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

[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.

But I think this might be part of the problem. Sometimes it feels like this is being approached as if it is a cultural battle, rather than just different approaches to playing games

 

[Campbell]

Not selling anyone on anything. Just trying to be part of the conversation. That's a big part of my frustrations. I should not have to sell any particular sort of play for it to get the same amount of assumed respect as any other mode of play. I should not have justify my right to exist or have particular play preferences. I'm not an evangelist. Nor do I want to be.

I just want to talk about games without having one sort of play be this overwhelming force in the discussion that requires everything be justified against it or being accused of being selfish or taking things too seriously from people who don't know what it's like to be on the other side of it. You know without having everything come down to norms and guardrails.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

Reflecting on the issue you raised regarding player agency, referee control, and the shared fiction, it felt familiar. Then it hit me: it raises the same concerns that Ron Edwards addresses in his essay "Narrativism: Story Now."

What Edwards calls The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is the contradiction that arises when a game assumes the referee is the sole author of the story, while players are also supposed to direct the actions of the protagonists. If the referee controls the story’s direction, then player choice becomes cosmetic. If player decisions matter, then the referee can’t pre-author the narrative. You can’t have both, at least, not without undercutting someone’s agency. That’s the core tension.

I see that your approach differs from Edwards’ in that it's more practical than theoretical. You’re focused on the procedures at the table, how control over the shared fiction is distributed through framing, resolution, and consequence, not just on abstract authorship. You're tracking agency through what happens in play, not through philosophical premises.

My living world sandbox avoids the contradiction Edwards raises because I’m not trying to tell a story or construct a narrative arc. I’m focused on presenting a setting that operates independently of the players, a world in motion. My goal is to bring that setting to life so that the players feel like they’ve truly been there as their characters, making meaningful decisions and pursuing the adventures they choose. If a story emerges, it does so after the fact, as an account of what happened, never because I authored it in advance.

Likewise, my campaigns don’t engage with the contradiction you’re pointing to, because we don’t treat the shared fiction as something co-authored by the group. The players understand that they are visiting a world that exists outside of them. The only way they affect it is through their characters’ actions. What changes is a result of play, not through any negotiated or shared control of the fiction.

Because of that, my campaigns aren’t railroads in the classical sense, where player choices are blocked or overridden. And with respect to your definition, where railroading is about the GM controlling all or most of the fiction, it’s simply not a concern for us. Neither I nor my players are trying to collaboratively build a story or manage narrative control. Like with Edwards’ Impossible Thing, the premise doesn’t apply. The players are focused on experiencing the world as it is, and testing how much they can change it through what their characters actually do.

Your concern about control over the shared fiction makes sense given the creative goals you’ve laid out. But it doesn’t apply to the kind of experience a Living World Sandbox is designed to deliver. In fact, anything that gives players narrative control beyond their characters' abilities tends to undermine the experience they’re seeking. This isn’t just theory, my players and I tried Whimsy Cards back in the '90s, and we’ve explored games like Fate and other systems that shift narrative authority. They consistently pulled us out of the feeling of “being there,” and that immersion is central to what my players are after.

So circling back, your points make perfect sense given what you’re trying to do with your campaigns. My approach doesn’t engage with those questions, not because they’re invalid, but because they’re not relevant to the creative goals I’m pursuing. That doesn’t diminish your position or Edwards’. It simply underscores that we’re solving different problems in pursuit of different play experiences.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I get different language can arise. But over time there has been a clear rift here between, for lack of better language, sandbox/trad and narrative/theory driven play (we could use 80 different terms here and they would all probably be wrong). And it is obvious that one rhetorical tactic had been to capture the language used by the sandbox crowd and invert it. You see this in the ‘sandbox is actual just a bunch of railroad’ threads all the time. Also when other style of play actually gone up: I am completely open to them as valid. I never said for example that sandbox play had to be trad. I was completely fine with a variety of approaches in sandbox because I think a big tent is better than a small one. But I think it is fair to push back on theory or language that seems like it is trying to undermine the validity of the styles I enjoy



