D&D General Why defend railroading?

[pemerton]

Honestly I think the popularity of D&D has something to do with this.
The DM can always just throw in a fight and by the time it's done it's time for everyone to go home and the DM has a week to think of what to do next.

And more generally I think a lot of players find role-playing in character mentally taxing and a fight can be a welcome relief.

This is why, instead of debating about whether or not games are railroads, it seems more helpful to talk about what sorts of authority the GM exercises over the shared fiction in different sorts of games.

If - for the reasons you've said - we want the GM to be the one who mostly decides what happens next, and/or we want player decision-making to be confined mostly to declaring actions in combat, then lets be up front about that, and talk about how to do it well.

I wonder if there is a non-osr version of "story after," where the goal for the dm is to consider whether anything that happens at the table will make for a good story later, whether or not it is prepared or random. So, you roll on the random encounter table (in part because this is a vestigial aspect of the game in 5e), and if the result seems either boring in the moment or not something that will produce a good story later, you ignore it. If a monster rolls a critical that would kill a pc, but that wouldn't be the right narrative moment for that pc to die, you ignore it and fudge the result. I could see the appeal of this kind of thing, as the role of the dm would basically be to ensure good pacing, especially when you have limited time to play, though I still think a more emergent style is more fun.

Again, this doesn't seem like something I would enjoy but is a type of play I've witnessed, and been a player in, back when I played in a club. It makes sense to talk about how it works. And why, for instance, do we still have die rolls in combat? (I think the answer is something to do with setting up tension and releasing it - it's a pacing device, not really a resolution device, in the sort of play you're describing.)

 

[Maxperson]

Standard rules?

Remember, this is a D&D general thread, not just 5e. In 1e or Basic, for example, hit points and healing can often be at a premium.

In 1e it's even more lopsided. Kobolds trying to swing at the AC's of a level 12 group would be a joke. The level 12 group swinging back at 1e kobolds would wreck them. They don't even have a full hit die. Same with 2e. 3e is even worse for the kobolds.

It's just not worth the time it takes to do the 1 round to kill them and hope that any kobolds still alive by the time they get their turn can roll a natural 20.

 

[Don Durito]

This is why, instead of debating about whether or not games are railroads, it seems more helpful to talk about what sorts of authority the GM exercises over the shared fiction in different sorts of games.

If - for the reasons you've said - we want the GM to be the one who mostly decides what happens next, and/or we want player decision-making to be confined mostly to declaring actions in combat, then lets be up front about that, and talk about how to do it well.

Again, this doesn't seem like something I would enjoy but is a type of play I've witnessed, and been a player in, back when I played in a club. It makes sense to talk about how it works. And why, for instance, do we still have die rolls in combat? (I think the answer is something to do with setting up tension and releasing it - it's a pacing device, not really a resolution device, in the sort of play you're describing.)

Yes. Although I think trad games, and in particular D&D as many people expect it to be played these days, suffer hugely in this regard from GM burnout and lack of GMs. Ultimately I'm not sure this is a style of play that by and large people who are able to run games week in, week out, actively maintain. (I know I design my campaigns so I don't have to do homework unless I want to). It's also, I think, why Paizo and WotC have found selling adventure paths to be such a profitable direction to go.

We tend to start running into the limts of what the Forge called the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the
"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.

I don't think it's actually impossible. But I think trying to thread the needle is a real recipe for burnout.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. Although I think trad games, and in particular D&D as many people expect it to be played these days, suffer hugely in this regard from GM burnout and lack of GMs. Ultimately I'm not sure this is a style of play that by and large people who are able to run games week in, week out, actively maintain. (I know I design my campaigns so I don't have to do homework unless I want to). It's also, I think, why Paizo and WotC have found selling adventure paths to be such a profitable direction to go.

I GMed weekly for about 10 years, then fortnightly for about another 15, and over the past 5 years it's turned into more like a session every 3 weeks - those years track the aging of me and my friends!

But I've never suffered burnout as I read about it on these boards. So I can easily believe that you're right that the burnout results from an expectation of GM as performer/entertainer.

This seems to be another thing that might be talked about in "best practice" advice (the topic of another active thread that has some overlap with this one).

We tend to start running into the limits of what the Forge called the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the
"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.

I don't think it's actually impossible. But I think trying to thread the needle is a real recipe for burnout.

I do think it's impossible, simply because a story consists, to a very significant extent, in the actions of its protagonists.

The solution, in RPG design terms, is to stop pretending that the players' action declarations for their PCs will have any significant effect on the overall direction of the fiction. Instead they are understood to play a pacing function - the tension and release of dice rolls - and to add some colour and embellishment via characterisation.

Embracing this can also potentially help with the GM burnout issue - if the GM is in charge of providing a plot (either self-authored, or from a module/AP) but the players are the ones doing most of the literal entertaining via their characterisation, then maybe GMs won't burn out as quickly.

