D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

I recently read something online that said that a D&D GM is not really bound by any rules: for instance, they're not bound in any meaningful way by AC rules, or hp rules, because they can specify whatever numbers they like as the attack bonus and damage dice of NPCs/creatures who attack the PCs.

That's railroading!

It always surprises me how people can think that this isn't cheating. "Oh, sure, there are numbers and rules, I just break them whenever I feel like it."

Yeah...this is why I always have a good conversation with the GM of a game about these kinds of things before agreeing to join a campaign. If the answer includes things like "it's okay to fudge rolls/hp" or "the GM doesn't have to abide by the rules" then I know I won't have any discernible agency in their game. Especially the dice fudging thing, my most hated of GM cheating techniques. I love to ask GMs that are proponents of dice fudging if it's okay for the players to fudge dice too. For some strange reason, most of them simply refuse to answer the question, which tells me everything I need to know.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah...this is why I always have a good conversation with the GM of a game about these kinds of things before agreeing to join a campaign. If the answer includes things like "it's okay to fudge rolls/hp" or "the GM doesn't have to abide by the rules" then I know I won't have any discernible agency in their game. Especially the dice fudging thing, my most hated of GM cheating techniques. I love to ask GMs that are proponents of dice fudging if it's okay for the players to fudge dice too. For some strange reason, most of them simply refuse to answer the question, which tells me everything I need to know.

The example I gave wasn't fudging dice: rather, making choices like "If the PC has AC 20, then give the NPC a +15 attack bonus" or "If the PC has 100 hp, then give the NPC 6d12 damage dice" or "If the PC has +15 Stealth, then give the NPC Passive Perception of 30".

Stuff like that, where the numbers that establish the opposition are not set in any principled fashion other than to generate the desired outcome regardless of the numbers on the players' sheets.

The contrast, for me - and sticking to the context of D&D - would be:

(A) Classic D&D, where the GM populates dungeons in advance and the players get to make reasoned choices about which dungeon level to explore;

(B) 4e D&D, where there is a tight (if intricate) correlation and feedback process between NPC levels, encounter levels, XP accrued, treasure parcels gained, milestones reached, etc; as well as a system of monster knowledge checks which can enable the players to identify what sort of situation the PCs find themselves in.

 

[bloodtide]

I recently read something online that said that a D&D GM is not really bound by any rules: for instance, they're not bound in any meaningful way by AC rules, or hp rules, because they can specify whatever numbers they like as the attack bonus and damage dice of NPCs/creatures who attack the PCs.

That's railroading!

A DM just being a DM is not Railroading.

How can the "rules" matter when a DM can do anything? When a DM makes a monster or NPC they can make the numbers whatever they want: this is one of the basic things DMs do.

It always surprises me how people can think that this isn't cheating. "Oh, sure, there are numbers and rules, I just break them whenever I feel like it."

Most RPGs don't have 5,000 page rule books telling a DM every little thing they can do. It is much easier to say "DMs can do anything".

But the GM making the risks, the stakes, and the consequences be whatever they want, so that the players can't in any reliable way try and impact and control what is happening in the fiction, is (in my view) railroading.

I guess there are games where the DM does not do much? In nearly all traditional games, the DM has to a lot....just about everything for the game.

Stuff like that, where the numbers that establish the opposition are not set in any principled fashion other than to generate the desired outcome regardless of the numbers on the players' sheets.

I can agree the direct DM vs player stuff is bad. For the DM to just randomly say "oh all the orcs have elf bane/elf slaying weapons" when the PC is an elf.

After that though.....things are fuzzy. If a DM makes a powerful foe with a +12 to hit, any player can whine "the DM make that just to hit my high ac character!". Except, powerful foes will have high 'to hits'. The same way 'guards' will have high chances to spot sneaky foes....it what a guard does.

(A) Classic D&D, where the GM populates dungeons in advance and the players get to make reasoned choices about which dungeon level to explore;

So this is the classic "the DM can do whatever they want, as long as it is before the game?". So the DM can have the +10 foe as long as he says "Oh, I made this foe last Sunday".

 

[MichaelSomething]

Yeah...this is why I always have a good conversation with the GM of a game about these kinds of things before agreeing to join a campaign. If the answer includes things like "it's okay to fudge rolls/hp" or "the GM doesn't have to abide by the rules" then I know I won't have any discernible agency in their game. Especially the dice fudging thing, my most hated of GM cheating techniques. I love to ask GMs that are proponents of dice fudging if it's okay for the players to fudge dice too. For some strange reason, most of them simply refuse to answer the question, which tells me everything I need to know.

