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

[Thomas Shey]

That's quite the non-answer.

Bluntly, its the amount of answer I've come to conclude this line of discussion deserves.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Speaking as someone who has successfully defied authority on multiple occasions, I can say: not every situation where someone is in charge is about 'defying the man.'

Which is why I qualified it with "more often than not."

Edit: to make it clear, I'm of the opinion after having watched this dynamic in a lot of places over the years that far more GMs tell themselves every complaint is someone just holding up the game than it actually is, because they've been passively or actively taught some things about GM authority that I don't think are at all benign. And a lot of the responses I see to that statement just reinforce the opinion.

 

[pemerton]

The party was instead deflected to a completely different course which, yes, did contribute to their ultimate goal, but in a way that was very overtly less realistic and less logical than their stated plan, which the DM had tacitly approved of by, y'know, having the party go to that place and only find out once they had arrived that it was a bust.

But doing it any other way would undercut verisimilitude!

I mean, there are multiple posters here who think that it would be railroading to tell the players that their plan will fizzle due to prior secret GM decision-making about the setting/backstory; for real player agency the players need to spend a few hours of futile play and planning before the GM springs the revelation of a dead end!

 

[pemerton]

Except here's the difference: if the players had decided that they didn't want to engage with the guards and stop them from hassling the shoppers, that would have been OK. They would have done something else. There were other events going on in the world they would have experienced.

With your Gygax example, if the players had decided to go back home, that was it; the game would have been over.

So now you're saying that the whole of classic D&D is railroading, because it's taken as a premise that the players will explore the dungeon?

I think you're confusing railroading with agreeing how we're going to spend our time together.

If someone invites a group of players over to roll up 1st level PCs to play a dungeon-crawl game, and they turn up ready to go, it's not railroading to tell the players that their PCs have walked the couple of miles from the village to the dungeon entrance. That's just part of setting up for play.

 

[Faolyn]

Nope. The party was instead deflected to a completely different course which, yes, did contribute to their ultimate goal, but in a way that was very overtly less realistic and less logical than their stated plan, which the DM had tacitly approved of by, y'know, having the party go to that place and only find out once they had arrived that it was a bust.


Again, I do not understand how this isn't an egregious example of railroading. It seems self-evident. The DM hard shut down a solution that was logical, justified, and setting-derived, with no explanation then or after beyond "trust me". I admit I was perhaps less overtly specific than I should have been, but the point was, NOTHING would get the Hyksos priests to listen. Nothing. Despite the fact that their priesthood is LITERALLY about revering the god who protects their land. If that isn't railroading, what is it?

It seems self-evident to you because you made it up to be that way, remember? You invented the GM and scenario. There was no explanation beyond "trust me" because you have seem to think every case is going to involve either no trust or total trust, and you went for total trust, in order to show that it's a Bad Idea.

Also, I've explained several times what it could be other than railroading.

I mean, sure, that's pretty obviously ham-fisted, but again my point here is: when you are presented with what even you agree is evidence of poor DMing, why is it we must then give them second and fourth and seventh and tenth chances? Particularly when the reverse is not true, as has been said repeatedly in this thread, DMs giving players no second chances, no re-tries, one strike and you're gone, bye-bye, never darken my door again.

First, you'll note that I did not say that DMs shouldn't give players second chances, so don't confuse those people with me or think I agree with that mindset. I've had problem players, but none of them had problems that were so disruptive or abusive that I've wanted to or actually kicked them out. Also, I don't think anyone here has actually said that a player should be kicked out for a single infraction, unless, again, that infraction is so terrible as to warrant it. (And for me, at least, "so terrible" would have to be something that was very harmful in some way, like deliberately trampling on someone's stated lines, or proving to be a real-life bigot; something like that.)

Secondly, it's not about giving someone multiple chances. It's about making sure that you aren't just reading into their actions, that they actually are a problem player or GM. If talking to them only gets a "trust me, bro" then you have to answer the question: have they shown themselves to be trustworthy in general? Maybe they've never done something you'd consider to be railroading before, but have a tendency to show unpleasant amounts of favoritism in game, or they make out-of-game promises they don't really keep. This would suggest that no, they aren't trustworthy in general. Or maybe they've shown themselves in the past to be a really good GM, so what you think is railroading is actually setting up an intriguing story.

But again, since you made the scenario up, how many times have you had to talk to a GM about things like this and gotten "trust me" as a response? That's never happened to me even once in the ~35 years I've been gaming, so I honestly am curious to see how often it's happened to you... considering you had to invent a scenario where it happened.

Okay. So...you fundamentally agree with my point then? That, in context, for a group that hasn't built trust up yet (which is literally what I said thousands of posts ago and you argued against...repeatedly...), where a DM leans super hard on this "trust me" thing, it would in fact be a problem?

