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

[Bedrockgames]

Okay but a "procedure" is...a description of specific actions. Not a generalized broad-swathe paintbrush. An "approach" is certainly less specific, but when we're literally talking about specific techniques, saying things like "I use real-world logic", what does that even mean? I know what actual logic is--I've actually studied it academically, and did quite well, I am proud to say--but this "real-world logic" is neither a process nor an approach. It is a loose hand-wave. Same for things like just dropping the word "coaching" or the like without saying anything about it. That's not an approach except in the most totally abstracted (and thus useless) sense.

I did too, but we aren;t talking about socratic logic or something. People are using casual English when they say stuff like that. They just mean, is it plausible, does it seem like the most realistic outcome to them. That is a subjective judgment based on their own experience of reality, and as @robertsconley says thinking through a series of what-ifs. They aren't following a rigid procedure to arrive at the scientifically true answer. They aren't running simulations on a computer. Now this might not be enough for you, and that is fine. But try to understand this is more than enough for many, many people. See my other post I just made about it not being rocket science.

If I may use an analogy: It is like saying, "Ethics means choosing to do what's good and not choosing to do what is harmful." Sounds great, except that the sentence is completely vacuous. The whole point of ethics, as a discipline within philosophy, is to figure out what "do what's good" IS! And both "good" and "harmful" are completely undefined as this sentence goes. A saintly good person and a twisted psychopath could both say those exact words, and fully mean them!

Sure, but there are also things we can generally agree on, like murdering someone for looking at you the wrong way isn't right (I get that not EVERYONE agrees with this, but I would imagine ALL or MOST OF US agree with this). Generally in my experience, GMs running settings based on realism, know they have to answer to the player's sensibilities as well as their own, so they try to make calls that will be agreed upon in that way. And when there is uncertainty dice often come into play

 

[The Firebird]

But we’re not even talking about information the characters couldn’t have. We’re talking about information that they could have, which has not been shared with them.

Well this is the sticking point. In the guard example, in my version, the players can learn the information by investigating the guard schedule. But it seems to me that in your version, the GM just shares it with them without them putting in any effort. That seems...odd to me, because you'll have to contrive a route for them to learn the information other than investigating. (Maybe the guard is someone they knew as a kid? They play in the same poker game?).

Indeed, it seems opposed to player driven play to me, because the players don't have to play the game to get the information they need.

Well, to use one recent illustrative example, with multiple posts to this effect:

Each of these posts fundamentally boils down to, "Wow, you can't trust a GM to be a GM, that sucks for you."

I think this is an uncharitable reading of the original posts. The point is not to say "that sucks for you" but to say the criticism doesn't hold if you trust the DM not to come up with very contrived scenarios to keep you on a railroad.

No. It's that if something is so blatantly, transparently ridiculous, something that instantly triggers my "how in the hell does that even happen????" reflex, it's evidence that the GM is engaging in railroading.

Honestly I think there's not that much disagreement here. I at least am fine with saying "the DM causing the world to act unrealistically in order to avoid certain outcomes is railroading". I recall saying something to that affect a while back.

There's just a disagreement about the realism of a few examples (the priest, the siege). And you know, if you have sharp disagreements with your DM about what is reasonable, their 'realistic' campaign is not going to work for you.

That's ok, and I don't think it shows any issues with the playstyle.

 

[The Firebird]

Could the party have pushed forward at higher risk but decided that cutting through the mine was safer?

This seems the right interpretation based on the movie.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If you can't tell the difference, why assume the worst?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

they can know that the guy follows his religion very strictly and part of it is to not drink alcohol, and that he never drinks alcohol even in situations where it is around.

If they know that, or could have learned it if they bothered, is that sufficient to mean it is not a railroad?

Firstly: I refuse to be nickeled-and-dimed here. So be aware that if an excessively continuing line of inquiry begins to form, I will simply say as much and stop responding. I have no interest in being continually interrogated until the interrogator declares victory by hyperparticularization. I'm not saying this to be combative, I've just seen this specific tactic used multiple times on this forum and I won't let it slip by if I see that happening. I have not seen it, and I am not accusing you of doing it. I'm just laying my cards on the table in advance.