I don't mind not fudging if you don't mind your character not living!

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don't mind not fudging if you don't mind your character not living!

I don't. That's the point. If my PC is immortal, why bother wasting the time playing out a combat encounter. Just tell me about how my immortal PC once again laid waste to my mortal foes and get on with the game. The whole point of a combat encounter is to feel tension, brought on by the fear that my PC might not survive. If I know my PC is going to survive, no matter what the rules or dice dictate, all the tension is gone. The combat encounter then becomes utterly pointless and downright boring. I have no interest in spending an appreciable amount of time in a session playing out a combat encounter that has the foregone conclusion; I win, because I am immortal and my opponent is not. I could instead spend that time engaging in different tension building encounters where failure might actually be an option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't. That's the point. If my PC is immortal, why bother wasting the time playing out a combat encounter. Just tell me about how my immortal PC once again laid waste to my mortal foes and get on with the game. The whole point of a combat encounter is to feel tension, brought on by the fear that my PC might not survive. If I know my PC is going to survive, no matter what the rules or dice dictate, all the tension is gone. The combat encounter then becomes utterly pointless and downright boring. I have no interest in spending an appreciable amount of time in a session playing out a combat encounter that has the foregone conclusion; I win, because I am immortal and my opponent is not. I could instead spend that time engaging in different tension building encounters where failure might actually be an option.

While I understand that you see character death as absolutely necessary for any actions to have any meaning, there really are other perspectives. As someone who appreciates those other perspectives, I often feel frustrated by the disparaging terms used for such things. It's more complicated than "death is everywhere, thus real consequences" vs "no death whatsoever, thus zero consequences".

Death is a very obvious and straightforward consequence. I find it is often not as interesting or impactful as other kinds of consequences. Much of fiction, in fact, is driven on the idea that characters will still get satisfying arcs--that they won't be killed by just any old thing, because we want to see things come to an interesting conclusion. That's not how real life works, to be sure, but neither heroic fantasy, nor murder-hole-delving for fantastical riches, is how real life works either, even when we exclude the supernatural elements. As a good example, in my experience, the point of combat is not whether you survive, but rather, whether you pay a price too great. There are times where survival is actually less valuable than completing the objective--and there are times where merely surviving would be at absolute best a Pyrrhic victory, and more likely a bitter defeat.

This most certainly requires investment on the players' part and effort on the GM's part to produce meaningful, worthwhile consequences. But I think it is an effort well worth pursuing--and I believe that, in most cases, it produces a game that encourages players to truly care about what happens, rather than what I have seen too many times in games that focus too much on death as the only important consequence.

 

[zarionofarabel]

While I understand that you see character death as absolutely necessary for any actions to have any meaning, there really are other perspectives. As someone who appreciates those other perspectives, I often feel frustrated by the disparaging terms used for such things. It's more complicated than "death is everywhere, thus real consequences" vs "no death whatsoever, thus zero consequences".

Nope, didn't say meaning or consequences. I said tension specifically. Combat without tension is boring for me, and I feel no tension in a combat encounter unless my PC's life is actually in danger.

Death is a very obvious and straightforward consequence. I find it is often not as interesting or impactful as other kinds of consequences. Much of fiction, in fact, is driven on the idea that characters will still get satisfying arcs--that they won't be killed by just any old thing, because we want to see things come to an interesting conclusion. That's not how real life works, to be sure, but neither heroic fantasy, nor murder-hole-delving for fantastical riches, is how real life works either, even when we exclude the supernatural elements.

Fiction also includes arcs that are either not completed, or come to an unsatisfying conclusion. I happen to be okay with that happening in a story as it is a feature of a lot of the fiction I enjoy. I don't really enjoy most action or superhero movies cause I know, no matter what happens, the hero is going to prevail. Give me something like Game Of Thrones, where I never know whether or not the hero is actually going to win. Then at least I can feel tension over what is going to possibly happen, instead of just watching yet another choreographed fight sequence or CGI special effects extravaganza. Both of which, are in essence, filler, as the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

As a good example, in my experience, the point of combat is not whether you survive, but rather, whether you pay a price too great. There are times where survival is actually less valuable than completing the objective--and there are times where merely surviving would be at absolute best a Pyrrhic victory, and more likely a bitter defeat.

