D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

If all of the below is true, how can a GM possibly railroad players?

* The current gamestate follows from the prior gamestate.

* The current fiction honors prior established fiction (party wins and losses and the related orientation of all objects in the shared imagine space).

* The GM is following the rules.

* The GM’s framing is principally constrained by system (and not deviating/arbitrary).

The last bullet. The GM can use framing that pushes toward a particular situation as long as the system allows such framing. That a GM can use framing to force/push players into a particular situation (fictional or conceptual) is one thing that commonly gets referred to as railroading - often the illusory kind. This is exactly the method that a GM without fudging any rolls might use in D&D to get players into a particular situation. Either by arbitrarily introducing it in framing or via a more nuanced approach that has the GM 'naturally' frame situations whose results will ultimately lead to a 'natural' opportunity to introduce that situation.

I don't see a denial that this is possible. Many of the play examples of the systems that pemerton and others have given have stated or insinuated that the GM is supposed to push hard toward these kinds of situations (by rule/explicit GMing principle). It's really not clear how that isn't system sanctioned railroading to me (at least with the definitions being used to critivize (most) D&D play as railroading.)

Give me an example in Dungeon World of exactly what you have in mind. Show your work:

1) Give me a scene A and then the evolution of play to scene B with the GM deploying "Force via situation authority over framing" that you're speculating upon (and you've speculated upon in prior threads yet without any evidence to support it).

2) Show me how this is done without violating any of the above.

I don't play Dungeon World so afraid that won't be happening.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Ah, another huge difference between us, then. Our campaigns are considered well underway after 4-8 twelve-month years.

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.

Exactly, and that's one of the most common (and IMO valid) criticisms of most 5e-era WotC and nearly all PF published adventures: they are intended and written as closed-ended paths rather than as parts of a bigger campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, another huge difference between us, then. Our campaigns are considered well underway after 4-8 twelve-month years.

I'm in between the both of you. I mean, I've had longer walks through the park than @Scott Christian's campaigns , but my campaigns are still nowhere near where yours are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And this is a perfect example of what really gets under my skin about this type of system: once the Wizard says there's a forge there (and not even presented as a certainty, merely as "I believe...") there is no chance at all that the Wizard can be completely wrong; that the legend is for some reason not true and thus there's no forge to be found there, or that he's got the glaciers mixed up and is remembering something he saw on the other side of the mountains.

Which on the face of it is fine if the idea is that everyone contributes to building the setting as play goes along, but it also IMO makes it far too easy for players to solve their own problems by just making something up.

I mean, even on a poor roll here they've gone from having no immediate solution* to knowing where one may be found (I assume) relatively nearby - though they might have to fight their way in - and on a 7+ roll (so, better than 50-50 odds) they don't even have to do that.

* - other than going back to town and finding a smith there.

No immediate solution to what? This is a serious question, worth thinking on. You're in the mode that a problem is posed from outside somehow, and the player is reacting by inventing a solution. This is wrong. The player introducing the Forge doesn't solve anything -- it creates a path, yes, but a path to more play that very easily can be quite bad for the PC. It's the point that the player introduce a possible solution because the GM cannot. I say possible because whether it is a solution or not is what play is about -- we'll all find out together.

 

[Lanefan]

Would a dungeon crawl be considered story before or story after?

Yes.

Most of the time there's a story-before element in that the crawl is serving some bigger plot-related purpose.

Most of the time there's a story-after element, where the story only appears and-or fits in with (or butchers!) the bigger plot in hindsight.

 

[Manbearcat]

And this is a perfect example of what really gets under my skin about this type of system: once the Wizard says there's a forge there (and not even presented as a certainty, merely as "I believe...") there is no chance at all that the Wizard can be completely wrong; that the legend is for some reason not true and thus there's no forge to be found there, or that he's got the glaciers mixed up and is remembering something he saw on the other side of the mountains.

Which on the face of it is fine if the idea is that everyone contributes to building the setting as play goes along, but it also IMO makes it far too easy for players to solve their own problems by just making something up.

I mean, even on a poor roll here they've gone from having no immediate solution* to knowing where one may be found (I assume) relatively nearby - though they might have to fight their way in - and on a 7+ roll (so, better than 50-50 odds) they don't even have to do that.

* - other than going back to town and finding a smith there.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works Lanefan. Its not surprising because you're just speculating on what happens next rather than ever having actually done it.

