D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[niklinna]

I wasn't sure about the and disable it. At first I thought maybe that was implied; but then when I wrote my posts (563 and 566 not far upthread) I just focused on the you find a trap. That's why I said "it is more than mere colour - but how much more? That might depend on the details of the trap." Because disarming it, or perhaps narrating how all the PCs walk carefully past it without triggering it, is a tiny bit of non-colour but not-very-big-deal action resolution.

Now, a content warning: the next bit of this post is rather Forge-y:

Correct - it's neither "story now" nor "step on up"! It's a third type of play priority, where the goal is to "be" one's character wandering through a dungeon having an exciting time finding and disarming traps.

I found this passage from someone on the interwebs:

The key word is "genre," which in this case refers to a certain combination of the five elements [character, setting, situation, system, colour] as well as an unstated Theme. How do they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style, and more. "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play.​

​

This sort of game design will be familiar to almost anyone, represented by Arrowflight (Setting), Pax Draconis (Setting), Godlike (Setting), Sun & Storm (Setting + Situation), Dreamwalker (Situation), The Godsend Agenda (Character-Setting tug-of-war), The Collectors (applied Fudge, Situation + Character), Heartquest (applied Fudge; Character), Children of the Sun (Setting), Fvlminata (Setting), and Dread (Situation + Character), Fading Suns (Setting), Earthdawn (Setting), Space: 1889 (Setting), Mutant Chronicles (Setting), Mage first edition (Character), Mage second edition (Setting), Ironclaw (Setting), and Continuum (Setting with a touch of System). Many Fantasy Heartbreakers fall into this category, almost all Setting-based. Some of the best-known games of this type include Tekumel, Jorune, Traveller (specifically in its mid-80s through mid-90s form), Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Nephilim, Feng Shui, the various secondary settings for AD&D2 like Al-Qadim, and quite a few D20 or WEG games which rely on licensing.​

In this particular case, the emphasised elements are probably Situation + Character, but if it's heavy FR then maybe we have Setting + Character (and the reason for narrating the trap is to inject a little bit more character-relevant situation and/or colour).

Wow, I've never seen so many RPGs I've never heard of rattled off like that. You make me feel like I need a radical change of social circles. but really

Also, you remind me of a session I once attended where the GM's top priority was clearly to spend as much time as possible describing all the dramatic flourishes, cape-swirls, and magical sparkles of their characters as they performed their daring actions (including the GMPC of course). I didn't go back to that one.

 

[robconley]

The other thread about railroading is getting pretty incendiary, and there's a bit of confusion over terminology used. "Railroad" is very vague and not well-defined, so let us instead discuss participationism and illusionism, which are specific modes of play. The definitions of these terms are a bit muddy, and there's not an "official" RPG lexicon, but Darkshire.net has a fairly comprehensive glossary.

Railroading:

Illusionism:

Participationism:

If you are going to do it, do it well.
I am known from my Bat in the Attic blog for talking about sandbox campaigns. What people may not know about me that in the 1990s and early 2000s I ran dozens of LARP events (NERO boffer LARP) and a LARP chapter. While immersive, the live action components means you have to consider logistic both in terms of material, location, and people when planning out an event and adventures within the event.

For example you can't expect a team to setup a adventure one side of a camp and then turn around and set up another adventure on the other side a mile or two away without factoring in the time it take, and the rest needed in between. Due to the need to plan for logistics you can't turn on a dime and completely rework things in the midst of an event.

As a result adventures and events are often linear especially when it comes to the action portion. It way more freeform with the roleplaying aspect with many NPC participants interacting with PC participants. While plot is not entirely on rails options are nearly always limited.

With those constraints how do you write good adventures? The key is to setup the circumstances so that the players want to go to the next steps. Done well it uses the player's preconceptions to make the next planned step the logical choice. It also helps to have wiggle room by planning an event around the idea of multiple paths but with a single destination. The path actually chosen will influence the roleplaying and nuances of the action but in a broad sense it still winds up being the same setpiece that was planned before.

There is some suspension of disbelief required. With dozens of participants in a LARP event there are always going to be contrary individuals who tests the limits of what the event staff can handle. But for the most people understand the logistical issues and just go along with the flow. Much in the same way many will watch and enjoy a film adaptation of a book despite knowing the plot and details.

While they know that they can't change overall structure of the event, they appreciate being able to influence how the details ultimately plays out. Whether the big fight on the last evening is one where the heroes are desperate to save all they hold dear. Or it the final stand of the villain with all their plans in ruins.

