D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

No, I mean the player is trying to not follow the GM's tracks. Their ability to do so is still up to the GM. You're arguing that the only defense the GM has to this disruptive player (because you can't talk to them outside the game, apparently) is to employ railroading, but the player's disruption is only there because it's bucking the GM's railroading.

The very fact that to make your point you have to postulate a disruptive player should be telling you something -- a non-disruptive player would just be following the GM's tracks. The disruptive player requires the GM to exert more Force to keep things on the GM's tracks. But, we cannot notice the role of the GM's tracks here, because you want this to be about the disruptive player.

First, if a player creates fiction, they are creating a track. No different than a DM. And, of course they can talk outside the table. That is not what we are discussing.

Second, the player is not disruptive. I stated it twice. They are following their inclination that is in their backstory. You may view it as disruptive, others might view it as roleplaying. Either way, the player meets your definition of railroading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, if a player creates fiction, they are creating a track. No different than a DM. And, of course they can talk outside the table. That is not what we are discussing.

Ah, so if a player says their character jumps to the moon, this is the same thing as what the GM does -- the GM is powerless to say anything about this, because a track has been laid down, railroads are a-coming? No, I'll not agree that action declarations are enforcing outcomes with disregard to the GM's intent, the GM's authority over resolutions, or the system's say. This is just play, with you trying to create a rhetorical false equivalence so you can say a player declaring an action is railroading so let's stop calling GM's driving play however they want and regardless of the players railroading.

Second, the player is not disruptive. I stated it twice. They are following their inclination that is in their backstory. You may view it as disruptive, others might view it as roleplaying. Either way, the player meets your definition of railroading.

Oh, yes, when you said that what they were doing is against the social contract that isn't an indicator of disruptive play. And there's never a chance that just because backstory play can't be disruptive. My next character's backstory will be "acts in the most disruptive way possible at all times," and then, if someone says I'm being disruptive, I'll deploy that old canard "I'm just playing my character!"

And no, the player doesn't. Because my definition of railroading is continued application of Force. And my definition of Force is "the GM using their authority to enforce preferred outcomes while disregarding player input, action declaration, and/or system say." Emphasis on the key parts that you seem to have missed (it's most of the sentence, even). Here we have a player declaring an action. The outcome is not being enforced. The system still has say. The GM still has say. Nothing is being disregarded, and no preferred outcomes are being created. You're arguing that playing the game is a railroad. I mean, if the player plays along with the GM's story, and doesn't do all the things you've claimed but aids the story and helps the party, then by your arguments this is just as much railroading as your example! In fact, NO play example escapes railroading. So, no, your example certainly does not meet the definition.

 

[FrogReaver]

Literally addressed this in the original post: participationism.

When I’m advocating for the same kind of thing I don’t understand why you replying to me instead of those that actually are advocating against the position you took there?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Depending on the player tolerance, they absolutely can be. If I have low tolerance for Force, then any Plot Driven game will be railroading.

However, I don't necessarily disagree to the general point, here, and this argument is exactly what I was saying would happen.

I don't know that this is true. The players have at least agreed to Force, but that's not quite synonymous with want.

I don't think we really disagree here. If you have no tolerance for Force or Illusionism and are unwilling to make the social contract, you probably shouldn't play Plot Driven games as you will feel railroaded.

I'm arguing that any Plot Driven game by necessity involves some Force or Illusionism, and once you realize this then by agreeing to play in such a game (like an Adventure path) you should be sanctioning this Force. Maybe "want" is not the right word, but you are no longer "railroaded" because it's not going against your will or agency. Your agency selecting the Plot Driven game overrides anything else. You are saying "I am aware and willing to have the GM use Force and Illusionism in service of keeping us within the plot of the Adventure Path. One of my primary goals is to play through the Plot, getting to experience the (hopefully) well crafted set piece battles, loactions, etc." Otherwise, you are likely going to feel frustrated and railroaded at some point? Why set yourself up for that?

However...

I'm not quite clear on the macro/micro levels. If the macro levels are pushing micro play, then it's extending down -- play is this because of that. The need to not corral individual attack rolls seems like a trivial distinction to what play is about.

The amount of Force and Illusionism needed can very greatly from game to game and GM to GM.

