D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[FrogReaver]

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.

Depends on how one defines agency I guess.

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.

PC's sometimes end up with competing goals or the same goal and competing methods. Whichever player that gets his way isn't being disrespectful to others.

"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.

I would find it very odd if players stopped the game to ask me if I was cool with what they were wanting to do

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

Not really. Player A goes declares an action. DM gives others a bit to declare simultaneous actions and then resolves them and narrates the outcomes. If Player B comes up with something player A wants a part of and the DM hasn't narrated it yet then he's free to change his action. Pretty simple, but no expectation that players talk about their actions.

 

[Campbell]

@EzekielRaiden

I am sometimes willing to accept a game with a strong linear storytelling emphasis, but if I am not certain the other people I am playing with are fundamentally playing to find out what happens I have trouble investing myself in the characters and the situation. I can still have fun, but it's not the same kind of fun as feeling the very real tension of the moment and getting to really step inside my character and feel what they are feeling. It's not the same kind of fun as knowing my decisions will have a definite impact. It's not the same kind of fun as investing myself in the other characters (including some NPCs) and situation to see who they will end up being.

It absolutely does not matter to me if the people I am playing with are sometimes playing to find out what happens if I cannot depend on it. If my decisions only have an impact when other people allow them to then there is no real impact to my decisions. I can like accept that and just go along with it if I know that going in (and am willing to play that sort of game), but I'm not going to get emotionally invested in play in the same way as one where the tension is fundamentally real. I'm just not going to be able to bring my best stuff.

This is fundamentally true for me on either side of the screen. That energy of trying to shape outcomes just fundamentally kills my ability to invest in the fiction.

I don't like have to be deeply invested in the fiction to enjoy playing a game though. I mean I have enjoyed playing in a Giovanni Chronicles game that I very much knew was going to be a guided experience. The Storyteller did alleviate a lot of the tension by being pretty transparent about which parts were guided and which were not though. That helped me become more invested in the not plot parts of the game. I have had a similar experience with the 5e game I am a player in as well. The Scion game I ran was also pretty guided. I don't object to that sort of play on a fundamental level. I just experience it the same I experience a movie, video game, or television show with strong embedded tropes. It's entertaining, but the stakes and characters just don't feel real to me.

This is only my personal experience. I cannot and should not speak for anyone else. I tend to have a very low tolerance for force I cannot see coming. If I agree to it before hand I can usually deal with more transparent force. If it's not transparent I can still deal somewhat, but my involvement is going to be pretty damn casual.

 

[Campbell]

I think on the conflict between what two players intend to do for their characters bit it's important to consider the players and the characters separately. Is there a conflict between the directions the players would want to see the fiction go in? Is there just a conflict between what the characters want? Is there an essential conflict between these characters being at play at the same table due to the scope of the game?

My general orientation towards this (which may change depending on the game) is that as long as players are being honest advocates for their characters they should be given as free a reign as possible. I mean I want to find out what they will do under tension. I am curious. I am a fan of theirs. Let's see how it plays out.

This does assume that players are creating and playing interesting, dynamic characters that we can all be invested in. That they are staying within the scope of play. If we reach a point where advocating honestly for their character means that character is no longer in the scope of play we can have a discussion about it. Keeping that meta channel open is important to me as well. That does not mean they are being a jerk or playing wrong. It's just means their character either was not a good fit or became a poor one through the course of play. We can make adjustments to the character or swap them out. Often this gives the game a pretty good new antagonist.

There are totally different sorts of arrangements here. This is just generally the one I often prefer for more character focused play.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

Yup.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

And do you see how this is forcing the DM to respond to the player's fiction. It is not the DM's.

And how many games have you been in where the DM throws someone out? How many games have you been in where a player decides to do something stupid and the party completely abandons them? In my experience, never. The PCs might defuse the fight or watch and then heal the railroader once they fall. But they never completely abandon the PC.

 

[Scott Christian]

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."

So when a DM manipulates the fight to have their preferred outcome - one time - that's not railroading.

Got it.

 

[Campbell]

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.

For my part I pretty much view 1 and 2 as pretty similar no matter what you want to call it because I view both as coming from the same intention - to dictate where The Story™ should go. It's that intention that matters to me. The details of how they go about realizing that intention can matter to some people, but they do not really matter that much to me personally. I can see how that distinction can be important to some people though.

 

[Maxperson]

And do you see how this is forcing the DM to respond to the player's fiction. It is not the DM's.

I see that the either the DM kicked the player out and there was no response in the fiction, or DM railroaded the players by denying the fiction they wanted and forcing his own desired outcome.

And how many games have you been in where the DM throws someone out? How many games have you been in where a player decides to do something stupid and the party completely abandons them? In my experience, never. The PCs might defuse the fight or watch and then heal the railroader once they fall. But they never completely abandon the PC.

You've moved the goalposts here. I didn't say the player did something dumb. I said he was being disruptive, which is an intentional behavior to wreck the game for all of those involved. That would get me to kick him out. Making a dumb move and getting the party into trouble isn't being disruptive, nor is it railroading. The game is about player agency and choice.

Honoring a dumb decision by having it affect the fiction isn't me being railroaded. Me responding to the players is the entire point of the game. In fact, the only way such an act on the part of the player(s) could possibly come close to forcing me to do something, would be if I were already railroading them and their action was counter to my set plan. I don't have a set plan, so the fiction responding to the PCs is simply normal game play. Player agency =/= railroading the DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

For my part I pretty much view 1 and 2 as pretty similar no matter what you want to call it because I view both as coming from the same intention - to dictate where The Story™ should go. It's that intention that matters to me. The details of how they go about realizing that intention can matter to some people, but they do not really matter that much to me personally. I can see how that distinction can be important to some people though.

Curious, do you believe a GM can be a neutral arbiter in a linear adventure?

 

[Maxperson]

So when a DM manipulates the fight to have their preferred outcome - one time - that's not railroading.

Got it.

That's where I disagree with him. One instance is just a very short rail, but it is railroading still. Multiple instances just make for a longer track.