D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Hussar]

I also don’t ask my players if I can use monsters that utilize weaknesses from my knowledge or their character sheet….or vice versa monsters that they are strong against and will kill with ease.

I don’t have to ask permission to use DM tricks, if I’m making it fun for the group.

I'd agree with this except that I don't really consider railroading to be a valid "DM trick". It's an abuse of authority by the DM and thus it's never really okay. Sure, you can get away with it, but, that doesn't mean that it was acceptable.

 

[TheSword]

Ok I guess I've been successfully trolled.

Sorry. I am contrite!

The principle that making a random chance of something bad happening is more fun than it automatically happening is a general one.

However an encounter is multiple things not just one single bad event. It’s really a series of chances of bad things intermingled with a series of chances for good things.

• A way of passing the time in a fun and diverting way
• It’s a way to use your hard won abilities achieved through experience
• It’s an opportunity for your character to interact with an NPC.
• It’s an opportunity for your character to gain more information about the world
• It’s a way of accumulating treasure/XP/glory.
• It’s a way of making the world a slightly better place.

So while in theory the character might want the chance of not having the encounter in reality the players usually do.

The reason to not want that random encounters to come up might be because it will have a plausible chance of killing you/stopping you achieving your goal. Possible though rare. Or more likely because it’s just dull. Either because it’s too easy or just filler.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ideally, I prefer players to encounter something because it is there. E.g., the DM writes in his journal:

Forest of Klatburn
And adult green dragon has recently made her lair in this forest. Most of the plants and animals have fallen under her sway, and she will quickly know if any intruders enter her domain.

Sometimes it's not possible to know where everything is, and that is when random encounter tables come in. But I overrule the dice if they produce something that is implausible (turning into the Waterdeep ally, you find yourself facing [rolls] 1d4 dragon turtles), or boring ([rolls] 2d6 kobolds - party is level 12).

 

[pemerton]

as a general rule I don’t want to play and procedurally generated adventure.

Well, I don't generally play classic D&D either. I prefer "story now" RPGing. I was simply pointing out that there is a well-known, even classic, approach to RPGing which makes random encounter determination an important aspect of play.

I do use encounter procedures in my Classic Traveller game, but it serves a completely different purpose from classic D&D.

We play with a DM because that way we always win that random bet and get an interesting and fun encounter. The DM doesn’t waste our time with repeated chaff encounters and doesn’t wipe us out with unlucky ambushes piled on to already tough fights.

Rolling a dice as an means of inspiration because the DM wants a prompt is one thing. Being enslaved to the dice because they are somehow a check on DM tyranny and purer than a DM deciding what the next encounter is, is alien to me.

Well, it probably helps to bridge the gap of "alien-ness" by thinking about the rationale for the technique within the broader context of play. As I posted, it's not about "being enslaved" to some notion of "purity": it's about honest bets and the associated payoffs.

The rationale in Classic Traveller is closer to a notion of "purity" but it's not anything to do with a check on tyranny. It's part of presenting an imagined world. (The rules also discuss when the referee might make decisions about encounters rather than rely on dice; these come close to more modern principles of scene-framed play.)

We trust our DMs will keep the game fun and when I’m DM my players trust me. I don’t think I’d want to play it any other way.

I find that it's almost never helpful to frame discussions of play techniques in terms of "trust". It's generally better to look for parallels in one's own play, and then project to the new case.

For instance, most D&D players use dice rather than unbridled GM decision-making to determine what happens when a PC attacks a NPC. There are various reasons for that. Some of them are about fair play - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in classic D&D. Some of them are about presenting a dynamic and engaging sense of the back-and-forth of melee - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in Classic Traveller.

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the interaction between what the DM intends to happen and what the players do. Whether there is a plot or not.

In my opinion, far more interesting things occur then than when the players don’t have a detailed and consistently interesting set of events to bounce off.

When you say "in my opinion", are you talking about your own experience? Or are you generalising to others' games? I can't gainsay your experience, obviously. But if you are making the more general claim then I'm pretty confident it's false. (It may not be false for 5e or 3E D&D play, because those systems do not have a way of generating consistently interesting events other than pre-authorship. But many other RPGs do.)

 

[pemerton]

But it really doesn't matter how the party gets from A to B, or what they bump into on the way. What matters is why the are traveling from A to B.

That depends on the type of game being played. The other day I GMed about an hour of Moldvay Basic. There's a notional reason for the PCs to be in the Haunted Keep (trying to rescue kidnap victims) but that doesn't matter at all to the play; whereas how you get from A to B is pretty fundamental!

 

[pemerton]

an encounter is multiple things not just one single bad event. It’s really a series of chances of bad things intermingled with a series of chances for good things.

