D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[WayOfTheFourElements]

You play a sandbox game, as you have described. You expect your players to be proactive and go looking for adventure no?

Try having a table where three of the four players are completely passive and expect you to provide everything from motivation on downwards and see how long your sandbox lasts.

I've never met such a player. I expect they exist, but I haven't encountered any, though. My main group was recruited from improv actors in university. Nowadays we play online, but it's a nice way to keep in touch.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've never met such a player. I expect they exist, but I haven't encountered any, though. My main group was recruited from improv actors in university. Nowadays we play online, but it's a nice way to keep in touch.

me

 

[Aldarc]

Since its inception D&D has not really been a game interested, on the whole, with asking “but at what cost?” You can stretch it and say that it was, but I’m not sure if the dubious question “but with how many expendable henchmen?” qualifies. And you know what? That’s fine. I would prefer to play in a manner that embraces D&D’s strengths rather than pretend that it does everything well. But I do think that it is helpful to have awareness of other games that are built to support other styles of play and how they do that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Once upon a time the DM gave our group rumors of different adventures in 3 different far away places. I can’t describe How unfun that decision was for me.

on the flip side I’m good with picking a random direction on a map and traveling there.

But give me 2+ bad guys to stop and I’m at a loss nearly every time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

By having combat mechanics, you are signalling to the players that not only are they expected to have combat in play, but, they will actually be rewarded in game for having these.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I have played RPGs, such as FASA Star Trek and Doctor Who, which had combat mechanics, but combat was viewed, at best, as a sub-optimal solution.

Others, like CoC and Traveller (1st edition), have combat mechanics which are likely to lead to the PCs dying or at best receiving a serious injury.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You can force story and character's arc or you can rely on your players. Your system is "good" for new players. But as a player matures in RPG, the player wants to go into story arcs naturally without any mechanics needed.

Vampire was crude? For its time it was a revolution and it is still something to take into account (and the fifth edition is simply great). Rules without harsh punishments. You were rewarded to play your nature and demeanor (and incentived to) but you were not punished for not doing so. It was good if you did. But not darn if you didn't. Which at the time had not been seen. Your system seems to punish you for not choosing arcs. But not choosing is a choice too

You say "go into story arcs naturally without any mechanics needed"; oD&D forces the Adventurer/Conqueror/King story arc on people while more modern editions of D&D actively inhibit story arcs because of the fixed nature of classes. Points based rather than class based games allow for a natural sprawl; my current character in a Babylon 5 RPG started off as an unmemorable (as in specialising in not being memorable) thief with expertise in jury-rigging ships and making them work with components that really shouldn't. Because we're using WoD rules and becuase of what the party needed he's ended up specialising hardcore in the tech and repairs side of things to the point that he's probably the leading expert in First One tech among the younger races in the galaxy, having dumped most of his XP into crafts, lore, and psionics (and not a single one into the stealth, larceny, and hacking he was initially hired for). Meanwhile if we'd been playing D&D he'd probably have been levelling up in rogue every time.

Vampire for its time was a revolution - but its time was 1991. The Blackberry Pearl was a revelation in 2006 - but compare that to the smartphone in my pocket and it too is crude and clunky.

As for Apocalypse World punishing you for not choosing defined arcs, this simply isn't true. Apocalypse world has no rules at all for character arcs. They aren't mentioned in the system. All Apocalypse World provides is a lot of options as to how to grow your character, and a lot of consequences stemming from a success-with-consequences resolution sytem. And this is how you produce story arcs naturally - consequences, choices, and non-linear opportunities for growth and enabling characters to change. This makes character arcs flow from the system.

D&D by contrast has almost railroaded character growth thanks to the class system (which 3.X tried to mitigate through multiclassing and prestige classes and 4e did through choices as you level up, retraining, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies), a skill system that's a simple pass/fail, and a damage system that's pretty close to consequence free.

 

[Umbran]

I've never met such a player. I expect they exist, but I haven't encountered any, though. My main group was recruited from improv actors in university. Nowadays we play online, but it's a nice way to keep in touch.

The extreme example he gives aside... it sounds like you do have expectations of your players - based on the kind of people you recruited.

Stepping again away from his extreme example - you run a sandbox game. Do you not have the expectation that the players will proactively seek out interesting things to do?

Do you not realize this expectation is not universal? There are entire games (Shadowrun, Ashen Stars, Leverage, to name a few) where basic conceit is that the characters are a team for hire, and the expectation is that they'll take jobs offered to them, and they will generally continue to do so throughout the campaign. Haring off to accomplish their own schemes may be possible, but it is not the games' usual approach.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You can force story and character's arc or you can rely on your players

I would never force a character arc onto a player. They can stay the same all the way through if they like. But that doesn't mean they can't be presented with situations that could cost them their soul.

I had an adventure where the players where aided by a hag who presented the players with a plan (the "only plan") to beat the Villain was for a paladin to merge his soul with an evil dragon. Through determination and a little luck the party managed to defeat the villain without the dragon, thus saving the paladin's soul. But it could easily have gone the other way. And the paladin remained lawful stupid throughout the adventure.

If an arc is a required part of the story I would make "Londo" and NPC who the players could influence one way or the other with their words and deeds.

 

[Umbran]

D&D by contrast has almost railroaded character growth ...

Note that the assumption that character story arc and character mechanical progression are linked... is an assumption on your part.

Yes, limits on mechanical development options do limit how successful a characer can be in a fictional role - you probably don't expect a D&D Barbarian to become the premier diplomat of the Nine Kingdoms, or the like. But that still leaves wide swaths of stories that can be told. The barbarian might not becoem the top diplomat, but he can still be King.

And mechanical progression puts very few limits in the internal personal growth story arcs a character might have. That barbarian can still be a hero or a villain. They can process their rough upbringing, or they can let it control them, and so on.

 

[NotAYakk]

??????????????????????????? I simply fail to see your point. Monopoly is not an RPG. Using the absurd to prove your point is lost to me. Could you please clarify?

You can play Monopoly as a role playing game, where you are playing sentient incarnations of the tokens, and they can have rivalries, duels to the death, and character arcs.

The mechanics of Monopoly provide zero support for this. But the mechanics don't stop you from doing it.

When you have decisions to make, you can use your character's motivations to determine which choice you make, within the framework of the game. These are quite limited (do you bribe your way out of jail? Do you build houses? Do you buy or bid on a property?) mechanically.

It can help if the banker roleplays as the jail guard.

This is (a) funny, and (b) makes it clear that the "there are no rules for it, but you are allowed to do it" position actually has an issue.

Monopoly is a pretty crappy roleplaying game, because the rules of the game are really not suited for it. I mean, you can have fun roleplaying in it, but most of the fun is the self-referential absurdity of roleplaying while playing Monopoly.

Having mechanical support for something tends to actually encourage and support it happening, and can make the experience of doing it more fun. And yes, without support, you can still do it, but at some level you are basically roleplaying monopoly tokens: a top-hat made of rags to a top-hat made of mercury felted beaver pelts story.