D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

In many cases, it isn't worth it in my view. Or at least it isn't worth addressing "in public." Hence my comment on picking battles or timing them well to achieve the best results whenever possible.

But that people agreed on when that is and isn't true. To some people any discussion that stops the flow of the game to deal with it is unacceptable; the fact talking about it later would be pointless doesn't matter. So you either have the position that the player is allowed to judge when that's true when he starts it, or he's branded as a bad player for doing it all. There's not a huge amount of middle ground that doesn't come down to "people see a situation differently and respond to it differently." And with many groups their solution to that is "Once the GM's made his decision, its done."

I've certainly been critical in the past of people believing that the DM's authority extends beyond the game world and into the social setting e.g. the DM is responsible for dealing with player behavior problems rather than the group as a whole. As for believing raising an objection to the DM about something is unacceptable, this is obviously wrong on its face and anyone who believes that has nobody to blame but themselves for a bad outcome.

See above. When its assumed to be entirely at the GM's discretion when raising an objection is acceptable and when its being a bad player, the effect is pretty predictable.

 

[Lanefan]

Out of curiosity, do you have an example of a game that actually pays attention to gear wear? I can think of just exactly one, and its not in the D&D sphere, but I also don't delve much into the OSR.

Was it Basic or 1e that wanted your equipment (weapon, shield) to save after each combat?

 

[Maxperson]

Was it Basic or 1e that wanted your equipment (weapon, shield) to save after each combat?

Probably basic. I've never heard of that for either, but I played a lot of 1e.

 

[iserith]

But that people agreed on when that is and isn't true. To some people any discussion that stops the flow of the game to deal with it is unacceptable; the fact talking about it later would be pointless doesn't matter. So you either have the position that the player is allowed to judge when that's true when he starts it, or he's branded as a bad player for doing it all. There's not a huge amount of middle ground that doesn't come down to "people see a situation differently and respond to it differently." And with many groups their solution to that is "Once the GM's made his decision, its done."

With regard to not stopping the flow of the game, I tend to agree with that unless the DM does something egregious. There's really nothing in the context of the game that is going to be important enough to me to stop the game and have a conversation about it. Railroad me, block me, make a bad adjudication, make my character look like a fool - fine. If it bothers me, I'll talk to the DM later about it. I don't think anyone is a bad player for speaking up about these things, but I would probably take a dim view of a fellow player's interruption if it was truly a minor issue that could otherwise be overlooked by a reasonable person or addressed at a later date.

I think for the most part this sort of viewpoint, which I think is fairly common, is not so much about deference to the god-king DM as it is about not wanting to derail the game with Yet Another Unimportant Side Discussion which plague many games already. I can't be the only one to have played with players that would interject insignificant details or rules that changed nothing and who interrupted the game by doing so.

See above. When its assumed to be entirely at the GM's discretion when raising an objection is acceptable and when its being a bad player, the effect is pretty predictable.

I really don't see that assumption as universal though, likely diminished from what it may have once been perceived to be, and even when it was more prevalent, anyone with a brain could have seen it for the hogwash it was. So really I have no pity for folks who bought into that silly notion. But just like any conversation in a group, choose your battles and timing wisely to achieve the result you want. Otherwise you risk looking like a bigger jerk than the DM who offended.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Was it Basic or 1e that wanted your equipment (weapon, shield) to save after each combat?

Well, it wasn't in OD&D, which is the last version I'm solidly familiar with prior to D&D3.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think for the most part this sort of viewpoint, which I think is fairly common, is not so much about deference to the god-king DM as it is about not wanting to derail the game with Yet Another Unimportant Side Discussion which plague many games already. I can't be the only one to have played with players that would interject insignificant details or rules that changed nothing and who interrupted the game by doing so.

You don't see how that tends to dampen anyone's tendency to challenge the GM at all? It seems pretty obvious that since "one man's real problem is another's triviality" that the end result is most people are trained to let virtually everything go.

I really don't see that assumption as universal though, likely diminished from what it may have once been perceived to be, and even when it was more prevalent, anyone with a brain could have seen it for the hogwash it was. So really I have no pity for folks who bought into that silly notion. But just like any conversation in a group, choose your battles and timing wisely to achieve the result you want. Otherwise you risk looking like a bigger jerk than the DM who offended.

If you don't think its common, we've obviously not been in the same discussions relating to the topic very often.

 

[Don Durito]

In many cases, it isn't worth it in my view. Or at least it isn't worth addressing "in public." Hence my comment on picking battles or timing them well to achieve the best results whenever possible.

I've certainly been critical in the past of people believing that the DM's authority extends beyond the game world and into the social setting e.g. the DM is responsible for dealing with player behavior problems rather than the group as a whole. As for believing raising an objection to the DM about something is unacceptable, this is obviously wrong on its face and anyone who believes that has nobody to blame but themselves for a bad outcome.

I've mostly stayed out of this side-argument because it's been going on for twenty years and it bores me at this point.

But I do feel the need to point out that the example I gave of lack of GM leadership was not a social situation outide of the game. It's not as if it was about the GM interverning in an argument about who was supposed to bring the snacks.

