D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Paul Farquhar]

I would say that the opposite can also happen with some frequency: the players believe they are being railroaded when an encounter is the consequence of a previous encounter or the result of random dice.

What's the point in making a decision if what happens subsequently is not a consequence of that decision?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I kinda don't understand who's arguing what. Can I have a quick recap?

If you're referring to the exchanges between me and Ovinomancer, my dry comment would be "An argument about who's best to handle intragroup conflict in gaming groups by two people who can't agree about how easy it is for people to resolve this themselves."

 

[pemerton]

I would say that the opposite can also happen with some frequency: the players believe they are being railroaded when an encounter is the consequence of a previous encounter or the result of random dice.

I think a reasonably easy solution to this (bolded) problem is to do more rolling in the open. I think the traditional D&D obsessions with secret dice rolls is a bit overdone.

I think the notion of X as consequence of Y is quite compatible with railroading. Whether or not it is may depend heavily on (i) whether the players have the capacity, in playing the game, to learn of the relationship between X and Y, and (ii) whether its realistic to expect them to do so, given how the game is set up and the various conventions that surround play.

In classic dungeon crawling play, players are expected to pay a lot of attention to Y because of X relationships that involve the dungeon architecture and geography, and so those are fair game. Likewise, perhaps, in a mystery game the players might be expected to discern some X-to-Y relationships.

But at least in my experience if the game becomes one of spotting the X-to-Y relationships that might be salient, and working them out, it can very quickly become a case of the players doing their best to dance to the GM's tune.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wouldn't it depend on what the encounter is?

Yes, but usually some sort of avoidance or negotiation is possible.

If the encounter is with a band of wights for whom the GM has rolled a 2 on the reaction table, and you don't have a cleric, then I think that's probably a threat that has to be avoided!

If the party is running with scouts they may spot the wights first, and avoid them completely.

Or if you're a group of badly injured mid-level PCs who suffer an unlucky check on the table and encounter a giant slug!

It's so slow that it's easily avoided by going a different way, or it can be bribed (negation) with lettuce.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Isn't this the canonical way of resolving combat in D&D?

It's also how turning undead, and Sleep spells, and many other effects have also been traditionally adjudicated.

Combat, like "what will I have for breakfast" isn't a real decision point.

 

[Campbell]

Combat, like "what will I have for breakfast" isn't a real decision point.

It better be a real decision point in a game where so much time is spent engaging in violent conflicts with tons of player decision points. Otherwise we're basically cosplaying.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but usually some sort of avoidance or negotiation is possible.

If the party is running with scouts they may spot the wights first, and avoid them completely.

It's so slow that it's easily avoided by going a different way, or it can be bribed (negation) with lettuce.

I'm not sure how these are counterexamples to the notion of encounters as threats to be avoided.

Combat, like "what will I have for breakfast" isn't a real decision point.

In my experience, this isn't the case. In classic D&D, combat is one of the main sites of decision-making that affects resource expenditure/depletion (spells and hit points in particular, but not solely those). In 4e D&D, combat is the main place where we see the stories of the heroes emerge.

EDIT: I see that @Campbell has made a similar but more forcefully expressed point to mine just upthread. I agree with what he has posted.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s one way of playing, and I guess that might be an interesting way to play. I’ve played and enjoyed board games that operate on similar principles.

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

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.

It's not about being a check on DM tyranny, and you already play that way. Every roll is a gamble of some sort. When you have the players roll an ability check to do something, it's a gamble that the DM could have just decided. Attack rolls are a gamble on hitting the enemy and something which the DM could have just decided. Are you enslaved to the dice just because you roll for those things? Do those things create a "procedurally generated adventure?"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It better be in a game where so much time is spent engaging in violent conflicts with tons of player decision points. Otherwise we're basically cosplaying.

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.

Decisions that matter are things like "am I going to fight the lion or remove the thorn from it's paw?" "are we going to go over the mountains or under them?" "am I going to support the greens or the purples?*"


*okay, maybe not the last one, but people who get the reference know there is a third choice.

 

[Cadence]

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.

That might be the case for fighters with opponents of known quality. Is it even possible to say with any certainty what the "best move" is when you know or suspect the villains aren't displaying their true power level, or you don't know what it is? Is what determines the optimal move for spell casters often a resource management question that is related to what they envision their future encounters and choice points to be?