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

[Guest 85555]

You may not have been the one to explicitly use the word "it's not a railroad", but the arguments are all there and they're all fundamentally the same. This is being given as a defense against railroading, but it does nothing of the kind. It simply shifts the place where railroading may occur away from "DM response to player input" to "how the DM decides what she already knows".

Our style isn't about setting up roadblocks to railroading. Our style assumes the GM already doesn't want to railroad and is looking for tools, techniques, procedures to help branch out play in more directions and run the game in a way that is responsive to players taking whatever actions they want. You and I are both interested in avoiding railroads. But we approach the problem in entirely different ways. Which again is fine, but I am not sitting here telling you, that you need to do things teh way I do them, or that your way is someone problematic. I am even saying I think it can still be sandbox even using some of the approaches Hussar was using (because I think it will be healthier for sandbox play overall if there are more approaches and experiments going on with it). What I don't think is healthy is people fighting over sandbox like a football, and trying to claim it for one approach. You want a system that actively encourages, and basically ensures consistent sandbox every time. That is entirely fine. Some people want that. Some people want something more open. The ideal is we have a wide range of games that people can try out for sandbox and they use what works for them

 

[AlViking]

Not a quote from you, but an example of this principle not contradicted, written by someone else:

And another:

And here, from you:

All of these hinge on the same thing: "What the DM already knows". How does the DM already know that? This has been, repeatedly, used as a "this isn't and can't be railroading"--but HOW "what the DM already knows" is left almost totally unstated. Like I've gone back through and seen multiple posts which reference this, even reference that the "how" matters...and then never actually say a word about the "how".

You may not have been the one to explicitly use the word "it's not a railroad", but the arguments are all there and they're all fundamentally the same. This is being given as a defense against railroading, but it does nothing of the kind. It simply shifts the place where railroading may occur away from "DM response to player input" to "how the DM decides what she already knows".

The DM is responsible for creating the fiction of the world outside of the PCs. I know that Bob the Rat Catcher is really a green dragon and that you will never convince him to tell you who the leader of The Poison Breath cartel is because it's him. If you want a fantasy that adheres to real world logic that means that sometimes you can't get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you might find you get what you need.

 

[soviet]

The GM. And this isn’t a problem. It is a feature. It helps with sandboxing if the GM is free to make interesting characters, some of whom could have strong traits like ‘will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief’.

I think that 'Resists drinking alcohol out of a religious belief' is a much more interesting trait, and allows the system to determine when that works or doesn't.

'Will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief' is just a stonewall. The PCs threaten to abandon their meeting if he won't drink with them. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten him with violence. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten his family with violence. The PCs enact violence on his family. The PCs threaten to murder the entire village. The PCs threaten to remove all of his limbs and banish him to hell. The PCs dangle seven potions of resurrection for his family and a million gold pieces if only he will have a drink. Nope, no roll, he won't.

 

[soviet]

Why is it that we are told GMs will only ever make decisions in the best interests of the game, but if you give players even an inch they will attempt to climb rainbows and persuade the King to give them his kingdom?

 

[The Firebird]

I think that 'Resists drinking alcohol out of a religious belief' is a much more interesting trait, and allows the system to determine when that works or doesn't.

'Will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief' is just a stonewall. The PCs threaten to abandon their meeting if he won't drink with them. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten him with violence. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten his family with violence. The PCs enact violence on his family. The PCs threaten to murder the entire village. The PCs threaten to remove all of his limbs and banish him to hell. The PCs dangle seven potions of resurrection for his family and a million gold pieces if only he will have a drink. Nope, no roll, he won't.

More interesting, yes. But is it true? There are some people who would easily cave. And there are people who would rather die than break that kind of precept.

Why is it that we are told GMs will only ever make decisions in the best interests of the game, but if you give players even an inch they will attempt to climb rainbows and persuade the King to give them his kingdom?

I'm not saying the players will do this. Just that if our definition of railroading leads us to believe a king unwilling to give up his kingdom is a railroad, then it is not a useful one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why is it that we are told GMs will only ever make decisions in the best interests of the game, but if you give players even an inch they will attempt to climb rainbows and persuade the King to give them his kingdom?

I have asked this question many, many, many times.

I have never, not once, gotten a good answer.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think that 'Resists drinking alcohol out of a religious belief' is a much more interesting trait, and allows the system to determine when that works or doesn't.

'Will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief' is just a stonewall. The PCs threaten to abandon their meeting if he won't drink with them. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten him with violence. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten his family with violence. The PCs enact violence on his family. The PCs threaten to murder the entire village. The PCs threaten to remove all of his limbs and banish him to hell. The PCs dangle seven potions of resurrection for his family and a million gold pieces if only he will have a drink. Nope, no roll, he won't.

Again it comes down to the character. I think most NPCs are not going to be this stubborn. But I also see nothing wrong with making someone who defining trait is stubbornness (to the point that they won't give into coercion). I am not saying make tons of NPCs like this. I am just saying if you have an NPC who is the Giles Corey of the setting, and won't admit to being a witch no matter how many stones you put on top of him (they crushed him for three days and he refused to admit guilt). That is totally fine. And I did say the system you are using can matter here. Personally I prefer when social skill rolls can't take away agency from players or NPCs. But I get these are popular and I will use them in some campaigns (so I am not totally against them, it is just a preference thing).

Now if you can never bribe any guards. If no one in the setting is corruptible or able to be persuaded or coerced, and this is clearly arising because the GM wants adventures to flow a certain way, sure. I think that is railroading. My point is simply having one guy who is not the type to take a bribe, is fine (it is a very strong character trait, so I would use it sparingly, but I have definitely met people who simply won't do certain things, and would even allow themselves or others they now to face harm before doing so: arguably this is a character flaw)

 

[AlViking]

I think that 'Resists drinking alcohol out of a religious belief' is a much more interesting trait, and allows the system to determine when that works or doesn't.

'Will not drink alcohol out of a religious belief' is just a stonewall. The PCs threaten to abandon their meeting if he won't drink with them. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten him with violence. Nope, no roll, he won't. The PCs threaten his family with violence. The PCs enact violence on his family. The PCs threaten to murder the entire village. The PCs threaten to remove all of his limbs and banish him to hell. The PCs dangle seven potions of resurrection for his family and a million gold pieces if only he will have a drink. Nope, no roll, he won't.

If the NPC believes they and their family will face eternal torment if he drinks, it should be impossible to get them to drink. What is a few more years of mortal life compared to an eternity of suffering?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The DM is responsible for creating the fiction of the world outside of the PCs. I know that Bob the Rat Catcher is really a green dragon and that you will never convince him to tell you who the leader of The Poison Breath cartel is because it's him. If you want a fantasy that adheres to real world logic that means that sometimes you can't get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you might find you get what you need.

Adherence to real-world logic is a non sequitur.

You can adhere to real-world logic while using systems which restrict the "how". It's not random-butt bull-crap invented at the drop of a hat, which is a baseless canard against systems you don't use. Given how much has been made of "insulting" your style of play, I should hope that baseless canards against other styles of play would upset you just as much, yes?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the NPC believes they and their family will face eternal torment if he drinks, it should be impossible to get them to drink. What is a few more years of mortal life compared to an eternity of suffering?

Inventing examples like this doesn't do you favors.

Because this is exactly the kind of thing I would hear and think, "Oh. So the DM is railroading me. Gotcha."