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

[EzekielRaiden]

That is incorrect. Railroading is forcing a party down rails no matter what the players may wish.

That's precisely what I described.

If there's one solution to get through a particular door, unless the DM is forcing them to go through that door when they want to just ignore it, it's not railroading.

Yes it is...? The door has one and only one solution, and the DM isn't interested in working with anything else. That's a railroad. Just because you can decide to walk past the rails doesn't make the rails suddenly disappear.

Even if that door is the only way forward, it's still not railroading if the party can turn around and leave. In that case it's just linear. It seems like you are conflating linear(only has forward and back) with railroading(must do this thing even if you don't want to).

No. I'm saying you can be railroaded even if you want to stay on the rails. Railroading still happens even if you don't realize you're being railroaded. That's what an invisible railroad is--illusionism used to trick players into thinking they have freedom they don't.

Hence why I described it as I did.

 

[pemerton]

No it isn't. It's about forcing the players. The DM can in fact control most of the fiction without it being a railroad.

But then inviting people over to play some dungeon-crawling D&D isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. So is not railroading even by your usage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is that what you're looking for?

For God's sake, NO!

I keep telling you

There are states between "being a terrible person" and "perfect trust".

What do we do about those states?

Why do you keep trying to exclude the middle?

 

[robertsconley]

I mean, do I need to?

Yes.
You are a making a general claim

 

[AlViking]

You're still not getting it; they think they're trying to run a good game. In some cases they just aren't paying attention, in others they've bought into an idea of what that constitutes that is actively destructive unfun for a lot of people a significant amount of time, mostly because there's this persistent top-down view of GMing.

It doesn't matter what you think you're doing; if you're causing a bad game for people a significant amount of time, and its happening because of things you're doing deliberately, your intentions are malign. The fact you don't think so could not be less relevant. And its extremely obvious its deliberate because of the completely hostile way anyone challenging or even suggesting challenging a GM decision gets referred to.

To do otherwise requires looking at the experience your players are having, sometimes even making extra effort to see it (since many players are passively or actively taught not to rock boat), and responding to it. And there are plenty of GMs who can't or won't do that. I'm not going to say they're a majority, because there's no way to say one way or another (I'd like to think not) but it runs like a thread through the hobby or I wouldn't have seen and heard as much about it over the years.

Oh I get it. You constantly trash the way D&D works. The only exception to a GM trying to do their best I've ever had was a GM who was tired of GMing and instead of just letting us know took a passive aggressive approach to break up the group. Even then, for a couple of years he was decent and was just trying to do their best until they weren't. But 99.9% of the GM's I've had are good or decent, even when they happened to run a game that didn't work for me. There are a few people who shouldn't GM but seems to me to be a self-solving problem because they can't retain players.

I really, really don't care about what kind of games you enjoy, if you like playing blindfolded tiddly winks I would think it a bit odd but it doesn't matter. Play a PbtA or BW or BitD or whatever style of game turns your crank. But why do you insist on posting just to yuck other people's yum because they happen to like a different approach?

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, do I need to?

There has been a clear and consistent pattern of the DM needs to be given massive leeway--essentially unlimited trust--up until the point they've gone so egregious you can just write them off as a jerk, at which point everyone just says "don't play with jerks".

There has not, as far as I can tell, ever been an example of someone taking seriously the idea that there are states between these points. Every time I bring it up, it gets outright dismissed with "don't play with jerks" or various variations thereof--as though the only possible problem is inherently bad people ("jerks"), and everyone else will never be a problem so just trust them for goodness' sake!!!

Yes, you do need to, because nobody that I have seen has even come remotely close to saying that. I've seen the following.

1) If you can't trust the DM, you shouldn't play in that game. This does not say anything about massive leeway or unlimited trust. Not even close.

2) Trust should be extended to the DM when you start play. This does not say anything about massive leeway or unlimited trust. Not even close. It does mean that you should not assume incompetence or malice on the part of the DM. It also means that if you see something that might break trust if true, you should talk to the DM about it, probably after/outside the game if it's something that will take longer than a minute or two.

3) The player can and should talk to the DM if he has issues. He just shouldn't disrupt the game for everyone, so if it can't be resolved in a minute or two, leave it for after/outside the game. This does not say anything about massive leeway or unlimited trust. Not even close.

4) I've seen it said that the player shouldn't be a jerk. The context of that is disrupting the game and ruining the fun for everyone else at the table. It takes no massive leeway or unlimited trust to not be a jerk and disrupt the game. It also isn't talking about players who bring up something minor that would take a minute or two in game.

5) It has also been said that if the group or a majority of it has an issue, that it's okay to stop the game for a lengthy time to discuss the issue. That, just like all the rest, does not say anything about massive leeway or unlimited trust. Not even close. As an aside, in my experience the overwhelming majority of the time if it's something that bothers the group, the group tends to talk about it with me before or after the game, not in the middle. But that's just my experience.

So yes, if you have seen someone saying that the DM can do no wrong unless he's outright villainous, you need to link it. Because I've only seen it said by people misrepresenting what those on my side of this issue have been saying, not by anyone on my side of the issue.

 

[Lanefan]

Even then I'll deal with it between sessions.

Can't. If I let it pass once it becomes precedent and I'm stuck with it.

 

[Maxperson]

That's precisely what I described.


Yes it is...? The door has one and only one solution, and the DM isn't interested in working with anything else. That's a railroad. Just because you can decide to walk past the rails doesn't make the rails suddenly disappear.

How are you forced through the door and in no other direction?

No. I'm saying you can be railroaded even if you want to stay on the rails. Railroading still happens even if you don't realize you're being railroaded. That's what an invisible railroad is--illusionism used to trick players into thinking they have freedom they don't.

I agree that illusionism is also railroading. In my opinion it's the worst kind, because it's often very hard to see. We agree here, though I'm not sure what that has to do with a door that only has one solution.

Also as an aside, I think designing a door with one solution is going to very rarely be a good thing to do. I suppose if a god created the door to only open with a specific key, that could do it. But short of that kind of power, there are probably multiple solutions.

For myself, I don't bother coming up with solutions when I put in an obstacle. Players are creative, so let them figure out a way past. My creative juices are best served elsewhere.

 

[Maxperson]

But then inviting people over to play some dungeon-crawling D&D isn't about forcing anyone to do anything.

They are opting to get on the rails, yes. Opting to get on the train does not make the train anything other than a railroad. They still have no ability to change their minds like players can do in linear and sandbox games. The force is still there, even though they volunteered to be subjected to it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh I get it. You constantly trash the way D&D works.

This isn't about just D&D, even if D&D has been the poster child for it historically; there's nothing about what I'm championing that is incompatible with D&D per se. I'm a largely trad player and uninterested in the other games you mentioned (13th Age has a few narrative flourishes but most of them aren't baked into mechanics, and my next game, Eclipse Phase, is generally trad in overall structure) other than in the abstract, but go ahead and play the us-versus-them game if you want to. You don't have to be a narrative game fan to think a tendency to over-privilege GM primacy is a bad idea. The fact it may work for some people doesn't change that.

But I should have never let myself get sucked into a discussion of misbehavior when inflexibility and acceptance of a particular paradigm is the point, and I'm not going to do so again.