So, I can see having a preference to minimize the Force or Illusionism as much as possible, while realizing you can probably never get rid of it completely in a Plot Driven game. Good backgrounds/motivations, biting on obvious hooks, etc. are all ways to try to mitigate the need for GM Force.

And at what level the Force gets applied makes a difference for me, anyway.

Say I'm playing a published AP where we need to get into a stronghold and steal something from the basement. The Big Bad is in the basement but is meant to "escape" and come back later. The AP is written with a frontal assualt in mind. We come up with a plan to tunnel up from the basement and steal the X instead.

GM A: applies Force so the tunneling just doesn't work, and forces the frontal assault and the 4 planned battles. The PCs get lucky with a bad save from the BBG but the GM fudges so he lives and escapes.

GM B: there is no good reason this won't work so goes with the flow and the party tunnels up and has 1 battle. The PCs get lucky with a bad save from the BBG and the BBG dies. Some other NPC will take his place later in the AP

But no matter what they are going to get to plot point B and keep them on the rails so that they all can play through the next module.

In the end maybe it's the same, but I can tolerate GM B "macro" Force vs. GM A "micro" Force much better.

 

[Campbell]

Not everything a GM (or other player) does that impacts player agency is railroading. Railroading requires the motive to push the narrative in a given direction in order to tell a particular story. If I make a ruling based on the fictional situation that your wizard cannot beat an owlbear in a wrestling match that is most definitely not railroading because it lacked the motivation to present a particular sort of narrative. It still impacts player agency though.

Edit : Going to let my initial point stand, but I really do not like discussing railroading as a thing because it becomes a proxy for what players can or should find acceptable when that's a decision we all get to make for ourselves.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think we really disagree here. If you have no tolerance for Force or Illusionism and are unwilling to make the social contract, you probably shouldn't play Plot Driven games as you will feel railroaded.

I'm arguing that any Plot Driven game by necessity involves some Force or Illusionism, and once you realize this then by agreeing to play in such a game (like an Adventure path) you should be sanctioning this Force. Maybe "want" is not the right word, but you are no longer "railroaded" because it's not going against your will or agency. Your agency selecting the Plot Driven game overrides anything else. You are saying "I am aware and willing to have the GM use Force and Illusionism in service of keeping us within the plot of the Adventure Path. One of my primary goals is to play through the Plot, getting to experience the (hopefully) well crafted set piece battles, loactions, etc." Otherwise, you are likely going to feel frustrated and railroaded at some point? Why set yourself up for that?

Right, participationism!

However...



The amount of Force and Illusionism needed can very greatly from game to game and GM to GM.

So, I can see having a preference to minimize the Force or Illusionism as much as possible, while realizing you can probably never get rid of it completely in a Plot Driven game. Good backgrounds/motivations, biting on obvious hooks, etc. are all ways to try to mitigate the need for GM Force.

And at what level the Force gets applied makes a difference for me, anyway.

Say I'm playing a published AP where we need to get into a stronghold and steal something from the basement. The Big Bad is in the basement but is meant to "escape" and come back later. The AP is written with a frontal assualt in mind. We come up with a plan to tunnel up from the basement and steal the X instead.

GM A: applies Force so the tunneling just doesn't work, and forces the frontal assault and the 4 planned battles. The PCs get lucky with a bad save from the BBG but the GM fudges so he lives and escapes.

GM B: there is no good reason this won't work so goes with the flow and the party tunnels up and has 1 battle. The PCs get lucky with a bad save from the BBG and the BBG dies. Some other NPC will take his place later in the AP

But no matter what they are going to get to plot point B and keep them on the rails so that they all can play through the next module.

In the end maybe it's the same, but I can tolerate GM B "macro" Force vs. GM A "micro" Force much better.

Where and how Force is applied is definitely a thing. What you've done here, though, is showcase the difference between an obvious use of Force (no, that doesn't work!) and Illusionism (the Force to keep the game on track is hidden). Illusionism definitely makes the Force more tolerable because it's hidden!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not everything a GM (or other player) does that impacts player agency is railroading. Railroading requires the motive to push the narrative in a given direction in order to tell a particular story. If I make a ruling based on the fictional situation that your wizard cannot beat an owlbear in a wrestling match that is most definitely not railroading because it lacked the motivation to present a particular sort of narrative. It still impacts player agency though.

