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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Of course, this is a bit like saying "It's not mind control if the person never tries to do anything the mind control would prevent."

And that's not even getting into the whole "the odds of no rail ever getting tested vanish to 0 rapidly with game length" thing. Unless you're working with people who are functionally carbon copies of you, people think differently from one another, even if only in small ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Sure. The players always get to choose what they do. IMO, if no one tries to move off the track it’s simply not a railroad.

 

[Enrahim]

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.

Just want to say this was my intended meaning. I would think brushing against the rails being a much more common way of "revealing the railroad" than any actual push. If it comes to push that usually indicates the rail has been known for a while, and the players are getting sick of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course, this is a bit like saying "It's not mind control if the person never tries to do anything the mind control would prevent."

And that's not even getting into the whole "the odds of no rail ever getting tested vanish to 0 rapidly with game length" thing. Unless you're working with people who are functionally carbon copies of you, people think differently from one another, even if only in small ways.

Right. So if a linear game goes on long enough, eventually someone will test the rails. And at that point the GM has to decide if they're running a linear game with options (and allow the players more freedom) or a railroad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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 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.

I was under the impression that that wasn't considered appropriate, as in, the GM doing any effort at all to try to make the player's desire happen, albeit in an altered form or with different context, was "rewriting reality" or bowing and scraping when the GM should be "pulling rank".

I mean, I literally had someone in this thread ask me if I would be okay with playing a dwarf, just literally a completely ordinary dwarf without even the slightest changes from being a dwarf, whose clan was called "Dragonborn". That was genuinely asked by someone in this thread. It hasn't really been well-communicated that the GM is trying to meet the player halfway....particularly because that's what I've described and asked for in essentially every single thread like this one, ever, and it always gets pushback from "traditional GM" advocates.

 

[Mort]

Of course, this is a bit like saying "It's not mind control if the person never tries to do anything the mind control would prevent."

And that's not even getting into the whole "the odds of no rail ever getting tested vanish to 0 rapidly with game length" thing. Unless you're working with people who are functionally carbon copies of you, people think differently from one another, even if only in small ways.

Or if the players are aware of the constraints (such as an adventure path is being run) and choose to go along.

The point being, if the DM is open and up front about how they are running, and the players choose to accept that - it won't be a railroad.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was under the impression that that wasn't considered appropriate, as in, the GM doing any effort at all to try to make the player's desire happen, albeit in an altered form or with different context, was "rewriting reality" or bowing and scraping when the GM should be "pulling rank".

I mean, I literally had someone in this thread ask me if I would be okay with playing a dwarf, just literally a completely ordinary dwarf without even the slightest changes from being a dwarf, whose clan was called "Dragonborn". That was genuinely asked by someone in this thread. It hasn't really been well-communicated that the GM is trying to meet the player halfway....particularly because that's what I've described and asked for in essentially every single thread like this one, ever, and it always gets pushback from "traditional GM" advocates.

I remember that. I didn't expect that to work for you.

The example never said why the player wanted to play a half-orc. I think that makes a big difference as to how they can be acommodated.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

The description given for the unacceptable player thing was the player getting to play, in every possible way that could ever matter to them, the exact character they wish to play. That was considered unacceptable. The player is expected to compromise on at least some parts of the character they would like to play.

The analogous thing for a GM would be them getting to decide all characteristics of the campaign exactly as they wish it to be. Hence, not getting that would look like having to compromise, to a reasonably-limited degree degree, on the characteristics of the campaign, just as the player is expected to compromise, to a reasonably-limited degree, on the characteristics of the character.

Both player and GM will have things that are critical; without them, it won't be worth playing the game. But they'll also have things that aren't critical--and can thus be flexible. As with a previous thing I've said, it's plausible that the GM should have more critical things than any individual player; perhaps more critical things than all the players combined. But there have to be limits...and because the GM is the pitch-er, not the pitch-ee, while they might get more critical things, it's on them to earn that, not on the players to earn their preferences.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I remember that. I didn't expect that to work for you.

The example never said why the player wanted to play a half-orc. I think that makes a big difference as to how they can be acommodated.

Absolutely! If the reason is "I want to continue playing my character Gathrog the Toesmasher, as he was in a previous game", that's probably not going to work. But in my experience, most people who have one or two really really beloved races aren't nearly so persnickety about nitty-gritty details, they have certain conceptual, aesthetic, mechanical, and/or cultural specifics that are their source of enthusiasm. And, generally, most people who are invested to this degree have a pretty good idea of what it is that matters most to them, so they can express that relatively quickly if asked.

Unless it's me. Then I'll express it with a wall of text that will crit you for Over Nine Thousand.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Of course any time a DM volunteers to run a game they should run the setting past the players. I do it by letting people know about my setting on my invite.

But ... it's the DM volunteering to run a game. They have more of a vote than anyone else at the table. Don't like it? Keep looking or run a game yourself. The person that does the majority of the work to run the game should get special treatment and should be able to run whatever game they want as long as they can find players.

If a player is willing to share DMing duties or rotate campaigns they may get special consideration. But it you want to play in a campaign that is consistent, logical, makes sense, that the DM enjoys planning for, building and running? Give the DM a break or find another game more to your liking.