D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

A player is not capable of saying, "Oh, you want to go to the docks? Well...um...the docks are being repaired! A ship came off the moorings and caused damage, so the docks won't be accessible for several days." D&D, and games like D&D, only give players such power in controlled bursts, if they give it at all. (I, personally, like giving my players that power, but that's because I trust them to use it wisely.)

No, but a group could need to go somewhere (via agreement to play an adventure), and a player could insist on burning down the docks or sinking the ship. Then, when they get to the stables, the player slaughters or poisons all the horses.

Both are ridiculous. And personally, I have only seen it done by very young players. But both are railroading.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Which is it?
A) Railroading negates player agency.
B) Railroading forces outcomes from altered fiction and mechanical manipulation.

If you are instead declaring a cause and effect: railroading forces a preferred outcome by altering fiction and mechanical manipulation, and therefore, results in the negation of player agency. Then, player agency is not real - ever.

And for the record, the player can also alter the fiction. They can mechanically manipulate. Does this result in the loss of DM agency? If so, why have separate terms?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure.

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.

This simply isn't possible. The DM can just say no. They have no authority to engage a railroad.

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

First off, cheating is cheating, not railroading. Secondly, if the players are trying to declare actions that disrupt the game, they are being a disruptive(read bad) player. That isn't railroading as the DM is under no obligation to allow such behavior to happen and can shut it down in an instant.

 

[Lanefan]

The whole giving the win to characters and not the players bit removes all meaningful sense of accomplishment from the game from my perspective. The way I see it players get the wins for their characters. If that's not the case I have little interest in playing.

Heh - I'm almost the complete opposite. It's the characters' victory, not mine - as a player I'm just a fan cheering them on. The character gets the glory, not the player - we don't (often) talk about the brilliant idea the player had, we talk about the brilliant idea Falstaffe had, or Gutboy, or whoever. Our Hall of Heroes is for characters, not players. And so on.

It's the same as cheering for a hockey team: I'm not out there on the ice playing the actual game but I can still cheer for the team and enjoy it when they win.

 

[Scott Christian]

This simply isn't possible. The DM can just say no. They have no authority to engage a railroad.

Under the stated rules of the game, the DM cannot say no. They cannot stop a player from fudging play or declaring actions. They have to accept these.

First off, cheating is cheating, not railroading. Secondly, if the players are trying to declare actions that disrupt the game, they are being a disruptive(read bad) player. That isn't railroading as the DM is under no obligation to allow such behavior to happen and can shut it down in an instant.

Then call the DM fudging rolls cheaters - not railroaders. Call the DMs who are disruptive - disruptive DMs.

A player forcing an outcome is no different than a DM forcing an outcome. No DM can just "shut it down." They either accept said player actions and fudging or don't. The exact same choice that the players have.

Again, my premise is there is no need for a separate definition. All it does is declare a "bad" DM from a "good" one. It is finger wagging at its best. Which is incredibly silly since there are many other facets to the game.

 

[Lanefan]

No, but a group could need to go somewhere (via agreement to play an adventure), and a player could insist on burning down the docks or sinking the ship. Then, when they get to the stables, the player slaughters or poisons all the horses.

Both are ridiculous. And personally, I have only seen it done by very young players. But both are railroading.

Eh, I'm not so sure here. I see both of those as examples of derailing or disrupting, more than railroading.

Taht said, I firmly believe that players can (and often do!) railroad themselves now and then, simply by playing their characters true. An example from a game I was once in: we had (for us) an unusually Good-ly party that had come to a logical break in our ongoing adventuring. After a bit of downtime the question arose "So, what are we going to do next?" and we made some inquiries as to adventuring possibilities in the region.

The DM gave us a string of options - some new, some we'd heard of before during the campaign - but only one of them had any sense of "Noble Cause" to it, which means that before even presenting the options the DM could be 99% sure which one we'd choose. Sure enough, we didn't disappoint!

To me this is NOT the DM railroading the players, it's the players railroading ourselves by in-character limiting ourselves to such a narrow range of missions (i.e. only the good-and-noble cause ones) we'd agree to undertake.

 

[Scott Christian]

Eh, I'm not so sure here. I see both of those as examples of derailing or disrupting, more than railroading.

Taht said, I firmly believe that players can (and often do!) railroad themselves now and then, simply by playing their characters true. An example from a game I was once in: we had (for us) an unusually Good-ly party that had come to a logical break in our ongoing adventuring. After a bit of downtime the question arose "So, what are we going to do next?" and we made some inquiries as to adventuring possibilities in the region.

The DM gave us a string of options - some new, some we'd heard of before during the campaign - but only one of them had any sense of "Noble Cause" to it, which means that before even presenting the options the DM could be 99% sure which one we'd choose. Sure enough, we didn't disappoint!

To me this is NOT the DM railroading the players, it's the players railroading ourselves by in-character limiting ourselves to such a narrow range of missions (i.e. only the good-and-noble cause ones) we'd agree to undertake.

Yet another layer - I like.

 

[Campbell]

No, but a group could need to go somewhere (via agreement to play an adventure), and a player could insist on burning down the docks or sinking the ship. Then, when they get to the stables, the player slaughters or poisons all the horses.

Both are ridiculous. And personally, I have only seen it done by very young players. But both are railroading.

In either case if the decision was come by through an honest consideration of the fiction and playing the character by really considering what they would do I don't consider it railroading. For me it only qualifies when a player or GM specifically makes decision with the intention to shape the narrative in a specific direction not guided by the scenario or their sense of what their character would do given the scenario.

It's about intention to me. What is the player or GM intending to do - what is guiding their decision making process. Another player or a GM making a decision based on what the characters they are playing (PC or NPC) would do is not railroading because they are not making an intentional decision to force the narrative in a given direction. Their decisions impact the agency I have over the situation, but that's how agency works. In order for it to be real agency it needs impact others' agency.

 

[Maxperson]

Under the stated rules of the game, the DM cannot say no. They cannot stop a player from fudging play or declaring actions. They have to accept these.

Where does is state that? Because I can show you were it says that the rules are not in charge of the DM.

Then call the DM fudging rolls cheaters - not railroaders. Call the DMs who are disruptive - disruptive DMs.

Fudging die rolls for a DM is neither railroading, nor cheating. It's 5e RAW actually. The rules say the DM can fudge rolls.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Are the two bolded phrases intended to be synonymous, or not?

Apocalypse World is a "story now" game, and probably at present the best-known and most influential one. And it allocates authority over the fiction in basically the same way that D&D does.