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

[TwoSix]

I don't think going out of your way to annoy people on purpose is a good thing

Seems slightly ironic, all things considered.

 

[TwoSix]

I'll thank you to keep my weight out of this!

Speaking of unwanted (gravitational) forces.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is your position that force has to be unwanted to be force? If so I'd like to introduce you to boxing and all kinds of sports where force is used between folks who agree to it. If that's not your position, then I'm unclear about what you are saying.

I mean, in boxing is anyone being railroaded? Is anyone being forced to do something against their will?

 

[AlViking]

Seems slightly ironic, all things considered.

I can't help it if you don't like my opinions on what I prefer for gaming.

But I don't do it to purposely annoy people.

 

[bloodtide]

The example this discussion refers to was provided by @Maxperson : it was a player who declared that their character picked their nose and the DM declared that the action did not happen.

To be fair, @Maxperson did specify that this was an example of bad DMing, but his position, as I understand it, was that the DM’s declaration that the character did not pick his nose was within the DM’s purview.

So, the DM declaring that a character does not pick their nose does seem pretty adjacent to railroading, and some people might consider railroading in and of itself.

Well, this has the ring of the old "player is trying to ruin the game for everyone".

The classic bad player that will just endlessly do stuff like "I walk up to the king and pick my nose". The player just wants a response that will ruin the game.

I don't think it is railroading at all to block such a hostile player with a "nope, your action does not happen" and keep the game rolling on.

 

[Mort]

I don't think it is railroading at all to block such a hostile player with a "nope, your action does not happen" and keep the game rolling on.

How is expressly blocking a players declared, and presumably 100% legal, action, just because the DM doesn't like it, not railroading?

If the DM feels the action is utterly inappropriate and wants to say something before the action resolves? That's usually appropriate.

If the DM believes the player is being deliberately disruptive? That's an out of game issue and needs to be treated as such.

 

[Maxperson]

Speaking of unwanted (gravitational) forces.

My kid certainly seems to orbit me.

 

[Faolyn]

Then the issue fixed itself. Which is typically what happens.

The issue got fixed because we had a player who had no problems being loud and angry at the GM for not letting him play his character the way he was supposed to be played. The rest of us? More "table polite." I like to think that if his player hadn't been there, we would have stopped the GM at the end of the session, or at the next session. But who knows?

How many tables have players who are really willing to stop playing with a bad or overreaching GM, especially when that GM is someone they know personally? I don't think it's nearly as common as you might think.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, in boxing is anyone being railroaded? Is anyone being forced to do something against their will?

I guess it's all how you define railroad. If you define it as forced onto a path, then against their will isn't the main qualifier, even though most times it will be against their will. If you define it as forced onto a path against their will, then there's going to be a fundamental disconnect with those that don't view it that way.

I've seen both used quite often here and other places, so I don't know that there's one of those that can be said to be how it usually defined.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It certainly looked like it did to me. At the very least, huge chunks of it are functionally identical.

It's quite possible for both statements to be true. It just requires that the player and the GM treat one another as peers who are working together to produce a desirable experience, rather than as a strict hierarchy where the GM dictates and the players fall in line.


So the player actually doesn't have control over their character. They have control only up to the limits placed on them by the GM--which can, and will, be anything the GM feels like.

...yup. the player has full control of their character in play, and control of its creation subject to the limitations of the GMs setting, in the bulk of trad games (including my own). And many other non-trad games as well. I continue to see zero problem with that arrangement as a player or GM.