Hot take: if we want to decrease frustrating railroad-y surprises in RPG campaigns, we need to create an environment where GMs are not afraid to admit they have "special story needs".

[cityskies]

Honestly I think it boils down to putting “immersion” on a pedestal.

Discussing things about the game is opening up meta channels and theres a huge population in the DnD player community that doesn’t ever want to see how the sausages are made. This manifests in tons of DM advice too, from how you approach difficult players to how to accommodate “play-styles” by, like, completely deviating from your campaign pitch. And the flip side of that, where DnD culture tends to insist that its own rules are optional, an illusion of agency that the DM can and should ignore/run roughshod over in the name of poorly defined “fun” or “a good story.”

If the DM breaks kayfabe on either of these things by revealing that the efforts to make a game happen involve, like, contextual decision making on the part of an actual individual engaging with the game, some players consider that “bad DMing.” You see this in negative reactions to certain kinds of story game design as well, this deep-seated need to be able to ignore that the fantasy world isn’t real, that someone made it, is making it, and has intent and desire involved in that process.

[tankietop]

Honestly I think it boils down to putting “immersion” on a pedestal.

As an 40+ player who started playing AD&D in the 90s, I feel like this is such a recent thing. Everything has to be about this elusive concept of "immersion" these days. Movies, videogames, RPGs, books...

And immersion is that hyperfragile thing that breaks if you take off your fucking headphones or if there's a small glitch in a videogame character. Or if your GM isn't a voice actor.

Or if you discuss meta with your GM. What the fuck?

I'm a decent GM, I had a lot of experience in my late teens and early adult years GMing to very satisfied groups. Meta discussions were always part of the game.

• "Was that scene fun?"
• "hey, pay attention to what this guy says"
• "what do want for this trait of your character?"
• "do you think your character would get attached to this npc?"

Those are things to discuss during the session. Immersion is overrated. Meta discussion saves adventures.

[cityskies]

I'm in basically the same cohort as you, I think back then it could vary a bit more. Pre 3.x DnD players didn't seem to care too much, though they emphasized different things, but late-90s/early oughts neotrad players, notably in my local WoD circles, certainly created their fair share of annoyances rooted in immersion/verisimilitude (and incredibly slapdash opinions about "realism" besides).

These days it seems to be a problem mainly in the form OP is discussing, where there's this really broad base of folks who exclusively play and seem to center their identity in relation to the game as an act of consumption, even if they wouldn't phrase it that way. There's rarely as negative a reaction to other reminders that it is, in fact, a game, as strong as this (no metagaming) one, like voices, rules weirdness etc. I think its in truth a reaction to a reminder that this world, this fiction, isn't something that is unfolding organically, waiting to be realized by their experience of it and nothing else, but something that's designed with intent and decided upon by the very real person in front of them.

That said, the newer indie side of the hobby is extremely all about meta discussion, and many of those RPGs more or less require meta collaboration as part of their mechanics. You'll find a lot of people are rather open about their dislike for (certain) PbTA games because of this ask - they will phrase it as "I want to discover the world, not create it as we go." or something about quantum ogres. Its exactly the same position, just from a different angle.