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

[Deset Gled]

They are interchangeable to me. I am not describing anyone's games other than ones I've been in. If I'm playing an adventure path, it's not meaningfully different experience to me than a railroad. It's gonna be A followed by B which leads to C and then on to D and so on.

Now, I'm not using railroad as a pejorative because as has been pointed out several times now, it's not always one. There may be reasons to play that way. Some folks actually like it.

If people tell you a word can be offensive, responding with "well, I don't mean it offensively when I use it" is pretty much never a response that will help you very much.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think your thinking too narrow here. I'd guess when you hear 'alter reality' your talking about: The DM pre makes a tower guard and says they are 1st level and swears under oath that this is true to the players. Then when the players attack the tower, the DM changes the guard into a 20th level dragon guard.

In the more general sense, anything and everything the DM does Alters Reality as nothing in the game world is "set" that the DM can't alter.

Well, I'm kind of looking at what the word alter means. As I explained, and which you seem to agree with per the below, it means something different than establishing something.

When something is first introduced to play, that's when it's established. I don't think it's being altered... nothing has changed, it's just that we've only just learned this detail.

Altering would be making a change to something that existed. If a GM or player were to do that, one would hope there would be some kind of explanation from within the setting that explained the change.

I agree here....but there is the BIG point here of "what the players THINK does not matter EVER!" The DM can tell the players 'Bob is human' 100 times.....but Bob can can STILL be a werewolf. The players just don't know everything about everything all the time.

Well this all depends. Can such secrets be learned under the right circumstances or if the players declare the right actions?

Over the years, I've grown tired of secrets like that. What I find is more fun is when secrets are learned.

Well, that is not Railroading. Again, you get back to "if I don't like it, it's Railroading". To say "the DM ignored my input and that makes the whole game a Railroad" does not really make sense.

I described what the GM is doing as railroading. They are overriding what I want to do and for no apparent reason. To me, that's GM Force, which is what I'd call it, but railroading is the common term.

I'm not saying that one instance of play where the GM railroads me like this makes the entire game a railroad. Though I also don't think that matters much.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If people tell you a word can be offensive, responding with "well, I don't mean it offensively when I use it" is pretty much never a response that will help you very much.

But you don't care that there are people who happily play and run railroad type games and you're classifying their fun as offensive?

Don't you think that's worse? Don't you think that's a flawed way to look at it?

As for my use, I've explained how I use the term and I've explained some of my associated preferences. I've explained why I think it actually stinks to use it as a pejorative. Anyone who has been speaking with me about it is now free to understand and accept my take on it, or else continue to engage with me as if I'm saying something I'm not. That's their choice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I get that. I have players like this as well. I actually put it to the players fairly recently, asking how much freedom they wanted. Did they want me to sort of hold up signs saying, "Adventure thisaways" or did they want to hunt on their own? And their response was mostly they wanted me to have a fairly obvious path for them to follow.

For example, I'm running Out of the Abyss. The party has arrived in the duegar city of Gracklestagh. I was perfectly fine if they wanted to stay in the city and try to carve out something of a niche for themselves there. And, I kinda hinted that this was an option. The players weren't particularly interested though. They want to follow the main thrust of the campaign - escaping the Underdark. Which is perfectly fine with me, either way.

So, perhaps "trail of breadcrumbs" rather than railroad might be a more apt description. Within the context of each area, they have a great deal of freedom. But, overall? Yeah, it's a fairly linear campaign with the party traveling from area A to B to C to ... Z where they escape the Underdark and then the second half of the campaign begins.

---- Edit to add ---

As a DM, where I can get frustrated is with players who line up like baby birds, beaks open waiting for me to wheel up the plot wagon and shovel in the plot so they can gobble it down. Drives me bonkers. And it's not rare. My last group, or rather, the one I walked away from a few years back - had three players out of 4 that just refused to be any kind of proactive. They effectively wanted me to open up the Monster Manual at the Letter A, and say, "Aarocockra, fight". It was such an incredibly frustrating experience for me. I'm dropping hooks, trying to bring in lore about the setting, constantly dangling ideas and getting absolutely nothing back. I actually went out and created THREE treasure maps for them (it was a piratey, naval campaign using Ghosts of Saltmarsh as a base) and they took the maps, looked at them, shrugged and never mentioned them again.