I have already said that a much more reasonable belief would not trigger such a response in me. It might be a mild eyebrow raise, but not much more. I'm aware, for example, that Islam has a complicated relationship with alcohol (e.g. many of the nobility/ruling class in the Golden Age of Islam did in fact drink grape wine, despite the Qur'an forbidding it; or how Turkey still produces raki, a distilled alcoholic beverage.) So a faith inspired by Islam might result in a particularly devout believer rejecting alcohol in all but the most dire of situations, e.g. to save an innocent's life or some other similar thing.

It was very specifically the unreasonableness of the given example which provoked such a strong reaction.

 

[The Firebird]

If I may use an analogy: It is like saying, "Ethics means choosing to do what's good and not choosing to do what is harmful." Sounds great, except that the sentence is completely vacuous. The whole point of ethics, as a discipline within philosophy, is to figure out what "do what's good" IS! And both "good" and "harmful" are completely undefined as this sentence goes. A saintly good person and a twisted psychopath could both say those exact words, and fully mean them!

I understand what you mean by vacuous and I think if you're trying to drill down to first principals in an academic context it is understandable. But I think that description of ethics is quite helpful for the average person. Likewise, realistic is subjective and not strictly defined, but it's good enough to express what we mean. It is different, for example, than an AP where encounters are defined based on what is balanced or what makes for good tactical combat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you can't tell the difference, why assume the worst?

Occam's razor. Of answers with equal explanatory power, the simpler answer is usually correct.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I understand what you mean by vacuous and I think if you're trying to drill down to first principals in an academic context it is understandable. But I think that description of ethics is quite helpful for the average person. Likewise, realistic is subjective and not strictly defined, but it's good enough to express what we mean. It is different, for example, than a AP where encounters are defined based on what is balanced or what makes for good tactical combat.

How is it even remotely helpful to the average person?

It doesn't actually tell them what to do. It doesn't give them any sort of ability to examine a particular behavior. It just tells them "be good, don't be bad." That's utterly useless as a moral guideline! It's empty of any actual descriptive content. What is good, so that I know what to do? What is bad, so that I know what not to do?

 

[robertsconley]

If you as a GM choose to not share some crucial bit of information with the players, then you’ve chosen to do so. Own the choice. Don’t blame it on realism.

Yes, but that is incomplete. By stopping where you left off with your point, you missed the larger picture.

The creator should own the creative choices they make; however, it is also essential to understand why those particular choices are made. Otherwise, one's understanding of the resulting work is incomplete.

 

[AlViking]

Oh, so now you get to decide what is relevant to me?

And folks wonder why I get so infuriated about double standards in threads like this!


No. It's that if something is so blatantly, transparently ridiculous, something that instantly triggers my "how in the hell does that even happen????" reflex, it's evidence that the GM is engaging in railroading.

And, to be clear here, I am not the one who proposed this standard. AlViking was. The standard of "real-world logic" and the like. This example, given as a defense of this style, openly violates my understanding of "real-world logic"--it creates a character who is so blatantly anti-realistic I cannot accept it.

I'm not the one arguing that the "why" of a thing is protection against railroading. Others here are. Particularly @Bedrockgames, @AlViking, and @robertsconley. Indeed, their arguments are almost exclusively about the "why", because the "how" is left completely unexplained beyond phrases like "what the DM already knows", as has been said repeatedly by others (particularly @pemerton).


It's a matter of evidence. Getting a situation that does everything but shout from the rooftops "I am just doing this to deny your ability to take that path" is the problem.

In a game with very literal contracts with a devil, you don't get do decide what is impossible in my campaign. Some people cannot be convinced to change their beliefs, do things that violate some moral or ethical boundary no matter what they do in real life. It's the same in a game because it's realistic.

If there are constant roadblocks every single time the players do something not according to DM's plan then it's a railroad. A game would be boring if they always achieved every goal, I don't even want there to be the possibility of achieving every possible goal I could imagine.