D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Maxperson]

I gave one example where a player that wanted combat could achieve it simply by declaring he attacks.

If you want to say GM's have more of an ability to railroad because they have more power then I'm in total agreement. But players can intend to force certain outcomes and have the means to do so.

Sure, but that's not railroading. Yes, the PC can start a fight by attacking, and then the rest of the PCs can leave him there to fight by himself. He can't make them fight, so no rails. The DM can also just say no if the player is doing it to be disruptive. "No, you don't attack. Your PC is now an NPC, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

And of course if all the players want to force a fight, well then the NPC was ready to act just in case of violence, goes first and activates an escape item. The DM is the only one who can actually force a railroad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I gave one example where a player that wanted combat could achieve it simply by declaring he attacks.

If you want to say GM's have more of an ability to railroad because they have more power then I'm in total agreement. But players can intend to force certain outcomes and have the means to do so.


I'm fairly certain that was precisely @ScottChristian's point when he said 'The players create the rails'.

IMO, there's actually a few different DM behaviors that tend to get lumped into DM railroading. That's part of what makes this discussion difficult.

1. GM stops being a neutral arbitrator as expected and pushes/forces a specific outcome in a particular situation
2. GM designs and runs a linear adventure that is designed in such a way that at a high level it mostly plays out the same way regardless of what the players do.
3. Feel free to add additional types as this list isn't intended to be exhaustive.

Behaviors 1 and 2 are completely different and yet both get called by the same term, railroading. Why do people do this, because they only focus on 'outcomes'. Which is part of why player 'railroading' was brought into this. Because the focus on 'outcomes only' to define railroading makes it such that players railroad as well. But if railroading stops getting defined by an 'outcomes only' approach then DM behavior (2) above doesn't make the cut of being defined as railroading.

When I use the term "railroading" I am only speaking of the first thing. I would never refer to the second thing, and frankly don't know any other examples that do not meet the standard set by 1. And, under those lights, I don't see how it is possible for players to achieve #1. They aren't arbitrators in the first place, so they can't stop being neutral ones!

Well, part of the point is that it's not so straightforward! I'll explain:

* Some people think it is perfectly acceptable, even skilful, GMing to manipulate the backstory so that a pre-conceived series of events unfolds in play - and to do that without fuding, or making X thing arbitrarily high. Having extra NPCs show up as needed; having extra clues turn up as needed; having the weather or the terrain unfold as needed; these are all ways of doing that.

* I personally regard that sort of thing as railroading. The use of such techniques means that, while players have choices to make at action resolution time, the actual outcomes of those choices don't make any difference to what happens next - at least, not the "bit picture" of what happens next. For instance, even if a player's declared action results in the BBEG being killed, or the house being burned down before the PCs can explore it, the GM uses the sorts of techniques I've described to introduce another NPC to play the BBEG role, or to place the assets and/or information the PCs (and players) were "supposed" to get from the house somewhere else.

I was trying to work out whether you incline towards the first or second of my two dot points. I gather you incline towards the first, but perhaps I've misinterpreted you. I'm not 100% sure.

I would not be happy with the examples stated in your first point, at least not as presented. That is, it "just so happens" that a helpful NPC is right there every time we need them? No, that stretches my suspension of disbelief far too much. Sometimes it can be the case, sure. But if the DM has actually done a sufficient job of justifying the situation at hand, then no "manipulation" is required.

That's my sticking point here. I work, very hard, to create well-reasoned, well-justified explanations for things. Justifications that, for example, may stretch back months or (at this point) years IRL, because I put pieces down in anticipation of needing them at some nebulous potential future time. As an example, I had always intended that a certain NPC, Tenryu Shen, was a gold dragon in disguise. I left hints and subtle indications that something was Different about him, but it wasn't until the party had really proved themselves as heroes (and personally aided Shen with something) that he revealed his true nature and mission to them. We also established, early on, that Shen could heal physical, mental, and spiritual maladies that ordinary healing wouldn't affect, and this became very useful to the party later on. Would this count as "manipulating the backstory so that a pre-conceived series of events unfold[ed] in play"? As I said, I had always intended for him to be a gold dragon, one both aiding the party and requesting their aid in return.