No, I haven't argued against it. I've said that leaving is OK. I said that about what happened with Hussar's group. What I've "argued" is that it's good to get information because it's a bad idea to go off without it, and that I don't feel like the scenario you presented is necessarily railroading.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It seems self-evident to you because you made it up to be that way, remember? You invented the GM and scenario. There was no explanation beyond "trust me" because you have seem to think every case is going to involve either no trust or total trust, and you went for total trust, in order to show that it's a Bad Idea.

...Yes! That was the entire point! I was constructing something which was perfectly in keeping with the way people have described acceptable DM practice...and yet, as Hussar and pemerton and I (and others) have said, is indistinguishable from railroading.

That was the whole point. I was giving you an example of (fictional, constructed, I never ever claimed otherwise) behavior that would raise a player's suspicions for fully legitimate reasons, and which the player could not even in principle distinguish from railroading and other bad DM behavior, but which met all of the given criteria and then some.

Also, I've explained several times what it could be other than railroading.

I'm sorry, I just...nothing you said got anywhere as far as I could tell. Basically the only point you made was...that it just cannot be railroading if the DM has written something beforehand. Like you've fundamentally defined the term so that it can't mean that. I disagree.

A player took an action, attempting a solution to a known issue, which met all the requirements you asked for: realistic (indeed, pretty clearly the most realistic choice available to them), logical, coherent with established fiction, signalled to the DM well in advance (it's not like they just randomly showed up in that town and decided "HEY LET'S TALK TO PRIESTS!", they specifically set out to that town for that specific reason), etc. They got no-saled. No budging, no explanation. The player did as you and others have repeatedly required, swallowed their complaints so as to not be """disruptive""", and waited until between-sessions. They were then told "you just have to trust me" in response to these complaints.

I was asked for an example where it was possible for a player to play by all the rules, written and unwritten, and still have it be a problem. I did that. I did exactly as I was bid. Now you're telling me it doesn't count because there's a bunch more restrictions on what the player is allowed to complain about. Is it any wonder, then, that I feel like the boundaries keep being pushed further and further out, further and further in favor of nigh-infinite DM latitude, unless the DM is so horrifically, so egregiously wrong that the only possible explanation is being awful?

Because from where I'm sitting, that's what it looks like. The DM gets forgiveness after forgiveness after forgiveness, until the player can point to a persistent ongoing pattern of flagrant abuse of trust, and only then do anything, at which point the problem is so far beyond soluble that yes, the only solution is to beat feet.

From where I'm sitting, you keep giving the DM more and more and more latitude, while giving the player functionally none.

First, you'll note that I did not say that DMs shouldn't give players second chances, so don't confuse those people with me or think I agree with that mindset. I've had problem players, but none of them had problems that were so disruptive or abusive that I've wanted to or actually kicked them out. Also, I don't think anyone here has actually said that a player should be kicked out for a single infraction, unless, again, that infraction is so terrible as to warrant it. (And for me, at least, "so terrible" would have to be something that was very harmful in some way, like deliberately trampling on someone's stated lines, or proving to be a real-life bigot; something like that.)

Secondly, it's not about giving someone multiple chances. It's about making sure that you aren't just reading into their actions, that they actually are a problem player or GM. If talking to them only gets a "trust me, bro" then you have to answer the question: have they shown themselves to be trustworthy in general? Maybe they've never done something you'd consider to be railroading before, but have a tendency to show unpleasant amounts of favoritism in game, or they make out-of-game promises they don't really keep. This would suggest that no, they aren't trustworthy in general. Or maybe they've shown themselves in the past to be a really good GM, so what you think is railroading is actually setting up an intriguing story.

And what if they aren't a "problem...GM", but just a GM doing some problem things?

By your standard, I cannot address that at all. If they do something problematic and then merely tone it down, so that it isn't egregiously bad, and is instead a persistent but lesser problem, the player's only choice is to put up with it or meticulously document a string of problems.

But again, since you made the scenario up, how many times have you had to talk to a GM about things like this and gotten "trust me" as a response?

None. Because I don't play any style that puts the DM in absolute-power mode.

That's never happened to me even once in the ~35 years I've been gaming, so I honestly am curious to see how often it's happened to you... considering you had to invent a scenario where it happened.

I invented it BECAUSE YOU ASKED!

You cannot get mad at me for giving you an example that you asked for!

No, I haven't argued against it. I've said that leaving is OK. I said that about what happened with Hussar's group. What I've "argued" is that it's good to get information because it's a bad idea to go off without it, and that I don't feel like the scenario you presented is necessarily railroading.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.

The player has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the DM is doing something nefarious.

The DM merely needs to feel like a player is maybe not contributing enough.

I don't like that asymmetry. It's not justified by the contributions the DM is making. Nothing justifies that degree of asymmetry in a leisure-time activity.

 

[Lanefan]

...pixel-hunting is a form of railroading.

Where are you getting that from?

Pixel-hunting is a (IMO quite valid) type of play, sure, but not in itself a type of railroading.

