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

[Emerikol]

You’re asserting that railroading is bad. Always and objectively bad. Yet there are people who play that way and enjoy it just fine.

@Hussar this is exhibit A.

I've always considered it an undesirable playstyle but not negative beyond that point. Just like I consider the fiction generation by players, a view held by many, to be negative. It's not that I'm saying it's bad inherently for everyone. Just bad for me.

Now, tiny bits of linear adventure as you define it is not bad even in a sandbox game as long as the players know they aren't locked into the adventure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Yeah, you're right. Those terms are no less potentially offensive. Does the fact that both "sides" are guilty validate the practice?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I think I see your point, but at the same time I don't believe one can only be legitimately offended by something if it disparages a marginalized group. That's not what "offensive" means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems that a lot of people agree with @hawkeyefan because the game is changing in ways he prefers, if probably too slowly for his taste. Fail forward was in the 2014 and 2024 DMG, the 2024 emphasizes collaboration between DM and players rather than DM Fiat, and the DMG sections are no longer titled “Master of the World”, “Master of the Campaign” and “Master of the Rules”.

Frankly, I don’t think @pemerton and @hawkeyefan ‘s posts would get as much pushback if the techniques they are arguing for weren’t becoming pretty standard in D&D.

What does "a lot of people" agreeing with those folks (certainly not evident in this thread, but I digress) have to do with anything?

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not a marginalized group but people say offensive things to me all the time.

 

[TwoSix]

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."

“Power gaming” is another term that has also had such a reclamation.

A lot of us learned to game in an era that had a pretty unified vision as to how games were “supposed” to be played, and had an awful lot of language around ways of playing games wrong.

Reclaiming some of these pejoratives is a way of continuing to push back against those old mindsets, some of which are still quite prevalent in the broader TTRPG space.

 

[Aldarc]

I think I see your point, but at the same I don't believe one can only be legitimately offended by something if it disparages a marginalized group. That's not what "offensive" means.

I didn't say otherwise.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm sure there are plenty of games out that are already more to your liking. Why should D&D change for you? I doubt you'd afford me the same courtesy.

What courtesy? That you can want D&D to be more to your liking? Go ahead! How can I not afford you that courtesy?

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

That's why I've made an effort to explain my thoughts on the matter and why I view it the way I do. That's literally communication.

It's a matter of intent and good faith vs bad, I think. Linear implies good faith and reasonable intention, railroad not so much.

Yeah, that's generally the distinction people make, and I get it, and tend to just go along with that. But personally, I don't see that much of a distinction because the resulting play is essentially the same. The experience is going to be the same.

Sure, and for the short term - one adventure, or a short series - this is fine.

If it's forever, though, that just becomes too constraining on the players; or at least I find it so.

I don't disagree with you subjectively. But I think there are plenty of people who play this way. I would say that a significant amount of the hobby revolves around this kind of play.

Indeed it can, but then arises the question of what does improvement look like that would even satisfy just the both of us, never mind the considerably larger overall audience the D&D designers have to consider.

Oh, I don't expect there to be consensus about what would constitute improvements, except perhaps at the broadest level, or things like organization or presentation and the like.

 

[TwoSix]

I think I see your point, but at the same I don't believe one can only be legitimately offended by something if it disparages a marginalized group. That's not what "offensive" means.

Obviously not. If someone insults your mother, or your spouse, or your kids, or some deeply seated aspect of your appearance, then sure, you can be legitimately offended.

Being offended by someone not liking your gaming tastes is like being offended that they don't like your favorite Star Wars movie. It only matters on the internet, and you would rightfully laughed at if you were actually offended in RL.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say otherwise.

My read on your statement was that it was implied. Apologies if I misrepresented you.