D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

Going to have to disagree here. If player agency is real, then they are the ones creating the tracks.

Just going to state this, players do have some type of authority in the game. A very real authority - they can attempt any action they want. Any action. That is authority in-game. The reference to another player bullying other players or leading them is not the argument.

You aren't really pointing this out, because it's not relevant to my statement - the players have no authority to control outcomes. Being able to declare actions is one of the few areas of authority the player has, and I note this regularly, but being able to declare actions cannot result in enforced outcomes, which is what a railroad is comprised of. Deploying the definition of Force, which is the GM enforcing a preferred outcome regardless of player input, action declaration, or system say, railroading is when you deploy consistent Force over time. The exact boundary for when this threshold is crossed is going to be up to the table -- tolerances vary (mine is low). But, using this, there's no way that player action declarations can possibly result in the authority necessary to create even Force, much less railroading, as those authorities are vested solely with the GM in 5e (and all D&D). The only exception is spells and some class features that have clear results baked into the resolution (although the GM can still deploy Force here, but it's going to be clunky).

I am not sure why the definition variations exist. A DM playing and NPC is still roleplaying the NPC, just as a player playing their PC is still roleplaying. A DM using dialogue is the same as a player using dialogue. A DM using rolls to attack, see who goes first, or see what treasure is in the chest is still the same as a player who rolls to attack, see who goes first, or see what treasure is in the chest.
I think it comes from the need to criticize a DM's choice of playstyle. It is applying a new word to make sure the DM knows how naughty they are.
For forty years, players have been able to "derail" the game. Only lately, have DMs been railroading.

Perhaps it is best to stop with the negative terms and simply state - they are plot driven or episodic or freestylers or sandboxers.

I don't see how this is the same. The GM playing an NPC is straight authoring of fiction, because the GM holds all authorities here -- whatever he narrates the NPC doing happens (the only exception being if he tries to narrate what the PCs do, think, or feel, the only areas of authority players in 5e have). A player playing their PC has no ability to author fiction, but instead can only propose fiction to the GM via their action declaration. The GM retains the authority here.

And no, this isn't bagging on play of anyone -- what I'm talking about here applies to my own play of 5e. It's an easy reach to assume a statement of critique can be dismissed so easily by just claiming a dislike. I can like a thing and still critique it. Alternatively, my dislike for something doesn't mean any critique I have is invalid. Otherwise, no one that dislikes Last Jedi can have any valid criticism of it.

 

[pemerton]

The game of 500 ends immediately upon hitting 500, or you aren't playing 500.

This isn't true. I've played 500, dealing out hand after hand, without keeping score and with no end-condition except we're done now. That was still playing 500.

My daughter and her friends play Uno similarly. When I insist on scoring while playing with her, she get irritated.

Those are personal reasons to choose to stop, not win conditions that end the game regardless of what you want.

<snip>

If you opt to continue on, you are playing a different game. You have engaged a house rule to change the game, which as has been pointed out in this thread, can also add win conditions to D&D. D&D just doesn't have any win/loss conditions built into it.

If you count what I describe above as changing 500 by adding a house rule, than nearly every game of D&D ever played is "house ruled" in some or other fashion.

Eg on this account, a group sitting down to see if they can get the weapons out of WPM - with no further ambition for their play - is "house ruling"!

If that's all it takes for it to be true that there can be win conditions in D&D, then I'm baffled by the denial.

 

[Maxperson]

This isn't true. I've played 500, dealing out hand after hand, without keeping score and with no end-condition except we're done now. That was still playing 500.

No. It was just rummy. 500 rummy is a rummy variant called that, because you play to 500 points. If you aren't keeping score, you aren't playing 500 rummy. Even so each hand you played had a win/loss condition that ended the game and then you dealt out another game.

My daughter and her friends play Uno similarly. When I insist on scoring while playing with her, she get irritated.