Part of this is the context of the thread. The thread is about how exhausted a poster feels by the perceived conservatism of D&D fans. And part of it is there is valid reason to be defensive. I think a lot of the rhetoric I am complaining about deserves criticism



I hope so. I don’t enjoy constantly arguing about this stuff. I think it is unhelpful. But sometimes it is inevitable because a lot of the rhetoric in these threads becomes very provocative, some even veers into sophistry in my opinion, and there is a need to be frank and clear when that happens

Honestly, I have to fall back on what @hawkeyefan says. I've played a lot of what I would call 'trad' play nowadays, along with various other flavors. I'm not hostile to it, maybe a little bored with some of it. I'm not here to bash anything.

I've played in 5e campaigns, several times, that I would categorize as probably very similar to what you or RC or others here generally run. Those games absolutely are different in character from Narrativist ones. Yet when I articulate that plainly and in an effective fashion, I'm told I've committed some sort of ideological sin. Sorry, but nobody owns language.

 

[AlViking]

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.

How do you figure that agency has been redefined? Because a quick search gives me the definition "Agency refers to the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own choices in a given environment. It encompasses the ability to take action based on one's intentions and goals, often influenced by social structures and personal experiences."

So in a standard D&D game where the player is only responsible for their character, they have the dictionary definition of agency if they can act independently and make their own choices. It doesn't even technically mean that their decisions and actions make any difference, although I think most people think there should at least be a chance to make a difference. In other words I feel like I have agency in reality even if I can't always achieve success. I don't control the world, I don't control what other people say and feel.

So when people say that agency means anything more than what it means for a real person it seems to me that they're the ones redefining the meaning of the word.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No it isn't. It's about forcing the players. The DM can in fact control most of the fiction without it being a railroad.

No

 

[robertsconley]

No it isn't. It's about forcing the players. The DM can in fact control most of the fiction without it being a railroad.

No

That kind of one-word dismissal doesn’t really advance the discussion. If you disagree with Maxperson’s claim that the referee can control most of the fiction without it being a railroad, then say why. Otherwise, it just shuts down the exchange instead of clarifying the disagreement.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Well, there is a definitional disagreement, as well. And I'd not dismiss that in this context.

The common definition that you are quoting is what it is for reasons. Pemerton has his definition, also for his own reasons.
And, when we get to considering critique, I expect the differences between those reasons will also be indicative of differences between what pemerton cares about vs what the more common cares are.

As in, pemerton is apt to find things to be a valid critique that others will shrug at and go, "I don't see that as a big deal". In conflating the terminology, pemerton (perhaps unintentionally, but effectively) acts to co-opt other peoples' positions into his own, which will also lead to disagreement when folks run up against it happening.

 

[robertsconley]

Yet when I articulate that plainly and in an effective fashion, I'm told I've committed some sort of ideological sin. Sorry, but nobody owns language.

Without knowing the specifics of what you’re referring to, all I can say is this: look at what I said earlier about @pemerton’s use of “railroading” versus the more common usage. Or the earlier posts about shared control over the fiction as a creative goal for some posters here. Unless there’s a meeting of the minds on what’s actually being discussed, people end up talking past each other, debating definitions, reframing terms, and getting frustrated. That doesn’t move the conversation forward; it just generates heat.

And to be clear, clarity is the responsibility of everyone involved in a discussion. Both sides have an obligation to ask for clarification when things aren’t clear, rather than making assumptions.

 

[Umbran]

And to be clear, clarity is the responsibility of everyone involved in a discussion. Both sides have an obligation to ask for clarification when things aren’t clear, rather than making assumptions.

Unfortunately, when terms have been redefined, one may not realize that things aren't clear for some time, such that argument and ill-will is generated before anyone realizes the actual problem.

There are times and places in which an author can demand readers use the author's particular/idiosyncratic definition - an open messageboard isn't usually one of them.