D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[FrogReaver]

Anytime the player makes an action declaration he’s forcing the GM and other players to respond to that particular change in fiction.

In some sense the whole game is about applying force.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You're defining railroading a bit differently than I, then.

To me railroading simply equates to the removal or negation of meaningful in-game choices to the point where there is only one option; and whether said choices are removed/negated by the DM (via force) or by the players (via playing true to their characters) is irrelevant.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Appealing to the authority of RAW is rather self-defeating when the rule(s) one appeals to should never have been written in the first place.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Yes they were intended to be synonymous.

 

[pemerton]

Except..."railroading" as the term is usually used is not about feeling like you have no choice.

It's about literally not having choices. About any time you attempt to make a choice, within the game

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

<snip>

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."

Doesn't it depend why the attack roll missed? (And maybe you had that in mind in your post and didn't think it needed spelling out.)

For instance, if the attack roll misses because the GM makes up or alters the NPC's AC to make it higher than the player's roll, that could be an instance of railroading, by way of "fudging".

If the attack roll misses because the GM decides, at some point during the resolution process, that there is a friendly invisible helper in the scene who places a sudden buff on the NPC or who casts a "Turn aside the shafts" or similar spell on the PC's arrow, etc - then that, too, looks like railroading, by manipulating the fiction in the scene so as to control the outcomes of action resolution.

If the attack roll misses because the NPC has a very high AC, which (i) the GM doesn't "fudge" in the moment but which (ii) the GM has deliberately made much higher than it "should" be, given the fiction and the prior outcomes of the PCs' action as declared by their players, in order (iii) to try and ensure that a particular pre-conceived scene or event is part of the fiction - then that could also be railroading, by way of deployment of authority over backstory and resultant scene-framing.

As these examples show, my view is that railroading is about using authority over the backstory and/or scene-framing, or using authority over mechanical processes (ie "fudging"), to ensure that a pre-conceived scene or event is part of the game even though - if one was following the fiction and/or honouring the success/failure of action declarations - it shouldn't be.

 

[Scott Christian]

Fudging die rolls for a DM is neither railroading, nor cheating.

Then your definition differs from the one others have been arguing.

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

Where does it say that a DM can stop a player from declaring an action? It's the player's turn in initiative. The players says, "I purposefully cast light instead of magic missile." Where does it say the DM can change this?

 

[pemerton]

Yes they were intended to be synonymous.

The reason I asked is because some posters - including some in this thread - put a lot of weight on attempting or trying.

 

[Maxperson]

Appealing to the authority of RAW is rather self-defeating when the rule(s) one appeals to should never have been written in the first place.

Fudging is one of those things that's very subjective. Some people think it's cheating, so don't use that rule. Others view it as a way to correct mistakes or extreme bad luck, and they can use it. Written in 5e as a rule with a caution to DMs about using it is the way to go. Leave it to the informed DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

The reason I asked is because some posters - including some in this thread - put a lot of weight on attempting or trying.

Probably because their words have gotten taken out of context when leaving that off in certain discussions.

 

[Maxperson]

Then your definition differs from the one others have been arguing.

How is fudging inherently a railroad? It doesn't inherently negate player agency. It can be used to negate agency or not depending on the DM.

Where does it say that a DM can stop a player from declaring an action?

They can declare themselves King of Egypt for all the good it will do them.

It's the player's turn in initiative. The players says, "I purposefully cast light instead of magic missile." Where does it say the DM can change this?

If his purpose is to be a disruptive jerk, that's where I tell him that his PC is now an NPC and he is no longer welcome at the table. As an NPC he will take an action I think appropriate for the NPC to take. The DM(and everyone else at the table) is not required to tolerate disruptive players.