D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Well that would be the essence of the "life goes on" story. The PC has lost everything they care about, what new things can they find to care about? Which are often some of the most powerful and uplifting stories you can encounter.

Only if you're actually ready for that kind of story.

As someone currently right now in real life struggling with making sure life does, in fact, go on? Yeah I really, really, really do not need that kind of thing in my life right now. But I get quite a bit of value out of playing TTRPGs anyway. Cutting that out of my life would in fact make improvement more difficult, not less.

Which is a long-form personal way of saying, you left out a critical part: "The PC has lost everything they care about, what new things can they find to care about? Which are often some of the most powerful and uplifting stories for me". For you, these are powerful and uplifitng. For me, they're a constant neverending reminder of the personal, familial, medical, economic, and social stuff I'm dealing with.

The analogy I've heard that I quite like (from Overly Sarcastic Productions) is that grimdark narratives like this are like an ice bath: shocking, even refreshing, especially if you've been going through sweltering heat. But for folks who spend their days in the frozen tundra, not at all productive or enjoyable or uplifting.

I guess, like someone else said previously, it's whether or not people see their PCs as disposable. I never do, even if it is a game with high lethality. Sure, the PC faces the possibility of death, but that doesn't mean they don't value being alive. They may even sacrifice themselves for a cause, but it better be something that is truly worthy of that sacrifice. Perhaps that is why I don't feel tension in a combat encounter unless my PCs life is in danger. An immortal PC doesn't need to value their life, as it is never in danger. That is too much of a disconnect from reality for me, as IRL, life is valuable because it can end at any time, so time is precious.

Whereas to me, a high-lethality game is specifically going out of its way to tell me that PCs are disposable and life doesn't matter.

For me, life is valuable because of...everything else. People, places, experiences, principles. These are the things that, as mentioned above, give value to survival. Survival itself? Mostly pretty freakin' miserable. My late father mostly survived for the decade prior to his cancer diagnosis. I know what "survival" looks like, and it sucks. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Only if you're actually ready for that kind of story.

As someone currently right now in real life struggling with making sure life does, in fact, go on? Yeah I really, really, really do not need that kind of thing in my life right now. But I get quite a bit of value out of playing TTRPGs anyway. Cutting that out of my life would in fact make improvement more difficult, not less.

Which is a long-form personal way of saying, you left out a critical part: "The PC has lost everything they care about, what new things can they find to care about? Which are often some of the most powerful and uplifting stories for me". For you, these are powerful and uplifitng. For me, they're a constant neverending reminder of the personal, familial, medical, economic, and social stuff I'm dealing with.

For me, who's life has been that way for the better part of two decades, those stories are reminders of why I need to value my survival so I can at least have the chance that things might get better. Everything effects people differently. I do understand that avoiding those themes in a game can be helpful for some folks. You also have my sympathies, as I fully understand how crappy life can be, and what it feels like to wonder if being alive is actually worth it.

The analogy I've heard that I quite like (from Overly Sarcastic Productions) is that grimdark narratives like this are like an ice bath: shocking, even refreshing, especially if you've been going through sweltering heat. But for folks who spend their days in the frozen tundra, not at all productive or enjoyable or uplifting.

I don't think lethal combat makes a setting or game grimdark by default. That's why it is it's own genre after all. Very few of the games I run would be considered grimdark in any real way, but they still feature lethal combat.

Whereas to me, a high-lethality game is specifically going out of its way to tell me that PCs are disposable and life doesn't matter.

For me, life is valuable because of...everything else. People, places, experiences, principles. These are the things that, as mentioned above, give value to survival. Survival itself? Mostly pretty freakin' miserable. My late father mostly survived for the decade prior to his cancer diagnosis. I know what "survival" looks like, and it sucks. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

I don't see any reason why a game featuring lethal combat can't include things other than pure survival. That seems to be the real issue with people who have a problem with having lethal combat, they seem to think that it means that is the only thing it is about. That simply isn't the case. The survival aspect is simply one more thing on top of all the others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, who's life has been that way for the better part of two decades, those stories are reminders of why I need to value my survival so I can at least have the chance that things might get better. Everything effects people differently. I do understand that avoiding those themes in a game can be helpful for some folks. You also have my sympathies, as I fully understand how crappy life can be, and what it feels like to wonder if being alive is actually worth it.

