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

[Bedrockgames]

I probably need to clarify. I'm sure you play Hillfolk because it appeals to you. I guess what I mean is, you point out your play of that game like it immunizes your analysis of other forms of play from being criticized.

That isn't why I mention Hillfolk though. I don't see why it would immunize me from criticism. I usually mention it to show I play games well outside the framework I am talking about. Because in those conversations, if you are defending the traditional GM authority or a 'trad' game, people will make condescending remarks about you not having exposure to other games or only playing D&D (and the reason why I take exception to it is because I didn't even start on D&D, and I have always played lots of other games). And in those threads, when people are talking about games I don't know as well, like Burning Wheel, I usually ask for clarification on the relevant mechanic or design feature

Honestly, I'm sure playing it gave you some different perspectives, I'm not super familiar with it, so I can't comment on that much. There are simply different experiences we all have, and to say we are supposed to only talk about them using certain words in certain ways won't fly.

I isn't about saying people can only talk about certain words. It is about a word having a widespread use in the hobby like Railroading, Agency,etc. Or about a style having a particular feature (like embracing player freedom); but then instead of trying to persuade people by just talking about differences in approach, the language gets captured (and this most definitely happens in these discussions). That aspect is very frustrating because it is like the words you use are turned upside down, and suddenly sandboxes dont embrace agency, sandboxes are just railroads. That kind of rhetoric doesn't advance discussion. It just irritates people

 

[Thomas Shey]

The choice of the loaded word "rant" is interesting.

Yeah. With Bloodtide its probably just part of his schtick, but I've noted the built in assumption in phrasing on a number of people that a player bringing a problem up to the GM is wrong as a default by their choice of words.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I disagree.

Noted.

 

[robertsconley]

My tastes in terms of genre are pretty conventional: mostly fantasy, a bit of sci-fi, a touch of contemporary.

The RPGs I mostly play are dungeon-crawling D&D (my house-ruled variant of the c 1978 version), scene-frame-y D&D (the 2008 version), PbtA-ish Traveller (my modest variation on the 1977 version), Prince Valiant (1989), Burning Wheel (I mostly use the 2005 version, with a few elements from later versions ported in) and Torchbearer 2e (2021). None of this is very radical; it's only the rhetoric of some posters that sometimes makes me feel otherwise.

I don't know if I have a precise sense of what counts as a RPG. I do have a reasonable sense of what makes for a fairly conventional RPG:

*Central to play is the creation and the change, over the course of play, of a shared fiction;​

​

*This creation doesn't take place in a "writers' room" fashion - rather, there are distinct and asymmetric roles for the participants;​

​

*The GM has a special responsibility for the backstory/setting, and draws on this to present fictional situations to the players;​

​

*The players have a special responsibility for particular characters, who are present within the situations the GM presents, and who respond as described/declared by their players;​

​

*The players' declared actions generate changes to the shared fiction.​

The different ways of doing this are what makes for a system.

Most often, I see "system" used to refer to published rules text - so D&D 5e, or AD&D, or 1981 Traveller, etc, all count as "systems". And secondarily, I see it used to refer to some components of an action resolution method - mostly, the basic framework for characterising difficulties, together with how to generate a dice roll result (eg d% roll low against a fixed skill number; or roll, add a bonus, and reach a target number; etc). When used in this way, the principles that govern the setting of the difficulty, the consequences of the check, and the like, are not normally included as part of the system.

But when I think of system in an analytic/explanatory context, I think of the method - the procedures, principles, heuristics, mechanics, etc - used to work out the content of the shared fiction, and how it changes. At a minimum, system includes the GM's methods for undertaking and using prep; how the ingame situation is established, and presented to the players; how actions are declared by players, and what counts as a permissible action declaration; and how consequences of actions are established.

For me, RPGing is about the shared fiction and how it changes. And in a conventional RPG, that's all about the relationship between framing of scenes/presentation of situations (by the GM), declaration of actions (by the players, for their PCs) and what follows from those declared actions (consequences and outcomes).

Thanks for sharing this, and it clarifies your approach.

@Bedrockgames loves the Wuxia genre, and we had several discussions about the genre and tabletop roleplaying. I even participated in a session and had fun. While I am not a fan of the genre, or well-versed in it. Luckily, I do like the Hidden Dragon and Crouching Tiger movies, so I used that to figure out how to roleplay my character.

And despite our disagreements, I can clearly see the thought and effort you put into your campaigns. While I haven’t played Torchbearer or Burning Wheel, I have played other games in that orbit, like Blades in the Dark and Fate, and I’ve refereed Fate.

So the more the GM controls of all this - where, as I've posted upthread (making the analogy to other games, like chess and bridge), control is not the same as authority - the more of a railroad it is: the GM is controlling the shared fiction (perhaps in response to player prompts). The converse of this is player agency - the players exercising control over the shared fiction. The asymmetric roles in the game mean that the GM will always have some control, particularly via framing and some aspects of outcome/consequence. But when the GM has all of it, or most of it - eg all the players are doing is to declare what actions their PCs take, but all the rest is with the GM - then that's what I call a railroad.

I understand the issue you are raising and it make sense given what you outlined about approach your previously. Yet you receive a lot of push back on this point from others including from myself.