I had planned for him to be useful to the party under the specific conditions of that adventure (adapted from the most excellent, if creepy, The Gardens of Ynn, which I re-named to the Garden-City of Zerzura, stealing from a real-world myth.) And, through his aid and requests, I was able to send the party to important locations, reveal other backstory elements they had not yet seen, and in other ways "show my work" as it were. Is that "manipulating" or is it just...telling a story? When I had a pair of Kahina (a Shaman and a Druid) provide requested advice for how to deal with an evil spirit (something Kahina are quite adept at doing), and pointed the party to a new NPC I made up on the spot, that would both answer the party's questions and inspire new questions based on her origins (the so-called "Elf forests" to the south), was that "manipulating" the party so they would eventually investigate those then-unmapped woods in order to explore the vague concepts I'd invented, or was that me just making it so the party would have a reason to look into some of the blank spaces on the map?

I try my best to avoid manipulating my players. I want them to do things purely because they enjoy them, not because they think I want them to do some specific thing or other. They have surprised and outwitted me several times over the course of this game, and I do my level best to weave every such swerve and shock into the world. I would be deeply disappointed--in myself, to be clear--if I found out that the only reason they'd done a bunch of stuff was because they thought they "had" to in order to appease me.

To drive this home - A GM doesn't just declare you stab and kill yourself with your sword because you attacked and they want you to die. A GM doesn't drop rocks on your characters head in the middle of an open field because you said/did something he didn't like. This would all be examples of what would universally be seen as bad GMing.

So describing GM authority over consequences expectations as unfettered goes to far. But the boundaries between what is acceptable and what isn't are often a bit fuzzy and tend to vary a bit from table to table.

Then why does the player get to do that very thing? You're saying we shouldn't think of DMs as having truly unfettered ability, because they'll fetter themselves at least to some degree if they wish to avoid being outright bad. Why are you allowed to use a really awful player intentionally behaving provocatively and rudely, but others aren't allowed to use really awful DMs intentionally behaving provocatively and rudely?

If the DM can't declare that rocks fall and everyone dies because that would be bad DM practice, it should absolutely also be the case that players can't just unilaterally declare certain actions happen, no matter what, because that would be bad player practice.

 

[FrogReaver]

When I use the term "railroading" I am only speaking of the first thing. I would never refer to the second thing, and frankly don't know any other examples that do not meet the standard set by 1. And, under those lights, I don't see how it is possible for players to achieve #1. They aren't arbitrators in the first place, so they can't stop being neutral ones!

The claim was that those were DM behaviors that get called railroading. The important take away is that (1) was about mismatched expectations and not anything inherently bad. *I'm really not sure why your talking about player railroading here when what you quoted (and the part you actually responded to) was about GM railroading.

Then why does the player get to do that very thing? You're saying we shouldn't think of DMs as having truly unfettered ability, because they'll fetter themselves at least to some degree if they wish to avoid being outright bad.

That's not the reason why. Table expectation reigns in the DM's authority. Thus, no rocks fall on your heads.

Why are you allowed to use a really awful player intentionally behaving provocatively and rudely, but others aren't allowed to use really awful DMs intentionally behaving provocatively and rudely?

I'm sorry but, 'I attack these NPCs' does not a really awful player make. You have to be reading something more into that situation to come to that conclusion.

If the DM can't declare that rocks fall and everyone dies because that would be bad DM practice, it should absolutely also be the case that players can't just unilaterally declare certain actions happen, no matter what, because that would be bad player practice.

Players unilaterally declare what their characters do. DM's unilaterally declare the outcomes. That's how D&D is played. Table expectations can reign in either. But while I've seen table expectations not let DM's drop rocks on players heads. I've never seen table expectations keep a player from attacking NPC's.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Players unilaterally declare what their characters do. DM's unilaterally declare the outcomes. That's how D&D is played. Table expectations can reign in either. But while I've seen table expectations not let DM's drop rocks on players heads. I've never seen table expectations keep a player from attacking NPC's.

So...the disruptive player, the player preventing the other party members from doing what they actually want to do, the player consistently denying other players even the opportunity to do what they want to do, isn't being rude? Shouldn't be reined in by table expectations?