On a 7-9 result here, they haven't resolved their problem. They've learned something interesting. Now they have to make moves to locate the forge. Those moves themselves can (and will) generate complications/dangers to their lives. Then they have to deal with that game of spinning plates. They make it to the forge? Great, who is doing the forging (triggers a move assuming you have the materials capable to do the work you need to do to repair the armor and/or you've successfully parleyed with the smith that presently works it and/or have the requisite Coin to spend on the work...which will take time...and time is currency in DW as its a Ration for each PC and Cohort for the entire day...which matters in DW unlike in D&D where it is pretty much elided and inconsequential...like the Encumbrance you elide in your 1e game...which is consequential in DW.).

I've GMed a game where a single 7-9 Spout Lore result has ended in absolute catastrophe because of the subsequent decision-points made and move snowballing. This is INFINITELY more likely to happen in a game of DW than it EVER will in a game of D&D. So the idea that you think this is somehow EZMode D&D is just you making a profoundly incorrect extrapolation from a position of ignorance. This is what makes a lot of these conversations frustrating. Its one thing to not know what you're talking about. Its yet another thing entirely to assert something with force that is based on incorrect extrapolation from a position of deep information deficit.

On a 6- result, what is lurking in the bowels of the glacial undercomplex will be something that could very well change your PC/cohort life forever (physically or emotionally or relationship orientation)...or end it permanently. As play uncovers what that is, you get to decide "how precious is this thing to me" then you get to decide "is it worth it to continue". That is before you get to the question of "how can I marshal my resources to resolve this" and "what do I want to protect" (eg my companion characters/cohorts are likely to perish against an Ancient Dragon...but they may help...do I send them back to camp/civilization with a message of what happened here and/or our most important personal effects for our loved ones in the likely event that we perish)?


@EzekielRaiden , you xped this post. People xp posts for all kinds of reasons (how well a post was written, the kindness of manner, the humility, the apology, etc) but this post was just substantive (and also substantively wrong).

Given this misinterpretation of the agenda and principles that guide and constrain a GM handling of the spread of results on a Spout Lore move and then the subsequent play that spins out of that (which Lanefan has deeply incorrectly extrapolated about) and the fact that you appear to feel like the statement "your DW play has been drifted" is not correct (and appear to be taking a level of offense to my appraisal of your play as drifted from orthodox DW Story Now play)...I'm curious what the xp was for?

It appears the xp was for an agreement with Lanefan's (mis) appraisal of "the boots on the ground" reality of Spout Lore handling in Dungeon World?

 

[Lanefan]

No immediate solution to what? This is a serious question, worth thinking on.

No immediate solution to the in-fiction problem of the Paladin's broken armour.

You're in the mode that a problem is posed from outside somehow, and the player is reacting by inventing a solution.

Something broke that armour and thus raised the problem, and whether that "something" was posed from inside or outside is in this case irrelevant.

This is wrong. The player introducing the Forge doesn't solve anything -- it creates a path, yes, but a path to more play that very easily can be quite bad for the PC. It's the point that the player introduce a possible solution because the GM cannot. I say possible because whether it is a solution or not is what play is about -- we'll all find out together.

If it was merely a possible solution I'd have far less problem with the idea. Here, this would mean there's a chance that the Wizard could be flat-out wrong in his memory of where the forge is or whether it even exists at all.

As written, that chance does not exist. The wizard believes there's a forge there and so now there's a forge there; with odds better than 50-50 (i.e. 7-12 on 2d6) that the PCs can get to it without meaningful obstruction.

 

[Manbearcat]

The last bullet. The GM can use framing that pushes toward a particular situation as long as the system allows such framing. That a GM can use framing to force/push players into a particular situation (fictional or conceptual) is one thing that commonly gets referred to as railroading - often the illusory kind. This is exactly the method that a GM without fudging any rolls might use in D&D to get players into a particular situation. Either by arbitrarily introducing it in framing or via a more nuanced approach that has the GM 'naturally' frame situations whose results will ultimately lead to a 'natural' opportunity to introduce that situation.

I don't see a denial that this is possible. Many of the play examples of the systems that pemerton and others have given have stated or insinuated that the GM is supposed to push hard toward these kinds of situations (by rule/explicit GMing principle). It's really not clear how that isn't system sanctioned railroading to me (at least with the definitions being used to critivize (most) D&D play as railroading.)


I don't play Dungeon World so afraid that won't be happening.

