D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Thomas Shey]

I think it encourages people to let trivialities be tabled for later and only stop the game when something truly problematic occurs.

You're immensely more optimistic than I am. My observation is that it encourages people not to argue about anything, lest they be treated as disruptive.

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.

The gaming population as a whole isn't liable to discuss things like this at all unless prodded, so I'm not sure that says anything.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.)

But of course, a lot of groups just don't; in fact, there still seem to be a lot of them that would think it odd to think you'd even need to (which often just translates into them taking some ideas of game culture as a given).

 

[pemerton]

Adults just overthink this stuff.

Depends how you look at it, doesn't it? I mean, those 4 kids probably don't have hundreds of thousands or millions of people paying them tens or hundreds of dollars for RPGing books. So should we really conclude that WotC overthought things?

And purely from my own perspective, I've had RPGing experiences that I doubt I could have had by copying those 4 kids, and that I'm pretty sure I couldn't have had but for reading the work of a few important designers. Should I really conclude that those designers overthought things?

 

[iserith]

Depends how you look at it, doesn't it? I mean, those 4 kids probably don't have hundreds of thousands or millions of people paying them tens or hundreds of dollars for RPGing books. So should we really conclude that WotC overthought things?

And purely from my own perspective, I've had RPGing experiences that I doubt I could have had by copying those 4 kids, and that I'm pretty sure I couldn't have had but for reading the work of a few important designers. Should I really conclude that those designers overthought things?

I'm more referring to the denizens of forums using jargon to argue over nonsense. The kids simply enjoying the game have us beat there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The example I gave was definitely not intended to be an X card sort of situations (although I guess it could be). It was purely about the direction of the fiction in the game. The concern was more about the game going in a direction that players or GM might not want.

That's an xcardy situation, though. If the direction is so unwanted that a player is just going to drop out, that's not unserious minor stuff that's just about what's going on in the games fiction -- it's crossed into the social contract.

If Bob's character starts murdering people then we probably have to either have pvp or just go along with the fact that everyone else's character is aiding and abetting a murderer. I guess if there's an X card you can just throw it in and stop that, but if it is not in fact making you uncomfortable, but just a fictional direction you don't find fun, then that would seem an abuse of the X card.

Maybe. I dislike the X card as described because it's a hard stop to the game with no explanation required -- you can't even really question what might have caused the incident.

Instead, if Sally feels empowered to say that they don't want to play in a game with this kind of fiction, then everyone has the chance to realign before Sally leaves the table.

But, my main point was that the GM in this situation has no special insight to the problem, so putting them in the primary spot does nothing but possibly reinforce the idea that Sally needs to just quietly quit the game. If, instead, everyone is empowered to say something, rather than the assumption that it's the GM's role to do so, then Sally at least has the understanding that she can say something and that it will be listened to. Perhaps everyone else at the table wants that play, in which case we've uncovered a mismatch in gaming wants, and it's still appropriate for Sally to find another game. Or, perhaps, we find out Don doesn't like it either, Fred and Andy don't really care, and Bob isn't adamant that he be allowed to murder. So, the situation gets resolved. This isn't something that happens if the GM is the de facto assumed person responsible for saying something because the GM can miss it and then it appears to have the GM's approval. It basically hopes the GM gets it right, because if they don't, it adds another social barrier to actually speaking up as a player.

And by the by I would never as a GM accept the absence of an X card being played as an indication I shouldn't stop the game at certain points and check everyone is comfortable, if the game goes in a direction I think may be problematic for some.

Being decent is being decent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Truth to tell, I suspect its a lost cause discussion mainly myself, but sometimes I'm just a dog with a bone about some things.

I thought you had exited this conversation. If you're going to insist that I stop addressing you on the topic, have the same respect to not snipe from the sidelines when I'm discussing it with someone else.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I understood that. By the table's understanding I meant the table's understanding of what's in and out of the bounds of good taste etc.

As I posted, I think that the idea is that (i) because the GM is, in virtue of his/her participant role, especially attentive to the content of the fiction and the implications for that of action declarations - and (ii) because the GM is the person expected to speak next after a player declares an action, therefore (iii) the GM has a special opportunity, compared to other participants, to nip egregious action declarations in the bud.

