D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

Statblocks work for generic opponents, but often they don't exist for more specialized ones (spellcasters for example). I made a lot of use of RQ basic specs in the day, but if I needed an advanced opponent with certain traits, that just wasn't going to do it.

Fair point. Does it sound weird then if I admit that my worlds never feature uniquely singular opponents that require their own stat blocks? A unique opponent in my games are either unique because of who they are, like an evil king, that uses the generic "noble stat block" but is special because they are a king and have an army backing them. Or a unique monster, as in the last remaining dragon, that uses the generic "great wyrm red dragon stat block" but is special because, well, they are literally the only dragon remaining in the world. Man I feel like the worlds laziest GM right now . I guess I feature "special/unique" opponents through narrative means rather than statistical ones.

Seriously, does that sound really strange or bad? Like, does that make me a bad GM???

 

[zarionofarabel]

I’ve finally come to realize the note struck in me about the linear = railroad claim. I’ve experienced GM force to the point of railroad in sandbox games more than I have in linear ones. Yet, there is a notion that sandbox is railroad proof.

Considering the discussion in this thread, and the generally accepted rationalization of what it is to be railroaded, I can very well see someone being railroaded in a supposed "sandbox" game. If the GM is manipulating the narrative to force/trick players into ending up at a predetermined scene/encounter no matter what the players do, then yeah, definitely.

This goes back to what I was talking about earlier in the thread too. Wherein I have been accused of being the "ultimate railroader" as I have zero plan for what will happen during a session and just make it all up as I go along. I was told that my entire game is nothing but illusionism as I am constantly manipulating the narrative to get the outcome I want. The thing is, I have no desire to see the narrative go in any particular direction, I have no goal in mind, nor predetermined place for it to end up. I try to add scenes and story elements in a fashion where current events would logically follow from previous events. I've found that I'm just as creative making up stuff on the fly as I am when I make it up beforehand, if not moreso because I am engaging in a collaborative endeavor, rather than creating in a vacuum. Once, after I explained my process to a naysayer, they told me that was even worse because I am apparently doing it subconsciously so I don't even realize that that's what I am doing. So...yeah.

I think the reason "sandbox" appears to be railroad proof is because that is rarely the problem with it. The problem is the whole "wasteland" phenomenon, wherein a failed state is far more often a game that feels empty or nothing more than meandering randomness.

From what I have gathered from this thread is that the failure state of either type of game is that they are stretched to the extreme. A successful linear game happens when the players allow the GM to guide them through a predetermined sequence of events, and fails when the players don't want that to happen but the GM forces it to happen. A successful sandbox happens when the GM provides meaningful things for the players to experience, and fails when the GM doesn't do that. At least, that's what my takeaway is thus far.

PS - Thanks to all for providing me with some interesting discussion and food for thought. Also, thanks to all for keeping it pretty civil thus far. I dislike when these kinds of topics turn in to nothing but finger pointing and name calling, this one hasn't. So yeah...thanks everyone!

 

[NN]

I think that linear adventures frustrate gamists because nothing is really a challenge.

 

[FrogReaver]

That I can definitely agree with. It's just that some folks are insisting that there are differences other than player buy in. As far as I can tell, there aren't, and most of the posts recently reinforce what I see, so I'm just kinda confused. As for the experience, yeah I can see being forced to engage with a predetermined plotline when you don't want to would be no fun. Whereas if you are happy to follow the path, it would make for a fun experience. As I said, when I GM I think my style qualifies as "sandbox" because I don't prepare plotlines for the players to follow, I instead let them decide the direction of the narrative. As a player, I'm full on hardcore "follow the quest markers" the best I can as I kind of feel that it is my responsibility to do so. I often also want to see what nifty stuff the GM has come up with! I'll be completely honest, but I don't think a GM could "railroad" me as I will just smile and follow the breadcrumbs...cause I'm weird like that!

For me, player buy in and fairness go hand in hand. If you’re giving the player what he bought into then you are being fair. If you give him something else then there’s a risk that’s unfair (though sometimes this can result in the player being pleasantly surprised).

Railroading all goes back to unfairness. Particularly unfairness in regard to foregone outcomes. An obviously guilty person can have a fair trial and the verdict never really be in doubt. An otherwise innocent person can be railroaded by unfair process decisions to intentionally or unintentionally ensure he is found guilty. One of those is railroading and the other isn’t. If you look at the overall structure and ignore fairness then you’d think all trials are railroads, but that’s never the meaning. Railroading is about unfairness in the process of reaching the destination, not about the structure of going from A -> B -> C

 

[NN]

So you then disagree with most players who have voted Lost Mines of Phandelver as one of the best adventures WotC has ever written then? Well, that's your prerogative.

people like coldplay and voted for the nazis, you can't trust people, jeremy