It was about how the GM should react to an in-character action, which, if treated like any other action, is going to lead to social tension. To me this is entirely within the GM remit of a traditional game. It make's sense to me that it's within the GM's responsibility to react to such a a situation first because it is the GM who has to resolve the action. If a player decides to murder a civilian and the GM lets them without questioning how it fits into the tone of the game or wishes of other players about how the game should go, then the situation has already escalated further. If another player should then object the conversation now includes not just whether an action should happen but whether an action should be undone, and not just whether another player is on the same page as the rest of the group but also whether the GM is.

Also, if the players don't know each other very well it may be that rather than objecting another player thinks "Oh. I didn't think this was the kind of game where we were murdering innocent people. But apparently it is. I guess that was my mistake. I'll quietly make my apologies for next week in order to let this group carry on how they like." (If a player has done this, and the GM is also apparently ok, then it's going to start looking like weight of numbers are against you.)

 

[iserith]

You don't see how that tends to dampen anyone's tendency to challenge the GM at all? It seems pretty obvious that since "one man's real problem is another's triviality" that the end result is most people are trained to let virtually everything go.

I think it encourages people to let trivialities be tabled for later and only stop the game when something truly problematic occurs. Which seems right to me. It shouldn't stop people from discussing issues with the DM altogether. And I do reserve the right to judge whether something is important enough to interrupt the game and I bet most people would agree on what those things are. Nobody needs to stop the game to hear that Actually DM so-and-so should have had advantage two rounds ago if it doesn't really matter to the current situation. Crossing some kind of line personally, on the other hand, might call for an immediate discussion.

If you don't think its common, we've obviously not been in the same discussions relating to the topic very often.

Probably not, but the sort of people discussing these things online in my experience are not usually a good sample of the gaming population as a whole.

 

[iserith]

I've mostly stayed out of this side-argument because it's been going on for twenty years and it bores me at this point.

But I do feel the need to point out that the example I gave of lack of GM leadership was not a social situation outide of the game. It's not as if it was about the GM interverning in an argument about who was supposed to bring the snacks.

It was about how the GM should react to an in-character action, which, if treated like any other action, is going to lead to social tension. To me this is entirely within the GM remit of a traditional game. It make's sense to me that it's within the GM's responsibility to react to such a a situation first because it is the GM who has to resolve the action. If a player decides to murder a civilian and the GM lets them without questioning how it fits into the tone of the game or wishes of other players about how the game should go, then the situation has already escalated further. If another player should then object the conversation now includes not just whether an action should happen but whether an action should be undone, and not just whether another player is on the same page as the rest of the group but also whether the GM is.

Also, if the players don't know each other very well it may be that rather than objecting another player thinks "Oh. I didn't think this was the kind of game where we were murdering innocent people. But apparently it is. I guess that was my mistake. I'll quietly make my apologies for next week in order to let this group carry on how they like." (If a player has done this, and the GM is also apparently ok, then it's going to start looking like weight of numbers are against you.)

Yeah, I think that if someone steps outside the bounds of what was agreed upon as acceptable play for that group, it's really on the whole group to point it out and take steps to correct it, not just the DM. It's not a violation of the rule of the game, but an agreement as to how the game will be played (table rules). If they don't have such an agreement, then that's a different issue that bears addressing in my view. (I took years of abuse on the old WotC forums for daring to suggest Session 0 and player buy-in be a thing. Now it's more mainstream, thank goodness, at least online.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've mostly stayed out of this side-argument because it's been going on for twenty years and it bores me at this point.

But I do feel the need to point out that the example I gave of lack of GM leadership was not a social situation outide of the game. It's not as if it was about the GM interverning in an argument about who was supposed to bring the snacks.

It was about how the GM should react to an in-character action, which, if treated like any other action, is going to lead to social tension. To me this is entirely within the GM remit of a traditional game. It make's sense to me that it's within the GM's responsibility to react to such a a situation first because it is the GM who has to resolve the action. If a player decides to murder a civilian and the GM lets them without questioning how it fits into the tone of the game or wishes of other players about how the game should go, then the situation has already escalated further. If another player should then object the conversation now includes not just whether an action should happen but whether an action should be undone, and not just whether another player is on the same page as the rest of the group but also whether the GM is.

Also, if the players don't know each other very well it may be that rather than objecting another player thinks "Oh. I didn't think this was the kind of game where we were murdering innocent people. But apparently it is. I guess that was my mistake. I'll quietly make my apologies for next week in order to let this group carry on how they like." (If a player has done this, and the GM is also apparently ok, then it's going to start looking like weight of numbers are against you.)

I disagree it's in the GM's remit solely (obviously). The player that has a problem should have been told that they were empowered to speak up if something like this happens -- that the social contract will absolutely engage with her/his complaint. If we do leave it to the GM, then what you posit absolutely happens if the GM doesn't say anything. My point is that there's nothing that actually makes the GM good at this over anyone else, and the assertion that it's the GM's sole job means that your example is much more likely to happen than if everyone is clearly empowered to say something. I'm saying that everyone at the table should feel empowered to say something. This includes the GM. I'm not sure how this can be a controversial statement, or how the GM might suddenly be rendered incapable if they aren't the one in charge of this.