Thought I'd put some thoughts together, because this thread isn't going anywhere and hasn't for quite a while. Sorry for the long rant. Short version? There are bad DM's, allowing players to add small bits and pieces won't change much, I just prefer not to do that. It won't stop railroads. To do that you need a different game altogether. Also, it should go without saying that there are many ways to play the game and I am not saying my way is "better".
I like games, both as a player and DM, that follow the standard D&D play loop. The player is responsible for their character and, outside of working with the DM on backstory (which hopefully includes some NPCs and connections), contribute to the world via their words and deeds. Of course there are also times when the players sit down with the DM outside of the game to discuss options, directions, satisfaction with the campaign, etc.. But in game? Of course they can ask for clarification but in general they can only add what their character can do in world. The DM is responsible for everything else. They set the stage so to speak but never, ever tell a player what their character does, thinks or says. It works well for me and my players. A good DM will reward creative character choices and decisions. The DM that always (or almost always) says no is a different story.
Then there's the other side of the fence where people allow players to introduce things and ideas into the game via declaration. That could be as simple as "There's a band in the bar so I go to ask for a specific style of song" when it was never established there was a band. This kind of declaration? I don't see a need for it and don't care for it when I play but I also don't see a big issue for most players.
But then you get the player that will run with it in a way that doesn't work for other players at the table. The guy I've talked about that chatted with Odin and declared that he got what amounted to a small miracle? He would absolutely talk about how over downtime he popped up to Valhalla and had a beer with Odin and the boys. That, by the way, if you play poker with them Thor has a tell and you can always know when he's bluffing. On the other hand Tyr never ever bluffs. He would just add things that were totally out of place for the campaign if allowed*. They declared that Hel was actually not the Hel of Norse mythology but the Hel of some Anime (again without discussing with the DM). It may not be an issue for some groups, but if the rest of the group is playing a game where gods are distant and unknowable, if they've invested in the mythology and themes of the world? It just doesn't work for some people.
Next you can go to the level of players just declare game changing things. The "I chat with Odin and because he's a god and my buddy I get powers far beyond that of my character. It happens because Odin is a god." Not asking the DM, not working with the DM offline, just casually stating during a game session that he can suddenly declare a power not granted by the rules of the game because Odin.
So we have 3 basic categories that I see, although obviously there will be variations on the theme.
1. Standard D&D play loop. Player responsible for character, DM for everything else.
2. Players adding what amounts to set dressing and fluff.
3. Player adding significant story elements where they declare action and result on the fly. Things that change the campaign or allow things to happen that bypass the rules of the game.
For #1? I assume everyone is familiar with it. But some insist that it leads to bad DMing, railroading, lots of comments about DMs abusing their power. I disagree. There are bad DMs out there just like there are bad players.
It doesn't have anything to do with the DM "lording their power over the players". How much control over the campaign the players have is largely a separate issue. In my games we talk about the campaign outside of play on a regular basis. The players can always have the characters do things I didn't expect. If the characters go left when I expected them to go right I do my best to follow their lead and react appropriately. This happens on a regular basis when I DM and recently happened when I was a player where the DM confessed they ad-libbed 90% of the session. It was fun.
For #2? I don't see how it's going to make a bad DM any better. It's never going to stop a railroad because if the player makes up a piece of info it could just be a bad rumor. The players declare that the bartender is their long lost brother? May be some fun RP but it's not changing campaign direction. Perhaps they start a bar fight if they want, but that can just as easily happen with option #1 the majority of times, it's just a different style of declaration of actions. I don't see how it has any significant impact on the power of players unless the DM allows it.
For #3? This is where I think you need structures and limitations that D&D simply doesn't have. If the cleric in my story could just ask favors of Odin on the regular**, they could also just declare that Odin points his spear at a mortal enemy and that mortal instantly dies because it's a feature of Gungdrin. I assume most people aren't letting player declarations of actions and results this far.
But even if players can declare that they find a path to go left instead of right like the hypothetical railroading DM wants them to, I still don't see how it changes much. Player declares that their contact knows something? The contact is dead or been replaced by a doppelganger. Player decides they have a map? Whatever the players are looking for has moved. Player has a key? Gosh darnit, fake door. The DM can always find ways of saying no, or simply not providing content if the game goes in a direction they don't want. Go left when the DM wanted you to go right? Boring idyllic pastoral communities await you or they pretend you went left but it's really just populated by quantum ogres. Ogres that may look like super orcs, but ogres nonetheless. You can't force a bad DM to be a good DM
In a true railroad the DM tells the players what they say, think, or do or the game is just one quantum ogre after another. The former is not allowed by the standard D&D play loop I don't see how you stop the latter unless it's largely or fully a player authored campaign. D&D is flexible but it isn't designed to do that and there are better systems for it.
*Sadly not really an exaggeration. The DM said no, that could not have happened. The player insisted that it did and for that campaign as far as the lore of the world and everyone else was concerned, the character was just dreaming and perhaps a bit delusional.
