D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Thomas Shey]

I think this ability to run roughshod over other players is often made much worse when the GM addresses the group rather than individual players. If you make it clear that the player who is called is the one who gets to call the shots for what their character does this can be alleviated.

Somewhat. I've also had to pointedly tell one longtime player a few times to let other people run their own characters. Its somewhat of a risk that can crop up in games with a lot of inter-character support being important.

The obvious downside is that you are on then putting pressure on that player to make a decision when they might not be comfortable doing so. Life is about tradeoffs I guess.

Yeah. I think there's sometimes a virtue in letting players get advice from each other--and sometimes they aren't going to think to ask or be too timid to--but its easy for someone to constantly have someone else second guessing them if you don't watch it.

(A possibly related story: I'm currently running a Fragged Empire campaign. Fragged Empire ship combat uses a system where players normally have a couple of the four ship combat skills (Command, Operations, Engineering and Gunnery), and can take one action each round (there are three possible general kinds of actions per each skill, though some of them cover more than one thing), and each general kind of action can only be done once a round (except for a couple of the Gunnery options which can be done more than once if you have more than one ship's gun). One of my players complained that he didn't feel like he was making any decisions in space combat, and I responded "That's because you've come to allow Karsten to dictate what everyone does each round; that's not required, and you don't let him do it in personal combat, where everyone doing their part can be just as important, so why do you do it here?" I don't think he found my response satisfactory, but he didn't have an answer for it, either.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Is that actually a loss of agency though?

Usually yes. Generally when player A is talking to NPCs and player B attacks NPCs then the NPCs stop talking and start attacking. Player B railroaded player A into an encounter. He made his attempt to talk be essentially meaningless.

could some dm somewhere arbitrate that situation such that he prevented player B from attacking the NPCs based on some mechanical result? Sure. But then player B has lost authority/agency even over his characters attempted actions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Usually yes. Generally when player A is talking to NPCs and player B attacks NPCs then the NPCs stop talking and start attacking. Player B railroaded player A into an encounter. He made his attempt to talk be essentially meaningless.

"Be essentially meaningless" =/= "be actually meaningless," that's the whole point I'm trying to make here.

There is a key, vital difference between proverbially jumping in front, which does not deprive agency, and forestalling even the possibility of choice, which does--and is railroading. You can still attempt to do things, you just might fail. As is the case with literally anything people attempt that then gets met with a dice roll, ever.

Again, I challenge you to tell me why "missed the attack roll" is not railroading, given your definitions. Unless, of course, you wish to bite the bullet and admit that you do think missing attack rolls is railroading; if so, then I simply think your definition of "railroading" has become so uselessly overbroad as to describe literally, actually 100% of tabletop games ever played.

could some dm somewhere arbitrate that situation such that he prevented player B from attacking the NPCs based on some mechanical result? Sure. But then player B has lost authority/agency even over his characters attempted actions.

Er...no? Just because you don't succeed, doesn't mean you didn't try. Like, again, that's literally why I gave the example I gave. People can TRY things all they like. They aren't guaranteed to succeed, and players having agency is NOT the same as "every single thing you ever attempt will always happen exactly as you envision it."

 

[FrogReaver]

"Be essentially meaningless" =/= "be actually meaningless," that's the whole point I'm trying to make here.

Then nothing is meaningless. Not 1 grain of sand. Nothing.

There is a key, vital difference between proverbially jumping in front, which does not deprive agency, and forestalling even the possibility of choice, which does--and is railroading. You can still attempt to do things, you just might fail. As is the case with literally anything people attempt that then gets met with a dice roll, ever.

Again, I challenge you to tell me why "missed the attack roll" is not railroading, given your definitions. Unless, of course, you wish to bite the bullet and admit that you do think missing attack rolls is railroading; if so, then I simply think your definition of "railroading" has become so uselessly overbroad as to describe literally, actually 100% of tabletop games ever played.


Er...no? Just because you don't succeed, doesn't mean you didn't try. Like, again, that's literally why I gave the example I gave. People can TRY things all they like. They aren't guaranteed to succeed, and players having agency is NOT the same as "every single thing you ever attempt will always happen exactly as you envision it."

IMO You’ve got to narrow a definition of railroading. It’s so narrow that nothing is railroading.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then nothing is meaningless. Not 1 grain of sand. Nothing.

IMO You’ve got to narrow a definition of railroading. It’s so narrow that nothing is railroading.

Except...plenty of things are. I've explicitly said as such.

