D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Maxperson]

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

Enforcing it in the game isn't the proper avenue in my opinion. If we've agreed to all play wizards and Terrance shows up with a cleric, we don't kill the cleric so he has to make a new guy. We talk to him and tell him he agreed to a wizard and so he needs to make one for this game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Enforcing it in the game isn't the proper avenue in my opinion. If we've agreed to all play wizards and Terrance shows up with a cleric, we don't kill the cleric so he has to make a new guy. We talk to him and tell him he agreed to a wizard and so he needs to make one for this game.

Is it railroading to enforce it outside the game?

 

[Maxperson]

Is it railroading to enforce it outside the game?

No. It can't be. Railroading is forcing the PCs down a path and invalidating player agency(over their characters). Fixing a social contract violation outside of the game doesn't involve the fiction or player agency.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

No sure what Scott is arguing for, but Plot Driven Games or whatever we call it are not the same as railroading for me.

The GM force is there to enforce what the players want and have agreed upon, and is usually done at the macro level.

For various reasons (time saving for the GM, they find APs provide more interesting stories and drama than their open games, etc.) the group has prioritized being "on the rails".

That said, for me good Plot Driven GMs don't use much GM force at the micro level or short term level. You don't usually need to fudge dice or shut down player's clever plans or action declarations. You can usually let the PCs have their win and bring things back on the rails through macro force (another plot hook, another NPC drives the action forward vs. the one that was killed).

That macro force is sanctioned by the players and IS what they want to do, prioritized over everything else in many AP games.

Anyway, my argument for different terms. Using the perjorative "railroading" for DM force applied in servce to the main agreed upon group goal (we want to play through this AP), just seems to confuse things.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. It can't be. Railroading is forcing the PCs down a path and invalidating player agency(over their characters). Fixing a social contract violation outside of the game doesn't involve the fiction or player agency.

Making sure I’m clear. So if Bob wants to be a cleric and the table agreed to play only wizards then forcing him to play a wizard PC would not be railroading?

Also, If the table has agreed to play a linear adventure and the GM forces them to adhere to that linear adventure that would not be railroading?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Also, If the table has agreed to play a linear adventure and the GM forces them to adhere to that linear adventure that would not be railroading?

I have trouble with this language. If the table has agreed to play through a linear adventure, the GM is not "forcing them to adhere". There is no need for them to be forced, they've agreed and welcome the "GM force" when needed.

It better to say "If the table has agreed to play a linear adventure and the GM uses GM force to ensure that they are able to play the linear adventure they want to play, that would not be railroading."

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

What you mean is the player is creating their own track. Right?

 

[Maxperson]

Making sure I’m clear. So if Bob wants to be a cleric and the table agreed to play only wizards then forcing him to play a wizard PC would not be railroading?

He already agreed to it. Enforcing it is holding him to his agreement. If he has suddenly and inexplicably changed his mind to such a rabid degree that he won't hold to his word, he can come back and play next campaign. The table doesn't have to change what it is doing to conform to his broken social contract. We aren't forcing him. We are not allowing him to force us.

Also, If the table has agreed to play a linear adventure and the GM forces them to adhere to that linear adventure that would not be railroading?

No. They've agreed to it during the social contract, though I would say that if the entire table has changed its mind, it's time for everyone to sit down out of game(where social contract stuff is handled) and figure out whether to start a new campaign, play a different game or what. We are all there to have fun.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

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.

Look. I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp, but we use different words to mean different things. Railroading is to keeps the story going as bully is to assertive. It's not rocket surgery. If you describe a manager as bossy, it says something based on this little thing called connotation. It says something entirely different you describe him as driven.

Do I seriously need to give a Basics of Communication 101 lecture so that people understand that word choice matters and you can't blindly grab words from a thesaurus?

 

[Scott Christian]

Look. I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp, but we use different words to mean different things. Railroading is to keeps the story going as bully is to assertive. It's not rocket surgery. If you describe a manager as bossy, it says something based on this little thing called connotation. It says something entirely different you describe him as driven.

Do I seriously need to give a Basics of Communication 101 lecture so that people understand that word choice matters and you can't blindly grab words from a thesaurus?

You are correct. Word choice matters.