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

[Mort]

I mean… just let the player play a half-orc. It’s not like Krynn is really defined by the absence of orcs. They still had goblins and similar creatures. (And, some of the broader stories had orcs, too, and the setting didn’t fall apart).



I don’t know about that. If I know I can’t make any meaningful choices, then I’m not going to try to do so. I mean, if I agree to play an adventure path, I’m not going to try to make choices that may deviate from the path.

My lack of attempt doesn’t mean that choice isn’t being denied to me. It just means I’m aware of it.



Yup. Again, my experience during play isn't really changing. I know I’m supposed to stick to the path, so I do. It’s more like I’m proactively railroading myself so the GM doesn’t have to.

This is a definition issue again. You see constraints on player choice as railroading - even if they are transparent, known and fully accepted by the players.

I, and many other participants here, only consider it railroading if the constraints on the players are hidden or otherwise involuntary (this is not limited to illusionism, that's just a very common form).


Since this is a case of neither side accepting the other sides definition - it's a pretty difficult issue to see eye to eye on.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, no, I think intent always matters. And context matters, too.

Okay. I do agree with both of those. What I meant specifically was that your intent doesn't matter as far as whether it's offensive or not. I does matter in that intentionally offensive is FAR worse than unintentionally offensive. It's the same for context. You can't be offensive to a large number of people over something considered bad/offensive in almost every incarnation and then expect intent and context to make it okay.

No one has to adopt my usage. But if I’ve explained myself, then we should all he able to understand what the other is saying based on our usage. Demanding that I conform to some general usage… one which I’ve explained I reject and why, and how casually dismissive it is of those 1%- 5% of games (I’ll just go with your totally fictional data here) where railroading is accepted and/or preferred… yeah, I’m not gonna give in to such demands. Nor would I expect others to do so.

A lot of comedians get blasted big time for making jokes about offensive topics and terms. Why doesn't context or intent matter for them? And they aren't the only ones getting blasted for things said in context and without ill intent. Folks lose jobs and careers over things like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a definition issue again. You see constraints on player choice as railroading - even if they are transparent, known and fully accepted by the players.

I, and many other participants here, only consider it railroading if the constraints on the players are hidden or otherwise involuntary (this is not limited to illusionism, that's just a very common form).


Since this is a case of neither side accepting the other sides definition - it's a pretty difficult issue to see eye to eye on.

Who said I didn’t accept your definition? I understand it and I accept that’s how many people view the concept and use the term.

As I said, I am not demanding that people adopt my use of the term. I’m just explaining it so that it’s understood.

Then, going forward we shouldn’t have any issues communicating because each of us understands the other. Communication doesn’t require consensus.

Okay. I do agree with both of those. What I meant specifically was that your intent doesn't matter as far as whether it's offensive or not. I does matter in that intentionally offensive is FAR worse than unintentionally offensive. It's the same for context. You can't be offensive to a large number of people over something considered bad/offensive in almost every incarnation and then expect intent and context to make it okay.

Actually, I can.

Maybe that won't be what happens. But that doesn't mean I can’t expect people to acknowledge my intent and the context and consider that when discussing with me.

A lot of comedians get blasted big time for making jokes about offensive topics and terms. Why doesn't context or intent matter for them? And they aren't the only ones getting blasted for things said in context and without ill intent. Folks lose jobs and careers over things like that.

Again, I think this depends on context. I don’t think comesians should get in trouble for offensive material. Context and intent absolutely should matter. They do to me.

As for people losing jobs, I think that, again, this is where context comes into it. What’s their job? What is it that they said or did that led them to be fired? And so on… all of that matters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, no, I think intent always matters. And context matters, too.

Again… I’m not trying to change anyone else’s use of the word railroad. All I’ve done is explain my thoughts on it, and why I don’t see a meaningful difference between railroad and linear.

No one has to adopt my usage. But if I’ve explained myself, then we should all he able to understand what the other is saying based on our usage. Demanding that I conform to some general usage… one which I’ve explained I reject and why, and how casually dismissive it is of those 1%- 5% of games (I’ll just go with your totally fictional data here) where railroading is accepted and/or preferred… yeah, I’m not gonna give in to such demands. Nor would I expect others to do so.



I suppose there are two levels we’re talking about. The campaign level, where the experience of play is largely sketched out as A-B-C-D like an adventure path. And then the play level where the GM overrides player declaration to preserve some predetermined idea or status quo or progression.

What I typically see as railroads at the campaign level are what others describe as linear games. Adventure Paths absolutely fall into this category. This is an adjective that describes a campaign.

At the play level, a single instance of a GM overriding or ignoring player input… like my example from Star Trek Adventures… is a GM railroading the players. This is a verb performed by the GM.

To me, this is where most of the actual confusion about the term comes from. I personally don’t think that for a campaign to fit the first definition it needs to be filled with nothing but the GM performing the second definition.



Sorry, @Lanefan… despite explaining your view, I’m afraid that’s no longer the commonly accepted definition… so despite my understanding of your preferences and why you have them, I’m going to ignore that and pretend that each time you use the word, you mean it how I expect it to be used!!

Then, I’ll blame any resultant breakdown in communication on you!

Makes sense, right?

To be fair, I don't know if anyone sees @Lanefan 's definition of campaign (which he explained has been superceded) would be considered insulting to anyone. But maybe?

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, I can.

Maybe that won't be what happens. But that doesn't mean I can’t expect people to acknowledge my intent and the context and consider that when discussing with me.

