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

[hawkeyefan]

So what made this particular incident of the GM creating a complication trigger your railroading sense, when I guess you have encountered hundreds of complicatons deliberately put out by the GM to complicate your PC progress, without any issue?

That I was not given a chance to say I wanted to be moving cautiously and stealthily. That I was not given a chance to detect the approaching NPCs; they were coming around the bend of a rounded corridor, and when they came into view, nothing about them was described as trying to be stealthy. That we immediately went to combat without any attempt to even negotiate (which may or may not be an issue, but given later context that we discovered, these guys choosing to fight didn’t make a lot of sense).

It very much seemed like the GM wanted/ planned for/ expected there to be a fight, and so there was a fight.

(As a side note - would it have felt less railroady if the GM afterward would have showed you their pre-planed map and key, including timeings for people transiting between various locations?)

No, not really. I think allowing players to say how they’re doing something should be standard, I think having rolls for detecting PCs and NPCs to notice each other would then follow. I don’t think that timing can be specific enough in an RPG to be accurate. Time flows differently for the players than it does for the characters.

 

[gban007]

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.

The player wants to hit the Orc, they find out if successful by rolling the dice.
The player wants the runes to indicate the way out, they find out if they are successful by rolling the dice.
Else, with your cut out of an important part, could day the player decided the Orc will be dead, it had nothing to do with the character. Why is that an issue? Accept the reality of the rules.
Ultimately there is a difference to me in the type of fiction being settled between the two. But both involve a similar process and a similar change in fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mean, you and Twosix both said that it wasn't. How is your own statement that it isn't railroading because the DM and players are on the same page beyond you?

Because neither of us was talking about anything to do with trad play? We were very specifically talking about how a GM and player would likely be in alignment on what “Cunning Expert” in @pemerton ’s MHRP game was not an instance of there being”one true way” for that character and therefore not a railroad asyou have claimed. Nor would there be the concern you expressed about the player trying to use “Cunning Expert” for everything they did.

You’ve now taken this to mean that any and all instances of GM and player being in alignment is not a railroad and GM and players are aligned in trad play (no idea where this was mentioned or claimed or how it has anything to do with what was being said) so therefore trad play is not a railroad.

As I said… you’ve misinterpreted something somewhere along the way and it’s led you to make conclusions that I not only don’t agree with, but which have nothing to do with what I said.

If being on the same page as the DM isn't a railroad, and both you and Twosix have said it isn't, then no traditional play is inherently a railroad.

I’m going to stop addressing this part of the conversation now… further explanations should be unnecessary at this point, and may only serve to further confuse the matter.

The only traditional play that is a railroad comes from those DMs that railroad their players, but that has nothing to do with traditional play. Railroading is 100% a DM issue, not a playstyle issue.

I disagree. The history of that playstyle is rife with it. The Dragonlance saga and the rise of the adventure path model of play. It is a dominant force in the hobby to this day. It relies on the elements of trad play.

I don’t think that it means every single instance of trad play is a railroad, but to say that the two don’t have some serious overlap is misguided, or perhaps naïve.

See, that's why it's a misconception on your part and just a feeling. What you describe there is a False Dichotomy. There are other choices than you the player can author fiction or else you are just a tourist. You aren't just a tourist based on not being able to author fiction. There must be more to it than that. Significantly more. Like actual railroading.

No, it’s not a misconception on my part. It is what I think of as railroading. It doesn’t need to get to the cartoonish charicature that you’re describing. An adventure path, to me, is largely a railroad. May there be some points where my decisions matter? Sure… but almost always exclusively within the context of the adventure path and its contents.

And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Cleary many folks like adventure paths. It’s just not my preferred mode of play.

Now… your idea of what constitutes railroading may be different than mine… that’s fine. But I’ve explained my view. We should be able to communicate based on mutual understanding of what we’re talking about.

 

[Faolyn]

I wouldn't put up with that DM for long. Did you?

Nah, we stopped within the first session. It was disappointing because I really liked my character idea and background and I've never had an opportunity to recycle it.

The rules in D&D also tells the DM

"Being clear about your expectations and making sure you understand your players’ expectations in return can help ensure a smooth game. Take your players’ opinions and desires seriously, and make sure they take yours just as seriously. "

Along with other advice about mutual respect, etc.. But the text in the book can never enforce any behavior.

That text certainly can't. It doesn't give guidelines as to how to do it. You'll also notice that that particular quote is in the section on the setting you'll run in. As in, "tell your players what types of characters are appropriate for this setting." Like, "we're going for Tolkienesque, so no furries."

It's also in the DMG, which, famously, almost nobody reads.

Interestingly, there is a section in the DMG'24 that talks about railroading: Your players are coauthors of the story with you, and the events of the story shouldn't be predetermined; the actions of the players' characters have to matter. I'm sure there are several people in this thread who would take umbrage at that sentence, or at least the first part of it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. The farrier was always there. I just forgot to put him into place. The players reminded me when they asked, so I added him in where he wasn't in the fiction that I had already described. We've already said repeatedly that it's different for the DM to do something like that than the players.

The fictional reality was changed from what I had narrated, but not by the players and not by anything "quantum."

Not by the players? Had they not asked about the farrier, you’d not have created him. How is that “not by the players”?

To describe it your way… they made a suggestion and then you changed the fictional reality to add a farrier. The farrier’s existence was undetermined and then you changed the game so that it was determined.

This is not correct for a number of reasons.
railroad.
2) Linear doesn't equate to railroad in any case. All railroad adventures are linear, but not all linear adventures are railroads.

