Station Squatting (Player Railroading)

[Alikar]

2) who said D&D is about adventuring? I agree that most games are, but there's nothing inherent in the game that forces it to be about adventure

Amazon.com description:
"In the D&D game, players create characters that band together to explore dungeons, slay monsters, and find treasure."

Wikipedia:
"Players of D&D create characters that embark upon imaginary adventures within a fantasy setting."

This is where I continue to have issues; every single plot hook you've thrown out, with the implication that "goshdarnit; why won't my stupid players follow this hook?" kinda have me shrugging and saying to myself; "I dunno; it's not necessarily so unreasonable that the players not care about that hook, is it? If they don't, then come up with one that they do care about rather than continuing to ram that one down their throat."

*sigh*. Your inability to read my posts is astounding. I have clearly stated that this has never happened in any of my games the fact that you keep attacking my own personal DM ability shows the lack of weight behind your arguments.

In a situation like this the DM can either make an honest attempt at finding out what the players are actually interested in --and then make an honest attempt at providing it-- or graciously admit defeat and let someone else DM.

Inventing terminology to mask what is fundamentally a communication problem within the group isn't particularly helpful.

Actually this is not communication problem on the part of the DM, its on the part of the players for not communicating what type of game they want to play. Also inventing terminology is what people do to quickly be able to refer to a problem. It doesn't mask anything, it clarifies it and players breaking their half of a social contract is in fact a problem. Its not surprising there is so much resistance to this idea as it makes certain people realize the game doesn't revolve around them individually, but instead should revolve around the group.

 

[Mallus]

Actually this is not communication problem on the part of the DM, its on the part of the players for not communicating what type of game they want to play.

It's a communication problem on the part of all parties involved. That's the way communication problems tend to work (trust me, I'm married).

Also inventing terminology is what people do to quickly be able to refer to a problem.

Or when they want to obscure the real issue with jargon.

 

[Alikar]

It's a communication problem on the part of all parties involved. That's the way communication problems tend to work (trust me, I'm married).

Or when they want to obscure the real issue with jargon.

No. Railroading is a DM problem. Station Squatting is a player problem. Both are communication problems, but they are inherently different things. The real issue is not obscured, but there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. Sound like a communication problem.

 

[Mallus]

It doesn't mask anything, it clarifies it and players breaking their half of a social contract is in fact a problem.

Sometimes a group needs to discuss the specific terms of their social contract, rather than make assumptions about what they are, followed by accusations of breaking them.

Both railroading and what you're terming "station-squatting" amount the the players and DM having different expectation w/r/t the campaign. This is best addressed by hashing things out openly, preferably at a pub, over a few beers.

More beer, less terminology, I say!

but there is nothing I can do to convince you of that.

Well, if we were hashing this out in a pub you could buy me a beer. I'm much more amenable after a few drinks.

 

[Desdichado]

Amazon.com description:
"In the D&D game, players create characters that band together to explore dungeons, slay monsters, and find treasure."

Wikipedia:
"Players of D&D create characters that embark upon imaginary adventures within a fantasy setting."

I fail to see what that proves, really. Copy editing product blurbs really don't mean a whole lot. Especially when you're saying it in an attempt to convince someone who's been playing D&D off and on for over 25 years that your one true wayism is, in fact, the one true way. I've done too many different things with D&D over the years to buy into that kind of small-mindedness.

*sigh*. Your inability to read my posts is astounding.

Did you really just type that?

I have clearly stated that this has never happened in any of my games the fact that you keep attacking my own personal DM ability shows the lack of weight behind your arguments.

It's a one size fits all solution to the problem you describe. You haven't managed to make a convincing case that it's otherwise. Repeating yourself over and over doesn't make what you're saying any more convincing. In fact, it lends an awful lot of circumstantial evidence to my interpretation of events, frankly. No wonder your players are sandbagging.

Actually this is not communication problem on the part of the DM, its on the part of the players for not communicating what type of game they want to play.

Any problem in communication is attributable to both parties involved. You're so insistant that this is their problem and not yours, that you aren't even considering thinking about their point of view or stake in the scenario.

Again; no wonder your players are sandbagging.

Also inventing terminology is what people do to quickly be able to refer to a problem. It doesn't mask anything, it clarifies it and players breaking their half of a social contract is in fact a problem. Its not surprising there is so much resistance to this idea as it makes certain people realize the game doesn't revolve around them individually, but instead should revolve around the group.