I mean, sure, that's pretty obviously ham-fisted, but again my point here is: when you are presented with what even you agree is evidence of poor DMing, why is it we must then give them second and fourth and seventh and tenth chances? Particularly when the reverse is not true, as has been said repeatedly in this thread, DMs giving players no second chances, no re-tries, one strike and you're gone, bye-bye, never darken my door again.

Maybe said by other, but not by me.

I don't go by single incidents*, I look for overall mid-to-long-term patterns. Anyone can have a bad night, so what? But when those bad nights happen week after week because they're not bad night but just how that person is, there's a bigger problem that needs sorting.

* - barring something over the top such as physical violence, breaking things, full-on abuse, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

It’s also a pretty common recommendation in the OSR space to do what @pemerton was citing back from ole Gary with “drop them at the dungeon.” Let’s you see who survives, so you can start adding to those characters; gets some gold and renown building; avoids lots of back and forth around tavern hooks and stuff. Then when you get back to town loaded with treasure, kick the full “sandbox“ experience off as they figure out next steps. ‘S what I did with my Dolmenwood game - offered the players a couple hooks to pick from, and we started traveling up to the dungeon.

The way I see it, there's a pretty big difference between the two bolded things here.

The latter is fine. The former, not so much, unless it's a con game or similar.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Where are you getting that from?

Pixel-hunting is a (IMO quite valid) type of play, sure, but not in itself a type of railroading.

Railroading is, fundamentally, rejecting logically sound, reasonable approaches to a situation (problem, challenge, question, etc.) because only a single solution, or a very small set of solutions, will be accepted as valid/correct/whatever, even though multiple options do exist. Classic example is a party wanting to escape a town, where the DM repeatedly vetoes every possible escape route except escape by ship. Usually railroading occurs because the DM has a single specific goal/path/event in mind, but sometimes it occurs simply because the DM has a fixed idea of what a situation "needs" and rejects other options.

Pixel-hunting is, very much, a form of the above--it's just focused on the words/expression/technique element of "how one approaches a situation", rather than the conceptual or location side thereof. It's still "there is one and only one method I will accept, and everything else is unacceptable, even though other methods make sense." Now, with a few rare things this is fine, e.g. if a magic item needs a command word, you probably do need to know the specific word. But the vast majority of pixel-hunting isn't like that--there should be multiple options, logically, realistically, but there aren't.

I certainly admit that it is a lesser form of railroading (because, as I've said many times, I recognize a spectrum from the hardest of hard railroads to the widest and most open of sandboxes, with many points in-between), but it's far closer to railroading than to sandboxing.

Maybe said by other, but not by me.

Then I am supremely surprised. You would be one of the people I consider most strongly in favor of "my way or the highway" DM attitudes.

I don't go by single incidents*, I look for overall mid-to-long-term patterns. Anyone can have a bad night, so what? But when those bad nights happen week after week because they're not bad night but just how that person is, there's a bigger problem that needs sorting.

Okay. What about...let's call them "conspicuous" incidents. An incident that definitely doesn't rise to the level of "wow, that is flat out unacceptable"--but which is too much on its own to just let it slide without comment?

Because I feel like that sort of incident is pretty common. Not all the time, certainly, but usually once every several sessions. I, personally, have seen incidents in that general space--too big to be minor, much too small to be egregious--on a semi-regular basis. Thankfully, with pretty much all of my DMs (the one true stinker excluded), such "conspicuous" incidents have generally been self-addressed, where the DM in question actively put forward stuff to address it, or returned to it unprompted and reconsidered it. And since I don't play with DMs who hold attitudes like "the DM has absolute power within the game" or "the DM is always owed trust simply because they're the DM", there's always space for me to comment on the occasions where something isn't done about it first.

But with DMs who do adhere to such principles, well, given how common such "conspicuous" incidents have been IME, it seems...pretty much unavoidable that there will be an event like what I described above. Something where a player privately goes to their DM with (more or less) "what you did there made no sense, and having such a blatantly nonsensical event really bothered me, can we talk about it?" But the only solution offered, repeatedly, is "No, we can't. I'm the DM, you simply have to trust me." Which, for me, that instantly upgrades the severity of a conspicuous incident to a serious one. Like...if that happened even two times, I would be very, very strongly considering leaving, even though I really hate having to pay the social cost of leaving a gaming group. Even happening one time is a bright red flag. It's evidence, not a smoking gun but evidence nonetheless, that this DM doesn't really care what I think or feel, and is unbothered if I'm not having a good time.

* - barring something over the top such as physical violence, breaking things, full-on abuse, etc.

An entirely fair caveat, you won't hear me argue on that front. Truly egregious acts certainly exist.

It's just that it feels like pulling teeth to get DMs here on ENWorld to recognize that, for DM behavior, there are things between "truly egregious acts" and "issues so trivial nobody should ever really care". A lot of things between them, such as the above.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Definition of railroading: “anything I don’t like or don’t understand”.