D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Lanefan]

The problem is that the DM has forgotten that it's a collaborative storytelling game.

I wonder if part of the problem is that you're arbitrarily defining it as a "collaborative storytelling game" when in fact the only universally-accepted word in there is "game".

Calling it a storytelling game implies someone's telling a story, which by extension means everyone else is consuming said story. Probably not what you meant, hm? Call it a "story creation game" and maybe you're on sounder footing...and maybe not.

As for collaborative, that's also not universal by any means; particularly in old-school circles where the DM really is out to (fairly and neutrally) kill the PCs and the players are out to make sure their PCs survive her best attempts. (side note: IMO the game by far works best when played this way)

If the player doesn't want to engage with those hooks, the DM should talk to the player and design better hooks.

Depends. If the player is saying no to the hooks without proactively suggesting or doing something else, there's a problem. But if the player's saying no to doing this because the PC would rather be doing that, then IMO it's on the DM to react and be ready to run something other than what she might first have had in mind.

 

[Lanefan]

Hey now, I actually thought for a while on my ogre set up. (And am disappointed it wasn't quantum, because now I want the stats for the Quantum Ogre that is simultaneously maybe on two paths until observed, in which case it's in the observed one).

Easy. Start with a Displacer Beast. Then turn it into an Ogre. Then, instead of the Displacer Beast's usual 3-foot displacement range give it a displacement range of 30 miles, or however far apart these two paths are.

(the greater range is what makes it Quantum rather than Displacer).

 

[Stalker0]

What?

Tunnel A has the McGuffin. Tunnel B has the magic pool. If I choose A and find the magic pool, that's railroading. If I choose A and find the McGuffin, that's not railroading. If you decide I'll fight an ogre no matter what choice I make, you're then railroading.

In the example proposed, tunnel A will always have the mcguffin, but the ogre will be in whatever tunnel is chosen first

 

[Ovinomancer]

I dont' see how I changed the parameter of the example. If I understood correctly, you didn't present the choice of path as mutually exclusive, i.e. the players can only ever go on one path, right? Or that they must all go on that one path and cannot turn around to pick the other for x reason, right?

In which case, the scenario I presented - possibly picking both paths, whether by changing their minds or deciding to go on both after completing one - is within the possibility of the example.

And a later session, presumably, giving plenty of time for the GM taking the shortcut to come up with something else -- or reuse the ogres, because, hey, ogres are cool. Still not germane to railroading.

Which I think helps demonstrate the potential problems of setting up the same encounter on the two paths... or deciding to move it between both paths.

Honestly though, I feel this article will summarise my thoughts best (especially since I feel it's not... constructive to keep talking about prep equalling railroading, especially after I talked about the Alexandrian article about prepping scenarios vs plots. There is a very large difference.). In particular, keep these two responses in mind:

That article goes pretty far afield of the topic, though. For the record, I don't disagree with what I saw on a quick runthrough, but, let's be honest, that's not exactly how WotC presents things, is it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Being told a story isn't the same thing as playing role-playing game. As a player I get to do one thing, control my character. The DM controls the world, setting, NPCs, monsters, plots, hooks, threads, environment, seasons, calendar, sun, moon, and stars. The player only controls their character. If the DM removes the player's ability to control their character, i.e. removes meaningful choices, then there's no reason for the player to be at the table. I don't see how anyone could view being invited to play a role-playing game only to be denied the ability to actually play as a positive. It might be common at a lot of tables, that doesn't mean it's good.

This still really begs the question though: how much freedom of choice do you have to have?

Because a lot turns on that. As I said, if you're playing in a game where you're all soldiers within a military structure, your options are always going to be constrained--but they're not nonexistent. Same if you're playing law enforcement. Or really, anyone within permanent employment by an organization. And if you decide to tell them to screw off, you effectively walk out of the campaign.

Is that a "railroad"? If it is, you've defined a very narrow range of permitted campaign types, and I think you have to rethink why other people should expect to share your views here, rather than asking why they don't.

If its not, then you're going to have to draw your line more clearly before it can even be answered.

 

[Thomas Shey]

LOL.

So explain to me how it's a role-playing game if the player isn't allowed to play their role.

Ask why its a campaign if they're expected to be able to do absolutely anything while still staying in it.

One question is about as nonsensical as another.

 

[Ovinomancer]

From my perspective the quantum ogre is only a problem in the case where a choice is offered and the GM is deciding ahead of time no matter which choice is made they will encounter the ogre. Basically it's not that they are creating content in real time. It's that choice is being proffered with no real intent to honor that choice. It's about the process rather than the time of creation.

I don't think this is a problem if the choice isn't about ogres. If it is, I'm 100% with you.

I mean, I look at it like this: it's a decision to have an encounter. This can be for pacing, or whatever, but the decision to have an encounter should never be railroading ipso facto. So, deciding an encounter is ogres and happens can't ipso facto be a problem. Unless play has established things such that it becomes one. So, a choice of path that then has an encounter with ogres along it isn't a problem unless the choice involved ogres to begin with. If the choice was to avoid ogres, then, yeah, we're at a problem point. Still ways it can not be a problem, but that space shrinks greatly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For the record I may have misintrepeted what Ovino was saying when having the Orge encounter be the same on both paths. If it's the exact same I find that strange and almost as if it's being moved between two places. But if there are important differences and there's a good reason for all the Orges around the place, I think that's fine.

Other than location, frankly, a lot of encounters with a monster set of a particularly type aren't particularly different anyway. Most people aren't going to bother to especially individualize them in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

How.does deciding there will be Ogres down either path not leave a ton of places for player input?

It's the illusion of choice. They are not really getting a choice on which way to go, because both ways lead to the same thing. That's a railroad. Even a railroad can have lots of choices. If I take a train to the next city, I can sleep or not, look out the window or not, buy snacks or not(with lots of choices), go to the bathroom or not, etc. Those choices don't mean that I'm not on a railroad

 

[Thomas Shey]

How can we ever discuss better or worse practices if any and all conversation is always shouted down with these BS claims?

Well, first you have to apply things to show they're bad practices besides begging the question by assuming what you want out of a roleplaying game is the same as what everyone else does. Otherwise you've staked out your position as the only legitimate one on the face of it, and why should someone assume that's so just because you do?