Edit : Going to let my initial point stand, but I really do not like discussing railroading as a thing because it becomes a proxy for what players can or should find acceptable when that's a decision we all get to make for ourselves.

Like murder? Except... you have negligent homicide, so... model railroading?

 

[pemerton]

doesn't this mean it's literally impossible to have ANYTHING prepped at all, without using "force"?

No, it doesn't.

But prep covers a lot of ground - from writing up NPCs, to drawing maps, to deciding that certain events have to happen at certain places for the players to get what they want for their PCs. And more.

There are threats in the world. The world keeps rolling even if the players don't engage with things.

This sounds like it is at least in the neighbourhood of what @FrogReaver calls "living sandbox".

even games that are supposed to be radically player-driven, like Dungeon World, you have things like Fronts

Fronts are a source of GM moves. GM moves are things that involve narrating a situation to the players, that involves their PCs.

From what you've said, I can't tell how you are using your threats to the world, though as I said you describe them in ways that seems similar to FrogReaver.

Whether or not your game involves GM Force is something that I can't tell from what you've posted. To me, it turns primarily on how you are using your NPCs to "send" the PCs to "important" places.

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.

Out of curiosity - would you consider GM social pressure on the players to have their PCs declare certain actions as Force?

Here is Ron Edwards's definition:

Force: the final authority that any person who is not playing a particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that player-character. . . .

Force techniques include IIEE manipulation, fudged/ignored rolls, perception management, clue moving, scene framing as a form of reducing options, directions as to character's actions using voiced and unvoiced signals, modifying features of various NPCs during play, and authority over using textual rules.​

I guess that one about directions as to character's actions might cover it, although to me it seems to sit on the boundary between authority and influence.

 

[FrogReaver]

Out of curiosity - would you consider GM social pressure on the players to have their PCs declare certain actions as Force?

Here is Ron Edwards's definition:

Force: the final authority that any person who is not playing a particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that player-character. . . .​

​

Force techniques include IIEE manipulation, fudged/ignored rolls, perception management, clue moving, scene framing as a form of reducing options, directions as to character's actions using voiced and unvoiced signals, modifying features of various NPCs during play, and authority over using textual rules.​

I guess that one about directions as to character's actions might cover it, although to me it seems to sit on the boundary between authority and influence.

While I can't answer for @Campbell

IMO, I think there's a difference between influence and authority. However, coercion is also a form of influence and one I'd place on the authority side. For example, DM to player, 'be a wizard or you won't play at all'. The player has a choice and so it's ultimately his decision, his authority, but he is facing coercion via ultimatum. *And while I use this example of a character creation decision, the same type of ultimatem could be issued for any player decision at all. Example: 'If you attack those NPC's you won't be playing with us at all.' Etc.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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

Maybe then you can elaborate on how a GM that is a neutral arbiter has a preferred outcome that he’s forcing? If I understand you, that’s what would make a linear game a railroad and I’m not seeing how that happens given that stipulation?

I am treating the first quote here as presenting an example of the sort of thing being asked about in the second and third quotes.

For my part, I don't see how the GM can "decide the fiction and use the module as a guide" while remaining neutral in the adjudication of declared actions, and remaining neutral towards the actions the players declare for their PCs. For instance, based on my understanding of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, if the players decide that their PCs become Tiamat cultists then the GM cannot run the adventure path as written. Likewise, I think, if the PCs kill all the Tiamat clerics early on in the adventure. So the GM would have to deflect action declarations that might lead to the first outcome (eg by reminding the players that their PCs are supposed to be heroes who are opposed to Tiamat) and to manipulate the fiction so that any action declarations that might produce the second outcome (I'm not sure what this might be in 5e D&D, but in AD&D it could be a Wish or an appeal for divine intervention) doesn't do so.

I should add, in the previous paragraph I think I'm just reiterating a point already made in this thread:

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).

In particular, the "macro" techniques described here are exactly ones that I described already upthread - using authority over backstory to ensure that planned events come to pass regardless of the outcomes of the actions the players declare for their PCs - just as I already mentioned, the focus is on clues ("plot hooks") and on NPC replacement/supplementation.