Railroading is when the DM prevents players from even attempting to make choices outside of the pre-planned events that "must" happen or pre-planned locations that "must" be visited. Many adventure paths are necessarily at least in part railroads, for example, because it's not realistic for a pre-written series of adventures to account for the nigh-infinite variety of choices made. Players often agree to abide by this limit, so it is not a bad or unwanted form of limitation, but it is a limitation nonetheless.

Illusionism is also a form of railroading, but one that attempts to conceal the effect. Instead of openly telling the players that their choices are impossible until they choose "correctly," illusionism relies on letting the players think they have made choices, while actually making sure that the events happen exactly as planned, just with a new coat of paint. So, for example, if the players choose to go to the pub rather than the crime scene, because they'd like to hear some rumors on the street while the details haven't gotten out yet, then the players will run into the frightened witness they "need" to meet that would have been at the crime scene if they'd gone to the crime scene first. Or, for a different example, the players choose to buy passage to their destination on a ship, rather than making an overland journey. Suddenly (and secretly), all the plot-vital NPCs they "have" to meet in order for the story to make sense will now also be passengers on that boat, even if the DM must jump through hoops to ensure that their stories still work. Etc.

Like...this isn't hard. Railroading is when the DM prevents agency from happening. Someone interrupting you isn't preventing you from having agency whatsoever, they're denying you the opportunity to play. And while, yes, not getting to play does mean that you don't exercise your agency, the agency is an after-effect, not the whole focus and purpose; railroading happens specifically in order to deny agency, because agency has the power to break the DM's pre-planned future events. Being interrupted or shouted down or whatever has nothing to do with taking away agency, and everything to do with out-of-game relationships going wrong.

In every meaningful way--the fix for the problem, the source of the problem, the purpose of the problematic actions--railroading differs from the things you've described, while still being a specific, identifiable pattern of behavior.

And, again, you have yet to tell me why missing an attack roll isn't railroading. If it isn't, yet these other things are, you need to explain why. If it is, you need to say so.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

@Scott Christian, when you say that:

If player agency is real, then they are the ones creating the tracks.

Railroading negates player agency, which is precisely the point. @pemerton laid out an excellent analysis on how railroads function: the negation and manipulation of the game (mechanically and fictionally) to ensure a specific outcome.

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.

DMs have been railroading since always. Coining a phrase to describe the unpleasant behavior does not mean that the unpleasant behavior did not exist prior to the existence of the new terminology. If we abolished sloth from the dictionary, layabouts would not suddenly become industrious, yet that is the position you have advanced here.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Scott Christian, when you say that:

Railroading negates player agency, which is precisely the point. @pemerton laid out an excellent analysis on how railroads function: the negation and manipulation of the game (mechanically and fictionally) to ensure a specific outcome.

DMs have been railroading since always. Coining a phrase to describe the unpleasant behavior does not mean that the unpleasant behavior did not exist prior to the existence of the new terminology. If we abolished sloth from the dictionary, layabouts would not suddenly become industrious, yet that is the position you have advanced here.

If it’s unpleasant why do some players enjoy linear games?

 

[Thomas Shey]

If it’s unpleasant why do some players enjoy linear games?

I suspect he's overly broadly stating from his own position. Its absolutely true though that at least part of the hobby considers linear adventures anathema; but then, I've seen people claim that campaigns that are going to constrain player behavior at all (say, one where you're playing people in a military unit) are not RPGs at all.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

If it’s unpleasant why do some players enjoy linear games?

If being flogged is unpleasant, why do some men pay good money to suffer the cat o' nine tails?

Participationism is not the same as railroading, as laid out in the initial post.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

You seem to be differentiating the two - I am not. They are one on the same.

The outcome of a DM's "railroad" has "forced outcomes." They are taking away the players' choice. They do this by fudging rolls, rewriting the fiction, etc. They are forcing the story they want. The outcome of a player's "railroad" has forced outcomes. They do this by fudging play, declaring actions that creates consternation in the DMs fiction, etc. They are forcing the story they want.

In both cases, it only takes one person to do either.

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).

Deploying the definition of force, which is the player enforcing a preferred outcome, regardless of DM input or DM actions; railroading is when you deploy consistent force over time.

Do you see how this can be true? Just because it leaves out one variable doesn't make it untrue.

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.

They both are authoring the fiction. Whatever the player narrates the PC doing happens. And a player has every authority to author the fiction. They author the fiction by action declaration.

That's the whole point of a railroad, though. It takes away player agency. Players do not create railroad tracks. They choose their paths through the game. DMs are the only ones that can create rails(remove player agency) and force the PCs onto them.

If player agency exists, they can create the tracks. The DM can take them away - yes. The players can take away the DM's as well. That is the point.