** The scenario was finding a phylactery that could not be discovered through divination spells. There was no negotiation, no cost to pay. The player just declared it happened. Even though my example was "just" divination, in that world's lore god's powers on the material realm are limited to the spells they grant clerics.
I like games, both as a player and DM, that follow the standard D&D play loop. The player is responsible for their character and, outside of working with the DM on backstory (which hopefully includes some NPCs and connections), contribute to the world via their words and deeds. Of course there are also times when the players sit down with the DM outside of the game to discuss options, directions, satisfaction with the campaign, etc.. But in game? Of course they can ask for clarification but in general they can only add what their character can do in world. The DM is responsible for everything else. They set the stage so to speak but never, ever tell a player what their character does, thinks or says. It works well for me and my players. A good DM will reward creative character choices and decisions. The DM that always (or almost always) says no is a different story.
Then there's the other side of the fence where people allow players to introduce things and ideas into the game via declaration. That could be as simple as "There's a band in the bar so I go to ask for a specific style of song" when it was never established there was a band. This kind of declaration? I don't see a need for it and don't care for it when I play but I also don't see a big issue for most players.
But then you get the player that will run with it in a way that doesn't work for other players at the table. The guy I've talked about that chatted with Odin and declared that he got what amounted to a small miracle? He would absolutely talk about how over downtime he popped up to Valhalla and had a beer with Odin and the boys. That, by the way, if you play poker with them Thor has a tell and you can always know when he's bluffing. On the other hand Tyr never ever bluffs. He would just add things that were totally out of place for the campaign if allowed*. They declared that Hel was actually not the Hel of Norse mythology but the Hel of some Anime (again without discussing with the DM). It may not be an issue for some groups, but if the rest of the group is playing a game where gods are distant and unknowable, if they've invested in the mythology and themes of the world? It just doesn't work for some people.
Next you can go to the level of players just declare game changing things. The "I chat with Odin and because he's a god and my buddy I get powers far beyond that of my character. It happens because Odin is a god." Not asking the DM, not working with the DM offline, just casually stating during a game session that he can suddenly declare a power not granted by the rules of the game because Odin.
So we have 3 basic categories that I see, although obviously there will be variations on the theme.
1. Standard D&D play loop. Player responsible for character, DM for everything else.
2. Players adding what amounts to set dressing and fluff.
3. Player adding significant story elements where they declare action and result on the fly. Things that change the campaign or allow things to happen that bypass the rules of the game.
For #1? I assume everyone is familiar with it. But some insist that it leads to bad DMing, railroading, lots of comments about DMs abusing their power. I disagree. There are bad DMs out there just like there are bad players.
It doesn't have anything to do with the DM "lording their power over the players". How much control over the campaign the players have is largely a separate issue. In my games we talk about the campaign outside of play on a regular basis. The players can always have the characters do things I didn't expect. If the characters go left when I expected them to go right I do my best to follow their lead and react appropriately. This happens on a regular basis when I DM and recently happened when I was a player where the DM confessed they ad-libbed 90% of the session. It was fun.
For #2? I don't see how it's going to make a bad DM any better. It's never going to stop a railroad because if the player makes up a piece of info it could just be a bad rumor. The players declare that the bartender is their long lost brother? May be some fun RP but it's not changing campaign direction. Perhaps they start a bar fight if they want, but that can just as easily happen with option #1 the majority of times, it's just a different style of declaration of actions. I don't see how it has any significant impact on the power of players unless the DM allows it.
For #3? This is where I think you need structures and limitations that D&D simply doesn't have. If the cleric in my story could just ask favors of Odin on the regular**, they could also just declare that Odin points his spear at a mortal enemy and that mortal instantly dies because it's a feature of Gungdrin. I assume most people aren't letting player declarations of actions and results this far.
But even if players can declare that they find a path to go left instead of right like the hypothetical railroading DM wants them to, I still don't see how it changes much. Player declares that their contact knows something? The contact is dead or been replaced by a doppelganger. Player decides they have a map? Whatever the players are looking for has moved. Player has a key? Gosh darnit, fake door. The DM can always find ways of saying no, or simply not providing content if the game goes in a direction they don't want. Go left when the DM wanted you to go right? Boring idyllic pastoral communities await you or they pretend you went left but it's really just populated by quantum ogres. Ogres that may look like super orcs, but ogres nonetheless. You can't force a bad DM to be a good DM
In a true railroad the DM tells the players what they say, think, or do or the game is just one quantum ogre after another. The former is not allowed by the standard D&D play loop I don't see how you stop the latter unless it's largely or fully a player authored campaign. D&D is flexible but it isn't designed to do that and there are better systems for it.
*Sadly not really an exaggeration. The DM said no, that could not have happened. The player insisted that it did and for that campaign as far as the lore of the world and everyone else was concerned, the character was just dreaming and perhaps a bit delusional.
** The scenario was finding a phylactery that could not be discovered through divination spells. There was no negotiation, no cost to pay. The player just declared it happened. Even though my example was "just" divination, in that world's lore god's powers on the material realm are limited to the spells they grant clerics.
