Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Nifft]

There wasn't a freaking game "before the sandbox crowd got involved". The "sandbox crowd" invented it. They had no need to talk about 'sandbox', though, because that's just a newfangled euphemism for what they called a 'campaign'.

You think "sandbox" = "tactical skirmish wargame"?

I'm getting confused here.

 

[Ariosto]

Ariosto, you're being silly.

Also, observing a pretty plain truth.

In the end, the Humpty Dumpty rule cannot satisfy those who are not satisfied with the present state of affairs.

It simply does not alter that state of affairs in any substantive way.

"It just means what I mean" -- and Bob and Cindy happen to mean the same thing, so we understand each other.

But the O-man don't like it. (You know he really hates it!)

D.D.S.S., bah

 

[Ariosto]

You think "sandbox" = "tactical skirmish wargame"?

I'm getting confused here.

You were already confused. D&D campaign does not = "tactical skirmish wargame".*** At least, it did not originally. Are you suggesting that's the a la mode meaning, or what?

That the meaning had changed so much made it seem meet to come up with a word to distinguish the old one. That may be the case with 'railroad' as well, for one meaning or another.

*** Even if an undertaking is largely made up of "skirmish wargames", without any grand-tactical component, it is the strategic elements that define the higher-level structure called a campaign. So, for instance, one might not only keep personnel records for regiments in The Sword and The Flame but produce the table-top engagements via map maneuvers.

 

[Nifft]

You were already confused. D&D campaign does not = "tactical skirmish wargame". At least, it did not originally. Are you suggesting that's the a la mode meaning, or what?

Nope, I'm reminding you that -- to your apparent surprise -- D&D came out of tactical wargaming, specifically small-unit tactical stuff.

You said this:

There wasn't a freaking game "before the sandbox crowd got involved". The "sandbox crowd" invented it.

... so apparently you think the "sandbox crowd" == the inventors of D&D.

History tells us that the inventors of D&D were the tactical wargame crowd.

Now do you see why what you're saying is rather confusing?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ariosto]

History tells us that the inventors of D&D were the tactical wargame crowd.

Now do you see why what you're saying is rather confusing?

Because you didn't read the bloody rulebooks??

Because you just arbitrarily decide to ignore everything except "tactical skirmish wargames"??

I don't know, man. You tell me which it is.

 

[Nifft]

Because you didn't read the bloody rulebooks??

Because you just arbitrarily decide to ignore everything except "tactical skirmish wargames"??

I don't know, man. You tell me which it is.

Well, I've been playing D&D since Red Box. I have read up on Chainmail (which is the direct ancestor of D&D, and is 100% tactical wargame).

I think that you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm certain that being insulting isn't helping your argument.

Ciao, -- N

 

[Ariosto]

Well, I've been playing D&D since Red Box.

Well, I've been playing since Brown Box.

I have read up on Chainmail (which is the direct ancestor of D&D, and is 100% tactical wargame).

I have played Chainmail.
I have played Swords & Spells, too, FWIW.
Neither of those by itself is The First Fantasy Campaign or Dungeons & Dragons.

I think that you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm certain that being insulting isn't helping your argument.

I know very well what I am talking about. I most certainly know "what I think" better than do you! I have offered no insult.

 

[Nifft]

I know very well what I am talking about.

You keep equating things that are very different.

I have offered no insult.

You're now claiming that this is your idea of civil discourse:

Because you didn't read the bloody rulebooks??

... do you consider that to be a civil question because you didn't read the "bloody rulebooks"?

Oh well, -- N

 

[BenBrown]

Your sample base for that "usually" is pretty bizarre from my perspective of over 30 years of "dungeon crawling".

In the first place, an old-style expedition is not 'railroading' because it's not enforced by the DM. If it's 'linear', then that is not 'designed' by the DM. The players plan it. They go where they want to go, whether along this route or that through the underworld, or into the wilderness, or across town.

The decision is theirs, not the DM's. That's what makes it an adventure, in the sense of "a venture, project or undertaking, especially one that requires boldness or effort".

Not only is there "the appearance of" choice, but there are a myriad of choices, an incalculable number of possible paths through the environment, of histories for the players to make.

The only way I can see it as 'bad design" is if what you are really after is in fact just what you decry.

I believe I may not have been clear.

Let me state a few things as clearly as I can.

1) A "dungeon crawl", that is to say an incident within a campaign (I'm trying not to use the word "adventure" which gives a pretty good idea of the semantic level to which this sort of argument has sunk), which takes place at a particular mapped out site, with finite limits in which are creatures, traps, and treasure, is not a railroad, no matter if the "dungeon" consists of a single corridor in which each creature/trap MUST be encountered before moving on to the next one. It's entirely linear. The only options are to go forward or go back, but it is not a railroad.

2) When I speak of "the sandbox crowd" I speak of the people who in the last few years have posited an ideal "sandbox" campaign, which, as far as I can tell from their discussions, is a site-based adventure on a world-spanning site. Everything has a place, and nothing is altered for dramatic reasons EVER. The people who posit this claim, rather vocally, that this is the way things were originally done. There is some merit to this claim in a general sense, however, as the original campaigns were made up as they went, along with the original rules, I can't imagine that the ideal pre-set sandbox is anything more than an ideal.

I like drama. I like having characters that are strongly tied to the world they're in, and not just wandering through it. I like having an overarching plot in which the player characters accomplish great deeds. I like having dramatic scenes. In my last big campaign, I wanted to have a scene where a political ally of theirs was assassinated, because there was a neat dramatic situation that the players would have fun resolving when this was set off. I had several candidates for the assassin. The players took out my prime candidate early, so I switched to a backup. This was actually a dozen or more sessions before the assassination scene, so it wasn't like I told them there was an assassination, let them stop the assassin, then had another one show up. I like that sort of drama. I like putting the player characters in situations beyond their control and watching them get control of them.

I do not like being told that this is wrong.

If that's railroading, then fine. Choo choo.

 

[Ariosto]

Nifft, "lecturing" people who were actually there in the "history" that came before you, with such an attitude on top of such ignorance, can use up patience quickly. When you take it to such absurd lengths that it is hard to believe you can even fool yourself that you have read the books, and you ask me to speculate as to why you are confused ...

Really, you've got to tell me which it is.

Because anyone who does read the books can verify that it's not the books that are missing the discussion of the D&D campaign. It's definitely you.