What if I don’t really see a distinction between linear and railroad?

3) Linear doesn't mean that the PCs can't leave the line and go do something else. If the PCs find out about the princess being kidnapped, but have to find a way to take down the forcefield on the castle she is being held at before they can rescue her, that's linear. That doesn't stop the PCs from deciding in the middle that the princess is on her own and going to party at the bard's house.

Assuming the DM is ready to handle any of that. I also don’t see a distinction with a railroad. I mean, if my buddy has bought the Skull & Shackles adventure path, and has put in the effort to prepare them, I expect he’s gonna want to run that, and so blatantly deviating from that would be considered rude.

There’s an amount of buy-in expected. You hear about this all the time… people describe it and discuss social aspects of gaming like this quite a bit.

4) Adventure paths aren't even always linear.

An adventure path can certainly be run as a railroad, but there's nothing inherently a railroad about

Well, except that they typically have a linear progression with episodes arranged temporally. First this then that followed by the other thing. Yes, some play around a bit with this formula… but it doesn’t really change the overall feel.

Sure. There's no doubt that the occasional instance of railroading happens. And we all have different tolerance levels for when that happens. Occasional instances don't a railroad game make, though. I feel the need to repeat again that there's nothing inherent in traditional paly that makes these instances more likely. That's purely a DM issue.

But I never said that it had to be the entire game for me to not like it. I’ve pointed out multiple times I’m not talking about the cackling railroad GM who usurps all authority. I’m talking about perfectly adequate or even good GMs who, through some combo of decision making, authority, and system make a bad call that results in a railroad moment.

I can deal with them upon occasion, even if they might dissatisfy me. But the more they happen, the more dissatisfied I’ll be.

 

[Mort]

Not just deception. For it not to be railroading there has to be the option to walk off the tracks and go a different direction. If they are going down an adventure path and they decide to instead strike out west to search for gold in them thar hills, if the DM doesn't let them, it's a railroad. There's no deception involved with that. He's just not letting them go either by saying no, or by throwing up obstacles that force them back onto the path.

This is absolutely deception - the DM is deceiving the players by not openly admitting they can't leave or that there is only the one path. Illusionism is a common way to do this, but not the only way.

If the DM is honest with the players, and they're simply choosing to accept these constraints - not railroading.

 

[Lanefan]

Interestingly, there is a section in the DMG'24 that talks about railroading: Your players are coauthors of the story with you, and the events of the story shouldn't be predetermined; the actions of the players' characters have to matter. I'm sure there are several people in this thread who would take umbrage at that sentence, or at least the first part of it.

They could have started and stopped with just "The events of the story shouldn't be predetermined; the actions of the players' characters have to matter." and it would be great advice.

Adding that preamble about the players being co-authors doesn't help anyone IMO.

 

[Aldarc]

Is this the longest thread ever, or the one with the most replies or something? Curious.

I suspect that this thread is like a beer that's left out by bartenders to attract flies around one spot away from the rest of the bar patrons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Okay… then what relevance is there in bringing it up? I didn’t bring it up… @Maxperson did. My thoughts are more in line with yours. It’s not something I’d ever do or expect anyone to do. Yet when this topic comes up, Max always feels the need to point out how far the GM’s authority goes per his interpretation of the rules.

Why, do you think?

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.

Well, I can only go by what he tells me, so I believe he’s telling it like it is.

And again, linear or railroad is kind of a tomato-tomahto kind of thing for many of us.

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.

Sure. I’m not the one pushing back on the minority approach though. It’s like… the trad playstyle is all over the hobby, guys. You don’t have to worry about it going anywhere. We’re talking about some alternate ways to do things… and the resistance goes on for hundreds of pages.

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.

No, I’m not calling anyone a-holes. I don’t think that only a-holes railroad. I don’t think that it’s inherently a bad mode of play. I try not to make such judgments about people’s playstyles.

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

If they changed the runes to be a clue to find a way out, what did the runes say before?

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?

What are you talking about? How does that relate to what I said?

 

[Faolyn]

The player wants to hit the Orc, they find out if successful by rolling the dice.
The player wants the runes to indicate the way out, they find out if they are successful by rolling the dice.
Else, with your cut out of an important part, could day the player decided the Orc will be dead, it had nothing to do with the character. Why is that an issue? Accept the reality of the rules.
Ultimately there is a difference to me in the type of fiction being settled between the two. But both involve a similar process and a similar change in fiction.

As I said elsewhere, to accept that the runes mean what the player wants them to mean also means that the player has decided on the nature of the runes' creators and how these runes would even exist in the first place. If these are neatly carved, official-looking runes that mark the exit, then similar runes should be placed throughout the complex, because clearly the creators wanted things to be neatly labeled. In fact, saying that the runes mean exit because the player wants them to means that the entire layout of the complex now has to change to have a nearby exit. Either that, or the runes just say exit but don't mean that, which adds either a level of absurdity or horror to the complex, depending on how the GM describes things.

Likewise, the orc has hit points or a harm track--a countdown, if you will. One blow may or may not kill the orc. Between the player hitting the orc and the orc's hp reaching zero, a large number of things can happen. The orc can kill the PC. A truce can be called. The orc or the PC can run away. A wizard can turn the orc into a toad. The player's desire for a dead orc isn't automatically fulfilled on a successful attack roll.

Also, the runes were carved at some point in the past and almost certainly by someone the PC has never met. How do they have the ability to determine the goals and thought process of an NPC from the possibly far-distant past? At least in most narrative games, the PCs are only determining what is going on right now, in the present, or events in the recent past and near future that directly involve the PC in some way.