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

[Enrahim]

Though it kind of depends. On one hand, I think blowing off the semantic loading on "railroad" is either blind to how such things matter or a little disingenuous, on the other hand, self-awareness can show when one is aware that the distinction largely is about awareness; when I ran Scion 1e years ago, it was very much a linear experience because the nature of characters in Scion made it very hard to do anything else and not have the game go right off the rails. Everyone was pretty much aware of that and I even acknowledged it had been largely a railroad at the end, and the late and much missed Steve Perrin nodded and said "Yeah, we all knew. But we enjoyed the trip."

I think this example falls into the well known category that it is generally acceptable to use certain terms when using it in-group, even if it would be totally unacceptable if used about someone else?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No.

What it does is, I don't see much strength in an argument of "don't be insulting to me", when the speaker has either personally employed insulting terms already, or has passed without comment when people they agree with have employed insulting terms toward people they don't.

People shouldn't be insulting. I'll completely grant that, and I apologize for having insulted you. That was rude.

But if we're going to expect a higher standard, we need to expect it uniformly. When I see it, I absolutely try to call out behavior I don't think appropriate, even when it's defending a position I favor. I won't name names, but there was a person in this very thread who I reported (and, it would seem, rightfully so) despite their position (not their arguments for it) being one I agreed with.

People shouldn't throw snowballs with rocks in them. That's just not okay. But I think you'd understand a child's incredulity if one of their peers got upset about being hit with a rock-in-a-snowball after said peer, or one of said peer's collaborators, already did throw more than one rock-in-a-snowball. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" can, unfortunately, lead to "an eye for an eye" or worse. But it's not hard to see an issue of fairness when Alex calls out the Snowball Sluggers for sticking rocks in, but stays silent while knowing that one or more of their Winter Warrior allies is throwing rocks too.

I see your point, but insisting that comment is only valid if it dispensed equally seems too high a standard to me. People comment on things that matter to them. If the comment is legitimate, why should it be considered less so because the poster didn't comment on someone else doing the same thing? Is that logical?

It would be nice if everyone stood up and protested every time there was any slight to anyone, but you can't IMO de-legitimize any given valid comment because it's not matched by an equal comment from that person on the other side's behavior.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was thinking Star Trek where every new race they come across has basically two flavors. The first is the Planet of Hats trope where every member of the species is part of the same monoculture. All klingons are warlike but value honor and so on. But then once a member of any of these species join Starfleet, they're basically just humans with minor cosmetic changes.

In my experience, species in D&D are pretty much the same. They may have pointy ears or they're big and gray skinned with tattoos (are the markings on Goliaths tattoos?). But once they're a character all that pretty much goes out the window other than maybe an accent or catch phrase here and there. I just don't see that it makes much difference.

I didn't think (or remember but I don't read every word carefully) of prosthetics being offensive, I'll try to remember not to use it in the future.




Different people value different things. I really don't understand putting what species to play at a higher priority over everything else and if you explained why then I missed it.

But when I'm thinking of joining a game I compromise on my ideal game all the time. I'd love to play a sandbox style game, it basically never happens. I really enjoy playing wizards but I don't mind playing warrior types while every other player never wants to risk being attacked. Ever. So I compromise on that as well.

I don't blame the game, the GM, or the other players. I just accept that its a group activity and compromise is inevitable. Meanwhile if someone is running a fantasy Sopranos game I'll decline because I don't care for evil anti-heroes.

That's just the way it goes, you can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you'll get what you need.

I actually do get it. In most cases, any given heritage has a specific role in the setting, with mannerisms, cultural traits (often including more than one culture), history, and so on. Your stance on PCs often ignoring these things in play is, first of all, not fair to those players who do try to roleplay their heritage faithfully, and secondly, reads as saying that all heritages are mostly the same (barring aesthetics and other physical differences), and so what heritage you choose doesn't matter. That to my mind denigrated the setting into which those heritages are integrated, and the players that take them seriously. I can see being irritated by that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The reason people make this distinction is because this is the distinction. Yes, the experience might turn out basically the same, but the mindset is different. Which means when you are calling some play for "railroad" rather than "linear", this come across as if you are actually making claims about the mindset of those involved.

You see how this can be a problem?

Not really. I haven’t really called anyone else’s game anything, have I? I’ve described my feelings about games that I’m in.

I haven’t said “your game is a railroad because of X” or anything like that. I’ve said that, for me, the distinction between linear and railroad is one that doesn’t really make a difference.

I’ve been talking about my preferences and my perceptions. I’m not claiming that my preferences are universal. I’m not telling anyone they need to feel the same as me.

So no… if I describe my preferences and views, I don’t see how that’s a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really. I haven’t really called anyone else’s game anything, have I? I’ve described my feelings about games that I’m in.

I haven’t said “your game is a railroad because of X” or anything like that. I’ve said that, for me, the distinction between linear and railroad is one that doesn’t really make a difference.

