D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Thomas Shey]

This is why I endeavour to have my houserules determined before the campaign begins, so that I can tell them to the players and they can make informed character building decisions.

Yeah. I reserve on-the-fly changes for absolute emergencies, and late-in-the-day houserules for things that just didn't show their problems early on, and more than half the time that's as much by player request as anything.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They all are artistic decisions,

They're far more than just that, and if you're charging for the privilege, I even more conclude the players should have some input if its not a case of one off sessions.

and I'm charging $50 per face per session for my artistic decisions. If a player doesn't want that, there's like ten other GMs in the same community, probably three times more in all others, and chances are, they'll have to deal with way less diva behaviour at that other tables.

If you think anything about this paragraph made me conclude there's less problems here, I have to disabuse you.

It's not player's job to make design decisions. Okay, it isn't GM's job either, it's the job of the designer. And if you put on big designer pants, then you have to take big designer responsibility. What if the house rule is bad? In my case, it's my fault, and I'll drop it or rework it -- but if it was a collective decision, then who is to blame? Everyone is much more inclined to stick to it, even if it turns out to worsen the overall experience.

Not my experience, and I maintain its as much the players (note the collective) to make those decisions as the GM.

 

[bloodtide]

Sure, but I think we can focus on what you offered in the examples and don’t really have to worry about a broad application oftbe term.

The GM forcing things in a certain direction is railroading. If he’s clumsy about it, it’s very obvious. If he’s clever about it, it may be nearly undetectable.

For those who don’t like railroading, neither is acceptable.

Well, my examples are examples of Railroading.....

But where do you draw the line with "force"?

One of my fixes is for a DM to make good, detailed NPCs. So a DM makes a NPC with a ring of fire protection. Sometime later in the game a player shoots a fire bolt at the NPC that has no effect....and the player whines and cries "the DM is Railroading".

 

[Mort]

Well, my examples are examples of Railroading.....

But where do you draw the line with "force"?

One of my fixes is for a DM to make good, detailed NPCs. So a DM makes a NPC with a ring of fire protection. Sometime later in the game a player shoots a fire bolt at the NPC that has no effect....and the player whines and cries "the DM is Railroading".

The player is likely using the term railroading wrong then. Because, railroaded into what? Not using firebolt? I mean, if the players started using firebolt and suddenly EVERY NPC was immune to fire, then they might have a point.

 

[bloodtide]

6. Let's say, for example, what adventure says that he has to face a dragon burned in village E. They can go to villages D, F or G, but in none of them there are useful weapons, allies or clues against the dragon, and and the dragon attacks the PCs after five days regardless of what they do.

This is not really Railroading.

Guess I would want to ask the player here why would any of the villages have useful weapons, allies or clues ? They could, sure. But why think they “must have” something? The map could be covered with useful weapons, allies or clues unknown to the players and PCs, but nothing says they must be in the villages. The dragon, for some likely reasons, will attack in five days. But going to the villages won’t stop that. In this case, the only ways to stop the dragon are things that directly effect the dragon. Like, for example attacking and slaying the dragon before the five days are up.

Often enough in a game, the PCs can’t “do” anything to change events or change what is happening. The PCs are just a small group of people, and often not kings or demigods. They can only really effect things on the small scale, and with considerable effort.

 

[loverdrive]

If the DM just makes an honest mistake, and puts the NPC in harms way, then they could use the advice to keep the NPC alive.

Foolishness deserves punishment. By magicianing some get out of jail free card out of a backside hat, one allows their own foolishness to fester.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Or maybe character death isn't the most interesting choice as far as consequences go?

Dunno. Might be worth a thought.


Yes, I'm aware of the stylistic difference. I don't enjoy that kind of play. I find it, frankly, somewhere between "tedious" and "actively unpleasant".


It's not a disparity between expectation and practice.

It's a disparity between described offering and practice.

The thing you describe is fundamentally unheroic, isn't really much of an adventure and is instead a heist, and isn't about characters but rather about environments.

D&D has not billed itself as an unheroic heist-of-the-month environmental-challenge logistics-focused game since at least 3e, and arguably well before that; the shift got its first start all the way back in 1e, and was already well underway by early 2e. D&D has, by now, long billed itself as a heroic adventure-of-the-month conflict-challenge* group-focused game, which has fundamentally different dynamics from the previous description. Instead of amoral heisters, D&D is looking at moralized (but not necessarily moral themselves) adventurers; whether righting wrongs or wronging rights, the focus is on moral context, not on amount of wealth one can extract from a murder-hole. Instead of looking at things in terms of environmental obstacles and the logistics necessary to navigate them, it is focused on aligned or conflicting priorities and the group jointly responding to or advancing some priorities over others.

I'm interested in playing the game D&D has told me--for essentially all of my life--that it is about. I appreciate that you are looking at this from the perspective of someone wanting to play the game you originally played, the game you were originally sold and told about, the thing advertised to you as what D&D was about. I think that style merits inclusion. I just don't think it's been what D&D has been about for, at this point, something like 30-35 years.

*Note that "conflict" does not solely mean "combat". Conflict can occur on various levels. Further, it's not that environment and logistics don't at all matter, they just aren't the primary focus.

Actually, my experience is that D&D, certainly explicitly since 1e PHB, has advertised itself as heroic fantasy. Except for 4e it has never delivered that. I mean, maybe inconsistently here and there at certain levels, for certain definitions of heroic. 5e might be able to do it, kinda, if the GM knows his stuff and really tries, if you squint.

My point was more that, if you play it you should expect the game it is suited to deliver! Actual heroic fantasy seems pretty much missing in RPGs.

 

[payn]

Actually, my experience is that D&D, certainly explicitly since 1e PHB, has advertised itself as heroic fantasy. Except for 4e it has never delivered that. I mean, maybe inconsistently here and there at certain levels, for certain definitions of heroic. 5e might be able to do it, kinda, if the GM knows his stuff and really tries, if you squint.

My point was more that, if you play it you should expect the game it is suited to deliver! Actual heroic fantasy seems pretty much missing in RPGs.

If you don’t mind me asking what does “heroic fantasy” mean to you? Honest question as @EzekielRaiden spent considerable description I could follow along. I’m curious for more details.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you don’t mind me asking what does “heroic fantasy” mean to you? Honest question as @EzekielRaiden spent considerable description I could follow along. I’m curious for more details.

I mean where the PCs are big darn heroes and the focus is on heroic action vs a lot of detailed exploration, logistics, etc. If you literally read the 1e PHB, the introduction/preface it TALKS ABOUT being Conan or Elric or something, but the actual game is nothing like that. As written it's more like grubbing around worrying about torches and ambushing goblins for coin.

 

[payn]

I mean where the PCs are big darn heroes and the focus is on heroic action vs a lot of detailed exploration, logistics, etc. If you literally read the 1e PHB, the introduction/preface it TALKS ABOUT being Conan or Elric or something, but the actual game is nothing like that. As written it's more like grubbing around worrying about torches and ambushing goblins for coin.

Gotcha. Yeap, what they really meant is if you are lucky and survive to a level high enough, your character can be like Conan. You have to earn it though; blah. Im definitely over the skill play survival sim D&D. Or I should say that is a one shot night type stuff for me. If im gonna play a campaign, I want a capable character actually like Conan for most if not all of it.