D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Got it.

One time in an entire campaign? I can forgive a one-off error if you never make that error again, sure, as long as the error isn't too egregious.

If it's "just this one time" seven times a session, it sure as hell is. If it's "just one time" but it's a horrendous violation, it certainly could be. These things are contextual. Forgiveness should always be such.

Like...is this really that hard? I'm literally allowing for mistakes. When I don't allow for any mistakes ever, I'm this horrible draconian player who pitches a fit and destroys gaming groups and insults DMs. When I do allow for mistakes, my whole position is suddenly swiss cheese that means absolutely nothing.

I'm genuinely getting really gorram sick of people taking good-faith efforts to meet in the middle as an excuse to ride roughshod over an argument. I am outright trying to be congenial here, and I get crapped on. It'd be really nice if people stopped doing that.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

It's not always a pejorative. Railroading can be a fine way to play if the players have agreed in advance to playing on rails. I think it was this thread(but it's hard to remember with so many railroading threads), but I provided an example where when one of my players wanted to try DMing for the first time, he came to us and asked us not to deviate from the where the adventure took us. He said it was because he was new and was worried that he wouldn't be able to handle us properly if the group went wherever it wants like they can in my game. We all agreed and hopped aboard the choo choo.

One of my players likes his steak like that. I've almost had to ban him a few dozen times over the last few decades. My wife liked hers that way when we met. I've since gotten her down to medium, though when she tries my steak(medium rare), she always says how good it tastes. She refuses to order it that way, though.

I'm down with railroading when everyone's in agreement on it. Typically, the term is utilized as a pejorative, and I've never seen someone describe a wonderful GM as a railroader. Anecdotes to the contrary may exist.

For what it's worth, my husband doesn't even like steak. He prefers hamburgers, the philistine.

He's here we can let him speak for himself. @Helpful NPC Thom, do you believe that DM's have unfettered control over consequences or simply that they have broad control over consequences? And if so how do you view a DM saying 'rocks fall on you and kill you'?

In every single D&D game in which I have participated--either as player or GM--the GM is given absolute authority and they have license to alter mechanics and outcomes as they see fit. The only restraints on their power are the defined procedures within the game; e.g., d20 < AC is a missed attack. The GM, however, may change the rules or dice results unequivocally, but this is typically done invisibility, as it would be gauche to do so publicly. To answer directly: they have unfettered control over consequences inasfar as mechanics go, but their control is limited by social mores. As in, the GM is permitted to say "rocks fall, everyone dies," but this would be so poorly received that he will not.

As an individual living in Eagleland, I am permitted to lob colorful curses at my mother, but I choose not to swear at her due to social mores. Also because I'm an emotionally healthy individual who loves both his parents.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are using the term railroading to describe play as well. The difference is, it's mostly a finger wag. A no-no. A look how bad this DM is.

I'm using it to describe a specific instance of play, with specific inputs and outputs. You're using it generally to describe any moment of play. The clear intent here is to devalue the term, presumably because you think it's attacking GMs and they need to be protected?

Fine, railroading is totally useless. I again prompt you to provide a term for the instance of play where a GM uses their authority to force a preferred outcome while disregarding player input, action declarations, and/or system say.

 

[Scott Christian]

You need to explain to me how the player is enforcing a specific desired outcome on the GM. I'm not seeing it. Step through it for me, point out how it happens.

I have not leaned on examples because any example can be piecemealed enough times to present one side or the other side of an argument. That said, here is an attempt at an example:

The DM and group decide to run Hoard of the Dragon Queen. This is a social contract. The players know the DM will have a mostly linear story. He is running an adventure path as written. He is deciding the fiction and using this as a guide. One of the players, due to their character's backstory, is sabotaging the groups effort. Constantly triggering traps, getting the group caught, and minimizing any effective combat. Eventually he just fireballs one of the players after they drop in battle, thus killing the other player. He does all this due to his backstory.

This player is playing. They are also enforcing their specific outcome on the GM. It is directly against the social contract the GM signed up for. What can the GM do in game that is not also "railroading" to stop it? The answer - nothing. Especially if they are using the fiction written inside the adventure path.

Thus, the bad GM argument I am making. You do not need two separate terms. The only reason to have it is to finger wag.

The point is - stop using the term, especially since most use it with negative connotations (I know, not everyone.)

 

[Scott Christian]

I again prompt you to provide a term for the instance of play where a GM uses their authority to force a preferred outcome while disregarding player input, action declarations, and/or system say.

Episodic. Plot driven. Narrative based.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I'm down with railroading when everyone's in agreement on it. Typically, the term is utilized as a pejorative, and I've never seen someone describe a wonderful GM as a railroader. Anecdotes to the contrary may exist.

Not in those words, but there are groups that like a more heavy handed GM style that "keeps the story going well" or "keeps the pacing interesting" or other such descriptions. In effect, they could be saying "they are a wonderful railroader".

Railroading seems mostly used in the negative though with the assumption that the force is applied against the social contract, so I avoid the term when talking about such GMing style.

 

[Campbell]

If there's an issue with someone violating the social contract you should probably solve it socially. Trying to solve social problems with in game solutions never really resolves the underlying issues. If there is a conflict between the game a GM is running and the game a player wants to play you need to hash that out or it will keep coming up again and again.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Episodic. Plot driven. Narrative based.

Cool, it still doesn't change what's happening in play -- the GM is forcing outcomes the GM wants regardless of what the players do or want or what the systems says should happen. You've successfully argued for a euphemism. I guess we can now talk about how much we don't like Episodic or plot driven games, and now argue about how those terms don't describe what's actually happening, and GM can still be upset that their play is being called Episodic.

 

[FrogReaver]

If there's an issue with someone violating the social contract you should probably solve it socially. Trying to solve social problems with in game solutions never really resolves the underlying issues. If there is a conflict between the game a GM is running and the game a player wants to play you need to hash that out or it will keep coming up again and again.

Hmmm. Is it railroading to ‘enforce’ the social contract?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have not leaned on examples because any example can be piecemealed enough times to present one side or the other side of an argument. That said, here is an attempt at an example:

The DM and group decide to run Hoard of the Dragon Queen. This is a social contract. The players know the DM will have a mostly linear story. He is running an adventure path as written. He is deciding the fiction and using this as a guide. One of the players, due to their character's backstory, is sabotaging the groups effort. Constantly triggering traps, getting the group caught, and minimizing any effective combat. Eventually he just fireballs one of the players after they drop in battle, thus killing the other player. He does all this due to his backstory.

This player is playing. They are also enforcing their specific outcome on the GM. It is directly against the social contract the GM signed up for. What can the GM do in game that is not also "railroading" to stop it? The answer - nothing. Especially if they are using the fiction written inside the adventure path.

Thus, the bad GM argument I am making. You do not need two separate terms. The only reason to have it is to finger wag.

The point is - stop using the term, especially since most use it with negative connotations (I know, not everyone.)

Here's the thing, your example is describing what happens when the GM's railroad is being actively fought by the players. Your attempted example of a player side railroad is actually the thwarting of the GM's planned railroad. If you described this play absent a planned story the GM is telling, it's unremarkable. The only power your example has is that it showcases that players might be able to buck a railroad by being disruptive. You ask how the GM can counter this without engaging in railroading, but you started with the GM railroading -- it's already there.

As for using the term, it's used to describe play that most find unpleasant and disliked. I see no need for it to not carry negative connotations.