D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[hawkeyefan]

Railroading describes GM behavior, not player behavior. This is a misappropriates of terminology. Players cannot "railroad" because they lack the power to do so. They can be disruptive, they can be jerks, they can derail the game, but they cannot railroad.

Dogs bark. Cats meow. GMs railroad. Players derail.

Can’t one player railroad another? Like there are choices to be made, and one player always gets his way by being loudest or leveraging social factors or what have you.

If one player’s always calling the shots for the group, I’d say that’s a form of railroading.

 

[prabe]

Can’t one player railroad another? Like there are choices to be made, and one player always gets his way by being loudest or leveraging social factors or what have you.

If one player’s always calling the shots for the group, I’d say that’s a form of railroading.

In co-op board games, that kind of player is referred to as an "alpha player" or a "quarterback." It's generally bad form to do it if not asked to.

But ... If you play with the same people for a long time, you learn to ask for advice, and you learn to pay attention to unrequested advice, and you learn when to offer advice.

In kinda the same way, I think there's a difference between a player stepping up to keep the game moving, or roleplaying something of a leader-type, and a player running roughshod over someone else's ideas and input and intentions, to make the game all about them and/or their character.

In other words, one player calling the shots isn't necessarily bad, and it isn't necessarily railroading, IMO and IME--that depends on ... the social people-interacting stuff.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can’t one player railroad another? Like there are choices to be made, and one player always gets his way by being loudest or leveraging social factors or what have you.

If one player’s always calling the shots for the group, I’d say that’s a form of railroading.

In the sense that one player (including the GM as a player) is enforcing an outcome, sure. There's a lack of game assigned authority, though. For the situation you're describing, that's more of a social dynamic and exists outside the game -- it's meta-channel railroading, if you will. I think that railroading, to be a useful descriptor of game play rather than social interaction, needs to reference some kind of authority within the game. This is one of the reasons I think that player-side railroading is not a thing for 5e -- there's no authority in the game that would allow for it. Other games may very well have that ability, although I'm struggling to think of one offhand. I can, however, easily see a GM steeped in 5e authority looking from that vantage at other games like Blades in the Dark and evaluating the players' authority to determine large amounts of the course of the game as railroading, but that's a failure of orientation to the rulesets and using one set of authorities to evaluate another. Kinda like an American thinking that a British Prime Minister is the same thing as the US President in position and authority.

 

[Maxperson]

Can’t one player railroad another? Like there are choices to be made, and one player always gets his way by being loudest or leveraging social factors or what have you.

If one player’s always calling the shots for the group, I’d say that’s a form of railroading.

I don't think so, because the other player has a choice still. He's just caving in. That's the loud player being a jerk about it and not an instance railroading. There's also the DM who should step in if a player is trying to influence what another player does in an inappropriate manner.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Can’t one player railroad another? Like there are choices to be made, and one player always gets his way by being loudest or leveraging social factors or what have you.

If one player’s always calling the shots for the group, I’d say that’s a form of railroading.

No, because railroading refers to a campaign being "on rails," as in, you're on a train and it's on the tracks, and the intracontinental express running from New York to California is fixed, unchangeable, choo-choo, all-aboard. A loud player can't "railroad" others because it's the GM who sets the tracks, not the players. If the players defer to someone because he's bossy, it's voluntary. They don't have to do so. But in D&D, the players must defer to the GM. The only way they can defy his authority is by refusing to play.

 

[Campbell]

I think player side railroading is incredibly common in traditional roleplaying games. I think it's often more common than GM railroading. Every time players look to GMs with puppy dog eyes looking to the GM to either fudge or make rulings that correspond to their concept or preconceived narrative arcs it happens. Every time a player puts social pressure on another player to go along with this plot or that plot it happens. Every time a players ignores obvious fictional positioning of other player characters or NPCs to preserve their conception of their PC it happens. Every time a player makes a stray comment about 'not wanting the dice to define my character' it happens.

This post from Play Passionately captures a lot of my feelings :

The Culture of Outcome

Over on RPG.net hyphz (real name unknown to me) wrote about a kind of player who outwardly seems very invested in character and story but expresses frustration over not being able to simultaneously…

playpassionately.wordpress.com

This sort of play is perfectly cromulent if that's what you are looking for, but it's pretty obvious to from my experience as a GM who is definitely not about that sort of play that much of the guided/linear experience comes from player pressure to conform to player expectations of the way the story should go.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think player side railroading is incredibly common in traditional roleplaying games. I think it's often more common than GM railroading. Every time players look to GMs with puppy dog eyes looking to the GM to either fudge or make rulings that correspond to their concept or preconceived narrative arcs it happens. Every time a player puts social pressure on another player to go along with this plot or that plot it happens. Every time a players ignores obvious fictional positioning of other player characters or NPCs to preserve their conception of their PC it happens. Every time a player makes a stray comment about 'not wanting the dice to define my character' it happens.

