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

[Micah Sweet]

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?"

I really don't agree with your last statement. A comment stands or falls on it's own merits IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The game might actually the table fine in your first example except for that one player, and maybe a discussion can be had where they get the experience they want without having to actually play a half-orc. I would never casually toss a campaign out on its ear because a single person had a request that didn't fit, if everyone else was excited about it.

 

[Enrahim]

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.

So what does perfection of vision mean? If it mean the vision include absolutely everything that is ever going to happen in the game, then I think noone would ever dream of disagreeing with that statement. However if the vision is less than everything I think it really depends on how much less we are talking about. On the other extreme if the "vision" is simply "I want to play a game I feel comfortable GM-ing", I think even you would agree even demanding this vision to be fulfilled to perfection would be reasonable.

So I believe if your statement are to be meaningful we need to look at a middle ground, likely closer to the first meaning than the latter. But then I want to point out that there are certain strong argument for a level of asymmetry in terms of "vision". A creative work tend to be more pleasing for us humans if it is based on a singular rather than fragmented vision. A play with a scriptwriter and director tend to produce a quite different experience than a pure improv theatre.

If the group want to have an experience closer to a proper production, granting the GM vision more weight than that of the individual players make sense. And indeed if the GM are not interested at all in the pure improv experience - would it be wrong of them to demand that the game stay true to at least parts of their vision?

 

[TwoSix]

The game might actually the table fine in your first example except for that one player, and maybe a discussion can be had where they get the experience they want without having to actually play a half-orc. I would never casually toss a campaign out on its ear because a single had a request that didn't fit, if everyone else was excited about it.

Ehh. That still puts the one person not up on the concept in a pretty weird position. I don’t love putting them in a “go along to get along” position.

Maybe it’s fine! It ultimately depends on the player. But it’s a red flag for me.

 

[Mort]

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.

That's a really good point. If the DM never denies any of the players meaningful choices - no railroading occurs.

It's also a good way to look at why linear =/= to a railroad. If the players are voluntarily following a linear path (because that's all there is and they are aware of that, such as an adventure path) they are not being denied any meaningful choices.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

For me, that would be an example of lack-of-discussion. The GM failed to tell the players that they were on rails...but never told them they weren't on rails either. The dragon shows up to tell people to get back on track because the GM knows the group is on rails, and the players don't. The GM may or may not be trying to hide it.

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.

I mean...I guess? I just think that this makes it sound like the players have to be actively straining against the bars of the cage, and that's simply not true. It's quite possible to accidentally/unintentionally brush against the limits and realize you're on rails.

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

I mean, I guess. I just see it as unproductive terminology. Personally, I would still use "linear" for the consensual aspect, and if I absolutely, positively had to invent a term for "things that are all a hard-coded path, regardless of how it's done" would be either "hard-coded" or "fixed-path".

Not sure how I feel about "hazardous" though. Railroading can also be quite "hazardous".

 

[Campbell]

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.

Even if those rails are never tested due to social norms or enforcement from the group rather than the GM?

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

Well the owlbear is a popular spirit animal

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Okay. I think players being afforded the same experience--that they can't get exactly the character they want, but they should have a reasonable expectation that they can "get close", because it "isn't worth it to" them if they can't.

Separately

I really don't agree with your last statement. A comment stands or falls on it's own merits IMO.

And I'm quite well aware that the context of a comment can transform the benign into the malign and vice-versa.

If your SO/spouse/partner looked to you with tears in their eyes and said, "But...don't you love me?" You absolutely would not respond to that with, "I believe everyone deserves love." Even though you probably do believe that, saying that in that context would be hurtful and offensive.

Context matters. The exact same statement can be noble and laudable, or horrifically insulting, just with a change of context.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ehh. That still puts the one person not up on the concept in a pretty weird position. I don’t love putting them in a “go along to get along” position.

Maybe it’s fine! It ultimately depends on the player. But it’s a red flag for me.

Did you hear the part where we talk to this person to see if they can get what they want without playing a half-orc? It sounds like you're advocating for the game to revolve around one person's specific interest. If this is the only problem, I don't think we need to toss the game.