D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Thomas Shey]

There's a big difference between a house rule that's adopted to better fit the needs of the group, or to fill a gap in the rules that the group has found would be better served by having a specific rule, and house rules that are used by the GM to make their railroading more artful.

I would suggest in many cases this is in the eye of the beholder. Not helped, admitted, by the degree of opaqueness many GMs present about their reasoning for a given house rule/ruling.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, not exactly.

A great many DMs fall for the trap of treating an RPG Just Like Any Other Game. Specifically a great many DMs feel that the offical published rules in the book are the only ones that can be used during game play. Like nearly any other game: you have a set of rules that you Must follow and are forbidden from changing them or adding to them. Some RPG, as a sneaky marketing ploy, will even say something along the line of "only use officially published rules". It's a great way to trick gamers into buying your companies content.

As nearly all RPGs simulate some type of world or whole reality, it is impossible for a company to put out a book of rules to cover everything. Even when that company has dozens of rule books.

And this is one of the things that makes RPGs both Great and Unique: The DM can Add Rules and Things to the Game.

So, the rules aren't rules. They're just suggestions. The GM does whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want--meaning, exactly the thing you said doesn't apply. It's exactly the same as what you said, it's just sneaky, secret, hidden behind a pretense of actually playing fair, a pretense of having rules and following them.

You're really just doing whatever you want--but making the players think that you actually do have limits you abide by. That way, you get the best of both worlds. You can tell the players off for not playing by the rules, while you get to do whatever you want.

I don't think I need to explain why I oppose that approach.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds frustrating. I will say, all of this is a bit amazing to us old guys! Like, an entire campaign is wrecked by a few PC deaths? I mean, yeah I get how a TPK breaks continuity in play, but if characters are fragile then maybe the continuity needs to be invested in something more durable.

Or maybe character death isn't the most interesting choice as far as consequences go?

Dunno. Might be worth a thought.

Look at it this way, back when the average goblin stood a 50/50 chance of ganking the fighter EVERY ROUND we just didn't fight goblins! Instead we ambushed them, with a bunch of hired mercs along to buffer against bad luck. And a henchman for each PC (aka a spare character).

Yes, I'm aware of the stylistic difference. I don't enjoy that kind of play. I find it, frankly, somewhere between "tedious" and "actively unpleasant".

So what I see is a big disparity between expectation and practice here. I'm not sure where it arises and to what degree it's coming out of the game's design. To my eye, and play experience, level 1-3 PCs seemed remarkably durable. We had some tough fights, one or two characters died. The game went on

It's not a disparity between expectation and practice.

It's a disparity between described offering and practice.

The thing you describe is fundamentally unheroic, isn't really much of an adventure and is instead a heist, and isn't about characters but rather about environments.

D&D has not billed itself as an unheroic heist-of-the-month environmental-challenge logistics-focused game since at least 3e, and arguably well before that; the shift got its first start all the way back in 1e, and was already well underway by early 2e. D&D has, by now, long billed itself as a heroic adventure-of-the-month conflict-challenge* group-focused game, which has fundamentally different dynamics from the previous description. Instead of amoral heisters, D&D is looking at moralized (but not necessarily moral themselves) adventurers; whether righting wrongs or wronging rights, the focus is on moral context, not on amount of wealth one can extract from a murder-hole. Instead of looking at things in terms of environmental obstacles and the logistics necessary to navigate them, it is focused on aligned or conflicting priorities and the group jointly responding to or advancing some priorities over others.

I'm interested in playing the game D&D has told me--for essentially all of my life--that it is about. I appreciate that you are looking at this from the perspective of someone wanting to play the game you originally played, the game you were originally sold and told about, the thing advertised to you as what D&D was about. I think that style merits inclusion. I just don't think it's been what D&D has been about for, at this point, something like 30-35 years.

*Note that "conflict" does not solely mean "combat". Conflict can occur on various levels. Further, it's not that environment and logistics don't at all matter, they just aren't the primary focus.

 

[bloodtide]

In my experience, DMs who go the opposite direction - Way, way too many house rules, extra rules and even "hidden rules" are as or more likely.

If I start at a table for 5e, Savage Worlds, whatever and am given a big book of house rules (or worse, not given anything in advance but every session the DM goes "I know the RAW, but here we run it like this...") that's generally a big red flag.

This does depend a lot person to person and game to game.

There's a big difference between a house rule that's adopted to better fit the needs of the group, or to fill a gap in the rules that the group has found would be better served by having a specific rule, and house rules that are used by the GM to make their railroading more artful.

If your the type of DM that feels they must get approval or permission from the players for each house rule, then your free to do so.

A lot of DMs are quite comfortable without asking for player approval or permission. A typical game AD will list the DMs house rules so players can decide if they want to join the game or not.

