D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Crimson Longinus]

In large part because they've agreed to it in advance.

Yes. Just like in a RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

The specific example I put up was:

"A party gathers information and knows about the existence of a settlement on road A that has a bridge, a road B with a bridge, bandits roam the area, and there's a ford at point C. The DM has a village planned out on road A, bandits planned by the bridge on road B, stream ford C between them has an old hermit planned, and the deep water D has planned giant leeches." It happens that an ogre will show up no matters no matter which way they go.

It was then noted by others that it would be different if the party were trying to avoid places with ogres and one would show up anyway, for example. Putting in the Ogre no matter how they tried to avoid it feels bad to me - like a mini-version of having the princess die no matter what.

In the quoted example I give here, the party still has plenty of choices to make, and their choices still matter in all kinds of big ways.

As I mentioned previously, a railroad can still have lots of choices on it. You don't have to remove all possible choice from the players to railroad them.

With your example above, what happens if the players decide that roads are dangerous and since Samwise has a Folding Boat, they should go off all the roads, get to the river and take the boat across, skipping the settlement on the way to the city that they need to go to? Will they still encounter the ogre, or would they then avoid the ogre? If they can avoid the ogre, then it's not a railroad. The ogre is not being forced on them no matter what they do. If they will still encounter the ogre, it's a railroad.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Just like in a RPG.

So you tell the players that sometimes their choices won't matter and they will encounter certain things that you have planned no matter what? If so, then it's still a railroad, but they've agreed to it which is okay. If you did not have that discussion and are deceiving them, WITHOUT their knowledge, then it's not like either movies or magic acts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So you tell the players that sometimes their choices won't matter and they will encounter certain things that you have planned no matter what? If so, then it's still a railroad, but they've agreed to it which is okay. If you did not have that discussion and are deceiving them, WITHOUT their knowledge, then it's not like either movies or magic acts.

It is an inherent part of GM driven RPG like D&D that the GM is allowed to make stuff up, define the exterior reality of characters and present that reality in the way they see the best. What part of that you have an issue with?

 

[Maxperson]

It is an inherent part of GM driven RPG like D&D that the GM is allowed to make stuff up, define the exterior reality of characters and present that reality in the way they see the best. What part of that you have an issue with?

Make stuff up =/= removing choice and forcing the DM's path on the players. See my example above in post #353. I made stuff up without forcing ogres on them no matter what they chose.

 

[TheSword]

I disagree that films are an illusion. They are make believe, but make believe isn't the same as illusion. When a stage magician performs an illusion, he is expressly deceiving the audience in the process.

When people create a set to make a lot in California appear to be a pirate ship in the Caribbean. Or dress people in a way to make them appear to be something they aren’t, use lighting and camera angles to create a certain impression or use prosthetics and CGI to make things look differently then that is exactly what an illusion is.

I know Johnny Depp isn’t an actual pirate just like I know Penn and Teller can’t saw someone in half without killing them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why defend railroading?

Because invariably I don't agree with how someone is defining it, and thus I will defend railroading just to disagree with their definition.

If you don't want railroading defended... then don't ask the question in the first place.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Ya know if the party, had a ranger, then the Ogre would not be a problem. The ranger scouting ahead would spot the encounter and lead the party safely around it.

People complaining about the quantum ogre, appear to me to believe that all railroading is bad, all illusionism is bad and random encounters that are not in fact random are bad. This is fine, they are entitled to their belief but please accept that there are people that do not agree with them.

Another aspect of this that should be considered is how a group actually plays a game. Games where all combat is on a grid has a higher preparation cost to ones where all or some of the encounters are theatre of the mind. I think in the former, there will be more quantum encounters, more so in VTT play.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, they have. And the responses have mostly been "I like it therefore it's good" the second best is "it's easier therefore it's good"

And, don't you realize that, for a hobby entertainment, those are actually valid reasons?

One can dig a bit more into why one likes it, sure. The answer may not be as deep as you like, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

 

[Charlaquin]

If all roads lead to ogre, no choice has any real meaning. A meaningless choice is an invalidated one.

That’s only true if the presence or absence of ogre is the only meaningful difference between the roads. Which would make for very dull D&D if you ask me.