D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Paul Farquhar]

The idea that a table needs to be "controlled", or that players need to be "kept in line", is bizarre to me.

One thing I have learned in my many years of teaching is that this is an unproductive approach even when you are dealing with unruly children!

Do people have this same problem when they sit down to eat a meal together?

I don’t have much experience of this as I don’t have much family, but the trope is that family dinners are much much worse!

I play RPGs with people who want to play RPGs together. The GM role, which I frequently occupy, brings with it certain responsibilities within the structure of the game (generally pertaining to framing and resolution). But it's not about being a parent of undisciplined children!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A lot of people are hostile, or worse. It is just how people are in social situations.

Not my experience, this goes against general codes of conduct in social situations. Good manners! And people who don’t have good manners are to be avoided like the plague, not people to play games with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is sadly true of nearly any social activity. Someone, often the host, has to be the adult.

It really isn't. And most of the people in this conversation seem to agree that it isn't.

A lot of people are hostile, or worse. It is just how people are in social situations.

Again, it really well and truly is not. Your experience is so radically divergent from what even I--who have a lot of difficulties with social stuff--have ever faced, it genuinely borders on "this person is making this up, it's parody, it couldn't possibly be real". I know that you are serious, but there's a good reason more than one person has told me to stop taking your colorful anecdotes seriously. You describe what sounds like an absolutely horrendous, dystopian nightmare of viciousness, callousness, idiocy, and aggression, a dog-eat-dog world where everyone is arrogant, cruel, and contumacious to the point of preferring self-sabotage over ever allowing any structure or pattern to stand. This is so overwhelmingly extreme, so over-the-top, it is genuinely difficult to believe that you actually have this experience.

This, above anything else, is why I have to wonder exactly how you have found such a virulently hateful and hurtful social group, and why @pemerton asked what methods you use to find new players. Because your experience, if it is in fact exactly as you've described it (e.g., if you aren't misinterpreting things, or in some way unintentionally bringing about this result), is just so egregious, it sounds made-up.

It's also why I have asked--more than once--if you have considered the possibility that your own behavior could be contributing to producing this experience. Your open contempt for developing positive regard between player and GM, for example, is not likely to help you retain players who have a friendly attitude, but very likely to ensure that players who backtalk, who delight in breaking your creations, who find perverse joy in being a jerk at your tables, will stick around--because GMs that fold over easily aren't nearly as interesting as GMs who try to restrain them and fail.

I find players in all the ways: pen a paper posts on peg boards, online posts and the ever popular someone knows someone.

As said above, I know you have nothing but contempt for the idea of trying to relate to and understand your players...but would you consider giving it a shot? Your "Buddy GM" concept is a ridiculous caricature, and I wish you would stop pretending that it is in any way actually a thing, so....just note that I'm not asking you to be the thing you call a "Buddy GM". Instead, I'm suggesting that you actually try to be friendly and positive with/toward your players, in order to build up an understanding, rather than immediately presuming that every person is hostile and thus you have to strike first so they don't strike you.

Because that very attitude--"we MUST pre-emptively strike in order to prevent their first strike"--is precisely what creates the hostility you have described.

 

[FrogReaver]

Controversial Point.

If railroading is not based on dm intent or player feeling then all mechanics are railroading.

 

[bloodtide]

Why can't everybody be the adult?

It is just the way of things. Only if....

Our roleplay group is pretty static but we've had people's friends join before and at university (many many years ago now) I was part of the uni RPG club. I've never experienced anyone being hostile, violent, or disruptive in the ways you describe.

Well, if you have a fairly tight group that has no new members or you don't play with new people, I can see this happening. There are all sorts of bad people out there....

Controversial Point.

If railroading is not based on dm intent or player feeling then all mechanics are railroading.

Hummmm.....

It really isn't. And most of the people in this conversation seem to agree that it isn't.

Well, guess it depends. If you have a group of mature good friends that agree on nearly everything, then that is great. Of course, if you have anything less then that....

Again, it really well and truly is not. Your experience is so radically divergent from what even I--who have a lot of difficulties with social stuff--have ever faced, it genuinely borders on "this person is making this up, it's parody, it couldn't possibly be real". I know that you are serious, but there's a good reason more than one person has told me to stop taking your colorful anecdotes seriously. You describe what sounds like an absolutely horrendous, dystopian nightmare of viciousness, callousness, idiocy, and aggression, a dog-eat-dog world where everyone is arrogant, cruel, and contumacious to the point of preferring self-sabotage over ever allowing any structure or pattern to stand. This is so overwhelmingly extreme, so over-the-top, it is genuinely difficult to believe that you actually have this experience.

I really don't get how my saying like 20% of gamers are just bad people is such an amazing thing. It is no everyone, but it is more then enough. And really you meet this type of person often enough really anywhere.

This, above anything else, is why I have to wonder exactly how you have found such a virulently hateful and hurtful social group, and why @pemerton asked what methods you use to find new players. Because your experience, if it is in fact exactly as you've described it (e.g., if you aren't misinterpreting things, or in some way unintentionally bringing about this result), is just so egregious, it sounds made-up.

To be clear, I have like five good groups of people I have made out of good players. I also have three, well, not so good groups.

Most of my 'new' (to me, not the game) players come either from introductions or just cold add posts. Two of my good groups like to have new people join, so we do that often. Though many players don't work out.