Missions, Railroading in a Sandbox
In addition being able to run adventures where choices are constrained is useful for a sandbox campaign. Because like in life, in a sandbox not every choice leads to wide open possibilities. A group may choose to serve as part of the military, or in fantasy a feudal lord. In these situations much of their character's time is not their own. Instead they are giving missions to serve their lord or organization. Learning how to run adventures with limited choices well helps planning out a session where the focus is on completing a mission.

The importance of choice
RPGs did not developed as a result of constrained choices. They grew from the work of people like Dave Arneson, who were exploring more free-form ways of running wargames. The Blackmoor campaign became what it is not because of how Dave designed it. But by his willingness to say yes to what his players came up with. Provided it made sense for the character or Blackmoor setting.

So when a PC became a vampire and started devastating the good guy PCs, one of them pointed that there should be a Van Helsing type as opposition. Dave then came up with the cleric which was a hybrid of different things he liked.

RPGs naturally lead to expansive choices. But there are specific circumstances where choices may be limited, like when a group is focused on completing missions as noted above.

Setting is not railroading. But it may be boring or uninteresting.
My view is that railroading is when the referee negates choice even when it makes sense as something the character is capable of doing within the setting of the game. Which is not the same as referee imposing consequences for what the players do as their characters within the setting.

For example if you playing a campaign where everybody is part of the military and the group decides to ignore orders and do their own thing. A consequence of that is that they will be considered deserters. If the campaign occurs in a modern setting this can have severe consequences that narrow the options the players have. Some would feel railroaded.

Which is why it is vital for the referee to communicate how the setting works. That if a choice results in a major unforeseen consequences because of the nuances of the settings then the players should be made aware of it the first time it happens and offered the chance to reconsider.

And if this happens often then perhaps a new campaign should be started with a new setting as the current campaign is probably not a good fit for the group. For example a campaign that tried using Adventures in Middle Earth but the group found it is way more interested in dungeon crawls and decide to go back to core 5e.

That it for my thoughts on the OP.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me... the DM making one up and saying "You found a trap" when the rogue searches is pretty much no different than the DM making up and saying "You notice that the sounds of nature seem unnaturally quiet" when another PC makes a perception check outside. Did it matter that the DM hadn't written down prior to that point what the ambient sound was prior to the PC wanting to perceive what was around them? Not as far as I'm concerned. To me, it's all part of the greater package of the adventure the characters are on and helps color and add to the story being told. And for that it doesn't matter what has been written down previously or what the DM just invents on the spot.

Heh... I'm basically the inverse of a lot of the folks here-- the same way the words "force" and "railroading" makes them ill... for me it's terms like "skilled play". Because to me that's basically treating D&D as a board game to win by using your skills as players to overcome the challenges with little to no concern with the narrative. Which is great and fine for those that like gaming that way, but for me I'd rather play Scythe or Puerto Rico if I needed my strategic and tactical itches scratched that badly. I always care more about the story, and sometimes I will downplay my skill as a D&D player and behave tactically poorly if doing so makes sense for both the character and the story being played out.

 

[robconley]

To me... the DM making one up and saying "You found a trap" when the rogue searches is pretty much no different than the DM making up and saying "You notice that the sounds of nature seem unnaturally quiet" when another PC makes a perception check outside. Did it matter that the DM hadn't written down prior to that point what the ambient sound was prior to the PC wanting to perceive what was around them? Not as far as I'm concerned. To me, it's all part of the greater package of the adventure the characters are on and helps color and add to the story being told. And for that it doesn't matter what has been written down previously or what the DM just invents on the spot.

I use random chance and tables quite a bit to minimize my bias as to whether there something like a trap is there or not. It not from a love of random tables, it reflect the fact that I prior the session or campaign. I decided that a list of things could happen in a common circumstance and these are the odds of any of them occurring in a situation fitting that circumstance.

For example I don't have the time to details the contents of every peasant hut but I do have the time to decide what likely and what the chances of other things happening. Then when the players decide to go left instead of right and enter a peasant hut, I can determine its content based on how it should work for that setting, culture, or region.

Heh... I'm basically the inverse of a lot of the folks here-- the same way the words "force" and "railroading" makes them ill... for me it's terms like "skilled play". Because to me that's basically treating D&D as a board game to win by using your skills as players to overcome the challenges with little to no concern with the narrative. Which is great and fine for those that like gaming that way, but for me I'd rather play Scythe or Puerto Rico if I needed my strategic and tactical itches scratched that badly. I always care more about the story, and sometimes I will downplay my skill as a D&D player and behave tactically poorly if doing so makes sense for both the character and the story being played out.