I can see why some DM's start getting really railroady. If you've had groups like this. Where the players just expect the DM to constantly drive the campaign while you passively consume whatever it is the DM is providing, the DM's get trained to lockstep the action of the game. After all, in a group like that, if you don't force the action, then you wind up sitting around staring at each other for four hours and no one wants that.

It's a bit of a circle I think. Players get trained by DM's who are very controlling of the game. Or, conversely, DM's get trained by players who will contribute nothing to game. Players who can be replaced by dice bots and no one will notice. And around and around it goes. Then these players and DM's run into games where they're expected to be the driving force in the game or are supposed to allow the players the freedom to be the driving force, and everything turns into a train wreck - to mangle the metaphor.

Yeah, absolutely. People are saying that railroading is solely the GM's fault... I think that's a really simple way of looking at it. As with most things in an RPG, it's a combo of the GM, the players, and the system.

Like you said, some players really want to be led around. They don't want to engage with the game in the way that makes it more dynamic. They just want to kind of play along and make some minor choices and that's it. Other players may need the focus for some reason. I mentioned GMing for my kids earlier... sometimes, too many options to choose from simply overwhelms them, so I have to narrow things down. I have to give the game more structure than I would with a more experienced set of players.

And the system plays a part, too. I mentioned the heavy amount of prep that trad games require. Many practices that are used can also promote railroading via illusionism and the like... unstated DCs, hidden rolls, unclear conditions for success or failure, and so on.

Are there some GMs out there that are just absolute control freaks who are going to dominate the game and not let the players make any meaningful decisions at all? Sure, there are some. As some have said, they're probably not that common, or else they wouldn't keep players long. Unless perhaps they've found players who are so passive that they're perfectly suited for them. But either way... I don't think it's useful to discuss the extreme case.

It makes more sense to talk about the GM who maybe has had passive players for so long, he's forgotten how to give some control to the players. Or the guy who usually GMs just fine, but has certain blindspots or priors that he's operating with that clash with player expectations. Things like that. Instances of railroading. Procedures that help promote player proactivity and agency.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see as strong a distinction between linear and railroad. They're metaphors... descriptors. And to me, they describe very similar things.

Like... if I'm on an adventure path and I don't "get off the path" as you say, then my experience of play will basically be the same as a railroad.

Do you often force yourself to do things, because one way you feel forced and the other way you generally don't unless you are forcing yourself to stay on the path?

No. When I agree to play a trad game, I know what limitations I should expect. I know that things will likely be on tracks of one form or another as far as what we experience, and there being some overarching story. Not always, but very often. When I agree to play, I accept that.

Then there is no railroad.

But I expect that my decisions and declarations will matter. Like in my example from Star Trek where I wasn't given the chance to point out I wanted to move quietly and stealthily, nor was I given the chance to notice oncoming NPCs who were not making any attempt to be stealthy.

That's a DM problem, not a playstyle problem. Most likely. As I said, there might have been something else in play that made the timing that tight, but that's a slim chance I think.

Well, no. As you always point out, the rules grant absolute authority to the DM.

Because they do. I didn't write them, so don't blame me for it.

So if I agree to play D&D, that's what I should expect? Your nose-picking blocking that will drive me from the game and then have you use my PC as an NPC?

Of course you shouldn't. DMs don't abuse their authority like that. Expecting that sort of thing is like expecting to get pneumonia during flu season, even though only a very small percentage of illnesses progress to it.

It's silly to expect abuses of authority.

If I should not expect that... then I don't see why it needs to be pointed out. And that bit of extremist rhetoric aside, there are still so many gray areas in question... there's no certain way for D&D 5e to be played. So what am I supposed to expect?

