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

[Gimby]

I disagree that DMs cheat more, except perhaps to not kill off a character without meaning to do so. There's no more motivation for them to cheat than players.

I don't consider giving misleading info if they are relaying what the character would think was true. Withholding info is the same. I present what the character would know. I also modify monsters now and then but I do it ahead of time, I don't care if the characters run roughshod over my encounter there's always next time.

Of course there's no way of knowing how much either side fudges, even if they're doing by accident.

We can certainly survey it - D&D 5E (2014) - DMs, how do you fudge? This seems to suggest that a good portion of GMs will admit to fudging at least sometimes.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I'm happy to agree on this nuance but to be honest I think railroad has been used plenty for all of it. So it's hard to argue those using it as equivalent to linear have got it wrong. A lot of people have talked that way for a long time in the gaming community. It's probably best to just be crystal clear and also realize when they say railroad all they may mean is linear.

I think railroad as you use it here occurs very infrequently in gaming. Whereas linear gaming occurs far more frequently.

I prefer to avoid pedantic arguments so again I'm happy with your more clarifying terms. Just watch out that not everyone has used railroading in that exact way.

 

[AlViking]

OTOH, one could also posit that illusionism is the wall at the edge of every sandbox.

I would disagree. If I truly have no idea what to do I'll tell the players. I don't remember the last time that happened but I suppose I could if they shifted to another plane or something. There have been times when I had to go the bathroom to give me a minute to think.

I do always do minimal prep of an extra combat or two that are monsters they could run into and may end up using those. I could also reuse stat blocks, particularly if it's NPCs since if I had expect them to run into Capt Thornton and instead they run into a self proclaimed bandit king I don't see an issue. The two groups will have different motivations, goals and personalities with different reasons why a fight may start.

It just takes practice to have the improvisation fit the scenarios that arise.

 

[Emerikol]

Because linear is unforced. Like I said, linear is like walking down a forest path. You are on a line, but at any time if you want to step off in a different direction to look at or do something else, you can. The bolded portion is not a part of linear. You can deviate if you want to. The main portion of the adventure just happens in a line, and you can just leave the adventure to do a different one if you want.

I get the distinction as it's been presented. Prior to this thread I would not have made that distinction. Any game where the party is going along a predetermined path would be a railroad. I thought that was enough to be pejorative in my eyes but apparently not in everyones.

I am also happy with peeling off part of this type of gaming and calling it linear so we can leave the remaining bad stuff behind and let that definition be 100% pejorative.

Like I said pedantic arguments are not for me. Let's just agree on our terms for purposes of discussion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I disagree that DMs cheat more, except perhaps to not kill off a character without meaning to do so. There's no more motivation for them to cheat than players.

I don't consider giving misleading info if they are relaying what the character would think was true. Withholding info is the same. I present what the character would know. I also modify monsters now and then but I do it ahead of time, I don't care if the characters run roughshod over my encounter there's always next time.

Of course there's no way of knowing how much either side fudges, even if they're doing by accident.

I mean I think it's nearly irrefutable that many, many GMs out there fudge, deploy quantum ogres, and/or "allow" things while then taking pains to ensure that the thing in question is functionally impossible despite being "allowed". If a person considers those things cheating, and I absolutely do, then GMs are literally advised to cheat, sometimes by a variety of professional and otherwise well-respected sources. That, alone, indicates there's way, way more opportunities, and more incentives, for GMs to "cheat", if one agrees these things count as cheating. I know a number of people also think it literally isn't possible for GMs to cheat, and thus they engage in such behaviors without restraint, which is rather different from players. Even a dirty rotten constant cheater recognizes that what they're doing is cheating most of the time. They just don't think it's a big deal or whatever. GMs, again from my perspective, frequently deny that their actions even are cheating in the first place.

 

[AlViking]

We can certainly survey it - D&D 5E (2014) - DMs, how do you fudge? This seems to suggest that a good portion of GMs will admit to fudging at least sometimes.

I wouldn't pull too much stock in surveys on this site, the numbers are too small.

 

[Gimby]

I wouldn't pull too much stock in surveys on this site, the numbers are too small.

For precise figures, no, but unless the sample is completely unrepresentative it suggests fudging is not uncommon

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For precise figures, no, but unless the sample is completely unrepresentative it suggests fudging is not uncommon

Indeed. Even if these numbers were inflated to double the rate of regular GMs, that would still mean ~19% of them fudge in at least one way (monster HP). Having one in five GMs fudging is a pretty high rate, I should think.

 

[clearstream]

OTOH, one could also posit that illusionism is the wall at the edge of every sandbox.

Illusion envelops every ludonarrative! Perhaps it is the ends to which it is put, and not the illusion itself that is at fault?

 

[Umbran]

I really feel like you are that player that people of my persuasion talk about at the DM water cooler.

Mod note:
And I really feel like you are the poster who, after three mod warnings and a couple of threadbans, still figures making it personal is a good idea.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...