D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Like I said above... I'm fine with changing 'obvious and correct' to 'most likely'. And there HAS to be one 'most likely' path because once you count up every table's decision on where to go, there will be one path that is more likely to get chosen than any other (unless one wants to get pedantic and say that there's a chance that out of thousands of runs that two just happen to tie for first. But that's beside the point.)

There really doesn't. Especially since you're exploiting two different senses of the term here. One sense is "most likely" as a clear, unequivocal majority decision--what almost everyone does. The other sense is "most likely" as "well, technically, it's statistically almost certain that some choice will be chosen by at least one more person than any other choice". Pretending that these two are the same is an equivocation.

So, yes: I grant you the extremely limited notion that there will, most likely, be one choice which is chosen at least 1 time more than any other choice. I deny that this tells us much of anything, and emphatically deny that this means that the vast majority of choices are going to fall along the same lines consistently for all groups.

I thrive on situations where people have to make real value judgments. Where they need to decide who and what they are, and why they are, and what they truly want. Situations where it needs to be the case that a single person, put on the spot, has to decide for themselves what they value most--and it could genuinely go either way. Accepting a deal with a devil to get the information you need in order to stop a serial killer. Taking fiendish power into yourself to save a culture you've come to see as your extended family. Navigating a tricky political situation where a wrong move could mean war--or worse, trade embargoes. ("Worse" from a certain point of view, of course.) Deciding whether to trust someone who might be the victim of a horrible manipulation....or might be a horrible manipulator themselves.

All of these have actually happened in the game I run. All of them were--intentionally--framed to be scenes where I as GM could not know which answer is more "probable" than another, because I want them to be genuine temptations, genuine moral quandaries, genuine unknowns that only the player(s) can actually resolve. Because that is where the characters, articulated through scenes of calm and conflict, are truly tested, truly pushed to manifest who and what they really are.

And it is glorious, every time, whatever the player ends up choosing.

Crimson has been claiming that any author or DM who preps for that eventuality and has a next scene set up to use is making things 'railroady'. Which is fine... they can claim whatever they want. If they want to think an author or DM being proactive and guesstimating what the players are likely to do next after finishing a scene and having that next scene prepped is "railroading" those players... they can think what they want. But most other people do not think in that way. Because that means even something like Lost Mines is supposedly a "railroady" adventure and not a "sandbox" adventure that many people say it is.

Again, I think the issue here is that your presentation makes it sound a hell of a lot more than "guesstimating". It sounds like there's either one singular path, and everything else is irrelevant because it wasn't the single top probability result, or the GM simply presumes that the thing they think is most reasonable is obviously the thing every player will do. Neither of which I consider to be particularly valid or reasonable.

If all we're talking about is navigating maps or spelunking the sewers of a fallen civilization or dealing with some trumped-up "priest" putting on airs and getting stroppy, sure, those things are pretty liable to have a singular, obvious, correct answer. Those things are the canvas, the bass line, the stage.

The subject, the melody, the play? Those come from the decisions that have no "right" answer--except the answer right for this person, in this place, in this moment.

 

[payn]

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

Thats a rather broad claim that could use some unpacking. Any specifics?

Not really understanding how a linear adventure can't present a "real" challenge.

Like railroading, I think folks are generalizing their experiences as inherent properties of a play style. Im having deja vu because ive been in sandbox games that lacked challenge also. Now, a sandbox advocate is going to dig in and their likely response is that was a bad or inexperienced GM, but thats exactly the same response I have for the general linear style claims being made.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair point. Does it sound weird then if I admit that my worlds never feature uniquely singular opponents that require their own stat blocks?

Its pretty unusual at least, and to be honest, seems a little dull over time.

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???

I'm very hesitant to call someone a bad GM without a sense of them as a gestalt. You could be not bothering with individualized boss villains and still be excellent enough in other areas that no one playing in your game cares (or considers it to outweigh your virtues).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

That's only true if you can't lose. Far as I know, nothing about a linear campaign mandates that.