My wife doesn't like to keep score, either. There is still a win/loss condition with each game. First person out wins. The other person loses. The game is over. Deal the next game.

If you count what I describe above as changing 500 by adding a house rule, than nearly every game of D&D ever played is "house ruled" in some or other fashion.

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter if you keep score or not. Each hand is a separate game with a win/loss condition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When I ran Curse of Strahd, my players beat Strahd. They defeated him. They were victorious.

They won.

 

[Aldarc]

When I ran Curse of Strahd, my players beat Strahd. They defeated him. They were victorious.

They won.

They can’t have won because some writer said in the introduction to 5e that there is no winning or losing in D&D. Designers are never wrong about their own game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Going to have to disagree here. If player agency is real, then they are the ones creating the tracks.

Just going to state this, players do have some type of authority in the game. A very real authority - they can attempt any action they want. Any action. That is authority in-game. The reference to another player bullying other players or leading them is not the argument.


I am not sure why the definition variations exist. A DM playing and NPC is still roleplaying the NPC, just as a player playing their PC is still roleplaying. A DM using dialogue is the same as a player using dialogue. A DM using rolls to attack, see who goes first, or see what treasure is in the chest is still the same as a player who rolls to attack, see who goes first, or see what treasure is in the chest.
I think it comes from the need to criticize a DM's choice of playstyle. It is applying a new word to make sure the DM knows how naughty they are.
For forty years, players have been able to "derail" the game. Only lately, have DMs been railroading.

Perhaps it is best to stop with the negative terms and simply state - they are plot driven or episodic or freestylers or sandboxers.

Exactly this. I'd just add that questions over authority and agency are always are in relation to a 'what' (often implied and not explicitly stated, which is where some problems in communication exist). What do players have authority and agency over. In traditional D&D it's authority and agency over their character's attempted actions (this is fiction but a very restricted subset). In pure story telling games they have authority/agency over every bit of fiction when it becomes their turn (possibly with a few exceptions based on game rules). In a story now game players have authority/agency over their characters actions (mostly) and they have authority/agency over limited areas of the fiction external to their character.

 

[Krachek]

When I ran Curse of Strahd, my players beat Strahd. They defeated him. They were victorious.

They won.

Their characters defeat Strahd! the PCs won.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Their characters defeat Strahd! the PCs won.

Oh, well. I guess if your players are ever happy about anything in the game, and feel a sense of accomplishment, that we should all just immediately remind them that they, the players, did nothing, it was their PCs.

I need to go apologize to the shoe from Monopoly for all the stolen glory.

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly this. I'd just add that questions over authority and agency are always are in relation to a 'what' (often implied and not explicitly stated, which is where some problems in communication exist). What do players have authority and agency over. In traditional D&D it's authority and agency over their character's attempted actions (this is fiction but a very restricted subset). In pure story telling games they have authority/agency over every bit of fiction when it becomes their turn (possibly with a few exceptions based on game rules). In a story now game players have authority/agency over their characters actions (mostly) and they have authority/agency over limited areas of the fiction external to their character.

In one of the (mostly freely available online) books that @Snarf Zagyg linked to as part of his theory thread, there is an essay that delineates six different aspects of 'agency' in tabletop roleplaying games. I'm a weebit surprised that we didn't deep dive into some of that considering how much agency crops up in thread discussions.

Oh, well. I guess if your players are ever happy about anything in the game, and feel a sense of accomplishment, that we should all just immediately remind them that they, the players, did nothing, it was their PCs.

I need to go apologize to the shoe from Monopoly for all the stolen glory.

It's what I do whenever I finish a hard raid or dungeon fight in a MMO. I congratulate my PC for winning and all that they did.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's what I do whenever I finish a hard raid or dungeon fight in a MMO. I congratulate my PC for winning and all that they did.

Oh, dammit, now I have to go reload a bunch of games to apologize for that stolen glory. Do you think Guild Wars servers are still up?