Sandbox gaming

[Raven Crowking]

You are neglecting the fact that a player could be ok with a GM usurping narrative authority over the character in some cases.

No; usurpation is taking authority to which you are not entitled. If the player entitles the GM to do so, it is not usurpation.

There is no attempt to "hide" a subjective claim.....The issue is subjective!

And you are equally neglecting that the cases where the player is ok with GM usurpation will vary from player to player. That phrase, "should be in control of", is hiding a subjective claim.

Again, no. I am fully aware that there is a subjective element to determining whether or not a game is a railroad. Indeed, I would go so far as to claim that any useful definition must accept this to be true.

It is the subjective element, which will vary from table to table and player to player, that the GM should be aware of.

Players should also be aware that there is a subjective element involved, so that they can deal with borderline cases on the basis of clearly informing the GM where they see the subjective line being drawn, rather than simply assuming that the GM is a "Bad GM".

Stop there. Don't confuse plot with a railroad. Plot in the literary sense isn't an essential aspect of a railroad.

Using multiple words to indicate the same thought didn't happen because I was confused, but because I didn't desire to bore the reader. "f the players go along with the GM's plotline because they want to, it is not a railroad" does not imply that there must be a plotline to be a railroad.

The need to identify a railroad objectively without defining it as a subjective experience is essential to allowing a DM to recognize when they are railroading. Otherwise, a DM is going to be tempted to see the problem as lying wholly with the players for refusing to play along, especially if in the past they or another group didn't object to the same technique.

No.

The need to identify the subjective elements of a railroad without requiring that such elements are objective is essential to allowing a GM to avoid being tempted to see the problem as lying wholly with the players for refusing to play along, especially if in the past they or another group didn't object to the same technique.

It is also essential for the players to recognize the subjective element in order to realize that, while they might believe there is a railroad in the offing, the GM might not believe that to be the case. And neither side is objectively "right" -- it is a table issue, and folks have to decide what is "right" for them.



RC

 

[Ariosto]

I think the jargon of "narrative" and so on just confuses the issue. It's a cant cooked up for talking about stuff that was/is very self-consciously NOT the old style campaign.

It brings along as heavy a load of connotations as "railroad" -- except that "railroad" is negative precisely because we players of old style games meant it to be so.

The literary borrowings are likely to nurture the associated assumptions, if only subconsciously, rather than encourage mindfulness that they are alien to -- often opposed to -- the ethos under discussion.

We are not talking about a novel, movie or TV show. Although the analogy may have been useful, we are not even really talking about improvisational puppet theater either.

The analogies have been taken too literally. What we are talking about is a game.

 

[Ariosto]

Walls in a "classic" dungeon serve to present clear alternatives -- just as do the streets of a city, paths through a forest, passes through a mountain range, crossings of a river, and so on.

This is not a matter of a plotted story, since even with but three options at each juncture, the number of possible paths increases rapidly.

Six or eight (on a hex or square grid respectively) is commonly considered adequate freedom in board games, and the presence of literal barriers does not arbitrarily prevent there being more than that on a dungeon map!

 

[Celebrim]

The need to identify the subjective elements of a railroad without requiring that such elements are objective is essential to allowing a GM to avoid being tempted to see the problem as lying wholly with the players for refusing to play along, especially if in the past they or another group didn't object to the same technique.

That would follow only if the term was wholly subjective. I don't require that the problem not lie wholly with the players. If the DM isn't actually doing anything that is objectively railroading, then the DM has a problem to handle and its not that he's being too railroady.

It is also essential for the players to recognize the subjective element in order to realize that, while they might believe there is a railroad in the offing, the GM might not believe that to be the case. And neither side is objectively "right" -- it is a table issue, and folks have to decide what is "right" for them.

We aren't actually disagreeing that much, just choosing a different emphasis.

However, if we can objectively identify a railroad, we can identify whether the problem that the table is having is actually with railroads, or whether there is actually some other issue that is really at stake. I've seen on the boards people assert that 'all dungeons are railroads' or 'if the game has a plot, it's a railroad' or claim that a 'all story-based games are railroads'. I believe that these assertions are false, and not merely subjective. The player may have a real issue, but using the language of a 'railroad' to describe his problem only confuses the issue.

 

[rounser]

Riddle me this then, Batman; if DL1 is a railroad because the passes need to be blocked by deus ex machina guards, then how is a dungeon that has solid stone in place of guards not a railroad? Right, only thinking makes it so. Just overcome the distinction between active and awkward and passive and subtle railroading, and of your value attachments of railroads bad, dungeons good, and we might be on the right track (badoom tish).