Why is this? To illustrate look at this statement of yours.

But when the GM has all of it, or most of it - eg all the players are doing is to declare what actions their PCs take, but all the rest is with the GM - then that's what I call a railroad.

This is not how hobbyists understand railroading.

This essay in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide is typical of how railroading is thought of.

This concept has persisted to the present, with little change. As illustrated by this post on reddit from four years ago.

Your definition re-frames railroading in terms of player agency, specifically, the degree to which players co-author or control the shared fiction. That is a significant shift in terminology, and it’s not one that most players or referees will immediately recognize. The result is confusion, your critique gets mistaken for a definitional disagreement rather than illustrating your main points.

To be clear, this does not diminish your point. The issues you’re pointing out make sense, and your solution is consistent with the points you raised. What you posted in response to @Campbell was clear, well-written, and consistent with your view of RPG play. But when you use "railroading" in a way that diverges so sharply from common usage, it obscures the real point you’re making.

 

[AlViking]

Yeah. With Bloodtide its probably just part of his schtick, but I've noted the built in assumption in phrasing on a number of people that a player bringing a problem up to the GM is wrong as a default by their choice of words.

First, I enjoy a good rant now and then.

Second I've never had a GM say that we couldn't discuss an issue, just that unless it's something important like a character dying they don't want to spend a lot of time in the middle of the game discussing it. I'm not overly concerned about the hypothetical GM that never listens because I always have the freedom to walk away.

 

[Thomas Shey]

First, I enjoy a good rant now and then.

Second I've never had a GM say that we couldn't discuss an issue, just that unless it's something important like a character dying they don't want to spend a lot of time in the middle of the game discussing it. I'm not overly concerned about the hypothetical GM that never listens because I always have the freedom to walk away.

Whereas I've seen ones don't, either directly or by putting it off until later (which at best can create a situation were the actual result of the bad decision can be difficult to fix, more likely just shrugged off with a "we'll remember next time", and at worst never leaves time to discuss it), and I've heard of many more.

So here we are.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thanks for sharing this, and it clarifies your approach.

@Bedrockgames loves the Wuxia genre, and we had several discussions about the genre and tabletop roleplaying. I even participated in a session and had fun. Luckily, I am not a fan of the genre and am not well-versed in it. I do like the Hidden Dragon and Crouching Tiger movies, so I used that to figure out how to roleplay my character.

Lately I have been recommending Web of Death to people to introduce the genre, because it has a lot of broad appeal. It is highly watchable if you are okay with a bit of cheese

 

[AlViking]

Whereas I've seen ones don't, either directly or by putting it off until later (which at best can create a situation were the actual result of the bad decision can be difficult to fix, more likely just shrugged off with a "we'll remember next time", and at worst never leaves time to discuss it), and I've heard of many more.

So here we are.

As GM I have a lot going on and I may or may not remember at the end of the game every question someone asked. As far as I'm concerned it's up to the player to remind me at which point I'll be happy to discuss. I don't expect GM's to be perfect though, or to always rule the way I would.

I also don't see how there's much you can do to resolve issues in whatever style of game you play or methodology you use unless you stop the game for a drawn out discussion during the middle of the session. It doesn't really have much to do with GM authority, if 2 people disagree on how a rule works, a decision has to be made somehow.

 

[Campbell]

The language is already captured. It was captured before we got here. It's an artifact of a culture of play that normalizes GM storytelling and has modified what agency means contextually away from its dictionary definition so that when people like younger versions of myself express their frustration that they feel a lack of agency because they are not making much of an impact on the shared fiction that their expectations are too high. It's language that reinforces cultural values.

Then when we opt to use other language designed to fit our points we are told it's not neutral to use things like GM force or nudging. We get told that we must use language that leaves no space for us. That describes in any way what other forms of gaming bring us that we are not getting from the dominant modes of play.

Even terms of art like GM Moves or Kickers are viewed with suspicion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The language is already captured. It was captured before we got here. It's an artifact of a culture of play that normalizes GM storytelling and has modified what agency means contextually away from its dictionary definition so that when people like younger versions of myself express their frustration that they feel a lack of agency because they are not making much of an impact on the shared fiction that their expectations are too high. It's language that reinforces cultural values.

Then when we opt to use other language designed to fit our points we are told it's not neutral to use things like GM force or nudging. We get told that we must use language that leaves no space for us. That describes in any way what other forms of gaming bring us that we are not getting from the dominant modes of play.

Even terms of art like GM Moves or Kickers are viewed with suspicion.

It isn't just the language. The language wouldn't be an issue on its own if there were simply two vocabularies that happened to develop side by side. The issue when it feels like words are being usurped in the midst of aggressive argumentation. While I have been pushing back on a lot of the language and some of the rhetorical tactics, I have tried to make clear I have a very live and let live attitude when it comes to systems, mechanics and styles. But these conversations usually aren't just 'here is another way to play the game, and it approaches things in a slightly different way'. Often it is just an attack on an existing style (i.e. are sandboxes really freedom to explore? can you ever avoid a railroad if the GM is not constrained?). When people capture language and treat it as a zero sum game, it frustrates people and it doesn't win folks over to what you are selling. My point is this is not a good sales pitch.