My take is that I create some interesting place that players want to adventure in as characters that fit within that setting. The story is the description of what happened after the campaign is finished. The campaign itself is about the experience of being there. Inhabiting that world doing something interesting. Much like I can tell a story about a trip to the Grand Canyon but during the trip itself I am experiencing the Grand Canyon.

Tabletop Roleplaying allows a group to create an experience that good enough as a hobby with pen & paper rather than having to actually travel there. Which is not even possible with fictional settings like Middle Earth or something of your own creation.

I realize that the idea of telling stories through RPGs is a widespread idea. My view that RPGs are much better at creating experiences. For example I view Adventures in Middle Earth (or The One Ring) as an overly complicated and inefficient way for a group to collaborate on a story about Middle Earth. However I view both as excellent allowing a individual acting as a referee to create the experience of adventuring in Middle Earth for a group of friends. With pen, paper, some dice, and time enough for a hobby. Then after that campaign is done, the group can tell stories about their experience adventuring in Middle Earth.

 

[Lyxen]

If you are going to do it, do it well.
I am known from my Bat in the Attic blog for talking about sandbox campaigns. What people may not know about me that in the 1990s and early 2000s I ran dozens of LARP events (NERO boffer LARP) and a LARP chapter. [...] There is some suspension of disbelief required.

Thank you for this, and for the relation in particular to LARPs which matches well with my experience in both LARPing and TTRPGing.

The last sentence is key, it's not about really living an experience in a fantasy world, it's also about expecting that there will be some constraints due to the fact that, at some level, it's a simulation and even more than that, it's a shared simulation which brings its own lot of constraints. It's a game, and therefore made to be enjoyed by everyone around the table (/site if you are LARPing). And as such, it requires willingness to participate in a general vision of the activity. Whether this involves a lot of freedom for the players or a more epic storyline coming from the DM is never an absolute, 100% of either, but just the best mix that will suit the tastes of the people around the table. And rather than calling it illusionism, it's better to call it "willingness to participate even when the strings might be a bit visible".

 

[Ovinomancer]

To me... the DM making one up and saying "You found a trap" when the rogue searches is pretty much no different than the DM making up and saying "You notice that the sounds of nature seem unnaturally quiet" when another PC makes a perception check outside. Did it matter that the DM hadn't written down prior to that point what the ambient sound was prior to the PC wanting to perceive what was around them? Not as far as I'm concerned. To me, it's all part of the greater package of the adventure the characters are on and helps color and add to the story being told. And for that it doesn't matter what has been written down previously or what the DM just invents on the spot.

Heh... I'm basically the inverse of a lot of the folks here-- the same way the words "force" and "railroading" makes them ill... for me it's terms like "skilled play". Because to me that's basically treating D&D as a board game to win by using your skills as players to overcome the challenges with little to no concern with the narrative. Which is great and fine for those that like gaming that way, but for me I'd rather play Scythe or Puerto Rico if I needed my strategic and tactical itches scratched that badly. I always care more about the story, and sometimes I will downplay my skill as a D&D player and behave tactically poorly if doing so makes sense for both the character and the story being played out.

What if the goal being played skillfully towards is a narrative one, like "I find out who murdered my brother and will revenge him!" I mean, I can deploy skillful play here.

Further, I think that non-skillful play is rather badly looked upon at many tables. The person who constantly forgets abilities, or does things that are poorly conceived, or forgets things that could save another party member generally seems to get short shrift and isn't praised for avoiding skilled play. Heck, clever use of abilities in unexpected ways by players often gets held out as awesome moments of play! What is this if not skilled play?

 

[tetrasodium]

What if the goal being played skillfully towards is a narrative one, like "I find out who murdered my brother and will revenge him!" I mean, I can deploy skillful play here.

Further, I think that non-skillful play is rather badly looked upon at many tables. The person who constantly forgets abilities, or does things that are poorly conceived, or forgets things that could save another party member generally seems to get short shrift and isn't praised for avoiding skilled play. Heck, clever use of abilities in unexpected ways by players often gets held out as awesome moments of play! What is this if not skilled play?

It depends on the goal and imho more than a little on the player's skill. If I have a player who wants to find out where they are from (one I once had) who killed x or whatever I'll make allowances for "could be" & "hmm sure" when they try to link it to things going on provided its done without making the game about their character. I might even mine that kind of stuff as part of the bait on hooks(and often will try). The problem is that players will freakishly often either ignore it if it's not 100% the novel they envisioned in isolation or it will play out with me needing to explain Bob's backstory to the party in addition to bob who has long since forgotten it. I think that second one I'd probably depressingly common as well given this recent video

 

[DEFCON 1]

What if the goal being played skillfully towards is a narrative one, like "I find out who murdered my brother and will revenge him!" I mean, I can deploy skillful play here.