Okay. You got me there. I could expect the sun to rise in the north tomorrow.

As for people losing jobs, I think that, again, this is where context comes into it. What’s their job? What is it that they said or did that led them to be fired? And so on… all of that matters.

I can't think of the specific instances, but I know I've seen some that had me scratching my head. But yes, I do agree that job context does matter for a chunk of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, I don't know if anyone sees @Lanefan 's definition of campaign (which he explained has been superceded) would be considered insulting to anyone. But maybe?

Its not insulting per se. It might get so if he was insistent that other people weren't running a campaign every time they talked about doing so but weren't applying it the way he was. In other words, using it for gatekeeping purposes.

 

[Hussar]

@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.

I think this is where we agree. To me, it's the conflation of linear -which @hawkeyefan straight up admits that he doesn't see a difference - with railroad that causes all sorts of problems.

Like you say, AP's are linear. Well, mostly anyway. There are a few more sandboxy AP's out there, but, yeah, if you're doing any sort of "Grand Quest" AP, then, of course it's going to be pretty linear. That's how quests work. But, being on a quest isn't a railroad any more than traveling from A to B is a "railroad" even if you were actually traveling by train.

I mean, pre-flight, there are only so many ways you can travel from London, England to Boston, USA. Pretty much no matter what, you're getting on a boat, and, unless you are REALLY lost, you are not going to travel through a port in Jamaica on the way. That's just the nature of the scenario. In context, linear makes the most sense.

Railroading occurs when the wishes of the players no longer matter. No matter what, X is going to occur and the DM will do anything and everything to ensure that that outcome occurs. Gollum will always be the one to throw the Ring into the Fire and die. You will not use Eagles to travel to Mount Doom. You WILL travel through Moria and Pippen (or Merry, I cannot remember) will ALWAYS trigger the horde of orcs to come and chase you, causing the Balrog encounter. Which must always be resolved by Gandalf dying.

Railroading is closing off perfectly logical and plausible choices for no other reason than the DM wants a specific outcome. That's why it's a form of degenerate play.

 

[Lanefan]

To be fair, I don't know if anyone sees @Lanefan 's definition of campaign (which he explained has been superceded) would be considered insulting to anyone. But maybe?

Errr... Huh? Wha...?

A definition of "campaign" could somehow be taken as insulting?

Yikes.

 

[Hussar]

To me, a campaign (despite the way WotC wants us to see it) consists of more than one single closed-ended adventure path. For me, one of the very foundational things that defines "campaign" is that it's open-ended.

From what you've said here, you're playing 5e exactly the way WotC wants you to play it: buy lots of adventure-path books and play through them with a different party each time, and don't worry about worldbuilding beyond what the canned adventures require and-or provide.

Works for you. Doesn't work for me. Far too "pre-packaged".

Oh, fair enough. Although, I would clarify that this is hardly new for me. Even all the way back in the dark ages of the eighties when we started play, it was the same. Campaigns had a half life of about 18 months at most. Once I hit university, campaigns had a half life of a school year - so about 8 months. They almost never lasted longer than that. Heck it wasn't until the last 10 years that I had regularly actually completed any campaigns. I think before 5e the number of actual complete campaigns I'd either run or played could be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.

The idea of multi-year campaigns is honestly so far beyond my experience in gaming that I have no idea how I'd even begin to approach it. Back in AD&D, we'd play 1-9 or 10th level, which takes about a year of play, and then restart. We retired at name level. That process has simply held true for the vast majority of my gaming experience.

I think this is largely why things like campaign lore matters so little to me. When campaigns are restarting very often, you never really get too deep into a setting. I've played in a LOT of settings - both homebrew and published - over the years. So, why would I particularly care if the setting lore for setting X gets rewritten? It happens all the time by the publishers - my Dragonlance has no devils, for example, because my formative Dragonlance experience was in 1e and there was no Hell in Dragonlance and all this was pre-Planescape.

 

[Hussar]

orry, @Lanefan… despite explaining your view, I’m afraid that’s no longer the commonly accepted definition… so despite my understanding of your preferences and why you have them, I’m going to ignore that and pretend that each time you use the word, you mean it how I expect it to be used!!

Then, I’ll blame any resultant breakdown in communication on you!

Makes sense, right?

Well, actually, yes it makes perfect sense. Very, very few people have ever played in these open, multi-year campaigns. Even back in the day, it was very uncommon for people to play that way. It's not like there weren't serial adventures back then - GDQ, A1-4, the U series, just to name a few. And, the setup of AD&D lends itself very strongly to retiring characters after name level, that's why you got a keep and all that kind of stuff. That told players it was time to retire.

So, if every time you use the word campaign, you are using it differently than most people around you, you are deliberately obscuring communication. And it's not like you don't know that you are using the word differently than everyone else. Because you've been told repeatedly that no one uses the word the way you use it.

Now, campaign has, AFAIK, no connotations attached to it at all. Negative or positive. I cannot think of any connotative meaning.

Railroading OTOH, has been pretty much universally used as a negative for decades. It's in the same category as Monty Haul, or various other negatively charged terms. I cannot think of a single example where it isn't used negatively. "This AP is a railroad" is never meant neutrally or positively. It's always understood in a negative context.

Now, if you want to keep using a term that you know everyone around you understands as a negative, and then insist that just because you personally don't think it's negative, that's not on them. That's on you. You're causing the break down in communication, particularly when there is a perfectly neutral term - linear - that no one would object to.