Because that was the example you gave me. It wasn't just a one-off impulsive player doing a thing just one time. It was that a player is literally not allowed to play the way they want to play, because another player always prevents them.

How is that not violating table expectations? Don't your tables expect players to be respectful to each other and the things they want to do? Don't your tables have an expectation of at least giving a few moments for someone to say, "hey, I don't really want to do that"? And if your table does have that expectation...how could it possibly permit this alleged "player railroading" you talk about?

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but that's not railroading. Yes, the PC can start a fight by attacking, and then the rest of the PCs can leave him there to fight by himself. He can't make them fight, so no rails.

Possibly. But this gets back into DM railroading. Is that really what the NPC's would have done or is the DM just railroading the party into his preferred outcome (probably most of their preferred outcome as well). Congrats for finding a strong example of good railroading

The DM can also just say no if the player is doing it to be disruptive. "No, you don't attack. Your PC is now an NPC, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

That's not a power given to him by the game. That's a power given to him via social contract. And in some situations he may very well not have that authority - say the player who is being disruptive is the same player whose house they are playing at.

And of course if all the players want to force a fight, well then the NPC was ready to act just in case of violence, goes first and activates an escape item. The DM is the only one who can actually force a railroad.

 

[FrogReaver]

So...the disruptive player, the player preventing the other party members from doing what they actually want to do, the player consistently denying other players even the opportunity to do what they want to do, isn't being rude? Shouldn't be reined in by table expectations?

Why are you adding so much to this story? Who said anything about consistently doing anything. I said he did it one time. Suddenly you've turned it into him doing it all the time.

Because that was the example you gave me. It wasn't just a one-off impulsive player doing a thing just one time. It was that a player is literally not allowed to play the way they want to play, because another player always prevents them.

I think you've added alot to that example in trying to get it to make sense with your viewpoint.

How is that not violating table expectations? Don't your tables expect players to be respectful to each other and the things they want to do?

If one player wants to combat and the other player wants to talk - how do you establish which is being disrespectful. Is it whichever declares slower?

Don't your tables have an expectation of at least giving a few moments for someone to say, "hey, I don't really want to do that"? And if your table does have that expectation...how could it possibly permit this alleged "player railroading" you talk about?

Not sure what you are asking here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why are you adding so much to this story? Who said anything about consistently doing anything. I said he did it one time. Suddenly you've turned it into him doing it all the time.

One, momentary, instance of an impulsive player interrupting is absolutely not anything like "railroading." A singular, one-off instance of being unable to do the thing you wanted to do is not loss of agency. It simply isn't. It's an accident, an unfortunate turn of events.

You specifically and repeatedly described it as "loss of agency." A one-off instance of it, not meaning to be disruptive, just getting fired up or whatever, is a perfectly forgivable misstep. Your exact words were also quite generic, not at all making it sound like a single instance: "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."

I think you've added alot to that example in trying to get it to make sense with your viewpoint.

I mean, you keep calling it loss of agency, that's why I read it that way.

If one player wants to combat and the other player wants to talk - how do you establish which is being disrespectful. Is it whichever declares slower?

Absolutely not. Being disrespectful to your fellow players is doing something that can't be walked back, which directly affects them and their goals, without consulting them first. How is this a difficult concept? It's literally the way anything like that works. Just as it's disrespectful, for example, to eat the last of someone else's food unless you ask them first, or disrespectful to spend someone else's money unless you have explicit permission first.

"I want to try to negotiate" is quite easy to back down from. "I want to physically assault them" is a hell of a lot harder to walk back. That's a clear, cut-and-dried difference. And, honestly? The respectful thing is to confer with your fellow players regardless of what you want to do, because that shows that you care what they're interested in doing. Now, maybe it "conferring" is something as simple as exchanging knowing glances (if you play at a physical table) or a simple "How we feeling about these guys?" (if you play over voice, like I do). Communication is always superior to assuming you know how people feel.

Not sure what you are asking here.

