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

[FrogReaver]

Oh no, I agree we disagree. That just seems factually accurate.

My magnanimity is limited to allowing you to be wrong in your posts and not feel the need to keep correcting you. I acknowledge you are committed to your particular usage, and do not desire to change it.

That’s cool. I’d offer the same but when you say it 2 days from now is I’m sure I’ll forget I either made that commitment or to whom I made it to.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, you said this as a disagreement to someone else saying a railroad means the dm forces everything. Now your telling me you agree that its only a railroad if the dm forces everything (no paths off) because that’s the only way for there to be no exits.

A railroad is not the DM forces everything. At that point that's just solo play, which is different. A railroad is just forcing the players down a path with nothing they can do to avoid it.

 

[FrogReaver]

A railroad is not the DM forces everything. At that point that's just solo play, which is different. A railroad is just forcing the players down a path with nothing they can do to avoid it.

I don’t see the difference you envision here?

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe it would be better to explore why we each believe the word means something differently?

I don't think it's overly complicated. You're using the pretty standard usage of the term as purely pejorative, the general way it was used in the '80s and 90s to describe some fairly degenerate playstyles.

I'm arguing that there are plenty of play styles where giving the players a large amount of plot freedom isn't desirable, and that while those games are still railroads (because the game is starting with the end point already decided), that isn't a negative. The negative aspect is using illusionism to disguise a railroad game as actually being open-ended.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

The example this discussion refers to was provided by @Maxperson : it was a player who declared that their character picked their nose and the DM declared that the action did not happen.

To be fair, @Maxperson did specify that this was an example of bad DMing, but his position, as I understand it, was that the DM’s declaration that the character did not pick his nose was within the DM’s purview.

So, the DM declaring that a character does not pick their nose does seem pretty adjacent to railroading, and some people might consider railroading in and of itself.

 

[Maxperson]

Other than that not being a railroad, sure

I actually agree with @TwoSix here. You can agree to a railroad. It's very rare, but can be done. In all my time playing I've only agreed to it once. One of my players wanted to try DMing, but asked us to stay on the adventure he made and not try to deviate. His reason was that it was hard enough for him the first time out DMing without the group going every which way they want without warning like they do to me, and he didn't think he could handle it. So we agreed not to deviate and let him put us back on course somehow if we accidentally went off course.

Since we could not leave the path even if we wanted to later, having agreed in advance that he could put us back on, it was a voluntary railroad.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think it's overly complicated. You're using the pretty standard usage of the term as purely pejorative, the general way it was used in the '80s and 90s to describe some fairly degenerate playstyles.

I'm arguing that there are plenty of play styles where giving the players a large amount of plot freedom isn't desirable, and that while those games are still railroads (because the game is starting with the end point already decided), that isn't a negative. The negative aspect is using illusionism to disguise a railroad game as actually being open-ended.

I guess my question there is why not keep the standard meaning of the 80’s and 90’s term when we have a different term to reference the exact thing you describe? (Also notable is that railroaded is not a term that originated in RPGs it’s much older than them, and was always perhorative).

Or maybe I should ask first, what’s the difference in your mind between a linear adventure using my definition and a railroad using yours?

 

[Maxperson]

The example this discussion refers to was provided by @Maxperson : it was a player who declared that their character picked their nose and the DM declared that the action did not happen.

To be fair, @Maxperson did specify that this was an example of bad DMing, but his position, as I understand it, was that the DM’s declaration that the character did not pick his nose was within the DM’s purview.

So, the DM declaring that a character does not pick their nose does seem pretty adjacent to railroading, and some people might consider railroading in and of itself.

Yes. The D&D rules grant unfettered power to the DM, but also caution against abuse. They don't put in any limiter to that abuse, but only give warnings.

The example I gave would constitute an abuse of the DM given authority, and would be in my opinion bad DMing. Bad enough that I would just walk out of that game without even trying to talk to the DM unless it was his first time out. If it came from an experienced DM, there would be no point in trying to talk.

Railroading is just forcing a PC down a path. Controlling a PC is a different kind of abuse. It's similar only in that it comes from the DM and involves force of some kind.

 

[FrogReaver]

I actually agree with @TwoSix here. You can agree to a railroad. It's very rare, but can be done. In all my time playing I've only agreed to it once. One of my players wanted to try DMing, but asked us to stay on the adventure he made and not try to deviate. His reason was that it was hard enough for him the first time out DMing without the group going every which way they want without warning like they do to me, and he didn't think he could handle it. So we agreed not to deviate and let him put us back on course somehow if we accidentally went off course.

Since we could not leave the path even if we wanted to later, having agreed in advance that he could put us back on, it was a voluntary railroad.

If you voluntarily agreed to it then there’s no force involved. Don’t railroads involve forcing the players to stay in the path?

 

[Umbran]

I don’t see the difference you envision here?

Forcing some specific things, as opposed to forcing everything.