And you accuse me of making unwarranted assumptions about DM FAIL on your part? Pretty much that entire paragraph there was unwarranted assumptions on your part. The fact that despite repeated (and polite, IMO) attempts to help you see a potential different point of view, you are insistent that the only possible thing going on is that the players just aren't living up to their "committment" to your excellent game which they would enjoy a lot of they weren't so stupid as to try and run a bakery instead of engage it.

Yet another good example of why you're players might be sandbagging. You clearly aren't the easiest GM to try and communicate with if they're unhappy with the direction of your game.

It's a communication problem on the part of all parties involved. That's the way communication problems tend to work (trust me, I'm married).

Or when they want to obscure the real issue with jargon.

Win.

No. Railroading is a DM problem. Station Squatting is a player problem. Both are communication problems, but they are inherently different things. The real issue is not obscured, but there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. Sound like a communication problem.

The only reason railroading has a name is because it's relatively common, but both are fundamentally problems having to do with both the GM and the players. Granted; some GMs simply don't have the wherewithall to run any other style than one, and they railroad because otherwise they can't GM. But mostly, they're not different things at all; they're flip sides of the same problem.

Also: I don't know how long you've been posting and/or reading ENWorld, but this is pretty typical. Maybe we're all wrong and you're right. I dunno; I don't have any personal experience with your game. All I have is personal experience with being on the other end of that equation, and I know how frustrating it can be as a player. If you show up posting your sob story of how your PCs don't do what you want them to do, you do get nitpicked by a bunch of people who will take your PC's side and tell you all the things that you may be doing wrong. In some cases, it's a place of misplaced bitterness about having had to endure similar situations and disliking them; in some cases, it's a question of folks with a bit of experience having run games that have faced similar problems and finding out why what they assumed wasn't necessarily true.

Take these comments in the spirit they were offered instead of getting so defensive, and see if there's an opportunity to improve your DMing skills. If all you thought this thread was going to be was a congratulatory one where people laughed at your clever coining of a cute phrase, or told you that you were doing a great job and commiserated with you on "bad" PCs... well, there's another great example of misplaced and unwarranted assumptions on your part. There's a reason coercive narrative railroad is unpopular, after all.

No wonder the posters in this thread are all sandbagging.

 

[Appleseeth]

The way I see it, the DM should not just be some tool to be abused at the will and whim of the players. I, as a DM, am a player as well, and I have just as much a right to enjoy playing the game as well. If the players set up a bakery* and ignore every type of hook I throw at them (bad hooks are subjective, hobo), then I find it unlikely that I'll be having fun. I cannot, I will not DM that, or anything where the players are actively killing my enjoyment of the game, just as any player should jump ship if they're not having fun.

I am sure there are some DMs out there who actively enjoy refeering the player's day-to-day operation of a bakery. I am sure there are players out there who enjoy not having to think up adventure motivation, and thus don't care about DMs railroading them. The rules system may support both of those activities. But I don't think it's in the spirit of the game to just run a bakery*. In fact I think it's less in the spirit of the game than a little DM railroading once in a while, to get the players moving along. That is MY opinion, and I'm sure it's at least partially shared by some of the other ENWorld members. Just because the rules support an activity, does not mean that is what the game is about. D&D is about heroic adventuring.

Also, people, don't make judgements on people's hooks when you have neither heard them, or have had them used in context.

* Bakery is just an easy example to use. It is not the end-all be-all of what Station Squatting is or might be.

 

[jdrakeh]

No! If you read my posts, I clearly have said that there is nothing wrong with running a business:

I have been reading your posts. It was specifically the following example from your first post in this thread (and similar examples offered by other posters) that I was alluding to:

An example is a group of players shopping for clothing or starting their own business.

This was the very first example you gave of station squatting. An example whenin 'starting a business' (of any kind, by virtue of your own wording) is station squatting. Granted, though, you have done a lot of frantic backpedalling and post editing since then.

Station Squatting is not ignoring the DM plot, its refusing to be adventures in a game about adventuring! I fail to see how that is not a simple to understand concept.

Saying the same thing over and over again, while simultaneously posting examples to the contrary and then editing past posts that people question you about so as to avoid answering said questions doesn't help any.

 

[Desdichado]

The way I see it, the DM should not just be some tool to be abused at the will and whim of the players. I, as a DM, am a player as well, and I have just as much a right to enjoy playing the game as well. If the players set up a bakery* and ignore every type of hook I throw at them (bad hooks are subjective, hobo), then I find it unlikely that I'll be having fun. I cannot, I will not DM that, or anything where the players are actively killing my enjoyment of the game, just as any player should jump ship if they're not having fun.

Of course, naturally.

