D&D General Why defend railroading?

[TheSword]

What about not knowing the odds makes it not a gamble? As long as you know that A) there's a chance of failure, and B) you opt to engage it anyway, it's a gamble. You might or might not make it.

And I do know the rewards and most or all of the stakes in advance. When I try to climb the wall, the reward for success is making it to the top. The stakes are failing or falling. When I try to kill a monster, the reward is success and experience points, and possibly treasure. The stakes are possible injury, death or capture. When I try to sneak through the Forest of Doom and avoid everything, the reward is no encounter. The stakes are hitting an encounter anyway.

I’m drawing a distinction between the gamble of taking an action. A generally straightforward decision making process.

vs a Random Encounter roll that involves no decision making process. The players don’t even know if a random encounter roll will be made, or what the outcomes might be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wandering Monster Table

Roll: 1d6 whenever the party chooses a path through a forest.

1. live quantum ogre
2. live quantum ogre
3. live quantum ogre
4. dead quantum ogre
5. dead quantum ogre
6. dead quantum ogre

 

[Maxperson]

This is the issue with wandering monster tables. Typically players have no idea what is on the table, or even what the chance of an encounter is. Gambling is all about figuring the odds and balancing risk and reward, but players have no way to assess this with a wandering monster table.

No. Responsible gambling is about those things. Fools and their money are soon parted all the time in Vegas. It's still gambling even though they didn't bother to learn any of those things.

 

[Maxperson]

Or at least it is not a very interesting gamble.

Or else it is! This is just subjective opinion which will vary from person to person.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No. Responsible gambling is about those things. Fools and their money are soon parted all the time in Vegas. It's still gambling even though they didn't bother to learn any of those things.

So, what you are saying is "people who like procedurally generated D&D are like the fools who empty all their money into Blackpool Vegas slot machines"?

 

[Maxperson]

Does the player even know when and where the DM has put random encounter percents? Is it safer in the Inn a few miles from the dungeon, the woods in between town and the dungeon, right outside the dungeon, or in the dungeon?

They should have a basic idea of which is more dangerous. I mean, being in civilized areas is much safer than the Forest of Doom. You'll have more encounters in civilized areas, but most of them will be caravans, farmer, patrols, etc.

All could have something planned for them the PCs may or may not know about depending on how their earlier investigations went and how subtle the monsters were. (Thieves running the Inn randomly pick a room? Chance of encounter outside the town - low chance but stronger encounter? Chance of encounter near the dungeon - higher chance but weaker encounter usually? In the dungeon - maybe safest maybe most dangerous?

Yeah, except that you can hit pretty extreme danger no matter where you are. Even in a city, there's chance that the guy you're picking a fight with at the bar is a Vampire(happened to me once). It's much less common to hit that kind of danger in a city than in the wilds, though.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m drawing a distinction between the gamble of taking an action. A generally straightforward decision making process.

vs a Random Encounter roll that involves no decision making process. The players don’t even know if a random encounter roll will be made, or what the outcomes might be.

Random encounter rolls can be counted on when travelling or resting. I've never played in a group that wasn't aware of that. Further, there is decision making involved with random encounters. Just not direct. A smart group finds a defensible place, often an area you can hide within when resting. Many random encounters have been avoided, because the group was hidden in a good spot and it just walked by. It's hard to avoid them when travelling, but as someone upthread pointed out, having a scout out gives the possibility of spotting the encounter first and then avoiding it.

 

[Maxperson]

So, what you are saying is "people who like procedurally generated D&D are like the fools who empty all their money into Blackpool Vegas slot machines"?

No.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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."

And this would be incorrect. The difference isn't in that we disagree how poorly people resolve social things, but rather that the GM shouldn't be put in a position to be the arbiter because they offered to run a game. Rather, the participants should be equally empowered, and should all share the duty to deal with problems as they arise. Not everyone for themselves, but everyone for everyone. This avoids the problem of the GM not saying anything or dealing with a problem (and why should they be better than random person?) resulting in the player feeling even further disempowered.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No.

No they are not fools, or no they don't empty all their money into Vegas slot machines?