• A way of passing the time in a fun and diverting way
• It’s a way to use your hard won abilities achieved through experience
• It’s an opportunity for your character to interact with an NPC.
• It’s an opportunity for your character to gain more information about the world
• It’s a way of accumulating treasure/XP/glory.
• It’s a way of making the world a slightly better place.

What about:

* An encounter is a way of finding out what your PC really believes;

* An encounter is a way of finding out how hard your PC will struggle to prove s/he is right;

* An encounter is an opportunity for your PC to impose his/her will upon the world.​

Or:

* An encounter is a threat that you have to avoid;

* An encounter is an obstacle that you have to circumvent;

* An encounter is something that will result in you being bested unless you best it.​

There are lots of different things an encounter can be, depending on what sort of game is being played. (My first list I came up with through the lens of Burning Wheel, the second through the lens of classic D&D and T&T.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

An encounter is a threat that you have to avoid;

That sounds like railroading to me!

The vast majority of encounters, in my experience, offer the PCs a choice to try and avoid, or fight, or negotiate.

 

[TheSword]

What about:

* An encounter is a way of finding out what your PC really believes;​

​

* An encounter is a way of finding out how hard your PC will struggle to prove s/he is right;​

​

* An encounter is an opportunity for your PC to impose his/her will upon the world.​

Or:

* An encounter is a threat that you have to avoid;​

​

* An encounter is an obstacle that you have to circumvent;​

​

* An encounter is something that will result in you being bested unless you best it.​

There are lots of different things an encounter can be, depending on what sort of game is being played. (My first list I came up with through the lens of Burning Wheel, the second through the lens of classic D&D and T&T.)

It wasn’t an attempt to write a comprehensive list. Just some reasons why characters might not avoid encounters.

It’s just a different play style Pemerton. I wouldn’t want to play in a group for whom avoiding encounters was a regular occurrence. As I said I prefer a more heroic game.

Though of course, you do you.

 

[TheSword]

Well, I don't generally play classic D&D either. I prefer "story now" RPGing. I was simply pointing out that there is a well-known, even classic, approach to RPGing which makes random encounter determination an important aspect of play.

I do use encounter procedures in my Classic Traveller game, but it serves a completely different purpose from classic D&D.

Well, it probably helps to bridge the gap of "alien-ness" by thinking about the rationale for the technique within the broader context of play. As I posted, it's not about "being enslaved" to some notion of "purity": it's about honest bets and the associated payoffs.

The rationale in Classic Traveller is closer to a notion of "purity" but it's not anything to do with a check on tyranny. It's part of presenting an imagined world. (The rules also discuss when the referee might make decisions about encounters rather than rely on dice; these come close to more modern principles of scene-framed play.)

I find that it's almost never helpful to frame discussions of play techniques in terms of "trust". It's generally better to look for parallels in one's own play, and then project to the new case.

For instance, most D&D players use dice rather than unbridled GM decision-making to determine what happens when a PC attacks a NPC. There are various reasons for that. Some of them are about fair play - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in classic D&D. Some of them are about presenting a dynamic and engaging sense of the back-and-forth of melee - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in Classic Traveller.

When you say "in my opinion", are you talking about your own experience? Or are you generalising to others' games? I can't gainsay your experience, obviously. But if you are making the more general claim then I'm pretty confident it's false. (It may not be false for 5e or 3E D&D play, because those systems do not have a way of generating consistently interesting events other than pre-authorship. But many other RPGs do.)

It’s a D&D thread

D&D is a game where railroading is possible.

A game system where the DM can’t railroad isn’t really relevant to the thread.

Other than maybe Ticket to Ride

 

[TheSword]

For instance, most D&D players use dice rather than unbridled GM decision-making to determine what happens when a PC attacks a NPC. There are various reasons for that. Some of them are about fair play - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in classic D&D. Some of them are about presenting a dynamic and engaging sense of the back-and-forth of melee - those can be generalised to the use of random encounters in Classic Traveller.

There is a sweet spot in agency between player choice and DM fiat. I’m pretty happy with the balance that 5e sets.

When you say "in my opinion", are you talking about your own experience? Or are you generalising to others' games? I can't gainsay your experience, obviously. But if you are making the more general claim then I'm pretty confident it's false. (It may not be false for 5e or 3E D&D play, because those systems do not have a way of generating consistently interesting events other than pre-authorship. But many other RPGs do.)

I’m talking about my opinion. I’m not a fan of procedurally generating stuff and the DM being a slave to the choices it generates. I just have a very different opinion of the DMs responsibilities to you. As we know, and has been demonstrated in several past threads. We just like different things.