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

[EzekielRaiden]

But when I'm thinking of joining a game I compromise on my ideal game all the time.

And I expect that same courtesy from everyone at the table.

GM included.

Nobody has the right to absolute perfection of their vision to the exclusion of all other participants.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I don't think there is a logical answer possible in this context. We're talking about messy humans. Reasonable is the best we can hope for.

Because I definitely think it's not logical to tell others not to insult oneself, but having no particular concern about whether a third party insults the second party. Nor do I think it reasonable. I don't expect anyone to be the moral police officer of every social group they happen to frequent. That would also be unreasonable. But to make an appeal on the basis of "people shouldn't be insulting to each other", yes, I do kind of think that that has the actually logical corollary that nobody should be insulting to anybody. I do think it is reasonable to ask a person making that argument, perhaps not so bluntly, "So insulting people is only a problem now?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay.

Now consider this in the light of my response above to AlViking.

I consider it to be discourteous for anyone at the table to demand perfection of their vision. Anyone. Full stop.

 

[TwoSix]

And I expect that same courtesy from everyone at the table.

GM included.

Nobody has the right to absolute perfection of their vision to the exclusion of all other participants.

Agreed.

I think comparing a concept like Daggerheart's campaign frames to the "atlas and gazetteer" settings predominant in the '80s and '90s is illustrative of the difference.

The Daggerheart campaign frames have a lot of setting detail baked into 10-12 pages, but don't use that space to define exactly where or how the different ancestries/races fit into the setting. It just isn't a major priority for play. And that's exactly the attitude I've used for D&D for a long time.

As the DM, I have so many other interesting things to author, why do I need to spend a bunch of time creating details that only have the effect of making a player have a harder time making a character?

 

[AlViking]

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.

While I limit species in my world for a variety of reasons, one main reason is so that choice of species narrows down the cultural identity. I want an elf from The Misty Forest to have a different outlook than an elf from a different region or a dwarf from the third.

But as much as I try to reinforce those differences with players it rarely matters. I wish it did. Meanwhile I'm playing a dragonborn in FR and while he has a big personality it wouldn't matter much if he was human.

So I encourage people to have it matter, it just doesn't ver often.

 

[AlViking]

And I expect that same courtesy from everyone at the table.

GM included.

Nobody has the right to absolute perfection of their vision to the exclusion of all other participants.

Depends on the game. New world set up for this campaign? Having a session 0 with everyone voicing an opinion is nice. Established world? I wouldn't expect to make significant changes to it. If a DM is running a Dragonlance campaign I don't expect to be able to play a half orc because they don't exist in Krynn.

 

[Enrahim]

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.

I like your distinction. In my terminology "linear" would be an umbrella term for all of these. I also think the category of overt railroad should not be forgotten. That would be the one where the dragons appears and tell you to get back on track if you stumble outside.

I agree running a linear experience without explicit player but in is a ticking bomb - but probably not even those at the table would know what would happen if the limits of the track is put to the test. Indeed a railroad likely are not distinguishable from this before such a limit is tested, and are actually met with covert or overt counter meassures.

So i guess you could talk about consentual linear play, railroaded linear play, and hazardous linear play

 

[TwoSix]

If a DM is running a Dragonlance campaign I don't expect to be able to play a half orc because they don't exist in Krynn.

I think that example has some nuance to it. I generally don't like to run established IP settings (especially ones that have finicky race and class twists like Dragonlance) unless all the players are on-board with the setting. A player suggesting a half-orc sounds like a player who isn't actually familiar with Dragonlance; so to me, I don't think that game would fit that table.

As another example, one of my friends is running a D&D campaign based on Warcraft. None of us are suggesting playing tieflings because all of us in the group have extensive WoW experience and are extremely familiar with the setting concepts. I wouldn't run a Warcraft game if only 2 of the players out of 4 actually knew Warcraft.

Thinking that just because you've found a setting you love means that the players will also get invested is a super common source of DM frustration that can so easily be avoided.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

In my view, railroading can't exist if the rails are never tested. That's the distinction to me. Of course, I can understand where you're coming from too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I expect that same courtesy from everyone at the table.

GM included.

Nobody has the right to absolute perfection of their vision to the exclusion of all other participants.

Of course. I've never run exactly the game I want. But I'm not going to run at all if I can't get close. It's just not worth it to me.