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

[clearstream]

Sometimes friction in communication is a good thing. The provocation inherent in the repurposing is the point.

That is to accept @FrogReaver's point, to my reading. The pejorative term is used  because it is pejorative.

 

[clearstream]

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

But then couching it as heightened understanding comes off as illusion.

In a way, that helps see why illusionism is problematic: it leads to conversations that are subtly unmoored. A participant might pushback on something, only to discover that thing isn't truly at issue; whilst other things that are at issue are wrongly assumed to stand.

 

[clearstream]

Putting your definition of a term over a more accepted one is certainly your right, but it's not great for communication.

One has to consider the aim of the communication. It's great for communication if one's aim is to extend a pejorative label to modes of play one has some disdain for. Many posts on these boards can be seen in such light... attempts at re-norming, extending, or withholding labels.

To me, "railroading" has become a pejorative label which could apply to "linear" APs iff played a certain way. So that some instance of play of an AP could be found to be both linear and a railroad, or it could be found to be solely linear. Even a sandbox like Griffin Mountain could be played as a railroad, showing that the labels are non-identical.

 

[clearstream]

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?

I think I've been insufficiently vigilant with terms as I didn't immediately see how they were being loaded.

It now seems better to me to be more specific. For instance, RQ station-to-station heroquests ought to be played as linear or branchingly linear paths  without making that a railroad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And I find the degree of hyperbole used by various people on "your side" (knowing it is a heterogeneous group) equally insulting. Dismissing others' deeply-held preferences as "rubber forehead aliens" or "Wookiee Jedi in Dark Sun" is just as inherently insulting, no?

 

[Aldarc]

I am going to disagree with you here. Linear =/= Railroad. Like, at all. Railroad specifically talks about a degenerate form of play where the restrictions being placed on the game are unreasonable and are being done in order to promote a specific outcome dictated by the DM.

Linear is perfectly fine, plausible and often completely understandable.

An adventure path is linear. It is not a railroad.

I am going to disagree with you here as well, but I don't really desire to get pulled into the weeds discussing semantics. I like @Maggan as well but I also disagree with him about linear vs. railroad.

Sometimes the difference is mostly the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it's pretty clear that the difference between linear vs. railroad amounts to mostly splitting hairs, which is certainly an art form around here. Railroad doesn't specifically talk about this because the definition of what constitutes a "railroad" can be fairly broad and inconsistent from person to person or source to source.

So what this tells me is that your sense is that there is a difference between these two things. For other people, it's a distinction without a difference. You may fiercely believe that there is a difference between them, but is it worth souring your otherwise positive relationships with people here quibbling over it? I'll leave that for you to decide.

However, I have said that railroads can be a valid form of play for some people and play groups, and I mean it. If you view railroads solely as degenerate forms of play, then that's on you.

 

[Hussar]

So what this tells me is that your sense is that there is a difference between these two things. For other people, it's a distinction without a difference. You may fiercely believe that there is a difference between them, but is it worth souring your otherwise positive relationships with people here quibbling over it? I'll leave that for you to decide.

However, I have said that railroads can be a valid form of play for some people and play groups, and I mean it. If you view railroads solely as degenerate forms of play, then that's on you.

Well, that's the base of the problem though isn't it. We might both be using the term "railroad" but, we are not speaking the same language. It's miscommunication all the way down. And that's not your fault. I'm certainly not blaming anyone for that. To me, the term rail road has always been used in a negative context. I've never heard anyone use it in a positive one.

I've certainly heard linear used in a positive context though.

And I've long pushed back against this idea that railroad is some sort of neutral term. We have a perfectly good neutral term - linear. It's why I reject the opposite of sandbox is railroad. It's not. The opposite of sandbox is linear.

I don't understand the reasoning behind taking a very obviously negative term like railroad - which generally is understood to refer to a degenerate form of play where the DM is forcing specific outcomes on the game regardless of the feelings of the players - and trying to use it in a neutral, or even positive way. Something like Phandelver - Shattered Obelisk is a VERY linear adventure. You pretty much have to progress through that adventure in a specific order and it's unlikely to vary much from group to group. But, I don't call it a railroad because the linear nature of the adventure makes sense in context.

