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

[pemerton]

And if the player had "drinking cup" or "empty glass vial with stopper" listed on his character sheet as something he carried in his backpack (given that the character's stated priority is to collect some blood, it seems more than reasonable he'd carry something with him in which to put it), there's no test - he just gets the blood and on you go?

No. The post that you quoted included this:

Suppose that I, as GM, had narrated a vessel in the room. Then the player's action declaration probably would have been different - say, "I grab the jug to catch the blood". In that case the test would probably be on Agility rather than Perception. That wouldn't be a problem: the game is not intended to ensure any sort of strict correlation between events in the fiction and the rolling of tests at the table - as the rules say (p 72), "Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice."

 

[Thomas Shey]

That makes sense, but superhero games are the only ones where it makes a practical difference to me.

Well, I don't think I've done a pulp game in my life, far as that goes, but I figured it didn't hurt to mention them.

 

[Maxperson]

Ugh, bad design. This is why AD&D turned into a hot mess. Just say no.

It's also good design. Not a hot mess. And something to say yes to.

Different strokes for different folks. It's bad design for you, because it's not what you like.

 

[pemerton]

So your point is that AI is unreliable and often wrong? The inconsistency isn't because of widespread use among RPG hobbyists. The inconsistency is because of people like you who invent new(and incorrect) definitions for something that commonly means something different in order to achieve their agenda.

Flattering as it is to imagine that my ENworld posts have shaped Google's AI to the extent that you're conjecturing here, I don't think that's very likely.

The fact is that the idea of railroading pertaining to control over outcomes is not unique to me. It's pretty widespread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When we first started, there were probably more "problem players" than not; even including some of us who kept at it and still play together today.

There was certainly a winnowing-out process over those first few years, though; and if @bloodtide is in a situation where he's constantly taking in lots of new players it's reasonable to think that winnowing-out process is, in his case, endless.

Even accepting that, the degree of problem he seems to run into is extreme. I didn't hit that many people in that bucket in 1975.

 

[pemerton]

I mean, I'd say any RPG that isn't either solo or 1 GM - 1 player should have either explicit or implicit assumptions that the player characters are going to have some rationale to work together.

I know you got a reply from @Campbell.

To me, it depends on the game. In Burning Wheel play, I've had PCs working together, and not. In Classic Traveller, all the PCs travelled on the same starship (or starships) - they were mostly crew with one or two freeloading hangers-on. But they tended to have their own goals and projects, increasingly so as the game went on.

But some games depend on party play - eg 4e D&D, or Torchbearer 2e.

So I don't see any uniform principle here.

 

[Maxperson]

Flattering as it is to imagine that my ENworld posts have shaped Google's AI to the extent that you're conjecturing here, I don't think that's very likely.

The fact is that the idea of railroading pertaining to control over outcomes is not unique to me. It's pretty widespread.

Odd. When I asked Google "What is railroading in an RPG," it gave...

"In RPGs, "railroading" refers to a situation where the Game Master (GM) or storyteller forces the players down a predetermined path, limiting their agency and choice. It's like being on a train, where the tracks dictate where you go, rather than having free movement. Railroading is generally considered a negative practice, as it can stifle player creativity and immersion."
Nothing there at all about your personal definition.

The first non-AI Google hit says...
"Railroading is a GM forcing a character to feel, act, or think a certain way."

The second non-AI hit says...
"Railroading in roleplaying games (RPGs) refers to when the game master (GM) constrains players’ choices, requiring them to follow a specific, predetermined path in the story."

The third says...
"At it's most basic, “railroading” means that the GM is pushing the game along his desired path."

The fourth says...
"Railroading is forcing the characters into the prewritten story that the master created."

The fifth says...
"Railroading, in the purest sense of the term, is something that happens at the gaming table: It is the precise moment at which the GM negates a player's choice."

The sixth says...
"Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do, they will experience certain events according to the GM's plan."

The seventh says...
"Railroading, to me, is when a GM forces players to adhere to a pre-scripted plot to the extent that he doesn't allow them to pursue other adventures or explore other areas when they want to."

The eighth says...
"The answer is Railroading. You take any measure necessary to ensure there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — your planned direction."

