D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Crimson Longinus]

Riffing on random things the players get interested in is like 80% of my gameplay.

Right. Go with the flow. If the players think the sewer goblin is interesting, then make them meaningful. And if there is some big plot you're desperate to run, then loop the goblins back to that. Like the sewer goblins are upset that the big bad has been dumping toxic waste caused by his undead army creation scheme into the sewers or something.

 

[kermit4karate]

Again, the problem you're missing that in some groups this isn't disruptive. Its what they do during play. Note upthread @TwoSix mentioned that's like 80% of his game play. Even the spotlight hogs are often just something that happens some of the time that other players just take as part of the gig.

Good morning, BTW. I'm not the one with a problem. Look upthread. My games of friends, acquaintances and allies are never ruined by disruptive players. I've never experienced the problems others here have described with RP that goes out of control.

A lot of this stuff isn't perceived as bad behavior.

I know. I've followed the threads and the endless semantic debates about it.

Bad behavior is bad behavior, IMO. Trying to spin bad behavior into something else is how some people rationalize it. That's what I've been seeing -- a lot of rationalizing. It's like when a parent rationalizes their child's bad behavior because they lost control of them a long time ago. Appeasement without consequence leads to chaos and a lack of respect around the table. Pretty soon the child in the parenting example is calling their mom by her first name and cursing her out. Mom: "Timmy, please clean your room today." Timmy: "No, Jane, I won't do that. Shut the $%@# up about it." If Timmy is never made to experience a negative consequence for that behavior, Timmy will get used to it.

I'm going to mention again that at least the first part of that is not a given in any way. There are plenty of games where the GM "controlling the table" is not a priority and they still get by fine. Even if you insist on doing that at your table, you've really got to get over assuming its a law of nature.

You're missing the thread here. The recent back-and-forth discussion in this thread, prior to me engaging in it, was about RP and players becoming disruptive for hours. That was the premise. Read upthread. I didn't start out by calling it "disruptive." I responded to someone else's use of the term upthread. What if a DM has a game planned, but their players choose to RP for hours doing disruptive nonsense instead?

In that scenario, I think the issue was that the DM either lost, or never had, the respect of the players, and therefore lacked the control necessary to corral them. That doesn't happen at my tables. Period. Never. Does not happen. Take from that what you will.

Again, leaping to conclusions that playing with strangers will automatically lead to problems. Seriously, it just doesn't follow. Frankly, I've seen as much problems from games with people playing with friends and family as I ever have with random mixes.

This should not need to be said, but here we go: there will always be exceptions, as there are always exceptions to everything in life. That there are exceptions, though, should not always -- always -- have to be highlighted in every post, unless we're having a pedantic debate instead of a reasonable one.

I will reiterate my opinion that it's easier, barring rare exceptions (if you must have them), to maintain respect and control around a table when you DM for friends than when you DM for complete strangers. That is irrefutable, IMO.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good morning, BTW. I'm not the one with a problem. Look upthread. My games of friends, acquaintances and allies are never ruined by disruptive players. I've never experienced the problems others here have described with RP that goes out of control.

And neither is everyone else. You're overextending the fact it doesn't work well for everyone (it'd be something the group I play with would get tired of pretty quick) to generalizing or universalizing. You either need to stop doing that or start assuming other people are lying about how their games work. Pick one.

I know. I've followed the threads and the endless semantic debates about it.

This isn't a question of semantics. Its a question of different playstyles.

Bad behavior is bad behavior, IMO.

And that's, bluntly, dumb. You can't talk about bad behavior without context. Expected play tropes for one group are bad behavior for another. There are people who would find the focus on game elements in our local games tedious and wonder why we were wasting so much time with it. That doesn't make what we're doing bad behavior; it just means our expectations are different than theirs and we don't belong in the same groups.

Trying to spin bad behavior into something else is how some people rationalize it. That's what I've been seeing -- a lot of rationalizing.

And to be really blunt, what I'm seeing in your responses is a big ole heaping dose of either tunnel vision or one-true-wayism, since you seem incapable of understanding not everyone needs to play the same way to get value out of the game.

You're missing the thread here. The recent back-and-forth discussion in this thread, prior to me engaging in it, was about RP and players becoming disruptive for hours. That was the premise. Read upthread. I didn't start out by calling it "disruptive." I responded to someone else's use of the term upthread. What if a DM has a game planned, but their players choose to RP for hours doing disruptive nonsense instead?

I read that, thanks. The issue is you're assuming that the fact it was a problem in those cases means its universally so. It isn't. Its a problem in many cases of people playing with the wrong people.

This should not need to be said, but here we go: there will always be exceptions, as there are always exceptions to everything in life. That there are exceptions, though, should not always -- always -- have to be highlighted in every post, unless we're having a pedantic debate instead of a reasonable one.

And I think it absolutely should be when someone starts to universalize or even generalize as you seem to have done here.

I will reiterate my opinion that it's easier, barring rare exceptions (if you must have them), to maintain respect and control around a table when you DM for friends than when you DM for complete strangers. That is irrefutable, IMO.

You can maintain it all you want, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. I'd look up the meaning of the term "irrefutable" again before you use it here.

 

[kermit4karate]

And neither is everyone else. You're overextending the fact it doesn't work well for everyone (it'd be something the group I play with would get tired of pretty quick) to generalizing or universalizing. You either need to stop doing that or start assuming other people are lying about how their games work. Pick one.



This isn't a question of semantics. Its a question of different playstyles.