So I don't see it - at least @Don Durito's version - as an argument for, or appeal to, and special authority that the GM enjoys; but rather as an appeal to a special capacity that the GM enjoys in virtue of the dynamics of play (i) and (ii). To the extent that (i) and (ii) don't hold - eg everyone is equally attentive to the fiction and thinking through the implications for it of individual action declarations (perhaps more common at "serious" than "casual" tables), and non-GM participants routinely engage with one another about their action declarations (perhaps more common among friends than eg at a pick-up game) - then there would be no special capacity and so (iii) wouldn't follow.

I don't know if Don Durito (or other posters) have pick-up/game-store type games in mind, but as my bit inside the dashes in the previous paragraph hints at, I think these are more likely to be situations where the GM gets that special opportunity, because more likely to be "casual" and less likely to have robust "horizontal" interaction among non-GM participants.

If your point is that the GM should say something if they see something, then no contest -- I think everyone should. I'm questioning the idea that the GM has primary place to do this. Your points about where the GM sits in the conversation are valid, but cut both ways. If the GM notices a violation, then they usually can jump in first. But, that doesn't resolve the situation unless the GM also has assumed authority over the dispute, which, as a social contract issue, I argue they have no special place. Even if the GM speaks first, there should be a discussion at the table about it. However, if the GM doesn't notice, then they are still often going to be first in line due to position, as you note, but now will be reinforcing the issue as they narrate outcomes or engage it within the game role. This makes it harder for others to speak up if the GM is assumed to have primacy of resolution because it adds weight to the action being okay.

My point is that it should be session 0 stuff, and reiterated often, that everyone at the table has the responsibility to maintain the social contract, and everyone is empowered to do so. If you have a problem, say so. This doesn't put the GM in the prime position as first arbiter, even if they have the advantage of usually getting in the first response (which, again, they're no better than others would be in noticing a social contract problem). Now, even if the GM doesn't notice, everyone knows that calling out a problem will be respected.

This only fails to work in a social situation where it's not openly stated and where it's not respected by the others. In effect, if you don't talk about it, then, yeah, it doesn't work as well because you're in the usual mode for RPGs where people feel the social onus to just go along with it. This is a problem in the hobby, and should be addressed, as this is always the case when you hear about the horror stories, and it's almost never the GM that solves those, but players standing up for themselves. Or just escaping and leaving the situation to fester for others. Not very healthy.

 

[pemerton]

If your point is that the GM should say something if they see something, then no contest -- I think everyone should. I'm questioning the idea that the GM has primary place to do this. Your points about where the GM sits in the conversation are valid, but cut both ways. If the GM notices a violation, then they usually can jump in first. But, that doesn't resolve the situation unless the GM also has assumed authority over the dispute, which, as a social contract issue, I argue they have no special place. Even if the GM speaks first, there should be a discussion at the table about it. However, if the GM doesn't notice, then they are still often going to be first in line due to position, as you note, but now will be reinforcing the issue as they narrate outcomes or engage it within the game role. This makes it harder for others to speak up if the GM is assumed to have primacy of resolution because it adds weight to the action being okay.

My point is that it should be session 0 stuff

I've got no disagreement with any of this. I do think, as a practical matter in the organisation of human institutions, that it can be hard to reconcile is usually/often well-placed to be the first person to speak up about the matter with is not assumed to have primacy of resolution of the matter. I don't mean hard in the sense of stating formal rules/principles: I mean hard in the sense of engendering the desired human behaviour. At a minimum you might to take proactive steps to encourage others who see something, or have a view, to express it.

(For completely unrelated reasons I don't really approach RPGing in terms of "session zero" but that's orthogonal to this issue.)

 

[Maxperson]

I'm more referring to the denizens of forums using jargon to argue over nonsense. The kids simply enjoying the game have us beat there.

But.......................my nonsense is important.

 

[pemerton]

My RPGing is less frequent now than it was 20 years ago. But it's better now than it was then, in the sense that I get more of what I'm looking for per unit time spent playing. (Maybe some other senses too.)

Reading online discussion of RPGs and RPGing has helped a lot in that respect.