I don't think lethal combat makes a setting or game grimdark by default. That's why it is it's own genre after all. Very few of the games I run would be considered grimdark in any real way, but they still feature lethal combat.

I don't see any reason why a game featuring lethal combat can't include things other than pure survival. That seems to be the real issue with people who have a problem with having lethal combat, they seem to think that it means that is the only thing it is about. That simply isn't the case. The survival aspect is simply one more thing on top of all the others.

Every single game I have ever played, or heard spoken about, where the game goes out of its way to remind you how dangerously lethal it is, survival becomes the only consideration. Everything else is swept off the table because death stalks your every move.

Note the poster above who specifically reiterated that players should be paranoid. That's not an accident. It's the point.

When a game goes out of its way to emphasize lethality, rather than using it judiciously as one (small) part of this balanced breakfast, survival pushes everything else off the table. It might not be instant, but it'll happen. I've never seen it fail to do so, given enough time. Losing character after character after character because you showed curiosity or creativity or compassion deadens that which would care about things other than survival.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's not far beyond railroading. It's just bad railroading. Time skips are one of the most important railroading techniques. All time skips are in fact railroading. But how would you have felt if the GM had time skipped you forward to the point you are now somewhat established in the town, have the base of operations you desire and some relationships with the townsfolk, and then set up some scene whatever is going on in the woods now threatens your base and allies? That's also controlling and changing things, but would you have objected as strongly?

No, not all time skips are railroading. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are not. How many games have you been in where you've played out every minute of every game day in real time? Not many I'm sure. Hours get skipped. When travelling days and even weeks get skipped. Those are non-railroading time skips.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well that would be the essence of the "life goes on" story. The PC has lost everything they care about, what new things can they find to care about? Which are often some of the most powerful and uplifting stories you can encounter.

Or the most thoroughly depressing.

But in any case, that'st he point: losing those matters.

I guess, like someone else said previously, it's whether or not people see their PCs as disposable. I never do, even if it is a game with high lethality. Sure, the PC faces the possibility of death, but that doesn't mean they don't value being alive. They may even sacrifice themselves for a cause, but it better be something that is truly worthy of that sacrifice. Perhaps that is why I don't feel tension in a combat encounter unless my PCs life is in danger. An immortal PC doesn't need to value their life, as it is never in danger. That is too much of a disconnect from reality for me, as IRL, life is valuable because it can end at any time, so time is precious.

But again, this is only an issue if the only value--or at least the biggest one--is the character's life.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Every single game I have ever played, or heard spoken about, where the game goes out of its way to remind you how dangerously lethal it is, survival becomes the only consideration. Everything else is swept off the table because death stalks your every move.

Eh, to be fair, that's only true if combat or other high-risk activities are a focus of the game. That's common, but not universal. For a few its just a way of saying "You don't want to get in combat more often than events force you to."

Note the poster above who specifically reiterated that players should be paranoid. That's not an accident. It's the point.

Are you still taking that poster at all seriously?

 

[Maxperson]

While I understand that you see character death as absolutely necessary for any actions to have any meaning, there really are other perspectives. As someone who appreciates those other perspectives, I often feel frustrated by the disparaging terms used for such things. It's more complicated than "death is everywhere, thus real consequences" vs "no death whatsoever, thus zero consequences".

Death is a very obvious and straightforward consequence. I find it is often not as interesting or impactful as other kinds of consequences. Much of fiction, in fact, is driven on the idea that characters will still get satisfying arcs--that they won't be killed by just any old thing, because we want to see things come to an interesting conclusion. That's not how real life works, to be sure, but neither heroic fantasy, nor murder-hole-delving for fantastical riches, is how real life works either, even when we exclude the supernatural elements. As a good example, in my experience, the point of combat is not whether you survive, but rather, whether you pay a price too great. There are times where survival is actually less valuable than completing the objective--and there are times where merely surviving would be at absolute best a Pyrrhic victory, and more likely a bitter defeat.

