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

[Neonchameleon]

I'm pretty sure JMS didn't mean loss of hp when he spoke of "price". He is talking about things from ranging civilian casualties (such as the bombardment of the Narn homeworld) to the loss of a soul (Londo Mollari). There is nothing in the rules of 5e that prevents any of that.

There is nothing in D&D that encourages that or gives it any mechanical representation either. Saying "the toolbox doesn't contain a hammer so we hammered things in with a rock" doesn't miraculously mean that the toolbox is good at hammering.

Nothing in D&D's mechanics do a single thing to encourage a character arc like Londo Molari's. Meanwhile in something based on the Apocalypse World rules he'd change playbook possibly twice. He starts out as a Bon Vivante - but his change from the purple jacket to the black one matches a change in character playbook to something much more ambitiously focused. He may even change again at the start of S5. In Fate his aspects would change representing his loss of a soul.

In D&D it would happen despite the rules, the rules providing nothing other than a distraction from the narrative themes and vise-versa. In a decent PbtA hack or Fate based game the rules would at least support and preferably encourage an arc like his.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm pretty sure JMS didn't mean loss of hp when he spoke of "price". He is talking about things from ranging civilian casualties (such as the bombardment of the Narn homeworld) to the loss of a soul (Londo Mollari). There is nothing in the rules of 5e that prevents any of that.

There is nothing really in the rules of 5e to support it either, which is the point that Neonchameleon is making. Other games more actively support these sort of stories because of how everyone engages the mechanics through gameplay.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm pretty sure JMS didn't mean loss of hp when he spoke of "price". He is talking about things from ranging civilian casualties (such as the bombardment of the Narn homeworld) to the loss of a soul (Londo Mollari). There is nothing in the rules of 5e that prevents any of that.

This is exactly where I was getting at. And for the no rules. No you don't need any. But even 5th edition have some. Persuasion, Intimidation, Insight these are social skills. Background can and will help too in social skills. Member of guild? Incredibly useful in Dragonheist or any city based adventure. Noble birth? Again in a city/country where you are part of the nobility this will help a lot. There are rules. But they are not hard constrictive rules. They're narrative rules that will help players and DM create a story. I prefer it that way.

 

[Helldritch]

There is nothing in D&D that encourages that or gives it any mechanical representation either. Saying "the toolbox doesn't contain a hammer so we hammered things in with a rock" doesn't miraculously mean that the toolbox is good at hammering.

Nothing in D&D's mechanics do a single thing to encourage a character arc like Londo Molari's. Meanwhile in something based on the Apocalypse World rules he'd change playbook possibly twice. He starts out as a Bon Vivante - but his change from the purple jacket to the black one matches a change in character playbook to something much more ambitiously focused. He may even change again at the start of S5. In Fate his aspects would change representing his loss of a soul.

In D&D it would happen despite the rules, the rules providing nothing other than a distraction from the narrative themes and vise-versa. In a decent PbtA hack or Fate based game the rules would at least support and preferably encourage an arc like his.

But nothing prevents you from creating a hammer from scratch. In fact you have all the tools needed to create a hammer.
As for Londo. I agree, nothing in the rules will help you make this type of character evolution. BUT nothing hinders you either. There is nothing in the rules that will make a player sell his soul to a devil and yet, we have the warlock... (well, Descent into Avernus now has some, but if you don't have that book, you're on your own.)
It is not because something isn't codified that it is not possible. Far from it. It gives the leeway to the DM and the players to do as they see fit. It is a liberty that I would not trade for a hard codified rule. Combat is what needs to be codified hard. The rest should be relatively free form. Maybe it's the simulation enthusiast in me that is speaking in here...

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel railroaded into having a general discussion that just so happens to hawk your wares.

Not appreciated.

Please separate gaming discussions from promotional threads. This also allows your links to go into the Promotions forum, which I never visit.

This is my personal opinion only.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is nothing in D&D that encourages that or gives it any mechanical representation either. Saying "the toolbox doesn't contain a hammer so we hammered things in with a rock" doesn't miraculously mean that the toolbox is good at hammering.

Nothing in D&D's mechanics do a single thing to encourage a character arc like Londo Molari's. Meanwhile in something based on the Apocalypse World rules he'd change playbook possibly twice. He starts out as a Bon Vivante - but his change from the purple jacket to the black one matches a change in character playbook to something much more ambitiously focused. He may even change again at the start of S5. In Fate his aspects would change representing his loss of a soul.

In D&D it would happen despite the rules, the rules providing nothing other than a distraction from the narrative themes and vise-versa. In a decent PbtA hack or Fate based game the rules would at least support and preferably encourage an arc like his.