Your example was a player forcing outcomes on other players by preventing them from participating at all--by zooming in so fast there's no possibility the other player could even attempt to do something else or stop them, which you claimed was a denial of agency. That's being, honestly, pretty gorram rude--as I said, it's forgivable if it's a rare occurrence, everyone gets excited now and then. But doesn't your table have an expectation that players get to participate and have a voice in what the party overall does? I would absolutely not want to have the game so easily pushed around by a single player, even if it's a different player every time. I expect my players to have the patience and courtesy to, y'know, let people think through stuff and make a decision. It doesn't have to be long, a minute's thought is usually enough to get a real conversation started or come to a decision.

So. Doesn't your table have an expectation that players will get a chance to talk to each other before overt actions occur?

As an example, my players have learned that I use a certain ritual phrase whenever I want to tell them "you may want to pause and think about this" without saying those words. I say either "Is that really what you do/say?" or "Did you really do/say that?" or the like. If it's really, really unwise, I may even ask, "Are you sure?" if I get a yes to the previous question (have only done so once in the current campaign over the course of about three years.) The vast majority of the time, the players are just joking around or otherwise not actually acting in-character, I'm just checking in. Occasionally, a player is jumping the gun, and me asking the question gets them to take a metaphorical step back and listen to what the other players think. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, since if the player says yes, and no one raises objections, I'll go along with it. But just that little bit of "hey, give it a sec maybe?" is enough to make sure players get a voice, get to participate, get to have some effect on the action--in other words, they still have agency, even if they don't determine what specific action occurs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I use the term "railroading" I am only speaking of the first thing. I would never refer to the second thing, and frankly don't know any other examples that do not meet the standard set by 1. And, under those lights, I don't see how it is possible for players to achieve #1. They aren't arbitrators in the first place, so they can't stop being neutral ones!


I would not be happy with the examples stated in your first point, at least not as presented. That is, it "just so happens" that a helpful NPC is right there every time we need them? No, that stretches my suspension of disbelief far too much. Sometimes it can be the case, sure. But if the DM has actually done a sufficient job of justifying the situation at hand, then no "manipulation" is required.

That's my sticking point here. I work, very hard, to create well-reasoned, well-justified explanations for things. Justifications that, for example, may stretch back months or (at this point) years IRL, because I put pieces down in anticipation of needing them at some nebulous potential future time. As an example, I had always intended that a certain NPC, Tenryu Shen, was a gold dragon in disguise. I left hints and subtle indications that something was Different about him, but it wasn't until the party had really proved themselves as heroes (and personally aided Shen with something) that he revealed his true nature and mission to them. We also established, early on, that Shen could heal physical, mental, and spiritual maladies that ordinary healing wouldn't affect, and this became very useful to the party later on. Would this count as "manipulating the backstory so that a pre-conceived series of events unfold[ed] in play"? As I said, I had always intended for him to be a gold dragon, one both aiding the party and requesting their aid in return.

I had planned for him to be useful to the party under the specific conditions of that adventure (adapted from the most excellent, if creepy, The Gardens of Ynn, which I re-named to the Garden-City of Zerzura, stealing from a real-world myth.) And, through his aid and requests, I was able to send the party to important locations, reveal other backstory elements they had not yet seen, and in other ways "show my work" as it were. Is that "manipulating" or is it just...telling a story? When I had a pair of Kahina (a Shaman and a Druid) provide requested advice for how to deal with an evil spirit (something Kahina are quite adept at doing), and pointed the party to a new NPC I made up on the spot, that would both answer the party's questions and inspire new questions based on her origins (the so-called "Elf forests" to the south), was that "manipulating" the party so they would eventually investigate those then-unmapped woods in order to explore the vague concepts I'd invented, or was that me just making it so the party would have a reason to look into some of the blank spaces on the map?

I try my best to avoid manipulating my players. I want them to do things purely because they enjoy them, not because they think I want them to do some specific thing or other. They have surprised and outwitted me several times over the course of this game, and I do my level best to weave every such swerve and shock into the world. I would be deeply disappointed--in myself, to be clear--if I found out that the only reason they'd done a bunch of stuff was because they thought they "had" to in order to appease me.