What's the benefit of trying to use railroad in a positive context when you are pretty much guaranteed that everyone you use it with will not take it that way? Why not just use a perfectly good word that actually means what you are trying to say - linear - without all the negative baggage? Isn't the goal here communication?

 

[Maggan]

However, I have said that railroads can be a valid form of play for some people and play groups, and I mean it.

Yeah, I'm on that train as well, and in my group we railroad at times, just to keep things moving along. And sometimes play is freewheeling and emergent.

But I appreciate Hussar's discussion about linear and railroad, to give another perspective on the word.

 

[Emerikol]

So the player actually doesn't have control over their character. They have control only up to the limits placed on them by the GM--which can, and will, be anything the GM feels like.

Yes. Creativity and immersion can be enhanced by limits. And since it is a voluntary pursuit, no one is forced to do anything. It is choosing to play in a DMs campaign and agreeing to play by the limitations of that campaign. For me the very best players are those who embrace the idea and immerse in that world vs complaining and trying to changing it into something else. That will demotivate the DM and likely half the other players who've committed to the campaign idea.

Honestly if you have a character concept that you just can't let go of even for a single campaign, then by all means pass by any DM that doesn't fit your preference. I find such an idea alien but you be you. There is no forced association. There is the implicit contract when players sit at my table. We are playing in a campaign world and we should pick characters that fit that world and resonate with that world.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, that's the base of the problem though isn't it. We might both be using the term "railroad" but, we are not speaking the same language. It's miscommunication all the way down. And that's not your fault. I'm certainly not blaming anyone for that. To me, the term rail road has always been used in a negative context. I've never heard anyone use it in a positive one.

I've certainly heard linear used in a positive context though.

And I've long pushed back against this idea that railroad is some sort of neutral term. We have a perfectly good neutral term - linear. It's why I reject the opposite of sandbox is railroad. It's not. The opposite of sandbox is linear.

I don't understand the reasoning behind taking a very obviously negative term like railroad - which generally is understood to refer to a degenerate form of play where the DM is forcing specific outcomes on the game regardless of the feelings of the players - and trying to use it in a neutral, or even positive way. Something like Phandelver - Shattered Obelisk is a VERY linear adventure. You pretty much have to progress through that adventure in a specific order and it's unlikely to vary much from group to group. But, I don't call it a railroad because the linear nature of the adventure makes sense in context.

What's the benefit of trying to use railroad in a positive context when you are pretty much guaranteed that everyone you use it with will not take it that way? Why not just use a perfectly good word that actually means what you are trying to say - linear - without all the negative baggage? Isn't the goal here communication?

I think that the benefit involves, at least for me, an increasing desire to validate a greater plurality of playstyles without disparaging multiple playstyles as "degenerate."

One person's "linear game" is another person's "railroad game," and they could both be playing the same game. I've sat at "linear games" that felt like "railroads." That can be perfectly fine in some cases but not in others, largely depending on how much influence I want to have on the game or how much I want my characters' actions to matter to the outcome. I think that some people resent linear adventures as railroads when they resist the linearity of the adventure or desire more freedom to pursue their character goals.

There will be plenty of times when I will go along for the ride. I willingly choose not to resist because I recognize and tacitly consent to the social contract of playing on the tracks, and I don't necessarily want to derail things for the GM and others at the table. If I know that I am playing an AP, I won't be creating a character with the intent of pursuing personal goals or having them "matter." I'll be creating a character that will be along for the ride. The railroad game chugs along for me as a player, happily or otherwise, though from your perspective as a GM, it's doing so as a linear adventure.

For the record, terms like "metagaming" were also frequently used as pejoratives in the past, but also notice that I don't use it that way either. "Metagaming" for me is not a bad thing as I don't equate it to "cheating" as some people do. And I do think that there has been a shift away from seeing "metagaming" as inherently a bad thing. It's much the same for me when it comes to "railroads."