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

[clearstream]

Thing is too, in a long campaign like mine there might be a run of an adventure or two where I end up leading them by the nose, either because that's how the module(s) are designed or because it just seems to make sense to do so; then a run where I don't have to do any nose-pulling whatsoever, then another bit of railroad goes by, and so on.

One example where a railroad ought to be desired in play is an RQ heroquest. Heroquests insert characters into narrative sequences that have already happened (in the God Time, a misnomer as it was a timeless simultaneity.)

 

[clearstream]

I disagree that this is semantics. If something is not determined, then it doesn't yet exist, and might never exist. That's not a state because it's not anything yet. But that's the secondary point here. To the main:

Because it matters, it REALLY matters who gets to determine the price of tea or the status of the runes. If the players THINK they have input, because they are making decisions that lead them to believe they have input - but they actually have none (the DM is determining the states regardless of their input) - that's railroading.

I don't agree that establishing the details of an imaginary world equates to railroading.

To me, railroading entails something like determining what actions and experiences players can effectively take. That results in (and can take the form of) predetermining a narrative that is played through (rather than it emerging from play as properly ludonarrative).

 

[Maxperson]

There seem to me to be a subtle, but essential difference between "Unless this is totally foreign to the area," and "unless a bluff like that isn't in the area".

Replace "this" with "a bluff." The sentence is really, "Unless a bluff is totally foreign to the area." For instance, don't try to build one in a sand desert where a bluff is likely to be totally foreign to the area. Or on a flat island. And since they were hex maps, there might not be one on a plain, or in a hex area of forest.

 

[Mort]

I don't agree that establishing the details of an imaginary world equates to railroading.

It is IF the DM leads the players into believing that they are the ones establishing these details, when in fact they are not.

If/when the players think that certain details are established by their actions but, actually, they are determined by the DM regardless of what the players do - that's railroading.

If we're just talking about setting details the players have no part in? Setup, worldbuilding, things established before the players even get it it - stuff like that? No, that wouldn't have anything to do with railroading.

To me, railroading entails something like determining what actions and experiences players can effectively take. That results in (and can take the form of) predetermining a narrative that is played through (rather than it emerging from play as properly ludonarrative).

Yes, that's basically what I'm talking about. I don't think there is disagreement here.

 

[AlViking]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t see the connection you’re making between a GM and player being on the same page about the PCs role and theme, and whatever it is that you think that says about trad play and railroading.

If the GM and player both understand what “Cunning Expert” should entail in @pemerton ’s MHRP hack, that says nothing about trad play.

You’ve made some leap somewhere, and I fear it was off a cliff.



It depends on how one views railroading, clearly. There are degrees of it, I’d say, and most of us have been guilty of it at least sometimes. But @pemerton has much less tolerance for it than many others. I probably have more tolerance to it than he does, but less than you do.

Meaning he might feel railroaded before I do in a game. And I might before you. Again, I’m not talking about the mythical mustache twirling railroader that you think I am… I leave that schtick to @bloodtide .

I’m talking about instances of play. A single GM decision or maybe a couple back to back… that’s enough to bother some folks. Maybe not you, maybe not your players, but plenty of folks.



He cannot even comment about the kind of game for fear of moderation.



Seems like a wise way to get people to think you’re not likely to railroad.

But what about my question. You sit down at a con game, and that's the first thing the GM says. “I can override your action declarations, force you from the game, and then use your character as an NPC.”

This wouldn’t register in any way to you as alarming? No warning bells going off at all, huh?

I've had many, many DMs over the decades. If it did happen I would walk away from the table and find the organizer to explain what they had said because that's not what DM authority in D&D means. That's never happened so why should I worry about it? Might as well ask if it bothered me that they could pull out a tome made of human skin and ask me to sign in blood my fealty to Satan.

Well, again… we have @bloodtide commenting that he’s a proud railroader right here in this thread. He seems to be a great example.

I doubt he's completely serious to the level of railroading or that they really just run linear campaigns (like most published campaigns). As I stated, with enough games being run they can exist. But at that point they have no players or the players enjoy that style of game.