Not sure I understand, as generally speaking, my PC's demise would prevent me from completing any objective associated with said combat encounter. Unless you mean something about the fact that my PC ended the lives of some NPCs. In which case the "price" is still payed whether or not the combat is actually played out or simply narrated. Either way, the NPCs lives were still ended by my PCs actions. I just didn't have to waste an hour of my real life playing out a combat encounter where the outcome was decided before it began. As for merely surviving; that kind of baffles me as not surviving means I will have failed my objective. In a game where my PC genuinely faces the consequence of death during combat means my PC is not going to enter into combat unless that is the only option to complete my objective. My PC isn't going to get into a fight for "the fun of it" as risking life and limb isn't worth it unless there is a tangible objective worth such risks. Unless of course combat is forced upon my PC, in which case, surviving would be the objective.

This most certainly requires investment on the players' part and effort on the GM's part to produce meaningful, worthwhile consequences. But I think it is an effort well worth pursuing--and I believe that, in most cases, it produces a game that encourages players to truly care about what happens, rather than what I have seen too many times in games that focus too much on death as the only important consequence.

There are all kinds of meaningful worthwhile consequences that can be found in games that don't feature any combat at all. It's the act of playing out a combat encounter, where the PCs face no real risk, is where the problem lies for me. It's just filler in that case. I would rather spend my time in a session working towards fulfilling objectives with meaningful consequences. I do care what happens. That's why I don't want to waste time playing out combat encounters that are nothing but filler, when I could instead be using that time engaging in activities that involve something I actually care about.

 

[pemerton]

I don't. That's the point. If my PC is immortal, why bother wasting the time playing out a combat encounter. Just tell me about how my immortal PC once again laid waste to my mortal foes and get on with the game. The whole point of a combat encounter is to feel tension, brought on by the fear that my PC might not survive. If I know my PC is going to survive, no matter what the rules or dice dictate, all the tension is gone. The combat encounter then becomes utterly pointless and downright boring. I have no interest in spending an appreciable amount of time in a session playing out a combat encounter that has the foregone conclusion; I win, because I am immortal and my opponent is not. I could instead spend that time engaging in different tension building encounters where failure might actually be an option.

While I understand that you see character death as absolutely necessary for any actions to have any meaning, there really are other perspectives. As someone who appreciates those other perspectives, I often feel frustrated by the disparaging terms used for such things. It's more complicated than "death is everywhere, thus real consequences" vs "no death whatsoever, thus zero consequences".

Death is a very obvious and straightforward consequence. I find it is often not as interesting or impactful as other kinds of consequences. Much of fiction, in fact, is driven on the idea that characters will still get satisfying arcs--that they won't be killed by just any old thing, because we want to see things come to an interesting conclusion. That's not how real life works, to be sure, but neither heroic fantasy, nor murder-hole-delving for fantastical riches, is how real life works either, even when we exclude the supernatural elements. As a good example, in my experience, the point of combat is not whether you survive, but rather, whether you pay a price too great. There are times where survival is actually less valuable than completing the objective--and there are times where merely surviving would be at absolute best a Pyrrhic victory, and more likely a bitter defeat.

This most certainly requires investment on the players' part and effort on the GM's part to produce meaningful, worthwhile consequences. But I think it is an effort well worth pursuing--and I believe that, in most cases, it produces a game that encourages players to truly care about what happens, rather than what I have seen too many times in games that focus too much on death as the only important consequence.

Defeat in combat doesn't have to mean death. I know that in D&D that's the default; but it's possible to narrate being dropped to zero hp in other terms. In 4e D&D, this is a possibility regardless of attack mode - instead the target is knocked unconscious. The one time I "TPKed" the PCs when GMing 4e, only one of the PCs literally died (the events of the combat dropped his hp below zero negative bloodied); the others I narrated as unconscious, being taken prisoner by the Goblins whose spirit summoner had conjured the undead spirits that defeated the PCs.

4e even made that PC death easy to handle. The Goblins took his body, too, back to their caves, where he was laid out as an offering. But the PC's god brought him back to life: as GM, first I free-formed the conversation between dead PC spirit and god, and then - when it was determined that the god was indeed sending the PC's spirit back to the mortal realm - I deducted the cost of a Raise Dead ritual from the treasure parcels for that level.

