Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4743088" data-attributes="member: 80487">The negative connotation of &quot;railroad&quot; comes from the historical context. It simply describes something quite other than what the game of D&amp;D was meant to be. Indeed, if taken far enough it produces something that does not match the commonly received meaning of the term &quot;game&quot; -- except in such colloquial expressions as &quot;Don't play games with me!&quot;The &quot;role-playing game&quot; concept has taken off in different directions in the past 35 years. Some of those might meaningfully be distinguished with other terms (e.g., &quot;interactive storytelling&quot;), just as D&amp;D-like games came to be known as something other than &quot;fantasy war-gaming.&quot;Given the free-wheeling nature of D&amp;D, its appeal to remarkably creative people and its encouragement of modification to taste, it seems natural that those later developments should influence some players who nonetheless are reluctant so to draw a line between their games and D&amp;D.That one showing up to play Dungeons &amp; Dragons should be willing to enter the dungeons (and perhaps risk facing dragons) was once just a matter of common sense. The DM was not to prevent someone from &quot;playing&quot; a homebody farmer -- but that was not really playing the game, so one could hardly expect to get much more catered to than if one tried the same routine in, say, Tractics.The dungeons as described in Vol. 3 neatly summed up what D&amp;D was about. They resembled only superficially the essentially linear affairs of which I saw too much in the 3E era (and that could only mislead those with no other frame of reference).Did walls of stone limit options? Of course they did, barring appropriate magics. Nonetheless, the number of possible paths through even a single level confounded computation -- and points of egress (voluntary and involuntary) to other levels were plentiful. &quot;Clear the level, defeat the boss, move on to the next level&quot; was not the idea. Nor was any preordained series of encounters. The dungeons were not a &quot;plot line&quot; but an environment for the players to explore as they would.The wilderness was likewise, only with wide open terrain as opposed to subterranean passages.Tournament scenarios tended (for practical reasons peculiar to the demands of that mode of play) to be much more constrained. The &quot;Slave Lords&quot; modules clearly reflected their origin, and may have occasioned my first encounter with the &quot;railroad&quot; jargon (although a novice DM's handling of the Giants modules may have introduced it earlier).&quot;Playing a module&quot; was fine as an occasional thing, perhaps as a quick jumping-off point for a new group, but not the meat and potatoes of a proper campaign. By the end of the 1980s, though, that seemed widely to have been turned upside down.Even if players have the illusion of free choice, its lack is what makes a &quot;railroad.&quot; A &quot;football&quot; shape that looks in the middle like a branching tree but inevitably converges on a single outcome is a &quot;railroad.&quot;I've seen plenty of frivolous rhetoric levied to confuse the issue. The term was not cooked up by abstract theorists. It arose (like &quot;Monty Haul&quot; and other D&amp;D jargon) as a handy referent to a phenomenon widely familiar from experience.Again, the negative connotation goes back to a common understanding of what D&amp;D was &quot;about.&quot; A tournament scenario was by no means &quot;bad&quot; as a tournament scenario for being a railroad. A series of similar scenarios played as one might play a succession of set-piece battles in a war-game was not &quot;bad&quot; for what it was. However, what it was not was the full implementation of D&amp;D meant by the term &quot;campaign.&quot;Necessity seems to have been the mother of invention of the term &quot;sandbox&quot; to distinguish that meaning from bowdlerized usage. I don't expect historical-war-game &quot;grognards&quot; so to react to co-option of their time-honored self-descriptor by people who play (in context) old games about elves stealing gold from goblins!At some point, it may be meet for those embracing newer game forms to&nbsp; accept that traditional RPGers may likewise not be amenable to adopting some redefinitions of terms. Just as Britons and Americans are &quot;divided by a common language&quot; yet bound by a common heritage, perhaps we can agree to disagree and be the richer for diversity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4743088, member: 80487"] The negative connotation of "railroad" comes from the historical context. It simply describes something quite other than what the game of D&D was meant to be. Indeed, if taken far enough it produces something that does not match the commonly received meaning of the term "game" -- except in such colloquial expressions as "Don't play games with me!" The "role-playing game" concept has taken off in different directions in the past 35 years. Some of those might meaningfully be distinguished with other terms (e.g., "interactive storytelling"), just as D&D-like games came to be known as something other than "fantasy war-gaming." Given the free-wheeling nature of D&D, its appeal to remarkably creative people and its encouragement of modification to taste, it seems natural that those later developments should influence some players who nonetheless are reluctant so to draw a line between their games and D&D. That one showing up to play [i]Dungeons & Dragons[/i] should be willing to enter the dungeons (and perhaps risk facing dragons) was once just a matter of common sense. The DM was not to prevent someone from "playing" a homebody farmer -- but that was not really playing the game, so one could hardly expect to get much more catered to than if one tried the same routine in, say, [i]Tractics[/i]. The dungeons as described in Vol. 3 neatly summed up what D&D was about. They resembled only superficially the essentially linear affairs of which I saw too much in the 3E era (and that could only mislead those with no other frame of reference). Did walls of stone limit options? Of course they did, barring appropriate magics. Nonetheless, the number of possible paths through even a single level confounded computation -- and points of egress (voluntary and involuntary) to other levels were plentiful. "Clear the level, defeat the boss, move on to the next level" was not the idea. Nor was [i]any[/i] preordained series of encounters. [b]The dungeons were not a "plot line" but an environment for the players to explore as they would[/b]. The wilderness was likewise, only with wide open terrain as opposed to subterranean passages. Tournament scenarios tended (for practical reasons peculiar to the demands of that mode of play) to be much more constrained. The "Slave Lords" modules clearly reflected their origin, and may have occasioned my first encounter with the "railroad" jargon (although a novice DM's handling of the Giants modules may have introduced it earlier). "Playing a module" was fine as an occasional thing, perhaps as a quick jumping-off point for a new group, but not the meat and potatoes of a proper campaign. By the end of the 1980s, though, that seemed widely to have been turned upside down. Even if players have the [i]illusion[/i] of free choice, its lack is what makes a "railroad." A "football" shape that looks in the middle like a branching tree but inevitably converges on a single outcome is a "railroad." I've seen plenty of frivolous rhetoric levied to confuse the issue. The term was not cooked up by abstract theorists. It arose (like "Monty Haul" and other D&D jargon) as a handy referent to a phenomenon widely familiar from experience. Again, the negative connotation goes back to a common understanding of what D&D was "about." A tournament scenario was by no means "bad" [i]as a tournament scenario[/i] for being a railroad. A series of similar scenarios played as one might play a succession of set-piece battles in a war-game was not "bad" for what it was. However, what it was [i]not[/i] was the full implementation of D&D meant by the term "campaign." Necessity seems to have been the mother of invention of the term "sandbox" to distinguish that meaning from bowdlerized usage. I don't expect historical-war-game "grognards" so to react to co-option of their time-honored self-descriptor by people who play (in context) old games about elves stealing gold from goblins! At some point, it may be meet for those embracing newer game forms to accept that traditional RPGers may likewise not be amenable to adopting some redefinitions of terms. Just as Britons and Americans are "divided by a common language" yet bound by a common heritage, perhaps we can agree to disagree and be the richer for diversity. [/QUOTE]

Verification