It's also why I have asked--more than once--if you have considered the possibility that your own behavior could be contributing to producing this experience. Your open contempt for developing positive regard between player and GM, for example, is not likely to help you retain players who have a friendly attitude, but very likely to ensure that players who backtalk, who delight in breaking your creations, who find perverse joy in being a jerk at your tables, will stick around--because GMs that fold over easily aren't nearly as interesting as GMs who try to restrain them and fail.

I don't think that my having standards creates bad players. Players show up to my game on time, or they don't play. It is a simple rule. I do not put up with players that are always late or always have "something happen" right before the game. If your the type of jerk that show up two hours after the game has started, I'll just send you away.

Players that are there just to disrupt my game don't last long. I require a LOT from players to play the game. So, much that it is hard to fake. So it is a lot of effort to 'fake' everything just to disrupt my game....

As said above, I know you have nothing but contempt for the idea of trying to relate to and understand your players...but would you consider giving it a shot? Your "Buddy GM" concept is a ridiculous caricature, and I wish you would stop pretending that it is in any way actually a thing, so....just note that I'm not asking you to be the thing you call a "Buddy GM". Instead, I'm suggesting that you actually try to be friendly and positive with/toward your players, in order to build up an understanding, rather than immediately presuming that every person is hostile and thus you have to strike first so they don't strike you.

Because that very attitude--"we MUST pre-emptively strike in order to prevent their first strike"--is precisely what creates the hostility you have described.

I'm not sure why I would try to "relate and understand" my players. I don't really see any reason to change my ways.

I'm not so hostile or full of contempt, and do start off as 'neutral' to a new player to my game. Though I do roughly give zero chances. And I'm not going to compromise my standards. If players just play the game and don't whine or complain, the game works out great!

How can I be "more friendly" without changing who I am?

I'm never going to accept players that lie, cheat, steal, bully, harass, torment, bother, hit on or do violence. Ever.

In my game players can not ask questions during the game. This works out GREAT! All my good players love it. I'm never going to stop the game play to answer one players dumb twenty questions.

I also don't allow 'joking around' during the game. You pull out your cell phone and start to say "wow, look at this cool Sora video!" I will tell you to go home and watch all the videos you want. But I'm more then fair here, as I will offer to this type of player "hey, why not make a time for all of us to come over your place OUTSIDE OF THE GAME and we can watch your videos ". Amazing people don't want to do that.

 

[Scott Christian]

In some games hostile players try to trip up the DM when they are imrpovising. If the DM says the Black Swamp is clear of monsters at 7pm, but then at 9pm the DM gets confused and says there is a black dragon n that swamp, the player(s) can leap up and say "Nut Uh", you said the swamp was clear. And the submissive DM will hang their head down and say "yes player".

It's not for generally terms like "action" "adventure" and such things.

I might do...oh, 500% then you do. But I like creating stuff. I'm doing it during the game to, always tinkering and altering.


"Real" emotions are what make RPGs great and unique.


I would never skip RP for other stuff.

For me it is RP ruining the game. Like the example were the players are sort of happy hanging around town for four hours and not doing much exciting. It is bad enough there are players that sneak into action adventure games and do that. The player that makes a character like Slog the Dragonborn Warlock, slayer of monsters...then the player wants to go shopping for two hours and like "roll a d20 if find boots on sale".

Worse are the players that just have their characters sit around town and then complain to the DM that they are a bad DM. When the players were just like "we sit at the tavern, again". And sure if the passive DM does just sit there, they are to blame....but there is plenty on the players too.

Question: If you were in a game where you wanted to RP for hours, and the DM only wanted to "focus on the game". Would you be willing to come over early to do nothing but role play? Like say the game starts at 6pm, would you agree to come over at 4pm for pure RP? Or must RP only take up game time?

Those examples are very much a DM issue. There is a point in time when exposition occurs to minimize aimless RP, and then there is a time to expand it. It's just like a writer narrating 20 miles of a travel scene but then expanding the scene at the campfire. The same is done for skill checks too, and sometimes even combat.

 

[bloodtide]

12.
You are a player. Your group has been told that there's a haunted, abandoned house with a fabulous treasure in the town the characters are located. Your party goes to the house and starts poking around. Nobody wants to take the front door since it might be a trap, so they check out the back door. It's locked. But no matter how many lockpick checks your rogue makes, your DM says they can't open it. Ok, fine, you use a crowbar to remove some of the boards blocking the windows. The DM declares that the nails are wedged too deeply and the boards can't be removed. Ok, you try climbing up to the second story to see if you can get one of those windows open. Your DM declares that you can't get a grip to climb (even though you have climbing equipment and are a Tabaxi). There's literally no way into this house except through the front door (which yes, did in fact turn out to be trapped).

Another classic Railroading example. It seems simple enough to say don’t do this.

With something like a building, unless it is something like a vault or fortified military structure, there should always be a couple of relatively easy ways inside. Anytime the characters want to get into a buildings, the DM should always let them at least try some of the other ways.

Other then the vaults and such places, many buildings should be somewhat easy for characters to get into most of the time. While most places will be locked or otherwise protected with fairly common sense such things. They should not be all that hard for the average character to over come, roughly half the time.

The front door trap is very obvious, even if the players and characters don’t know there is a trap there. As a DM when you place a trap in such an obvious place, you should expect it to be bypassed. A spot like a front door is not a good place for a trap you really want to spring on the players. Nearly any building has dozens of other far better spots. Most buildings have structures like hallways or staircases that lead to locations. The typical basement, is a good example.

Remember a trap, or even more general an encounter, can be anywhere. There really is no reason to Railroad characters to a specific spot you have marked X.