D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

Speculation: Could it be that a number of posters view anything that is not 'story now' as railroading?

Great question. I don't know. That is why I was trying to understand the definition. It would be best if the people who wish to use the term supplied examples, much like any word that makes up a theory or is subjective, can have.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s the exact description of the play I’m describing. It’s explicitly the primary agenda feature of these games (and it’s basically in Dogs in its nascent form. VB wrote it out exactly in AW).

Playing to find out is the primary agenda feature of every RPG. Take a linear adventure path. All the players are playing to find out what happens (they don't know what the adventure has in store). The DM is playing to find out what happens (ie what actions the players take, whether they are successful etc.)

I understand you are using the term as jargon to refer to a specific style of game. But that doesn't make the term very explanatory on it's own merits.

* All participants at the table (GM included) are playing to discover the nature of the setting and the nature of the characters within it (having character conception challenged through dramatic needs being expressed and tested is fundamental).

Now you are specifying the 'what' that players/DM is 'playing to find out'. But that's a specific 'what'. Players/DM's in linear games still 'play to find out'. It's just a different 'what' that they are playing to find out about.

 

[Manbearcat]

As someone who has DMed this way many time and played as a player many times, I can distinctly say it is not nearly as cohesive. It has always taken more sessions to finish the campaign. The records for the "notekeeping player-type" are not nearly as clear or accurate. And the storyline waxes and wanes (which can be a really good thing). But it is not a misconception. If you have a series of scenes and settings, and everything in those are laid are plot related, as opposed to making something up, then the cohesiveness is clearer. It is almost more direct, which is not to some players liking. That's okay. To each his own.

I should mention we like our campaigns to last 4-8, four hour sessions. That's it.

That's a very clear answer. All adventure paths, as written, are railroads. All the more reason to get rid of the term. Because if a DM gives five options, and all five lead to separate, yet still "desired outcomes," then most of the people playing with WotC products are railroading.

Sorry, I am not understanding. Could you clarify? Thanks.

As someone who has run literally thousands and thousands of all 3 or Story Now games, Story Before trad Hexcrawl/Sandbox games, and Pawn Stance Dungeoneering…

No.

Absolutely not.

My Story Now GMing isn’t remotely unmoored in comparison to my other forms. Not even close. In fact, the reality that “lost the plot” doesn’t exist in Story Now gaming means that the actual feel of play across the distribution of all of the games Ive run is that the state of players feeling unmoored is much more a problem I’ve had to deal with in my Trad Story Before Hexcrawl/Sandbox games than in my Story Now games. “Losing the plot”
is absolutely a thing you have to actively fight there (and all the associated feelings that relate to it as a player is trying to orient themselves).

As a player, being put in the persistent position of extremely active content generator and consistently having the conception of your PC be in the crosshairs engenders a level of ownership and a necessary taking-on off significant cognitive bandwidth. That + the natural mooring aspects of system + the reality that offloading some of that onto players and system means that I’m more cognitively fresh session-in, session-out.

That formula does not yield incoherent setting creepy or unmooring for proficient Story Now players (GM included in that).

 

[FrogReaver]

Great question. I don't know. That is why I was trying to understand the definition. It would be best if the people who wish to use the term supplied examples, much like any word that makes up a theory or is subjective, can have.

Might be easier to explore examples of things that are not railroading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As someone who has DMed this way many time and played as a player many times, I can distinctly say it is not nearly as cohesive. It has always taken more sessions to finish the campaign. The records for the "notekeeping player-type" are not nearly as clear or accurate. And the storyline waxes and wanes (which can be a really good thing). But it is not a misconception. If you have a series of scenes and settings, and everything in those are laid are plot related, as opposed to making something up, then the cohesiveness is clearer. It is almost more direct, which is not to some players liking. That's okay. To each his own.

I should mention we like our campaigns to last 4-8, four hour sessions. That's it.

You say you disagree, but then provide an example that maps directly to what I said. I said that if you try to play without plot or plan but keep the Trad approach and methods, it will be aimless outside of exceptional cases. You have to adopt a different approach entirely.

