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

[hawkeyefan]

The word railroad is a very loaded pejorative and pemerton seems to redefine it to mean any game where the players can only make major changes to the fiction through their character. Then they expect everyone to understand what he means and that he doesn't really mean a controlling DM where player decisions never matter even though that's what it means to everyone else.

I think @pemerton uses the word to describe a game that involves the players playing through the GM’s prepared story. Where the GM largely decides how things will go by predetermining everything… like what strange runes mean and how that will impact play.

People have pointed this out to them many, many times and at this point using railroad to describe every single game that doesn't use cooperative world building as a railroad sure feels like they're knowingly using an antagonistic phrase on purpose.

I think it’s much less about “cooperative world building” than it is on “player contribution to the game’s fiction”. World building is a subset of player contribution, and not one I think he’s particularly focused on.

As for his use of “railroad”, I think he’s clearly explained his use. That others don’t like that usage is, while understandable, kind of irrelevant. Especially when they din’t hesitate to use loaded terms themselves when describing others’ play.

 

[Maxperson]

As far as I can tell, no one did. You seemed to misread the idea that a player would know their place in the game (like, their role in play and their character theme… often summarized by things like character class)

You and @TwoSix both did. You said, "The player and the GM being in agreement about the character’s capabilities isn’t a railroad."

Either player and DM being in agreement isn't a railroad and the other factors don't matter, since it isn't a railroad, or the player and DM being in agreement doesn't stop something from being a railroad. Which is it?

After the arguments made in this thread about GM authority… including one of yours where you said it would be within the GM’s authority to deny a player’s declared action, force that player from the game, and then assume control of their PC as an NPC… it’s very hard not to see at least elements of railroading.

Yes it is. Can do is not the same as does. If you can't see that, I'm really not sure what to tell you. You will never be right if you declare all traditional games a railroad based on the possibility that some bad DM might, someday, maybe, engage in railroading behavior like that.

I mean… for hundreds of pages now we’ve been talking about an example where a player indirectly contributed to the outcome of a check that was needed and people have been railing against the very idea of it, and pointing out how the GM should have sole authority in that regard.

I didn't see any of that. What I saw was a discussion about different playstyles, but nobody said that it shouldn't happen in that style of game and DMs should always, no matter what the game, have sole authority.

Maybe you don’t see the similarity to railroad there… but it’s very much “my way or the highway”… which in the context of RPGs seems pretty railroady to me.

There is no similarity. Can do =/= does. Until those two things do equal each other(and they never will), there is no similarity.

 

[AlViking]

I think @pemerton uses the word to describe a game that involves the players playing through the GM’s prepared story. Where the GM largely decides how things will go by predetermining everything… like what strange runes mean and how that will impact play.



I think it’s much less about “cooperative world building” than it is on “player contribution to the game’s fiction”. World building is a subset of player contribution, and not one I think he’s particularly focused on.

As for his use of “railroad”, I think he’s clearly explained his use. That others don’t like that usage is, while understandable, kind of irrelevant. Especially when they din’t hesitate to use loaded terms themselves when describing others’ play.

He's stated that typical D&D game is always a railroad. If I were to use the word zerbit to describe some posters and was told that unbeknownst to me "zerbit" was a derogatory word I would stop using that word. It's common courtesy.

In any case he can't respond so we should drop it.

 

[Faolyn]

Might as well get rid of this coz he's not in the thread anymore.

 

[bloodtide]

After the arguments made in this thread about GM authority… including one of yours where you said it would be within the GM’s authority to deny a player’s declared action, force that player from the game, and then assume control of their PC as an NPC… it’s very hard not to see at least elements of railroading.

As a Railroad Tycoon, how does this even fit under railroading? Forcing the game along a very narrow and specific story plot = Railroading. To toss a player out of a game and then make their PC and NPC has nothing to do with "railroading". So why attach the two?

Maybe you don’t see the similarity to railroad there… but it’s very much “my way or the highway”… which in the context of RPGs seems pretty railroady to me.

I do see the problem here: all the players want to be DMs.

 

[Faolyn]

I know this is probably bad form, but, if you wanted a clearer example of the conservativism of D&D fans, just look at the reaction to the new Banneret class. That's pretty much conservatism in action. It's not bad because it's bad. It's bad because it's new. At least, according to a LOT of posters in that thread.

Why is 2024 so close to 2014? And why is 2014 such a call back to earlier editions? Hrmmmm, :hrm:

I looked at the thread here, since that's the only Banneret I'm aware of. There's not much of a complaint that it's new. There's some posts complaining that it may be going against established lore (with other people saying it's an evolution of the established lore, not a rewrite); some posts claiming that grognards are demanding things that they, the poster, don't like; some posts complaining about how WotC simply uses spells instead of making cool yet nonmagical abilities; and some posts bizarrely complaining that the Banneret lost the PDK's dragon mount when the PDK didn't have a dragon mount, at least not in 5e.

Those are very different things than disliking the archetype because it's new. If anything, there's multiple posters complaining that it's not new enough.

 

[Faolyn]

Pemerton is unable to answer this query due to a thread ban.

Yeah, I just saw that.

 

[Necropolitan]

I know this is probably bad form, but, if you wanted a clearer example of the conservativism of D&D fans, just look at the reaction to the new Banneret class. That's pretty much conservatism in action. It's not bad because it's bad. It's bad because it's new. At least, according to a LOT of posters in that thread.

Why is 2024 so close to 2014? And why is 2014 such a call back to earlier editions? Hrmmmm, :hrm:

That is not at all what happened, that's completely false.