It's all about DMs forcing players to do what they wish, not your personal definition. Your "widespread" definition isn't even on page 1 of Google. I don't see yours on page 2, either. It doesn't seem to be as "widespread" as you make it out to be.

 

[thefutilist]

I stressed that it’s about emphasis, not exclusion. Emphasis doesn’t mean other elements can’t be present, it means they aren’t the focus. Baker’s approach emphasizes passionate play and dramatic escalation. There are many ways to achieve that in a campaign, and extrapolation based on logic and causality is undoubtedly one of them.

My Living World campaign emphasizes creating the feeling that players have been to the setting, that their characters have lived in it, using techniques like world in motion. However, those techniques are silent on Baker's creative goals. They don’t require passionate conflict or moral escalation. They allow it, but don’t privilege it.

A Living World sandbox works just fine for players who want nothing more than to grab ales at the tavern and plunder ruins. Players like that can avoid dramatic escalation entirely. But put them in a campaign built on Baker’s framework, and they’re likely to find passionate conflict and moral escalation a distraction, something imposed on them rather than arising from their choices.

On the other hand, players who do want character-driven drama with the elements Baker outlined can thrive in both types of campaigns.

And to be clear: the fact that a Living World campaign can accommodate players who don’t care about dramatic conflict doesn’t make it better. In a Living World sandbox, the burden is on the players to ensure their goals align well enough to function as a group. I may caution, advise, or coach, but the final authority over what they do in the setting rests with the players.

This stands in contrast to systems designed to support Baker’s style of Narrativism, which are often better at aligning group goals from the start, because that alignment is part of the system's purpose. The group chooses that framework up front, so everyone is already on board with the kind of play being pursued.

In a Living World sandbox, that alignment isn’t assumed. The players go through multiple steps during character creation, early sessions, and group discussion to find shared purpose. And even once play is underway, nothing prevents a player from deciding to change direction. The only real constraint is logistical: there’s just one of me, and I only have so many hours for my hobby.

But that’s a matter of bandwidth, not a flaw in my approach. If I had the time, the campaign could continue with one player pursuing a divergent goal while the rest followed another. In practice, what usually happens is that the player with a divergent agenda makes a new character better aligned with the group, and the world keeps moving forward.

In fact, there was a discussion about that last night when the party that had an assassin who was a member of the Claws of Kalis uncovered a major threat to the kingdom that was orchestrated by another sect of the Claws of Kalis. The player was fine with making up another character and have his original character leave the group. Ultimately the decision was made to warn the kingdom, not tackle the other group of Claw due to the party's capabilities, and keep the group together as they pursue other goals.

Yeah we're in accord at this point. I have some questions about technique.

Your players decide to give up the adventuring life and hope to open a shelter for stray dogs in a city they haven't been to.

What would be your procedures for generating content?

One of the things I'm curious about is, sandrasan, a living world advocate of some small fame, would prep exciting dog related things but if I'm understanding you then you don't do this? or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Techniques vary somewhat, but let's say we were discussing Dungeon World. Suppose a character is lost and wants to find his friend whom he has a bond with "I will always protect Joe." He reaches a point where he has a choice of directions. He could choose correctly or incorrectly. The GM clearly knows this is a point where something is at stake, and he's got various 'dungeon moves' he can use, plus prep, like a map and fronts.

At this point the player might decide to be smart and discern realities. Maybe first he just addresses the scene framed by the GM describing a narrow squeeze in one direction and a torch lit passage in the other. He rolls, maybe he gets to ask questions and perhaps get a bonus on later tests using the answers, or maybe he rolls badly and the GM simply tells him something unwelcome.

Later he takes one of the above routes, maybe he successfully asked which passage was beneficial. He might have to defy danger to pass, maybe with a bonus. Either way the GM is bound to get him closer to his goal, his buddy Joe. Failures will put more pressure on the character, using up resources etc. Or even inflicting harm.

DW simply proceeds like this, basically endlessly modulus fronts and character advancement or death.

Sounds exhausting to me, but I'm sure it works very well for you and is a fine system for those who share your preferences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's also good design. Not a hot mess. And something to say yes to.

Different strokes for different folks. It's bad design for you, because it's not what you like.

Exactly. I really wish folks would stop just saying these things like they're universal truths.

It really is just your opinion, man.