I’ve been talking about my preferences and my perceptions. I’m not claiming that my preferences are universal. I’m not telling anyone they need to feel the same as me.

So no… if I describe my preferences and views, I don’t see how that’s a problem.

That's fair. Just continue to expect some ruffled feathers.

 

[Enrahim]

Not really. I haven’t really called anyone else’s game anything, have I? I’ve described my feelings about games that I’m in.

I haven’t said “your game is a railroad because of X” or anything like that. I’ve said that, for me, the distinction between linear and railroad is one that doesn’t really make a difference.

I’ve been talking about my preferences and my perceptions. I’m not claiming that my preferences are universal. I’m not telling anyone they need to feel the same as me.

So no… if I describe my preferences and views, I don’t see how that’s a problem.

As for preferences, that would just be upresise language. I don't want a railroad either, but I have a lot of linear experiences I would love to try.

Trouble is that I think you also have characterised former experiences as feeling "railroady" rather than "linear", and pointed to certain features that is common in many games to try to explain that(?) This is when we start getting into problematic territory

 

[clearstream]

I haven’t said “your game is a railroad because of X” or anything like that. I’ve said that, for me, the distinction between linear and railroad is one that doesn’t really make a difference.

Just to check, do both incorporate illusionism and GM-force? Do the two labels have exactly the same meaning? (effectively emptying one of semantic value.)

 

[clearstream]

That's fair. Just continue to expect some ruffled feathers.

My objections aren't to do with ruffled feathers; they're to do with semantic value. With preserving useful labels so that effective conversations can be had.

Using them interchangeably implies they have identical meanings. Where "railroading" has already been in currency with a pejorative loading that does identify behaviours worth getting clearly in sight.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The reason people make this distinction is because this is the distinction. Yes, the experience is basically the same, but the mindset is different. Which means when you are calling some play for "railroad" rather than "linear", this come across as if you are actually making claims about the mindset of those involved.

You see how this can be a problem?

Well, I think what Hawkeyefan is aiming for (no pun intended) is that they don't really think "done with the best of intentions" vs "not done with the best of intentions" is a particularly meaningful division to draw. Especially because most of the people who do "railroad" are doing it genuinely believing that it is, in context, a good and right thing to do--perhaps even the good and right thing to do.

Instead, I think a much more relevant distinction to draw is threefold: explicit agreement, lack of discussion, or active deception.

Explicit agreement is, as some have mentioned in the thread, the folks who truly want a linear, low-choice experience. They aren't interested in having their personal expression influence the experience, any more than they would want their personal expression to influence a good book or a good movie. When a GM tells the group, "Hey, I'm thinking about running Zeitgeist, you in?" that gives the players a clear notion of specifically what they're signing up for, and it's on them to evaluate and decide. And if they agree, they've conceded at least some ground in the "player choices should matter a lot" department because...that's always going to be much more limited when running a whole-game-spanning adventure path.

Unfortunately, what I find is much more common with this stuff is lack of discussion. The GM does things because they feel like it and...doesn't really specify to the players. Whether that's because they think they shouldn't specify, or just don't think it's worth mentioning, I dunno. But they sort of...glide past the stuff without ever really saying. One of those "if we never have to talk about it, it's never a problem...right?" kind of things, which naturally I think are misplaced but I mean it does work some meaningful proportion of the time, so...whatever, I guess. Just seems to me like it's leaving a land mine tucked in a corner in the hopes that it'll never actually explode.

And then of course there's active deception, which I've referred to as illusionism. Folks know I think that's a bad thing, so I'm just gonna leave it there and move on.

So, linear adventures are, or at least should be, something you do with explicit agreement. Do we need a specific name for that? I dunno. Maybe? Maybe not. I guess if folks feel the need it doesn't hurt.

But if we do in fact need such a label, I think it's also important to call out the difference between "railroading by just trying to never broach the subject" and "railroading by deceiving people into thinking they aren't on rails." The two have some tactics in common, but aren't the same.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My objections aren't to do with ruffled feathers; they're to do with semantic value. With preserving useful labels so that effective conversations can be had.

Using them interchangeably implies they have identical meanings. Where "railroading" has already been in currency with a pejorative loading that does identify behaviours worth getting clearly in sight.

I do think a significant part of it is that a lot of people have dealt with either pretty extreme degrees of illusionism, or an extended shell game to avoid finally admitting that player choice doesn't really matter the way the players thought it did. That is, in my three-way taxonomy above, they've been stuck in lack-of-discussion land, or with true illusionism. If that's happened to someone a lot, I could see them taking a rather tough stand, where anything beyond the most basic limitations (like "actions have consequences") smells of pretense and BS, and is thus "railroading". Doubly so if they don't really have any personal desire to play in modules/APs, and thus the "explicit agreement" category doesn't really exist for them--so the only possible ways they could end up in a rigidly linear adventure are someone failing to say that that's what it is, or someone pretending it isn't that when it actually is.