WOTC changed Purple Dragon Knights from 5E Warlords to having dragons as companions (which directly contradicts their purpose and lore), fans complained, and they got changed back.

The Banneret is a generic Purple Dragon Knight and the only people complaining are the ones angry that WOTC listened to fans.

As I pointed out in the thread nobody would have complained if WOTC had created a new dragon-rider class, the complaint was them removing an already-existing subclass and retconning them for no good reason.

I looked at the thread here, since that's the only Banneret I'm aware of. There's not much of a complaint that it's new. There's some posts complaining that it may be going against established lore (with other people saying it's an evolution of the established lore, not a rewrite); some posts claiming that grognards are demanding things that they, the poster, don't like; some posts complaining about how WotC simply uses spells instead of making cool yet nonmagical abilities; and some posts bizarrely complaining that the Banneret lost the PDK's dragon mount when the PDK didn't have a dragon mount, at least not in 5e.

Those are very different things than disliking the archetype because it's new. If anything, there's multiple posters complaining that it's not new enough.

Yeah, what we actually said was we would be happy for a dragon-pet class, but we didn't want the Purple Dragon Knights changed to be one since it directly contradicted their established lore and didn't make sense.

Call it a "Draconic Knight" or something and there would be no complaints.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But don’t you think your persistence in pointing out your preference simply in the face of another method being described kind of proves the point of the thread title?

I'm sure there are folks (like the one to which I'm responding) who find me exhausting. But at this point I could honestly care less what they think.

 

[clearstream]

The ur-example is the 3e climbing rules. They're pretty action complete. I wouldn't overindex on "knowing the outcome" here though. Randomness in resolution, hidden elements on the board state, baffling actions by other parties and so forth could lead to undesired or unaccounted for outcome, all of which is fine and interesting.

I don't care if a player makes it to the top of the wall; it should be clear why and how they didn't, in a way they could have accounted for given perfect information before they tried, and that the potential consequences of not making it to the top that come from taking the climb action in the first place should be encoded in the climbing rules and known to them before they make the attempt.

Assessing the 3.5e climb rules against the concepts of association, entrainment and concomittance requires understanding how skills are used in 3.5e. I'll excerpt a few parts to give the rough idea (if you already know how they work, skip the spoiler)

Spoiler: 3.5 skill usage

[Players declare that their] Characters try to accomplish tasks --> DM determines how difficult those are --> dice determine success or failure.​

​

A skill check takes into account training (skill rank), natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll). To make a check, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. The higher, the better. A natural 20 isn’t an automatic success, and a natural 1 isn’t an automatic failure. Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number that you must equal or beat to succeed, usually ranging from 0 to 30 in 5-point increments.​

​

The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. Situation can make a skill easier or harder to use, resulting in a bonus or penalty to the modifier or a change to the DC. Each rank is a +1 modifier and your maximum ranks is level + 3 if the skill is listed for your class, or half that if not. About half the core classes have climb on their skill list.​

​

In general, you can try a check again if you fail, and you can keep trying indefinitely. Some checks, especially with skills, have consequences for failure that must be taken into account.​

​

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. When you have plenty of time, are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.​

​

You can help another character by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus, as per the rule for favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 to help another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help.​

​

When failure can cause additional difficulty, a check that fails by 5 or more causes that to occur. Skills that carry an additional risk on a failed check include Climb (fall).​

​

Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move action With a successful check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, a wall, or some other steep incline (or even a ceiling with handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed (medium characters usually have speed 30', small have speed 20', you can use your standard action to move twice in a round, armor worn can reduce speed, e.g. full plate makes it 20' and 15' respectively.)​

3.5e climb contains numerous associations with diegetic facts, including

DC is associated with specified surfaces and activities​

modifiers are associated with Strength, training (both depth, via ranks, and breadth, via synergies), rope use, climbers kits, halfling race, lizard familiars, athletics feat​

​

Measuring entrainment entails comparing rolling dice and adding and comparing numbers, with a heavily physical activity, but I think there are some features that encourage the pretence

​

activities like climbing faster, making your own holds, hauling others upward, catching falling characters, spellcasting and fighting either apply modifiers or trigger special climb checks​

separate checks for each move action that includes climbing: a 150' cliff could take ten checks (one quarter of 60' using your move and standard action, assuming your DM doesn't count moving as a standard action as a separate move.)​

​

that often plays out by sending the best climber up the wall and they place ropes for everyone else​

​

I suspect that the shortness of climb times discourages the pretence, e.g. 1 minute for that cliff, and possibly the way the odds work out

multiple checks make the odds of failing exponential​

​

Spoiler: Example impact of multiple rolls

a natural rock wall is DC 25 (but they fall only if they miss DC 20); a 6th-level Fighter could have +9 ranks in climb, in armor they might suffer a check penalty of -5, their Strength could give them a +3 to +4 modifier, a climbers kit gives +2; for various reasons it's unlikely they have Athletics or a skill synergy​

​

they can take 10 if not threatened or distracted (but not 20 because climb has a penalty for failure) which makes that climb quite likely automatically successful​

​

under pressure (e.g. pursuers with bows) falling is a near-certainty until much higher level​

I have found in my own experience and would predict for others that the entrainment will be volatile... it depends on what features are surfaced as a result of situation and resolution, and whether anyone notices the short climb times. Thus I believe concommitance is available as a result of the associations and entrainment, albeit it will occasionally shatter (a problem all through 3.5e skill mechanics.)

I wonder if you would agree, @Pedantic ?