This most certainly requires investment on the players' part and effort on the GM's part to produce meaningful, worthwhile consequences. But I think it is an effort well worth pursuing--and I believe that, in most cases, it produces a game that encourages players to truly care about what happens, rather than what I have seen too many times in games that focus too much on death as the only important consequence.

I agree with you that there are other perspectives to be sure. For me, though, if death is off the table the other consequences are vastly diminished.

Without death combat itself pales as there is no risk of death.

Without death failing to achieve my goal is vastly diminished, because I can't die, which means I have near infinite time to bring some god on board, find an artifact, powerful wizard, or other thing to unwind the failure somehow.

Without death being captured doesn't mean a whole lot, because I can attempt escape over and over until I succeed.

Without death losing items doesn't mean as much, because I will just get them back, replace them, and/or improve upon them.

With death failing to achieve my goal means something, because my PC could die before overcomes that failure.

With death being captured means something, because I will likely have little to no weaponry or armor and could die trying to escape. I need to wait until I'm sure the time is right, rather than just trying over and over until it happens.

With death losing items means I am far weaker and might die before I can get them back or replace them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh, to be fair, that's only true if combat or other high-risk activities are a focus of the game. That's common, but not universal. For a few its just a way of saying "You don't want to get in combat more often than events force you to."

Common enough that I have yet to see the exceptions.

Are you still taking that poster at all seriously?

Yes.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Every single game I have ever played, or heard spoken about, where the game goes out of its way to remind you how dangerously lethal it is, survival becomes the only consideration. Everything else is swept off the table because death stalks your every move.

Note the poster above who specifically reiterated that players should be paranoid. That's not an accident. It's the point.

When a game goes out of its way to emphasize lethality, rather than using it judiciously as one (small) part of this balanced breakfast, survival pushes everything else off the table. It might not be instant, but it'll happen. I've never seen it fail to do so, given enough time. Losing character after character after character because you showed curiosity or creativity or compassion deadens that which would care about things other than survival.

Games that includes lethal combat, at least in my experience, don't often go to the lengths of constantly reminding players about how lethal they can be. Mostly it simply reinforces the idea that physical combat is incredibly dangerous and not something that should be entered into lightly, let alone as a fun thing to do. Combat is scary and dangerous and to be avoided whenever possible. That's were I think those who dislike the idea of lethal combat seem to be mistaken. They seem to think because combat can be lethal, that is the be all and end all of the game. I know my games aren't like that at all. My games probably feature less combat than your average game as players have ample incentive to avoid combat.

Like I said earlier, as a player I don't enjoy deathless combat as I find it pointless and boring, as I feel no tension, nor feel that there is any risk involved. I would much rather roll my "decide outcome of combat encounter in it's entirety" skill and get on with the darn game. Stop wasting time on a blow by blow description of the combat, that is nothing more than a time delay, and get back to the parts of the narrative where my successes amd failures will meaningfully affect the story.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with you that there are other perspectives to be sure. For me, though, if death is off the table the other consequences are vastly diminished.

Without death combat itself pales as there is no risk of death.

Without death failing to achieve my goal is vastly diminished, because I can't die, which means I have near infinite time to bring some god on board, find an artifact, powerful wizard, or other thing to unwind the failure somehow.

Without death being captured doesn't mean a whole lot, because I can attempt escape over and over until I succeed.

Without death losing items doesn't mean as much, because I will just get them back, replace them, and/or improve upon them.

With death failing to achieve my goal means something, because my PC could die before overcomes that failure.

With death being captured means something, because I will likely have little to no weaponry or armor and could die trying to escape. I need to wait until I'm sure the time is right, rather than just trying over and over until it happens.

With death losing items means I am far weaker and might die before I can get them back or replace them.

All of these are still predicated on the assumption that:

(1) If you're alive you can ALWAYS fix EVERYTHING wrong
(2) No consequences are ever permanent except death
(3) You can never lose something you care about

All of these are wrong. Heck, that second one is wrong in both directions. Resurrection magic exists, so death isn't even permanent in the first place.