., or a long-buried temple to a forgotten deity, what-have-you. Emphasis: here and there. Ruins probably should be a challenge to navigate, but only up to a point; there is a point where, no matter how much pre-writing the DM has done to justify their decisions, too much is simply too much. Naturally, sorites paradox, taste and preference, blah blah blah--but the bounds of reasonability are not the same as the bounds of "whatever the DM has put sufficient pre-authorship into".

So what would make it utterly ridiculous? How about a dead end, where the map clearly shows a path should have been there, because....a continuous migration of gelatinous cubes is completely filling the passageway, streaming out of a broken pipe on one end and glorping up through a gap in the ceiling. That seems like a pretty good example of something so extreme, so bizarre, so utterly untenable, that I would hear that and be instantly skeptical. Like, really, a migration of gelatinous cubes? Right through the one spot we need so we don't have to go around the long way? And very specifically a continuous and unending migration, so there's no squeezing through or around, nor waiting for a pause or the end of said migration? Even if such a migration is something the DM has established inside their black-box prep, deploying it here, in this case, absolutely smacks of manipulating what the players are allowed to attempt, and I would be instantly skeptical.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

'any NPC with strong motivations or immovable positions is evidence of railroading unless the players can predict in advance what will happen.'

'a GM applying a consistent internal logic is "arbitrary" unless supported by player-facing mechanics'

Both have been said in this thread and in very close to those words, but I can't be arsed to go back through 142 pages and find out where or by whom. It's possible 'soviet' said one or both but as soviet got punted from the thread a while back it'll be hard to confirm without a lot of digging.

I mean, it can still be arbitrary, given what we're talking about is NOT "applying consistent internal logic", but rather "applying consistent internal logic to the GM's black box", which is the whole issue.

Something being arbitrary doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong. But it is being declared on the foundation of "because I say so", without any real ability for the players to game about it. They can't predict nor prepare for it because they explicitly aren't allowed to know enough information to do so. They can't take actions to address it in any way other than just...acceptance. If they perceive an inconsistency in that internal logic, their response choices do not include any ability to note this. And, as others have said, because the DM is the only one actually able to insert anything at all into "what the DM already knows", this "consistent internal logic" cannot do anything at all to address flawed inputs to that logic.

A consistent logic operating on inconsistent inputs cannot promise consistent results.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well, to reiterate (since I have been dragged back into this thread quite against my preference in order to defend myself), I am not and have not ever been saying that ABSOLUTELY ANY form of "NPC who cannot be persuaded to do X task" is an example of railroading. Instead, I am saying that an NPC who cannot be persuaded for an utterly ridiculous reason is an example of railroading.

So let's apply that same analysis to this question!

Having a dead end here and there in a place that is rather close to the literal definition of "a dungeon" is quite reasonable. E.g. a moldering ruin of a building once inhabited/made use of long ago, but long since abandoned to time and the elements, or a crypt/tomb/etc. of a long-forgotten king/priest/general/etc., or a long-buried temple to a forgotten deity, what-have-you. Emphasis: here and there. Ruins probably should be a challenge to navigate, but only up to a point; there is a point where, no matter how much pre-writing the DM has done to justify their decisions, too much is simply too much. Naturally, sorites paradox, taste and preference, blah blah blah--but the bounds of reasonability are not the same as the bounds of "whatever the DM has put sufficient pre-authorship into".

So what would make it utterly ridiculous? How about a dead end, where the map clearly shows a path should have been there, because....a continuous migration of gelatinous cubes is completely filling the passageway, streaming out of a broken pipe on one end and glorping up through a gap in the ceiling. That seems like a pretty good example of something so extreme, so bizarre, so utterly untenable, that I would hear that and be instantly skeptical. Like, really, a migration of gelatinous cubes? Right through the one spot we need so we don't have to go around the long way? And very specifically a continuous and unending migration, so there's no squeezing through or around, nor waiting for a pause or the end of said migration? Even if such a migration is something the DM has established inside their black-box prep, deploying it here, in this case, absolutely smacks of manipulating what the players are allowed to attempt, and I would be instantly skeptical.

Hey, I was just posting this as a general question not directed at you, I'm not following this thread, it moves too quickly for me and there are some other threads I've got more of a handle on. So, I'm not sure who said what, I just followed the tail end of the convo.

With regards to your first paragraph we are in full agreement. I wouldn't classify an unbribable guard as a railroad. It may play as colour, some fun at the table, the interaction may lead to something cool in the fiction later on when they encounter this guard again...there are all sorts of opportunities with an interesting NPC. Players have taught me that, so if one does create an unbribable PC make them interesting, make them standout, give life to them.

Should someone classify the above guard as a railroad then I'd expect consistency in that a dead-end (as a result without dice) in a dungeon is also viewed as a form of railroad (even if it small).
I'm 100% fine with a person having that viewpoint/definition, but it has to be consistently applied.