That's a very clear answer. All adventure paths, as written, are railroads. All the more reason to get rid of the term. Because if a DM gives five options, and all five lead to separate, yet still "desired outcomes," then most of the people playing with WotC products are railroading.

Yes. APs are railroads. This is intentional, and is beneficial to the social cohesion of the hobby because it creates similar experiences that can be shared.

Sorry, I am not understanding. Could you clarify? Thanks.

5e is a Trad or Neotrad engine that can be drifted pretty easily to Classic play. It's not suitable for other styles although experience with them can offer some options.

 

[Manbearcat]

Playing to find out is the primary agenda feature of every RPG. Take a linear adventure path. All the players are playing to find out what happens (they don't know what the adventure has in store). The DM is playing to find out what happens (ie what actions the players take, whether they are successful etc.)

I understand you are using the term as jargon to refer to a specific style of game. But that doesn't make the term very explanatory on it's own merits.


Now you are specifying the 'what' that players/DM is 'playing to find out'. But that's a specific 'what'. Players/DM's in linear games still 'play to find out'. It's just a different 'what' that they are playing to find out about.

That “what” is foundational.

If the GM knows (a) what is (see unrevealed backstory being the primary input in framing of situations and see the difference between Trad Knowledge vs Story Now) and (b) what will happen if x, y, or z occurs (via already established setting extrapolation, NPC contingencies, etc), then the GM is inhabiting an extremely different cognitive workspace than a Story Now GM is inhabiting.

And that difference is the “find out” part. That doesn’t mean that players won’t ever surprise the GM. I’ve been surprised tons and tons running Hexcrawl and Sandboxes where I’ve prepped tons of material.

But (a) I’m not discovering the world as we play and (b) the player’s dramatic needs aren’t in the crosshairs in the same way if at all (so I’m not discovering who these characters are in the same visceral, intimate way).

It’s a different headspace for the GM. See how they perturb my setting. See how they engage with the tropes of the setting and the premise of play and if/how they defeat their challenges.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just to be clear, as we are on a D&D forum, which is why I keep using the term DM, not GM.

So most of D&D played is railroading. Does D&D exist easily with Story Now?

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s how it tends to come across.

With that in mind, what might railroading in a story now look like?

What if the GM at most every opportunity frames scenes and creates contests that are designed to put player A closer to a particular situation. Say having to choose between two of his priorities. I'm not really sure what makes that not be railroading?

 

[FrogReaver]

That “what” is foundational.

If the GM knows (a) what is (see unrevealed backstory being the primary input in framing of situations and see the difference between Trad Knowledge vs Story Now) and (b) what will happen if x, y, or z occurs (via already established setting extrapolation, NPC contingencies, etc), then the GM is inhabiting an extremely different cognitive workspace than a Story Now GM is inhabiting.

And that difference is the “find out” part. That doesn’t mean that players won’t ever surprise the GM. I’ve been surprised tons and tons running Hexcrawl and Sandboxes where I’ve prepped tons of material.

But (a) I’m not discovering the world as we play and (b) the player’s dramatic needs aren’t in the crosshairs in the same way if at all (so I’m not discovering who these characters are in the same visceral, intimate way).

It’s a different headspace for the GM. See how they perturb my setting. See how they engage with the tropes of the setting and the premise of play and if/how they defeat their challenges.

I agree it's a different focus, for sure. My position is not about the different focus/headspace or whatever. It's about using a generic term that can easily apply to whatever RPG to exclusively apply to one type of RPG.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just to be clear, as we are on a D&D forum, which is why I keep using the term DM, not GM.

So most of D&D played is railroading. Does D&D exist easily with Story Now?

Story now typically requires a mechanical process to determine fiction. D&D has none built for that purpose but either ability checks (probably wouldn't work well in 5e) or layering on such a system on top of the core D&D mechanics would seem to potentially get us there or close to it (doable because D&D is very customizable with home rules). Still not the best game for such a style but it might be able to emulate it well enough.