Marvel Heroic RP actually provides an example of how this can work - it can be played as a "story now" game (which is how I use it) but it can also be approached as a type of characterisation-heavy railroad. In MHRP players earn XP for their PCs via (what the game calls) Milestones, which are character-specific events that - if they actually occur in the fiction - accrue XP. Eg Captain America gets 1 XP when he gives an order to an ally; and gets 3 XP (no more than once per scene) when he takes advice from an ally or successfully uses assistance provided by an ally.

Under this approach, the GM provides the "supervllian of the week" - in 5e D&D that would be the AP - and the players provide the characterisation, which is largely independent of the GM's plot but provides colour to their action declarations and helps drive character progression. There are some Milestone triggers in MHRP that aren't such a good fit for this sort of approach to D&D 5e (eg PvP ones, or events that take as a premise that the player will make a fundamentally plot-altering choice) but I think the idea could be adapted to work, and to help distribute expectations for energy and contributions among the participants in a pretty clear way.

 

[Malmuria]

Again, this doesn't seem like something I would enjoy but is a type of play I've witnessed, and been a player in, back when I played in a club. It makes sense to talk about how it works. And why, for instance, do we still have die rolls in combat? (I think the answer is something to do with setting up tension and releasing it - it's a pacing device, not really a resolution device, in the sort of play you're describing.)

And the more I think about it, the more I understand that one has to bring the out of game reality to bear on game processes. Meaning, how often can your group meet, for how much time can they meet, are you playing online or in person. I think it's possible to square these (easily) with classic or osr play, as Gus L describes here. Pbta derived games really shine, here, however, as they just make explicit that the goal of the group is to generate a story, so there's no real need for gm illusionism. When I play blades with my group, I'll actively try to suggest paths forward for them, because I'm not trying to present challenges for them to overcome; rather, we are all trying to create the episode of the current season of our 'show'.

Yes. Although I think trad games, and in particular D&D as many people expect it to be played these days, suffer hugely in this regard from GM burnout and lack of GMs. Ultimately I'm not sure this is a style of play that by and large people who are able to run games week in, week out, actively maintain. (I know I design my campaigns so I don't have to do homework unless I want to). It's also, I think, why Paizo and WotC have found selling adventure paths to be such a profitable direction to go.

This is the crux of it for me. I tried running a trad style game last year. It was ok, and there was a certain fun in letting players discover a pre-written world, but ultimately I could not sustain being dm-as-entertainer/illusionist. I think the breaking point came for me when a player complained bitterly that a combat was too hard and I needed to adjust the difficulty of combats as they were proceeding just like some video games do (this was a combat that the party handily won in 4 rounds).

 

[iserith]

I think the breaking point came for me when a player complained bitterly that a combat was too hard and I needed to adjust the difficulty of combats as they were proceeding just like some video games do (this was a combat that the party handily won in 4 rounds).

I would just hit the button on my table that opens a trap door under that player's seat, then call for a replacement to tap in.

 

[Maxperson]

I would just hit the button on my table that opens a trap door under that player's seat, then call for a replacement to tap in.

Dr. Evil, is that you?

 

[pemerton]

In combat, the only decisions you make are "what is the best move?" Which, assuming competence, is entirely deterministic. And the chance of an outcome other than "PCs win" is very slim. If they use more or fewer resources it just means they take a rest earlier or later, which, unless the quest is time-sensitive or food is limited, makes no difference.

This isn't true of much of my experience with D&D or other RPGs.

Could it be we have found the Killer DM?

I'm not sure I get the joke.

I have combats where there are decisions other than a deterministic "what is the best move" - deciding who to help and who to risk or even sacrifice; deciding whether and how to fall back or push forward; deciding what sorts of chances to take on what sorts of outcomes; deciding what sort of commitments might be made in order to achieve a victory. In the D&D context I'm thinking here primarily of 4e. In the broader context of RPGing, I'm thinking of most systems that I've played or GMed.

And I have combats where PCs lose quite often (moreso in other RPGs, though, than D&D). This was especially noticeable in the earlier sessions of our Prince Valiant campaign, because the PCs weren't especially good at jousting and the players made some unlucky rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure I get the joke.

I have combats where there are decisions other than a deterministic "what is the best move" - deciding who to help and who to risk or even sacrifice; deciding whether and how to fall back or push forward; deciding what sorts of chances to take on what sorts of outcomes; deciding what sort of commitments might be made in order to achieve a victory. In the D&D context I'm thinking here primarily of 4e. In the broader context of RPGing, I'm thinking of most systems that I've played or GMed.

And I have combats where PCs lose quite often (moreso in other RPGs, though, than D&D). This was especially noticeable in the earlier sessions of our Prince Valiant campaign, because the PCs weren't especially good at jousting and the players made some unlucky rolls.

The joke is that he said, "And the chance of an outcome other than "PCs win" is very slim." Your response to his post was, "This isn't true of much of my experience with D&D or other RPGs." That combined with the Killer DM thread going on right now is most likely what is behind that humor.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Time constraints.
Sometimes it is better to just fly over something to speed up the game so you can have a coherent story in a few hours instead of a few days.

Of course you should ask for player input in important cases and listen to players if they object on something.
A railroad can always be stopped and a scene can be played out.
But in many occasions it is not worth the time.