For some reason I find that this thread constantly baits me to try and defend ludicrous positions that I've never taken. I've said repeatedly that I can understand the concept of station squatting, and I certainly admit to its theoretical and probable reality somewhere out there in the gaming world. Why do you assume that I haven't done that?

Of course the DM has to enjoy the game too. But if the only way he can enjoy the game is to run it in a manner that the players don't find fun, then we're at a bit of an impasse, aren't we? The solution is, apparently, according to this thread, to blame the players for this state of affairs. I'm merely saying that before you do that, you sure as heck better talk to your players and make sure you understand what it is that they're doing rather than assuming that your don't stink. There have been plenty of times as a GM that I thought everything was going great and I found out that stuff I was doing wasn't going over well at all. I now assume, first, that I can do something different to improve the game rather than immediately assume that if something's wrong it's the players fault. By doing so, I've found lots of opportunities to be a better GM.

Granted, sometimes with a little investigation, I decide that what they expect from the game just isn't reasonable, or it won't work for me, or whatever, and so I don't change. But that doesn't happen very often. Usually if players are refusing to engage in my campaign, it's a safe bet that the campaign and me are at fault, not them. And I can't tell you how many times as a player I've been seriously underwhelmed by the adventure presented to me, and seriously ticked off by the fact that how I responded to it was arbitrarily curtailed by the GM because he had in his mind how the game was going to go, and far be it from the lowly players to try something else!

D&D is about heroic adventuring.

This is another one of those "it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it; it still isn't true" kinda things. D&D isn't about anything; or rather, it's about whatever the players and DM jointly decide to make any given campaign about.

Also, people, don't make judgements on people's hooks when you have neither heard them, or have had them used in context.

I feel a lot more comfortable judging his hooks than I do judging his players, lacking firsthand experience of his gaming group. Not only does my own experience both as a player and a GM corroborate that approach, but I don't like to be too judgemental of actual people that I haven't met and don't really know anything about if I can help it.

And yet, the very premise of this thread is that we make precisely that judgement.

My posts have been an extended excercise in "I disbelieve the illusion." To really make things perfect, the thread needs to somehow be Melkored and the bakery player needs to show up and weigh in with his point of view here. Then we really will truly have the entitled DM whining about his players, and then not getting the sympathy he wants from people in general experience. I think it's been quite a while since that's happened, but I don't read all that many threads anymore, so I may have missed several really notorious ones for all I know.

* Bakery is just an easy example to use. It is not the end-all be-all of what Station Squatting is or might be.

The next one-shot I run will be built precisely around the premise of the PCs as a bunch of ne'er-do-well bakers.

EDIT: As an aside, I'm pretty flabbergasted that the call of "act maturely; talk to your players, work it out out of game" advice crowd is being cat-called as if we're some kind of unreasonable fringe group here in place of "they're doing it wrong, clearly you need to whip these players into shape" advice crowd. Here; I had always thought that the gamer social skills stereotype was largely misplaced.

 

[jdrakeh]

EDIT: As an aside, I'm pretty flabbergasted that the call of "act maturely; talk to your players, work it out out of game" advice crowd is being cat-called as if we're some kind of unreasonable fringe group here in place of "they're doing it wrong, clearly you need to whip these players into shape" advice crowd. Here; I had always thought that the gamer social skills stereotype was largely misplaced.

I totally understand the appeal of treating your players like crap, forcing them to do nothing other than what you tell them to do, and then blaming them for everything when your game fails. I don't indulge it (anymore), but I totally understand it.

 

[Appleseeth]

The next one-shot I run will be built precisely around the premise of the PCs as a bunch of ne'er-do-well bakers.

Let me know how that goes Hobo. I'm an avid baker myself, so maybe I could help you out in advocating how well the players bake the bread.

I think we here, on this thread, have reached a bit of an impasse on why the players are hunkering down. It could be the DM is not giving them enough reason to move along. It could be the players not actually desiring to be adventurers. Or it could be a combination. Almost a chicken and egg problem.

I may not have mentioned it before, but I do agree that communication is the key to solving the issue.

I don't care if we label it or not, but I know that this thing exists. I've almost done it to a few DMs, but my desire to be an adventurer pulled me away from my rock band (I was a bard, and yes, the DM did do some dumb railroading earlier). Not communicating with your DM, or vise-versa just kind of makes you a passive-aggressive arse, and no one gains anything from that. That's why I'm always checking on my players to make sure they're enjoying the game and adventures I make up. Several times in the current campaign alone, which is my first for the group, I've told them they can feel free to kick me out of the DM's seat if I'm not doing an awesome job. It's one thing to think you're a good DM, and another to tell your players to kick you out if you're not.