Then why does the player get to do that very thing? You're saying we shouldn't think of DMs as having truly unfettered ability, because they'll fetter themselves at least to some degree if they wish to avoid being outright bad. Why are you allowed to use a really awful player intentionally behaving provocatively and rudely, but others aren't allowed to use really awful DMs intentionally behaving provocatively and rudely?

If the DM can't declare that rocks fall and everyone dies because that would be bad DM practice, it should absolutely also be the case that players can't just unilaterally declare certain actions happen, no matter what, because that would be bad player practice.

To be blunt -- there's a lot of Force in what you're describing. That's not a problem, in and of itself. Force isn't automatically negative. It's a tool in the toolbox. However, people are going to have different tolerances for Force, and different breakpoints where repeated Force crosses their line into Railroading. What you're describing here is enough Force to cross @pemerton's line, if I understand him at all.

I say this because I've run this kind of Big Story game before, and I've looked back at what I was doing, with the careful crafting and the foreshadowing and the like, and recognized it as Force. I mean, the point of foreshadowing is to presage a reveal, and that reveal usually has little, if anything, to do with the players; it's an occurrence that will happen when the trigger for it is reached, without real care if the players are interested in that happening or want it to. It's part of the story! I had a blast running my Big Story game. My players had a blast. There's nothing wrong with doing this. But, if a player has a lower tolerance, then this kind of game absolutely feels like a railroad. I can understand that and I don't think it reflects badly on anyone involved -- it's not a dig at the game or the player or the GM. It's just a mismatch in play agendas. I mean, if I said that a powergamer would disrupt the kind of Big Story game you wanted to run and that you need to move them on, there'd be no problems here. I think that this is because the problem is placed on the player so the game is protected, but that's kinda silly -- it's still just a mismatch in play agendas.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be blunt -- there's a lot of Force in what you're describing. That's not a problem, in and of itself. Force isn't automatically negative. It's a tool in the toolbox. However, people are going to have different tolerances for Force, and different breakpoints where repeated Force crosses their line into Railroading. What you're describing here is enough Force to cross @pemerton's line, if I understand him at all.

I say this because I've run this kind of Big Story game before, and I've looked back at what I was doing, with the careful crafting and the foreshadowing and the like, and recognized it as Force. I mean, the point of foreshadowing is to presage a reveal, and that reveal usually has little, if anything, to do with the players; it's an occurrence that will happen when the trigger for it is reached, without real care if the players are interested in that happening or want it to. It's part of the story! I had a blast running my Big Story game. My players had a blast. There's nothing wrong with doing this. But, if a player has a lower tolerance, then this kind of game absolutely feels like a railroad. I can understand that and I don't think it reflects badly on anyone involved -- it's not a dig at the game or the player or the GM. It's just a mismatch in play agendas. I mean, if I said that a powergamer would disrupt the kind of Big Story game you wanted to run and that you need to move them on, there'd be no problems here. I think that this is because the problem is placed on the player so the game is protected, but that's kinda silly -- it's still just a mismatch in play agendas.

So...all the times where the players did something that had enormous effects on the future events of the game were irrelevant?

E.g., the time the player surprised me by proposing to accept a (non-negotiated) contract with a devil--a contract I had never even considered, let alone planned--was irrelevent? Or the several times we went into a session and I literally had no notes because I intentionally chose not to prepare anything, so that whatever happened was an organic growth out of the current events following their previous adventure?

I don't deny that I put things into the world so they can be discovered, I never have. I have two players who very much love to explore a world; if there were absolutely nothing whatsoever until they went to places, they wouldn't have any fun.

And like...doesn't this mean it's literally impossible to have ANYTHING prepped at all, without using "force"? If that's true, then...I don't equate "force" with "railroading." Because even games that are supposed to be radically player-driven, like Dungeon World, you have things like Fronts, "draw maps, leave blanks" (how can you draw a map if you never prep anything?), and "exploit your prep" (can't exploit a thing that you're never supposed to be doing...)