Further, I think that non-skillful play is rather badly looked upon at many tables. The person who constantly forgets abilities, or does things that are poorly conceived, or forgets things that could save another party member generally seems to get short shrift and isn't praised for avoiding skilled play. Heck, clever use of abilities in unexpected ways by players often gets held out as awesome moments of play! What is this if not skilled play?

I guess it depends on how you are defining "skilled play". If you are defining it as how well you know the rules, that's one thing. If you are defining it as how well you lean into and work with the desired assumptions of the particular style of game and play as best you can to maximize those stylistic assumptions, then that's another.

But a third type of "Skilled Play" (and the way I usually see it defined here on the boards) is how well you can play the game mechanics of the board game part of D&D and maximize the speed and efficiency at winning whatever the scenario is in front of you. It's THIS part that causes all the caterwauling about certain options being "unbalanced"-- those options (while narratively interesting) just cannot generate the same speed and efficiency at winning that other options can and thus the options suck and WotC should be ashamed the game still includes them. Or some options are "overpowered" and thus players feel like they HAVE to take those options (even if they get taken over and over again to the point of cookie-cutter boredom) because those options generate the most effective speed and efficiency at winning the board game. And indeed I have read quite a number of people's responses over the years where they have said that if you as a player DO NOT make selections to maximize your effectiveness, then you are voluntarily putting THEIR character at risk and thus are playing the game badly. That it is your responsibility as a player to build characters and play them to the utmost skill possible so as to minimize the risks of the game's rules.

Now again... some of these are extremes and thus won't actually apply to many tables. But I've seen enough complaints from people about how other players or the game itself don't allow for a complete equality of success in every option to "win" the board game portion of D&D that their opportunity for "Skilled Play" is getting trod upon. And it is those people for whom I just throw the term "Skilled Play" onto the trash heap.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It depends on the goal and imho more than a little on the player's skill. If I have a player who wants to find out where they are from (one I once had) who killed x or whatever I'll make allowances for "could be" & "hmm sure" when they try to link it to things going on provided its done without making the game about their character. I might even mine that kind of stuff as part of the bait on hooks(and often will try). The problem is that players will freakishly often either ignore it if it's not 100% the novel they envisioned in isolation or it will play out with me needing to explain Bob's backstory to the party in addition to bob who has long since forgotten it. I think that second one I'd probably depressingly common as well given this recent video

You took my comment about skilled play being about character development and narrative arcs and instead turned it into a statement that you'll allow players to have their own goals so long as they fit acceptably within your game as you've established it. Okay, I think you missed the point, but sure, that's a thing you can do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess it depends on how you are defining "skilled play". If you are defining it as how well you know the rules, that's one thing. If you are defining it as how well you lean into and work with the desired assumptions of the particular style of game and play as best you can to maximize those stylistic assumptions, then that's another.

But a third type of "Skilled Play" (and the way I usually see it defined here on the boards) is how well you can play the game mechanics of the board game part of D&D and maximize the speed and efficiency at winning whatever the scenario is in front of you. It's THIS part that causes all the caterwauling about certain options being "unbalanced"-- those options (while narratively interesting) just cannot generate the same speed and efficiency at winning that other options can and thus the options suck and WotC should be ashamed the game still includes them. Or some options are "overpowered" and thus players feel like they HAVE to take those options (even if they get taken over and over again to the point of cookie-cutter boredom) because those options generate the most effective speed and efficiency at winning the board game. And indeed I have read quite a number of people's responses over the years where they have said that if you as a player DO NOT make selections to maximize your effectiveness, then you are voluntarily putting THEIR character at risk and thus are playing the game badly.

Now again... some of these are extremes and thus won't actually apply to many tables. But I've seen enough complaints from people about how other players or the game itself don't allow for a complete equality of success in every option to "win" the board game portion of D&D that their opportunity for "Skilled Play" is getting trod upon. And it is those people for whom I just throw the term "Skilled Play" onto the trash heap.

So, you aren't skeeved out by skilled play per se, but rather by game modes that do not align with your play goals? And, while you support many of the things that skilled play represents (solid use of rules, good use of resources to solve challenges, leaning into genre conceits to achieve goals) you've decided to associate skilled play primarily with these particular game modes and view any mention of skilled play as supportive of those game modes?

Play that doesn't align to the table is a problem with play goals, not in skilled play.