D&D has no rules for character arcs because rules for character arcs are completely unnecessary - in fact such rules are themselves a form of railroading. You can go from being a character in one stereotyped box to being a character in a different stereotyped box via a path predetermined by the rules.

In D&D your character can take whatever arc you want, without being constrained by unnecessary rules. The 5e ruleset deals with interactions with the external world, just as the rules of Physics dictate how we interact with the external world. It does not try to dictate a character's internal life.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is exactly where I was getting at. And for the no rules. No you don't need any. But even 5th edition have some. Persuasion, Intimidation, Insight these are social skills. Background can and will help too in social skills. Member of guild? Incredibly useful in Dragonheist or any city based adventure. Noble birth? Again in a city/country where you are part of the nobility this will help a lot. There are rules. But they are not hard constrictive rules. They're narrative rules that will help players and DM create a story. I prefer it that way.

I think the best example I can give here is an Apocalypse World game I ran about a year and a half ago for three players, two of them brand new to tabletop roleplaying. It only lasted six sessions because one of the players was incredibly flaky and one flake out of three is a big problem.

In Apocalypse World your playbook is your position within the world and the world is created round the characters. We had three characters - a cult leader (who called his cult his family and was generally well intentioned), a creepy psychic wearing a biohazard suit, and a hermit who lived in the woods. But a key thing about Apocalypse World is that although your position in the world is indicated by your playbook this can change; you can change either through spending XP and growth, or as one of four options "when life becomes untenable" (you can come back weaker, weirder, having changed playbook, or you can just die and start a new character - but the first three can each only happen once).

D&D could have handled the creepy psychic and the hermit in the woods as starting characters but there is not and never has been anything remotely resembling the Hocus playbook; there are no classes where the key element is your relationship with set NPCs that are closely tied to the world - no cult leaders. (There's also no equivalent to the Hardholder (town boss), Chopper (motorcycle gang leader), or Maestro D' (leader of the local scene) playbooks for the same reason). The setting isn't fixed but the rules help you create a setting for the game.

Anyway, to cut a long story short by the end of six sessions all three characters had experienced sufficient character growth to change their playbooks and their fundamental relationship to the world.

The cult leader had screwed up keeping one of their members alive (snake eyes at the wrong time) and had a crisis of faith. This was made deeper by the creepy psychic mind-controlling them into leaving their "family" behind when they had already lost confidence in themself. So they'd decided that they shouldn't be trusted to lead people and were instead trying to fix things.

The hermit in the woods had started out with beef with the cult leader because their big brother was a former member of the cult who had disappeared. They'd then over the course of the game got to know a little about the family and realised that the members of the family all needed guidance (or they wouldn't have joined) and someone had to step up and look after that complete rabble. And became the new cult leader.

The cult leader had realised that the creepy psychic had mind controlled them and had sought revenge, first drugging and then shooting the creepy psychic in the head before ditching their body. The psychic had bled out, their essence infusing the mask of their biohazard suit, which an NPC had put on. At which point the psychic had taken them over - but there would be problems if they ever took that mask off. This is literally an official playbook called the Faceless where the mask whispers to and controls the wearer.

Three players, two who had never played a tabletop RPG before and one who had never played Apocalypse World before. Three satisfying narrative arcs in six sessions. All RAW - and with the mechanics following and supporting the player's choices rather than controlling them. And the closest thing to DM force I used was pointing out that the Faceless existed to the player of the creepy psychic (who wouldn't have known otherwise that this was an option). The rest flowed from the rules and the setting; I literally didn't have any sort of pre-planned metaplot.

And as for not being constrained by unnecessary rules, Apocalypse World is a significantly lighter system than D&D 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Remind me never to play Apocalypse World...

 

[Aldarc]

D&D has no rules for character arcs because rules for character arcs are completely unnecessary - in fact such rules are themselves a form of railroading. You can go from being a character in one stereotyped box to being a character in a different stereotyped box via a path predetermined by the rules.

In D&D your character can take whatever arc you want, without being constrained by unnecessary rules. The 5e ruleset deals with interactions with the external world, just as the rules of Physics dictate how we interact with the external world. It does not try to dictate a character's internal life.

Hmmm... I’m not sure “railroad” means what you think it means.

 

[Helldritch]

IF you want to go into story arc with rules. Go see how Vampire the Masquerade (1st ed) handled it. It is extremely satisfying. As for the game you describe... I would not let another player decide the fate of other players in such a way. Nor would I allow a player to kill the character of another player under any circumstances if the other player was against it. This can lead to internal friction which I try to avoid at all costs. I have seen what it can do to friendship and I want to avoid this at all costs.