So, the rules aren't rules. They're just suggestions. The GM does whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want--meaning, exactly the thing you said doesn't apply. It's exactly the same as what you said, it's just sneaky, secret, hidden behind a pretense of actually playing fair, a pretense of having rules and following them.

This is a very common view of RPGs. This is one of the Big Things that makes them unique compared to other types of games.

You're really just doing whatever you want--but making the players think that you actually do have limits you abide by. That way, you get the best of both worlds. You can tell the players off for not playing by the rules, while you get to do whatever you want.

I don't think I need to explain why I oppose that approach.

Except for a few RPGs that have it baked into the rules as "anti-DM rules", most RPGs let the DM do whatever they want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a very common view of RPGs. This is one of the Big Things that makes them unique compared to other types of games.

It isn't anywhere near as common as you think, and no, this absolutely is not as you describe.

The rules being literally completely meaningless means it isn't a game anymore.

Most people genuinely actually do believe there are at least a few rules that limit what GMs can do. That GMs cannot just be arbitrary tyrants throwing around whatever they feel like whenever they feel like. That they need to be consistent--that they need to respect legitimate rolls, not take away successes just because it's not compatible with what the GM wanted to happen if the GM agreed to let a roll happen, etc.

People expect some degree of fairness, otherwise they're not going to continue participating. Few people want to spend their time being someone else's playthings.

Except for a few RPGs that have it baked into the rules as "anti-DM rules", most RPGs let the DM do whatever they want.

Nope. Not even close.

But I don't expect to change your mind on this. I'm just registering that this assertion is not correct.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If your the type of DM that feels they must get approval or permission from the players for each house rule, then your free to do so.

I GM and/or play with two groups. The first consists of friends I’ve had for decades, and we’ve been playing RPGs together since we were kids. The second consists of people I play online with that I met here on EN World. We’ve played together long enough and chatted often enough that I also consider them friends.

Generally, when I do things with friends, I want everyone to be happy with what we’re doing. It’s not so much about needing approval as it is just about wanting everyone to be haply with the rules of the game.

A lot of DMs are quite comfortable without asking for player approval or permission. A typical game AD will list the DMs house rules so players can decide if they want to join the game or not.

Sure. I think as long as it’s shared with players, then that’s fine… it’s up to them if the houserule in question is enough of a problem for them to not join the game.

However, based on your prior comments, I expect that your decisions to change things are not limited to those you make prior to play and which are shared with players ahead of time. I have no doubt you make changes to the rules as needed during play, without concern for how satisfying such a change may be for players.

The examples you offered of “clumsy DM railroading” made it pretty clear that it was the clumsy part you were concerned with.

 

[Maxperson]

So, the rules aren't rules. They're just suggestions. The GM does whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want--meaning, exactly the thing you said doesn't apply. It's exactly the same as what you said, it's just sneaky, secret, hidden behind a pretense of actually playing fair, a pretense of having rules and following them.

You're really just doing whatever you want--but making the players think that you actually do have limits you abide by. That way, you get the best of both worlds. You can tell the players off for not playing by the rules, while you get to do whatever you want.

I don't think I need to explain why I oppose that approach.

There's a pretty stark difference between "The DM can add or change rules of a game" and "The DM is not following any rules and is just unfairly pretending to follow rules." Bloodtide didn't say the latter. At least not in the post you just quoted.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't anywhere near as common as you think, and no, this absolutely is not as you describe.

It's actually very common. If the rules aren't just suggestions, then the DM can't change any of them. Yet he can, so they are just suggested rules. Most people I've interacted with here understand that the DM can change or add rules, which makes RAW just suggested rules to follow.

That said, the overwhelming number of the "rule suggestions" are followed by DMs. There aren't many DMs who want to write a whole new game or even most of one. They just going to follow the rules 95%+ of the time and make some house rules for the remaining few percentage points.

They also are not doing it on whims or unfairly pretending to follow them.

 

[Maxperson]

I GM and/or play with two groups. The first consists of friends I’ve had for decades, and we’ve been playing RPGs together since we were kids. The second consists of people I play online with that I met here on EN World. We’ve played together long enough and chatted often enough that I also consider them friends.

Generally, when I do things with friends, I want everyone to be happy with what we’re doing. It’s not so much about needing approval as it is just about wanting everyone to be haply with the rules of the game.

Yep. With my group we discuss any changes to the rules and generally do not adopt any rule that the majority of us does not approve of. I only say generally because very rarely, like once or twice in 20 years rarely, I will institute a house rule unilaterally. And never without good reason.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's a pretty stark difference between "The DM can add or change rules of a game" and "The DM is not following any rules and is just unfairly pretending to follow rules." Bloodtide didn't say the latter. At least not in the post you just quoted.

I have interacted with Bloodtide enough to know what he means, having heard it numerous times before. Remember, he's the one who proudly railroads--as said specifically in this thread. Who is proudly "cruel" to his players. His word, not mine.