This post from Play Passionately captures a lot of my feelings :

The Culture of Outcome

Over on RPG.net hyphz (real name unknown to me) wrote about a kind of player who outwardly seems very invested in character and story but expresses frustration over not being able to simultaneously…

playpassionately.wordpress.com

This sort of play is perfectly cromulent if that's what you are looking for, but it's pretty obvious to from my experience as a GM who is definitely not about that sort of play that much of the guided/linear experience comes from player pressure to conform to player expectations of the way the story should go.

I agree with the identified phenomenon, but, again, I'm not sure I'd use the term railroading without some kind of additional qualifier. What's happening there is a social issue, not really a game issue -- there are not features of the game that are implicated here. I think it's very worthwhile to discuss this problem, because it's a clear mismatch in play goals.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

You're making an argument right now. This is a discussion, where we advance arguments and make counter arguments. I'm using the formal use of argument here to represent an idea or concept that is being advanced and tested in discussion.

How do you manipulate the rest schedule without engaging the GM? Further, the example of getting Inspiration is actually part and parcel of the Inspiration rules and not external to the game. It's also not falling under the definition of skilled play unless gaining Inspiration is a goal of play.

@Ovinomancer, the rest schedule is a matter of mechanical definition: we are resting for 60 minutes to gain the benefits of a short rest. It doesn't rely on gaming the GM in the way that verbalizing an idea so that the GM perceives it favorably. Likewise, my point with the Inspiration example is that the procedures for awarding Inspiration are so ill-defined as to render objectivity impossible (even though spending Inspiration intelligently is a part of skillful 5e play). In Fate, gaining and spending Fate points has procedures that allow for skillful players to accumulate Fate points and expend them to accomplish their goals--there is a reduced element of "GM-playing" as part of that.

What are the implications of whether one of these points of view on skilled play is adopted/accepted?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What are the implications of whether one of these points of view on skilled play is adopted/accepted?

Good question, what are the implications? I'm very keen to hear your insight on the matter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think so, because the other player has a choice still. He's just caving in. That's the loud player being a jerk about it and not an instance railroading. There's also the DM who should step in if a player is trying to influence what another player does in an inappropriate manner.

Well players always have a choice in that regard. Even if the GM is railroading them, they can call it out or leave the game, etc.

What I'm talking about is not really so much about influencing what another player does except in the sense that all players are part of the group, and it's one person deciding what the group does. I've been in games like that, and I've found them to be very frustrating.

No, because railroading refers to a campaign being "on rails," as in, you're on a train and it's on the tracks, and the intracontinental express running from New York to California is fixed, unchangeable, choo-choo, all-aboard. A loud player can't "railroad" others because it's the GM who sets the tracks, not the players. If the players defer to someone because he's bossy, it's voluntary. They don't have to do so. But in D&D, the players must defer to the GM. The only way they can defy his authority is by refusing to play.

Sure, but the metaphor is about lack of choice, right? So that's all I'm saying....it's possible for me as a player to lack choice, and that can be because of the GM, or it can be because of other players.

I agree that there are differences, but I just meant that lack of choice can come from a source other than the GM.

I agree with the identified phenomenon, but, again, I'm not sure I'd use the term railroading without some kind of additional qualifier. What's happening there is a social issue, not really a game issue -- there are not features of the game that are implicated here. I think it's very worthwhile to discuss this problem, because it's a clear mismatch in play goals.

I agree it's a bit of a different category, and although I think it is mostly a social phenomenon, I think the game can influence things. With D&D, there's very much a need for consensus on what the party does. Yes, characters may split up at times, but overall the thrust of the game will follow the party as a whole, and so the bulk of decisions about where the game goes will be done at that party level. So if one player is always calling the shots at the party level, that's largely a social issue as you say, but the game does nothing to prevent this as designed.

If the game had a different expectation in this regard, or if it had regular and meaningful areas where the characters acted individually, then it may not be an issue, because each player will have their moments to contribute in a meaningful way other than that party level decision making.