There are threats in the world. The world keeps rolling even if the players don't engage with things. This can mean, for example, that if they focus on dealing with Threat A, Threat B will evolve in their absence and become harder to deal with, or branch out in new directions. Tons of story elements that are now very important in this game would never have happened if the players had not chosen to deal with various events as they did--I've created entities and their goals, and they pursue those goals, and the players' actions can deflect, focus, or interrupt those goals. The "black dragon gang," for example, has largely been ignored by the players as they focus on other things--this has allowed it to act more or less with impunity, becoming a much more serious threat than it would've been otherwise. By comparison, they dealt like two or three crushing blows to the Shadow-Druids, so even though they haven't completely solved that problem, they've so thoroughly weakened it that it'll take a long time to recover.

So...are Fronts a form of force? And does ANY use of force whatsoever automatically mean "railroading"? Because I don't really know that they are force, and even if they are, I definitely see this use of force as very different from railroading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So...all the times where the players did something that had enormous effects on the future events of the game were irrelevant?

Maybe. To a player that has a low tolerance for Force, yes.

E.g., the time the player surprised me by proposing to accept a (non-negotiated) contract with a devil--a contract I had never even considered, let alone planned--was irrelevent? Or the several times we went into a session and I literally had no notes because I intentionally chose not to prepare anything, so that whatever happened was an organic growth out of the current events following their previous adventure?

I don't deny that I put things into the world so they can be discovered, I never have. I have two players who very much love to explore a world; if there were absolutely nothing whatsoever until they went to places, they wouldn't have any fun.

And like...doesn't this mean it's literally impossible to have ANYTHING prepped at all, without using "force"? If that's true, then...I don't equate "force" with "railroading." Because even games that are supposed to be radically player-driven, like Dungeon World, you have things like Fronts, "draw maps, leave blanks" (how can you draw a map if you never prep anything?), and "exploit your prep" (can't exploit a thing that you're never supposed to be doing...)

Yes, it is possible to prep without Force. That's not the argument I'm making. You can't prep outcomes, but when you're talking about your game as a story that's nearly impossible to avoid. Again, I'm absolutely talking about my own play here as well -- I've done this and enjoyed it. I won't do it again anytime soon -- so much work! -- but my table found it very fun. And I've played in these games as well. Heck, I had one pitched to me as "look, this is a railroad, but the scenery's gonna be great and there will be stations where you can wander around." That game was one of the most memorable I've been in -- tremendously well done, thoroughly fun, well executed and a total railroad. So, do not take this as attacking your play. It's not. I'm just pointing out that there is a point of view where your play is not what a given player wants and why. To me this is good to know because it helps me make my game better tailored to need.

There are threats in the world. The world keeps rolling even if the players don't engage with things. This can mean, for example, that if they focus on dealing with Threat A, Threat B will evolve in their absence and become harder to deal with, or branch out in new directions. Tons of story elements that are now very important in this game would never have happened if the players had not chosen to deal with various events as they did--I've created entities and their goals, and they pursue those goals, and the players' actions can deflect, focus, or interrupt those goals. The "black dragon gang," for example, has largely been ignored by the players as they focus on other things--this has allowed it to act more or less with impunity, becoming a much more serious threat than it would've been otherwise. By comparison, they dealt like two or three crushing blows to the Shadow-Druids, so even though they haven't completely solved that problem, they've so thoroughly weakened it that it'll take a long time to recover.

So...are Fronts a form of force? And does ANY use of force whatsoever automatically mean "railroading"? Because I don't really know that they are force, and even if they are, I definitely see this use of force as very different from railroading.

The way you've described them they are. The way that DW uses them (where the term Fronts comes from) is different -- it's keyed to the players and it's a source of complication when called for by the system. If the GM is just driving the threat how the GM wants, well, that's kinda right there definitionally for Force.

And, again, Force is not a bad thing in an of itself. It's a tool in the box. It can be abused and it can be used to great effect. It's just a thing. I don't think it's possible to run 5e without Force -- the assumptions the game is built upon rely strongly on the GM driving the game, and doing that while avoiding Force is pretty darned impossible. So, then, if it's effectively a must, as we clearly have fun 5e games out there, then Force can't be something that just destroys games. People will have different tolerances to when it's too much. Being told that your game is going to be too much for some players shouldn't be a problem. I'm okay with some people not liking my games. I figure that has to happen, I'm not going to be upset about it.