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

[Hussar]

I have a possible term that might help instead of railroading. Railroading, to me, is a somewhat different animal in that the DM is forcing play to a specific end when there are plausible other paths forward.

Might the term "roadblocking" not be apt here. It's a term I use for DM's who insist on forcing the players to resolve certain challenges with no possibility of bypassing the challenge, for no other reason than the DM has simply decided that this should be a challenge.

There are times when DM's get a bit too deep in the weeds and need to realize that not every single thing needs to be a challenge and not every single thing has to be resolved with mechanics. Sometimes it's fine to just say yes.

It's not really railroading because the DM does actually want the player to resolve this challenge, whatever it is. But, is insisting that this challenge MUST be resolved even though no one really cares and there are no real stakes in the challenge.

Hrm.... As I'm writing this, I'm wandering into the weeds so this might not be as good of a term as I think it is.

 

[The Firebird]

I've not talked about "can predict in advance what will happen". I've talked about being "reasonably knowable". Those aren't the same thing.

Thanks for the clarification. So what is reasonably knowable? Some folks suggested the DM provide cinematic sequences to give the PCs key information. Do you think that is necessary, in the case of the guard? Or is it sufficient for the PCs to be able to learn that information via their own investigations?

 

[AnotherGuy]

So, the PCs had a liaison to the Council (ToD AP) who was cool and a friend to the PCs. He did a cover up for them, keeping info away from the Council and was outed (along with his fellow party members) by the PC who despised deception.
Their replacement was a tight-assed bureaucrat from the Order of the Gauntlet, who had seen no real action, but had opinions and was tasked to bring the PCs in line. I played him like you'd expect. (His name was Ondath, sorry @Ondath)
They absolutely hated him...he was unyielding, very much THE roadblocker (going with @Hussar's word)

After just over a month dealing with him, it came to a head with one of the party members who threatened him (Intimidation check) and it was the cherry on top because the faction was already looking like it was going to withdraw from the Council, and they did for other reasons really.
Anyways, I framed a scene where the PC passed this bureaucrat along with 2 of his aides in a corridor. I had no idea what was going to play out, the scene was quickly imagined by me because I had to give the player something as he was a little aimless in terms of what his character wanted to do and I didnt want him bored watching the other proactive players.

Well, the PC stopped and delivered a hell of dialogue about starting over, tensions/stress...etc
The PC was a Fighter-Barbarian with nothing in CHA or Persuasion.

The DC was 15 for success (moderate difficulty)
05-14 Fail Forward
01-05 Total Fail

In my mind I had 5-14 being a Fail Foward, requiring more back-and-forth dialogue, as the bureaucrat would want to air his grievances. There would be an additional attempt but this time the 01-10 would be a Total Fail.

PC succeed on the DC 15.
Anyways the above reflects what can occur when there is an obstinate PC who has been a roadblocker the entire game and how something could evolve from that.

EDIT: The reason I included the 2 aides was to place Ondath in an uncomfortable situation because it was public so he couldn't just brush away the PC - he was a person of image. The DC would have been 20 had they been alone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Well then, the TL;DR is that someone (I will note, someone who is specifically in favor of the "what the DM already knows" standard!) gave a specific example of a character who was unwilling to be persuaded. This was the example given, and I will note it is the entirety of the post, I haven't left anything whatsoever out:

If the NPC believes they and their family will face eternal torment if he drinks, it should be impossible to get them to drink. What is a few more years of mortal life compared to an eternity of suffering?

"Drinks", here, should be understood as drinking alcohol. (They were responding to a since-threadbanned poster who had said, in different words, "'Will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief' is a stonewall", amongst other things.)

This was meant to be an example of a way a DM could have "the DM already knows"-type information, which would mean that the person in question cannot be persuaded. I responded to that by saying that this kind of thing would make me think the DM is railroading me, and I expanded on this by specifically saying that the so-called explanatory belief is so completely ridiculous, it would take an enormous DM effort to convince me that it was totally innocent "consistency"/"real world logic" etc. and not...well, railroading.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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

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

The responsibility of the DM historically is to referee the game and provide challenges and a framework for the world and challenges.

The players, historically, are trying to better their position in the game world. This means they will push for wealth and power much of the time without regard for the game world. It is not historically their responsibility to set and maintain limits and balance for the good of the game/world. Historically the DM is the one charged with maintaining limits.

This goes back at least to the 1e DMG.

Here is where people say “what did that old coot know anyway?!”

And I am not going down that road. But hopefully you finally have an answer. People have different expectations now. In that vein perhaps DM responsibility and authority may seem like vestigial remains.

But for me asking why the DM gets more room is like asking why don’t players have whistles like the refs? I mean hand them out. A lot of players would use them right. Some might use them more appropriately than a bad ref! But I don’t always trust the wide receiver saw what was going down at the line of scrimmage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The responsibility of the DM historically is to referee the game and provide challenges and a framework for the world and challenges.

The players, historically, are trying to better their position in the game world. This means they will push for wealth and power much of the time without regard for the game world. It is not historically their responsibility to set and maintain limits and balance for the good of the game/world. Historically the DM is the one charged with maintaining limits.

This goes back at least to the 1e DMG.

Here is where people say “what did that old coot know anyway?!”

And I am not going down that road. But hopefully you finally have an answer. People have different expectations now. In that vein perhaps DM responsibility and authority may seem like vestigial remains.

But for me asking why the DM gets more room is like asking why don’t players have whistles like the refs? I mean hand them out. A lot of players would use them right. Some might use them more appropriately than a bad ref! But I don’t always trust the wide receiver saw what was going down at the line of scrimmage.

That doesn't really answer the question, no.

Whatever expectations there are, why should we distrust players more than DMs? I should think that if the DM has greater responsibilities, that entails they have a higher standard to live up to, not a lower one!

Your whistle analogy is barking up the entirely wrong tree. I'm not saying we should give the players whistles. I'm asking, why should we trust referees just because they have whistles?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That doesn't really answer the question, no.

Whatever expectations there are, why should we distrust players more than DMs? I should think that if the DM has greater responsibilities, that entails they have a higher standard to live up to, not a lower one!

Your whistle analogy is barking up the entirely wrong tree. I'm not saying we should give the players whistles. I'm asking, why should we trust referees just because they have whistles?

Sometimes we have to trust people. We choose who to trust. Often the person who wants to GM is taking on that role with good intent.

What about ones that don’t? What about bad police? What about bad doctors? If you find you can’t trust one, their roles need to be torched?

Up to us all to decide.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sometimes we have to trust people. We choose who to trust. Often the person who wants to GM is taking on that role with good intent.

What about ones that don’t? What about bad police? What about bad doctors? If you find you can’t trust one, their roles need to be torched?

Up to us all to decide.

So the answer to "why do we distrust players but trust GMs" is "because we do."

Now you know why I have said the answers are unsatisfactory.

Note that presuming good faith on the GM's part but not presuming good faith on the player's part is specifically my issue here.

 

[The Firebird]

Your whistle analogy is barking up the entirely wrong tree. I'm not saying we should give the players whistles. I'm asking, why should we trust referees just because they have whistles?

If you can't trust the referee the game is probably not going to be successful regardless of what rules you have in place.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

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.

The appeal to the “real world” to me indicates that you have a priority other than player driven play.

The amount of influence the GM has over what the players know of the situation in the game world is immense. Choosing to create a scenario where they don’t have the info needed is a choice. Own up to it… don’t blame it on realism.