And that's, bluntly, dumb. You can't talk about bad behavior without context. Expected play tropes for one group are bad behavior for another. There are people who would find the focus on game elements in our local games tedious and wonder why we were wasting so much time with it. That doesn't make what we're doing bad behavior; it just means our expectations are different than theirs and we don't belong in the same groups.



And to be really blunt, what I'm seeing in your responses is a big ole heaping dose of either tunnel vision or one-true-wayism, since you seem incapable of understanding not everyone needs to play the same way to get value out of the game.



I read that, thanks. The issue is you're assuming that the fact it was a problem in those cases means its universally so. It isn't. Its a problem in many cases of people playing with the wrong people.




And I think it absolutely should be when someone starts to universalize or even generalize as you seem to have done here.



You can maintain it all you want, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. I'd look up the meaning of the term "irrefutable" again before you use it here.

You can lay off the petty stuff, you know, the little jibes, and still make your same points.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You can lay off the petty stuff, you know, the little jibes, and still make your same points.

Apparently not, since I tried that in the post you were originally responding to and you simply denied the points and acted like they were invalid. Make extremely broad assertions, expect them to be challenged; present things as a moral failing, expect to be called on it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can I chime in here and have the last word??

See if everyone would allow me to have the last word on this, then everyone else can feel like they aren't letting their ideological adversary have it.

Yes, I'm brilliant, right? I know. You're welcome.

I disagree. If you are taking the last word you are clearly my ideological adversary.

 

[bloodtide]

Riffing on random things the players get interested in is like 80% of my gameplay.

It's a common way to do a game after all.

I'm just not sure why your experiences are so much different than mine. I've generally always run games for other experienced players, and they're almost always people I know. Occasionally, a total beginner will show up to one of our games, but that's the exception, not the norm.

I've run games for experienced players, players that "think" they are experienced, players that played a couple times and think they are experts, new players, people who have only played a couple times and people who have never played a RPG ever.

I've sat in malls, libraries, rec centers and game stores with a sign "play RPG here". I play with both total strangers, good friends, people who I just know their name, and bitter enemies.

I have to assume you're running games for people that either don't know you from Adam, or for whatever reason won't take hints from you to stop being disruptive doofuses.

Well, strangers, people I just sort of know, people I don't know, and enemies. Though, I don't have such problems with good people, good friends and such, of course.

Why? Why do you assume such a toxic relationship between the players and DM?

My current group has a rotating DM structure, and none of us who DM have that kind of relationship with the players.

I don't assume, but it is a common default.

If every player was a saint or angel, you would never see a post or thread about game problems...

 

[kermit4karate]

Apparently not, since I tried that in the post you were originally responding to and you simply denied the points and acted like they were invalid. Make extremely broad assertions, expect them to be challenged; present things as a moral failing, expect to be called on it.

"Sorry" is the word you were looking for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Sorry" is the word you were looking for.

No, its really not. If you have a problem with what I said you do, but I said what I intended.

 

[bloodtide]

In each case, it doesn't take that long for my patience to reach its limit.

So many DMs don't do this, they just sit there and do nothing, and then feel forced to Railroad.

I couldn't imagine trying to play with a table of complete strangers. It's almost like trying to play with people who don't like you. If they don't show up to the game with even a tiny shred of respect for the DM, that probably would not equal a good time for all.

Having a very powerful DM works wonders here. Amazingly even the worst person can sit down an play a game, with the right incentive.

I think this goes back to something I believe has been a recurring theme on enworld -- this debate over player agency and whether to put boundaries on DMs. I've only been coming here for a couple months so I don't have all the backstory, but I gather that this is a BIG recurring theme. That whole debate between DM authority and "narrative" (in quotes because I still don't know what it really means) play sits at the nexus of this issue to me.

All true.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. When players are allowed to be disruptive without suffering any consequences, then it normalizes that bad behavior. If the players lose respect for the DM and what they're trying to do for everyone at the table, then I'm not surprised so many games go off the rails.

True again.

Once a DM has lost control of a table, or at least has lost the respect of the people around the table, a negative outcome is predictable.

Very True.

Right. Go with the flow. If the players think the sewer goblin is interesting, then make them meaningful. And if there is some big plot you're desperate to run, then loop the goblins back to that. Like the sewer goblins are upset that the big bad has been dumping toxic waste caused by his undead army creation scheme into the sewers or something.

This Is the Way!

Bad behavior is bad behavior, IMO. Trying to spin bad behavior into something else is how some people rationalize it. That's what I've been seeing -- a lot of rationalizing. It's like when a parent rationalizes their child's bad behavior because they lost control of them a long time ago. Appeasement without consequence leads to chaos and a lack of respect around the table. Pretty soon the child in the parenting example is calling their mom by her first name and cursing her out. Mom: "Timmy, please clean your room today." Timmy: "No, Jane, I won't do that. Shut the $%@# up about it." If Timmy is never made to experience a negative consequence for that behavior, Timmy will get used to it.

As the representative of the "other type of game", I find this is very common.

Most players I meet for the first time have some sort of bad behavior. And often something they will say they have been doing for years and something no DM has said anything to them about. The list is huge like: not having an inside voice, hitting on other players, being on their phone, not taking a shower, no hygiene, and hostile 'real world' views.

I find many don't even know the rules, as they come from Buddy DM games where the DM just tells them all the rules all the time.

And a bonus mention to the player that has only ever played with one DM and they think that one DMs house rules are official game rules...