But again, it doesn’t even need to go that far. Look at how strongly many of you guys reject anything that’s not the trad way. Look at how you guys rationalize the examples and instances of similar mechanics and processes in trad play.

In other words "Look at how you guys have a different preference than I do." How is that a bad thing? Want something else, find a different game. Fortunately there are plenty out there.

I would expect play in the games of many folks in this thread to feel at least a bit railroady at times. Many others may not feel that way… but your clear need to be responsible for the creation of all the fiction and all the resolutions to obstacles and the stakes of play and so on… it’s just gonna make me feel that way at times.

So you'd be okay with saying that people that don't play your way are a-holes at times? Because that's pretty much the equivalent. As far as being responsible for the fiction? Yep, when I'm playing it's my preference that the DM does it all other than some background details for my character.

As has been explained many times, there is a difference between changing something and establishing something. If the players ask the GM “what’s to the west of Capitol City?” and the GM decides “the Argost Mountains”, he's not changing anything. He’s establishing something.

Now, explanation aside… I personally don’t care if you use the term quantum or describe something as altering reality… I just think it’s wrong, or at least misguided.

The player still changed the reality of the fictional world. That's neither good nor bad.

 

[AlViking]

But isn't it the same in combat in dnd? We make an attack, then fictional reality is undetermined until results of attack known. Plus the character may change reality from opponent being alive to being dead.

Good grief. If the character is fighting an orc, we resolve whether the attack is successful by rolling dice. In the runes case it's been made quite clear that the player decided the definition, it had nothing to do with the player.

Why is that an issue? Accept the reality of the rules.

 

[AlViking]

That doesn't seem right.

If the fictional reality is undermined and then it becomes determined, it becomes set not changed. As in it wasn't there before, now it is.

With computers, there's the idea of a null value for variables. A nullable integer variable may be null and have no value, or be assigned a number. When you set that null integer to a number, even 0, you've changed the value of the variable.

Applying that to railroading, IF:

The players THINK the reality is undetermined and that their choices/actions can/will determine it;

BUT ACTUALLY:

the DM determines the reality independently of the players choices/actions (say because he wants the story to go a certain way), but lets the players believe that THEY (the players) determined the reality -

That's railroading. The illusion of choice.

So? I don't use illusionism and if I suspect the DM is I'll call them on it, especially if it's happening all the time.

 

[AlViking]

...

Like I said, it’s not about the cackling archvillain or a slippery slope or any of that. It’s very much about the dynamics of play and what constraints there are on the GM and what principles are in place to help set expectations and guide play.

So for the people that prefer the dynamics of play, the principles and expectations of D&D we're just supposed to throw it all out because it's not the game for you?

 

[FrogReaver]

It is IF the DM leads the players into believing that they are the ones establishing these details, when in fact they are not.

If/when the players think that certain details are established by their actions but, actually, they are determined by the DM regardless of what the players do - that's railroading.

If we're just talking about setting details the players have no part in? Setup, worldbuilding, things established before the players even get it it - stuff like that? No, that wouldn't have anything to do with railroading.

Well if the world is truly being invented independent of players/characters (save what the characters can actually impact in the fiction) then that principle alone takes care of railroading. One cannot railroad such that all paths always force X without having a dependency on the characters broader than what the characters can do in the fiction.

The nature of a railroad is that the dm (or other player) is establishing fiction to force characters down a particular path. You can’t do that if you establish the fiction independent of those characters (other than what they can accomplish with their fictional actions).

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the notion of wearing a body camera is an apt analogy. There’s a large preexisting independent world out there. If you want to see animals you go to the zoo. If you want to party you go to the club. Going to the zoo doesn’t mean you established the zoo, but it does mean you defacto established its appearance on your camera. And this world independence can be demonstrated because if there was somewhere you wanted to go then if it doesn’t exist you cannot establish its appearance in your camera.

This is what traditional play aspires to (keeping in mind the limitations of any analogy). This is not to be construed as saying the camera wearer is a passive audience. He can very well intervene in a fight at the club, helping one side or the other, or maybe ignoring the fight, or leaving because the fight.