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

[Emerikol]

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?

Well for me it is negative but I assumed some people like it. So it was "neutral" in the broader world but it was a negative to me. I mean Paizo sells a lot of adventure paths. I don't mind though the change of terms if railroad has become too toxic but then why is linear good? Won't it soon become toxic because it means the group will keep going from point A to point B to point C without deviation?

 

[AlViking]

Yes, absolutely.



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.

It's a pejorative to a lot of people. It's like saying something offensive and saying "It's just a joke." It doesn't change anything and there's no reason to use it as a description of a style of game.

Maybe it's the people who describe a way of playing that others partake in and enjoy as objectively bad that are being the a-holes?

I'm okay with linear campaigns if you say all linear campaigns are railroads you already know what I think.

And are these examples of you "altering reality" or are you just doing what you need to do, and establishing elements as they are needed or become relevant in some way?

I'm not going to write down every single detail they could come across. Because they have a great deal of freedom in regularly have to improvise.

But the improv matches the big picture and isn't done to change the direction of the narrative.

Yeah, obviously. And I'd like if D&D were a little more suited to my liking. That's why I don't tend to like the conservative mindset to keep everything as it is. The game can be improved.

There are many ways to run the game, just don't expect me to think your way is better for anyone but you or should lead to a fundamental change in design of the game. No game will hit it out of the park for everyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess it's all how you define railroad. If you define it as forced onto a path, then against their will isn't the main qualifier, even though most times it will be against their will. If you define it as forced onto a path against their will, then there's going to be a fundamental disconnect with those that don't view it that way.

I've seen both used quite often here and other places, so I don't know that there's one of those that can be said to be how it usually defined.

I agree. I’d just add I think the notion of forcing someone to do something implies, even necessitates that you are forcing that thing against their will. That’s why I don’t think forcing them to do something they want to do makes semantic sense.

 

[Aldarc]

It's a pejorative to a lot of people.

Let's apply a little perspective. I don't think that "railroad" is anywhere close to being on the level as an offensive joke. It's not a term being used to describe or used against other peoples and cultures, particularly marginalized or foreign ones. It's not even being used jokingly. It's a term used to talk about roleplaying games, and one way how they are structured for campaign play. Obviously there is more to it than that, but comparing it to an offensive joke is a false equivalence IMHO that tries to make a hobby term as being comparable to causing harm and insult to others, again often marginalized groups.

Likewise, "metagaming" has also been used a pejorative, and I don't think it's as malicious as people make it out to be, and how people understand "metagaming" has also been changing in the hobby as they reconsider its use.

FWIW, the board gaming hobby uses the term "Ameritrash" to describe a style of game. It can certainly be used pejoratively, but it's mostly lost any teeth it had as a pejorative. However, there are a fair number of games that are openly and brazenly referred to as "Ameritrash" games. I guess there are likely people who find reason to be offended by the term.

 

[Emerikol]

Maybe someone should tell us what the difference between a linear campaign and a railroad campaign is? Other than a name change I don't know. Maybe use a table and bullet points.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Blaming the victim isn't a good look.

 

[Emerikol]

Gygax's DMG affirms GM authorship over the puzzle. Where something is not a puzzle - eg How to defeat an Orc in combat? or Can I find the terrain I want to build my stronghold? - then GM authorship isn't a component of resolution. Rather, other methods are used: dice for the fighting; GM acquiescence to the player request in the case of the stronghold.

I think you are reading too much into it. The player would be stopped right off if he said he wanted a forest in the middle of a dessert. If he wants a hill surrounded by forest in a forest then that can be found and can be subsumed but it's never the case that something the DM objects to can be materialized out of nowhere.

 

[Emerikol]

It seems hard to understand, because posters - eg @AlViking - keep posting that the character determined what the runes mean.

It's probably a senseless pedantic misunderstanding. If I were an archeologist and I found some ancient lost text and translated it I might very well say "I determined what the runes mean" but in reality the runes already meant something. The writer of the runes determined what they mean. It's a shorthand but not strictly true. No one determines the meaning of anything they don't write if you are being strictly legalistic.

 

[Aldarc]

Blaming the victim isn't a good look.

Respectfully, I'm not blaming anyone of anything in my post, and I likewise respectfully hope that things will stay that way.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Blaming the victim isn't a good look.

Who is the victim and why?