A non-D&D RPG that I like a lot is Torchbearer 2e. It has a conflict resolution system that is very different from D&D's, and is applicable to a wide variety of conflicts (eg various sorts of social conflict; dealing with spirits; flight and pursuit; as well as combat). Within the scope of combat, it distinguishes Kill, Capture and Drive-Off conflicts - the mechanical resolution structure is the same, but the relevant stats differ, and so do the stakes and potential consequences. Only a Kill conflict puts death on the line as a possible consequence, and a Kill conflict will come about either because the players choose to initiate it (here's an actual play example with two Kill conflicts in close succession), or because the players failed a check, which thus licenses the GM to introduce a twist, and the GM's twist is a Kill conflict (here's another actual play example, with two such instances in close succession). In more than twenty sessions of play, we've had pretty few Kill conflicts - maybe half-a-dozen or so - but the combats still have plenty of heft and consequence. The PCs have found themselves driven off, or captured.

As well as combat, death is also a possible consequence if a player fails a check for their PC when their PC is Sick or Injured (these are the two most serious conditions in the game). But the GM has to announce, before the check is resolved, that death is on the line, so that the player has the chance to put as much "oomph" into the check as they want to. (Here's an example of this in play.)

And if a PC does die, the player may (if they have the requisite Persona point unspent) declare that their PC has The Will to Live. This is a mechanical process, where the PC undergoes some non-trivial mechanical adjustments, but miraculously survives what otherwise would certainly have been fatal. (The first play report I linked to in this post has two examples of PCs having The Will to Live.)

The mechanical details of TB2e, and the resulting scope of stakes and consequences, aren't directly portable into D&D. But the 4e example I've given shows how something in the same general neighbourhood is possible.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Defeat in combat doesn't have to mean death. I know that in D&D that's the default; but it's possible to narrate being dropped to zero hp in other terms. In 4e D&D, this is a possibility regardless of attack mode - instead the target is knocked unconscious. The one time I "TPKed" the PCs when GMing 4e, only one of the PCs literally died (the events of the combat dropped his hp below zero); the others I narrated as unconscious, being taken prisoner by the Goblins whose spirit summoner had conjured the undead spirits that defeated the PCs.

4e even made that PC death easy to handle. The Goblins took his body, too, back to their caves, where he was laid out as an offering. But the PC's god brought him back to life: as GM, first I free-formed the conversation between dead PC spirit and god, and then - when it was determined that the god was indeed sending the PC's spirit back to the mortal realm - I deducted the cost of a Raise Dead ritual from the treasure parcels for that level.

A non-D&D RPG that I like a lot is Torchbearer 2e. It has a conflict resolution system that is very different from D&D's, and is applicable to a wide variety of conflicts (eg various sorts of social conflict; dealing with spirits; flight and pursuit; as well as combat). Within the scope of combat, it distinguishes Kill, Capture and Drive-Off conflicts - the mechanical resolution structure is the same, but the relevant stats differ, and so do the stakes and potential consequences. Only a Kill conflict puts death on the line as a possible consequence, and a Kill conflict will come about either because the players choose to initiate it (here's an actual play example with two Kill conflicts in close succession), or because the players failed a check, which thus licenses the GM to introduce a twist, and the GM's twist is a Kill conflict (here's another actual play example, with two such instances in close succession). In more than twenty sessions of play, we've had pretty few Kill conflicts - maybe half-a-dozen or so - but the combats still have plenty of heft and consequence. The PCs have found themselves driven off, or captured.

As well as combat, death is also a possible consequence if a player fails a check for their PC when their PC is Sick or Injured (these are the two most serious conditions in the game). But the GM has to announce, before the check is resolved, that death is on the line, so that the player has the chance to put as much "oomph" into the check as they want to. (Here's an example of this in play.)

And if a PC does die, the player may (if they have the requisite Persona point unspent) declare that their PC has The Will to Live. This is a mechanical process, where the PC undergoes some non-trivial mechanical adjustments, but miraculously survives what otherwise would certainly have been fatal. (The first play report I linked to in this post has two examples of PCs having The Will to Live.)

The mechanical details of TB2e, and the resulting scope of stakes and consequences, aren't directly portable into D&D. But the 4e example I've given shows how something in the same general neighbourhood is possible.

Sounds like Torchbearer works alot like MouseGuard. In which case the tension comes from knowing the stakes beforehand, and the consequence of failure even if there is no threat of PC death. Which, as you say, is hard to translate to D&D, or most games for that matter. Heck, as a side note, I just read Twilight 2000 4e yesterday. In that game a PC can die even if they have HP remaining! So the tension in a firefight will be extra high as any hit might be the last!

 

[pemerton]

Sounds like Torchbearer works alot like MouseGuard.

Yes - Thor modified MouseGuard to play a bit more like classic D&D.