Show me what you mean.

What does "pushing toward a particular situation" look like when you're in the framing of scene A, stuff happens (decision-points > moves made > move resolution > rinse/repeat until the scene resolves), and that all of that stuff has happened, you're in the framing of scene B that is a manifestation of Force.

What is framing of scene A?

What is the framing of scene B that the GM wants to get to (the Force)?

How do they get there?

In order for you to feel so resolute that this is a thing, you must have some kind of strength of argument. You can't possibly just be asserting this without independent lines of evidence to support it or a well-developed thought model in mind that you can demonstrate to me?

So give me the independent lines of evidence or demonstrate the well-developed thought model on how this happens.

 

[Maxperson]

No immediate solution to the in-fiction problem of the Paladin's broken armour.

Something broke that armour and thus raised the problem, and whether that "something" was posed from inside or outside is in this case irrelevant.

If it was merely a possible solution I'd have far less problem with the idea. Here, this would mean there's a chance that the Wizard could be flat-out wrong in his memory of where the forge is or whether it even exists at all.

As written, that chance does not exist. The wizard believes there's a forge there and so now there's a forge there; with odds better than 50-50 (i.e. 7-12 on 2d6) that the PCs can get to it without meaningful obstruction.

That isn't what I'm getting out of this. From what I've been reading here, there is no chance that the forge doesn't exist. I have the same issue as you do here. The next thing is that there is better than 50/50 that there is no big bad evil dude guarding the forge. That's not the same thing as getting to it without meaningful obstruction.

They know that the forge is under the glacier X distance away. They don't know how to get down there and will have to make decisions that will spark other rolls that can cause bad stuff to happen. They aren't there, which means travel decisions that can spark bad stuff to happen. These future rolls can all cause other decisions with further rolls. And so on. That's what I'm getting from what @Manbearcat has been saying.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works Lanefan. Its not surprising because you're just speculating on what happens next rather than ever having actually done it.

On a 7-9 result here, they haven't resolved their problem. They've learned something interesting. Now they have to make moves to locate the forge.

Do they? Or if the players declare "we head for that forge" can the GM just frame them straight there if she likes?

Those moves themselves can (and will) generate complications/dangers to their lives. Then they have to deal with that game of spinning plates. They make it to the forge? Great, who is doing the forging (triggers a move assuming you have the materials capable to do the work you need to do to repair the armor and/or you've successfully parleyed with the smith that presently works it and/or have the requisite Coin to spend on the work...which will take time...and time is currency in DW as its a Ration for each PC and Cohort for the entire day...which matters in DW unlike in D&D where it is pretty much elided and inconsequential...like the Encumbrance you elide in your 1e game...which is consequential in DW.).

It looks like your style delves deeper into the intervening details and possibilities than does that of, say, pemerton (with whom I've argued about this sort of jump-framing in the past) and given the choice I'd prefer your method every time.

I've GMed a game where a single 7-9 Spout Lore result has ended in absolute catastrophe because of the subsequent decision-points made and move snowballing. This is INFINITELY more likely to happen in a game of DW than it EVER will in a game of D&D. So the idea that you think this is somehow EZMode D&D is just you making a profoundly incorrect extrapolation from a position of ignorance. This is what makes a lot of these conversations frustrating. Its one thing to not know what you're talking about. Its yet another thing entirely to assert something with force that is based on incorrect extrapolation from a position of deep information deficit.

On a 6- result, what is lurking in the bowels of the glacial undercomplex will be something that could very well change your PC/cohort life forever (physically or emotionally or relationship orientation)...or end it permanently. As play uncovers what that is, you get to decide "how precious is this thing to me" then you get to decide "is it worth it to continue". That is before you get to the question of "how can I marshal my resources to resolve this" and "what do I want to protect" (eg my companion characters/cohorts are likely to perish against an Ancient Dragon...but they may help...do I send them back to camp/civilization with a message of what happened here and/or our most important personal effects for our loved ones in the likely event that we perish)?

I get it that one thing leads to another and that the "another" isn't always beneficial; and that a string of 6- rolls could lead to a world o' hurt particularly if you sweat the details - which you seem to do but others might not.

All I had to go on were your three roll results, which boiled down to:

10-12 Legend is accurate, forge is accessible.
7-9 Legend is accurate.
2-6 Legend is accurate, but there's a problem.

All I'm looking for - and I'm not seeing there - is the "Legend is inaccurate" option.