Because it's the truth and when people say that it's not the case, the truth should be told. The truth shouldn't be hidden away just because some people misperceive the truth as extremist rhetoric.

I direct him to your quotes because you always feel the need to point out that the DM has absolute authority. You must be pointing that out for a reason. If not, then why point it out?

Yes. There is a reason. I feel the need to defend the truth. If people didn't misstate the rules and claim things that are not true, I wouldn't feel the need to point out what the truth actually is.

if that's not meant to happen, then why do you insist that the game grants that level of authority?

Because..............................it does. Again, if you have a problem with that level of authority being in DM hands, bring it up with TSR and WotC, because they repeatedly give that to the DM. Not me. You keep trying to shoot the messenger. Go after the people who wrote the message.

And if your interpretation is accepted as accurate, why does the game need to state this?

It is 100% accurate, and as for your question, ask TSR and WotC. Not me.

How are players supposed to base their expectations for what play will be like?

Maybe by just playing the game or observing the game in play. Critical Role and 20 billion other podcasts are good for that.

And as long as you feel the need to point it out, I'll use it as an example of a poster claiming absolute authority for the DM.

Which is your problem. You keep trying to shoot the messenger instead of looking at where the message comes from.

 

[Maxperson]

While I don't think it's rare... I mean, Paizo has built their entire business around it... there are plenty of times where it may make sense. You mention one... playing along so that a new GM can learn the ropes. Another could be to help new players learn the ropes. I've GMed for my kids a bit, and they benefit from some structure, so it makes sense to keep things on rails to some extent.

That's another good one. In that case, though, I'd let them know ahead of time. I don't believe in putting people on the rails as a surprise.

I also have friends who want the equivalent of a video game. They don't want to be thinking and making major decisions about where things go and all that. They want to decide if they should use Second Wind now or save it for later, and so on.

One guy I played with for a long time was like that. He just wanted to be a fighter or thief(rogue) and then not think about much.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, absolutely. People are saying that railroading is solely the GM's fault... I think that's a really simple way of looking at it. As with most things in an RPG, it's a combo of the GM, the players, and the system.

The system has nothing to do with it. The players have nothing to do with it outside of those rare circumstances where they agree to be on one. It's almost always a DM problem.

 

[Enrahim]

I think it's far more interesting and useful to discuss the practices that we're all likely doing or familiar with that maybe are contributing to play being less fun or effective than it is.

The trouble is that the same practices can make play less or more fun dependent on the person or circumstances.

If I am so lucky to get into a game of Halls of Arden Vul, or classic Dragonlance, I would expect the source material to be followed quite to the letter, and be deeply disapointed if it didn't.

On the other hand if I am ever so lucky to find myself a game of Birthright or Ars Magica, I would expect strong creative freedom in being able in shaping my domain; and that any adventures would be deeply tied to whatever project my character's are currently taking initiatives to pursue.

I have played with GMs where suddently colliding with enemies rounding the corner might quickly become one of the most epic moments in my gaming career. And some where it would have felt like an absolute boring and unneccessary slog.

I find the conversation around these things tend to seek much more generality than what I think is usable. Your choice of the word less is telling.

 

[Deset Gled]

But you don't care that there are people who happily play and run railroad type games and you're classifying their fun as offensive?

No one is saying the playstyle is offensive. It's the language that is. Especially for people who don't consider themselves a part of that group, while others repeatedly and purposely use that term to describe them.

This really isn't an RPG thing. It's a "how to treat people with respect" thing in any aspect of life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point, that seems to be continually ignored, is that the player is repeatedly presented as having this enormous degree of freedom, but when we actually take the mask off, it's revealed that this freedom is almost totally illusory.

The customer can have it in any color they want, as long as it's black.

The player is free to choose anything...only so long as the things they want are on the pre-approved GM list.

So what? Most GMs I know provide a pretty wide variety. I know I do. I certainly don't feel my player's freedom is "almost totally illusory" if there's some option they want that isn't in my world. I actually find that degree of hyperbole from you rather insulting.