 

[Raven Crowking]

That would follow only if the term was wholly subjective.

No; that follows from it being the subjective part of the term that is actually upsetting to people.

However, if we can objectively identify a railroad, we can identify whether the problem that the table is having is actually with railroads, or whether there is actually some other issue that is really at stake. I've seen on the boards people assert that 'all dungeons are railroads' or 'if the game has a plot, it's a railroad' or claim that a 'all story-based games are railroads'. I believe that these assertions are false, and not merely subjective. The player may have a real issue, but using the language of a 'railroad' to describe his problem only confuses the issue.

Riddle me this then, Batman; if DL1 is a railroad because the passes need to be blocked by deus ex machina guards, then how is a dungeon that has solid stone in place of guards not a railroad? Right, only thinking makes it so. Just overcome the distinction between active and awkward and passive and subtle railroading, and of your value attachments of railroads bad, dungeons good, and we might be on the right track (badoom tish).

And there we have the problem. Your "objective" differences are, in fact, subjective. The limitations of what is, or is not, a railroad using your "objective" analysis relies upon subjective valuation.

Ex., the "Tiny World". Just how do you know that World A is "Tiny"? How much larger does World B have to be to not be a railroad? Etc., etc.

The problem with your IF/THEN statement is that the IF is unreachable. We cannot objectively identify a railroad, save by changing the meaning of the term to something other than what is meant by the problem. And if we change the meaning in that way, our objective definition ceases to tell us if the problem at the table is with railroads.

It would be comforting to think that you can objectively look at games and say, "This is a railroad; that is not", but the distinction would rely perforce on your own valuations, and would be useless if someone within the game felt differently.

OTOH, recognizing that these valuations are subjective, and recognizing that others might have (will have) different subjective valuations (1) opens a dialogue about expectations, and (2) requires keeping an open mind to those subjective valuations, both of which are eminently practical.

IMHO, of course. YMMV.

RC

 

[Umbran]

I think the subjective/objective thing is... a distraction rathole. I don't think either of you are doing the discussion a whole lot of good by going down it - either insisting it is objective, or insisting that it isn't. Whether or not something I *really* objectively a railroad hardly matters. We are not doing rocket science, where that level of precision and definition is required.

We need to be able to agree on what a vaguely reasonable person could find to be a railroad.

We need to be able to agree on whether "railroad" applies to the structure, or only to the thing that the player finds bad, or both.

I, personally, am not going to stop referring to strongly linear structures where the PCs are actively directed back onto the track as being a "railroad" even if the players like it. I need to be able to refer to that structure and method separate from the player's reaction, and I'm not going to try to force created lingo down the throats of others to do it.

Yes, that means that sometimes I have to clarify a bit. I can handle that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the subjective/objective thing is... a distraction rathole.

The entire "What is a railroad?" thing is.... a distraction rathole, as the OP has pointed out already.



RC

 

[pawsplay]

I, personally, am not going to stop referring to strongly linear structures where the PCs are actively directed back onto the track as being a "railroad" even if the players like it. I need to be able to refer to that structure and method separate from the player's reaction, and I'm not going to try to force created lingo down the throats of others to do it.

What's wrong with "strongly linear structure?" In addition to being description, it also lacks the connotations associated with how the players react to it.

 

[Ariosto]

If you consider real life "a railroad" (as rounser apparently does), or lacking meaning (as a habitué of these boards who shall remain nameless apparently does) -- then it may be that you will find the same qualities in a game campaign of free moves.

if DL1 is a railroad because the passes need to be blocked by deus ex machina guards, then how is a dungeon that has solid stone in place of guards not a railroad?

The old-style dungeon is very simply and obviously not structured on a script of events!

If the only "dungeons" with which you are acquainted are built the same way as the Dragonlance scenarios that told the DM what the players must be made to do, then I guess it might superficially seem reasonable to assume that all dungeons are so.

Even without actual experience, though, you ought to be able to see your error and figure out the real case if only you will bother to think about it carefully.

The dungeon or underworld as described in the original Dungeons & Dragons game has countless possible paths through "no less than a dozen levels down, and new levels under construction so that players will never grow tired of it."

Considered simply as an edifice, it is about as much a "railroad" as is a shopping mall or skyscraper. (Eventually, it may be more like a small city.)

Moreover, it is part of a greater matrix of dungeons, towns and castles on a wilderness map.

Within the dungeon itself, there are likely to be direct connections to other parts of it, to the surface world, and to other worlds.