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

[FrogReaver]

The difference is that with a railroad, I still get to play my character within the confines of the train. I can burn one train car down, repair the next, and so on. I may be stuck on the train, but the choices I make while on the train are mine. My agency is limited since some choices(those to exit or stop the train) are gone, but others are still mine to decide.

If the DM is controlling my character, all agency is gone. My PC isn't being forced down a rail. He's not even on a train at that point. All voluntary movement is gone. Even the forward along the rail.

And as both I and @Umbran mentioned, you can accidentally wander off of the rail and be forced back onto the track in a voluntary railroad.

Okay. I feel like you failed to take in the immediate context of the discussion for what I said. I could have been more clear but I think the context was there either way.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

but 'wanting' or 'hoping' and the dice roll isn't the important part of the action resolution of what makes them different from each other, attacking the orc is a closed-potential outcome, there isn't any possibilities beyond 'hit' or 'miss' when you attempt to resolve the action.

deciphering the runes in this situation is not the same case, there is ambiguity to their meaning, if the runes example was the same as the attack example it would be a question of 'can i translate the runes? yes or no' and the GM would know their meaning and tell you on a success, and if the attack example was the same as the runes example it would a question of 'does my attack attempt work? yes or no' but then on a success you could list any type of offensive action against the target, you could damage them, you could inflict status, you could even use magic against them because your 'nonspecific attack action' was successful.

 

[TwoSix]

Unless the taxonomy has categories for whether the dm is behaving according to the players wishes or not. Then it’s still taxonomical.

Doesn't seem like a worthwhile taxonomic classification to me, since it's a question you can levy against any game. It's a good question, just a poor classification.

And Sometimes you just did the hole deeper. You’ve now admitted It’s now purposefully using a pejorative term for provocation. No wonder so many push against your definition of railroad.

Why would you think the pushback and the resulting conversation isn't the point?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. I feel like you failed to take in the immediate context of the discussion for what I said. I could have been more clear but I think the context was there either way.

What context am I missing between the DM forcing everything, including PC actions and behavior, and the DM only forcing the group down a track and not the actions or behavior at all?

 

[FrogReaver]

What context am I missing between the DM forcing everything, including PC actions and behavior, and the DM only forcing the group down a track and not the actions or behavior at all?

The context that forcing everything was short for forcing everything related to keeping the players on a specific path since that’s clearly the context of what we were talking about.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

@Maxperson. Even in this post I expanded that ‘everything’ meant ‘no paths off’.

 

[Umbran]

I wouldn’t call what the dm does force if they’ve agreed to have the dm place them back on the path in the event they wander off it.

Is our point to make sure that everything matches FrogReaver's personal lexicon?

Let us say the next step on "the path" is for the players to meet with Robin Hood. However, the players are currently mucking about in Nottingham, and are talking about seeing if they can go find King Richard, and convince him to return to the area.

The GM has the Merry Men waylay the PCs on the road, to force them to meet Robin.

Whether the players object to that or not does not change the nature of the GM's action - it just changes the social repercussions of the action.

So, I'd say GM force is force, whether the players object to it or not, whether they agree to allowing it or not.

 

[Maxperson]

The context that forcing everything was short for forcing everything related to keeping the players on a specific path since that’s clearly the context of what we were talking about.

Okay. That was unclear to me because I couldn't see who you were originally talking to. My first reply was to your reply to that person. The second was to you saying forcing everything.

 

[FrogReaver]

Doesn't seem like a worthwhile taxonomic classification to me, since it's a question you can levy against any game. It's a good question, just a poor classification.

I don’t think games in the right word, maybe playstyles. IMO if it’s a good question then that makes taxonomy considering it very important.

Why would you think the pushback and the resulting conversation isn't the point?

What conversation specifically are you trying to have by this intentional provocation? That others distinction between what they mean by linear and railroad is based on consent? Because that’s readily admitted. So what conversation are you trying to illicit?

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay. That was unclear to me because I couldn't see who you were originally talking to. My first reply was to your reply to that person. The second was to you saying forcing everything.

Yea. I could have been more clear. But that kind of confusion seems par for the course.