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

[Maxperson]

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.

You and Twosix both stated it straight out. Both of you said that if the DM and players are in agreement, it isn't(absolute statement) a railroad. That statement applies to all instances where DMs and players are in agreement, including traditional play.

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.

Then what you said was flat out wrong. Because as you stated it, it does in fact apply to traditional games. There was no misinterpretation. There may have been a misstatement on your part, but that's not my doing. If you didn't mean what you said about the DM and players being in agreement not being a railroad, what did you mean?

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.

None of those things are inherently a railroad. I can walk off adventure paths and go sight seeing somewhere else and do other things.

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.

Only if you completely fail to understand the difference between linear and a railroad.

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.

I'm sure you feel that way, but feelings =/= fact. They can't be a railroad if it's possible to walk off of it when you want to.

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

Nor mine. I don't mind a module like White Plume mountain or whichever one, but I really dislike adventure paths designed to take you the whole campaign.

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.

How do you reconcile your statement that if the DM and players are in agreement, it isn't a railroad, with your stance here that adventure paths are railroads even though the DM and players are in agreement? Those are contradictory positions.

 

[AlViking]

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.

If altering the meaning of the runes works for you, go for it. I don't want to play that game for multiple reasons.

But they are not in any way the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't see it. It's dishonest, but not a deception.

DM: You can leave any time you want.
Players: Then we go up the stairs and leave.
DM: A god shows up and bars your path.
Players: Okay, then we go out of the window and leave.
DM: A dragon flies down and opens its mouth. If you leave that way you will be eaten.

It's pretty blatant that the DM is lying, but nobody is going to be deceived by that. It's like standing outside on a clear blue day and someone lying to you by saying that the sky is emerald green.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Then the issue fixed itself. Which is typically what happens.

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.

There's a bunch of other text I could quote, about how the DM pitches ideas and discusses what the players want to do. Other sections that talk about the goal is fun for all, the list goes on.

Point is if you have a bad DM like your railroading DM it takes care of itself. Meanwhile your narrative games simply don't appeal to me. Good news though! We can each play the game we want.

 

[AlViking]

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?



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.



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.

By "resistance" you mean expressing preferences? Because I see a lot of D&D leads to railroading, DMs demanding absolute authority, that players are just pawns, that players having narrative control over the world is exactly the same as rolling to see if a character's attack hits. The criticism has been endless.

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.



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

Nothing because the GM hadn't decided.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Except for all the people it helps.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You and Twosix both stated it straight out. Both of you said that if the DM and players are in agreement, it isn't(absolute statement) a railroad. That statement applies to all instances where DMs and players are in agreement, including traditional play.

Okay, last time.

Someone described the “Cunning Expert” feature as defining the character’s place in the game.

You leapt at the chance to label such “one true way” as a railroad.

Both @TwoSix and I said that it’s not a railroad, it’s a way for the player and GM to be on the same page about the character’s role and theme in the game. I pointed out that it’s in line with what a “class” does.

Beyond that, I’ll let @TwoSix clarify for himself if he feels the need. For me… I never said that all instances of a player and GM being in agreement are not railroads. I never said that the player and GM are “in agreement” during trad play. I’m not even sure what that means… I provided examples of me and a GM clearly not being in agreement from my Star Trek game.

You misinterpreted a comment, then used that combined with an assumption on your part (that the GM and player are in agreement during trad play) to draw a conclusion that had nothing to do with what was being talked about.

It’s now been clarified multiple times. Even if you think I’m off on some of the details, please accept the fact that I was not saying that if the GM and player are in agreement, then it’s not a railroad. Please see my comments about players being willing participants of railroads as further evidence.

I can’t defend a statement that I never made. I’m not going to explain this any further.

None of those things are inherently a railroad. I can walk off adventure paths and go sight seeing somewhere else and do other things.

If the GM has other things prepared. What if he says “hey man… I bought all six parts of Kingmaker… I don’t have anything else prepared. Can we please stick to this adventure?”

Only if you completely fail to understand the difference between linear and a railroad.

Or if the differences aren’t meaningful enough to matter to you!

I'm sure you feel that way, but feelings =/= fact. They can't be a railroad if it's possible to walk off of it when you want to.

What kind of nonsense is this? If I’m playing in a game, and a GM does something that I think overrides my expected ability as a player to make decisions or for those decisions to matter… then I’m being railroaded.

Feeling or fact, what difference does it make? I’m dissatisfied with the play… should I pause in my dissatisfaction and wonder “would Maxperson consider this railroading”?

Of course not. What matters is how I feel in my game, not proving something to you to win some internet fight.

 

[hawkeyefan]

By "resistance" you mean expressing preferences?

No, I mean resistance to anything that doesn’t work as traditionally defined.

Because I see a lot of D&D leads to railroading,

Not D&D, and not leads… I said that trad play can enable railroading. I think there’sa meaningful difference.

Like it's easier to railroad when target numbers aren’t known, stakes are unclear, GM authority is unchecked or unprincipled, rolls can be hidden, and so on. The presence of these kinds of things in play doesn’t guarantee that play will be a railroad… but they certainly help.

DMs demanding absolute authority

Some DMs do that. See comments from @bloodtide, see the nose-picking posts from @Maxperson .

, that players are just pawns,

I don’t recall that one. Was it about players or characters?

that players having narrative control over the world is exactly the same as rolling to see if a character's attack hits.

Well… rolling to see if a character’s attack hits is a means of a player having narrative control. I don’t think your phrasing here is accurate.

The criticism has been endless.

It’s all right, Al. Trad play is gonna make it through this.

Nothing because the GM hadn't decided.

So if the GM makes a decision, is he altering the game reality?

 

[Lanefan]

Then the issue fixed itself. Which is typically what happens.

Point is if you have a bad DM like your railroading DM it takes care of itself.

In fairness to @Faolyn though, while the issue did in fact take care of itself the end-result solution wasn't exactly perfect; if nothing else it left her disappointed in that she had a good idea for a character and didn't get to play it.

 

[Maxperson]

If the GM has other things prepared. What if he says “hey man… I bought all six parts of Kingmaker… I don’t have anything else prepared. Can we please stick to this adventure?”

That's linear, but not a railroad. When I walk through a path in the woods, I usually opt to stay on it, even though I could step off any time I want.

The DM there has asked nicely for the players to stick to the adventure, but it is not required. If the players agree and stay on the path, that's their decision, not the DM's. They could leave the path if they wanted and the DM would have to improvise or call it a night.

What kind of nonsense is this? If I’m playing in a game, and a GM does something that I think overrides my expected ability as a player to make decisions or for those decisions to matter… then I’m being railroaded.

Really? You think if you walk into a traditional game expecting to have a bunch of player facing ability to affect the fiction as a player you are being railroaded? You aren't. You have no right to agree to a traditional game and expect anything other than a traditional sort of game. Any feelings of being railroaded are on you. You aren't being railroaded, though.

Feeling or fact, what difference does it make? I’m dissatisfied with the play… should I pause in my dissatisfaction and wonder “would Maxperson consider this railroading”?

No. You just shouldn't play in a game where you aren't happy. Agreeing to play in such a game, though, and then being unhappy with it being run as that sort of game, doesn't make you railroaded, no matter how unhappy you are with it.

If I agree to a mud run, I don't get to say that they railroaded me into getting all muddy. If I don't want to get muddy, then I won't agree to a mud run. To date I've never been on one and I doubt I ever will. Mud isn't my thing.