D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

In the meantime, your argument for Force just falls flat

Could it be that not everyone agrees with your definition of force? I mean I really don't have anything against it, seems somewhat coherent, but it simply is not how everyone understands the term.

-- the only examples you've concocted aren't even Force. They're use of prep. Which is fine, and even encouraged, if done differently from how prep works in D&D or other Trad games. It's more an exercise in building prop pieces and using them when it works out but not worrying if they don't show up. The claim that you can smuggle in a specific piece of prep is conjecture and not actually demonstrated. It would be amusing to set up a game where you try to do this while staying within the rules of play with players and see if you a) can actually do it and b) if they notice you trying.

It would indeed be an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure it would be worth doing, as I don't think a purpose of RPG sessions is to test theories let alone to provide ammo for internet arguments. In any case, once you have prepped content, certainly you must recognise that the GM can increase the odds that the prepped content comes up, even if it was not literally guaranteed? And at which point it becomes railroading?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Could it be that not everyone agrees with your definition of force? I mean I really don't have anything against it, seems somewhat coherent, but it simply is not how everyone understands the term.

You wait until now to argue this, and don't even bother to suggest a replacement. Sure, not unexpected.

It would indeed be an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure it would be worth doing, as I don't think a purpose of RPG sessions is to test theories let alone to provide ammo for internet arguments. In any case, once you have prepped content, certainly you must recognise that the GM can increase the odds that the prepped content comes up, even if it was not literally guaranteed? And at which point it becomes railroading?

Using prepped content is not Force. Using prepped content that hasn't been introduced to thwart player input or action declarations is Force. That's not what's happening in your thought experiment.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't agree it would be obvious at all. If the GM has an end result in mind, they could 9/10 get there organically.

How so? Like how would a Dungeon World GM do what you're saying while still running the game according to the rules and principles of play.

Can you provide a specific example and not just vague claims like “9/10 times it’s easy”?

Maybe take an example of railroading from your own D&D game as an example, and then explain how Dungeon World GMing would compare?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You wait until now to argue this, and don't even bother to suggest a replacement. Sure, not unexpected.

Because I have no interest in such semantic quagmire.

Using prepped content is not Force. Using prepped content that hasn't been introduced to thwart player input or action declarations is Force. That's not what's happening in your thought experiment.

Right. So in Story Now game the GM can direct the game in their desired direction but doing so is no force? Fine by me, I don't care to debate definition of force, as long as such lenient interpretation is consistently applied.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How so? Like how would a Dungeon World GM do what you're saying while still running the game according to the rules and principles of play.

Can you provide a specific example and not just vague claims like “9/10 times it’s easy”?

Maybe take an example of railroading from your own D&D game as an example, and then explain how Dungeon World GMing would compare?

I don't railroad in my D&D game. (At least not by @Ovinomancer's definition.) And no, I am not going to spend time writing a a long made up example of play. Seriously, look the GM moves and look what they allow the GM to do. Also consider how GM frames things and how the framing is going to influence things the PCs are likely to do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't railroad in my D&D game. (At least not by @Ovinomancer's definition.) And no, I am not going to spend time writing a a long made up example of play. Seriously, look the GM moves and look what they allow the GM to do. Also consider how GM frames things and how the framing is going to influence things the PCs are likely to do.

So you don't want to offer any kind of example to demonstrate your claims, you just prefer to point in the general direction of the rules and say "see, it's all right there" and assume your incomplete assessment is as valid as people who have actual experience playing and running the game in question?

Okay, cool.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Force is when the GM overrides other considerations to enforce their preferred outcome, disregarding player input, action declarations, or the system's say.

Everyone's still not on the same page with this, but I think it's a workable defintion. However, I prefer:

GM Force: Force is when the GM overrides other considerations to enforce a preferred outcome

Illusionism: GM Force that that player's are not explicitly aware of

Railroad: GM Force / Illusionism that enforces the GM's preffered outcome against the player's wishes

Participationism: GM Force / Illusionism in service of the collective group's higher level goals -- most often that goal is staying on the rails (at least at a macro level) of a prewritten adventure path

I prefer to define Force and Illusionism as tools that can be in service of both Railroading and Participationism. I also prefer to save Railroad for the negative version of Force, as it is mostly associated with that anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because I have no interest in such semantic quagmire.

And yet you brought it up. Interesting how an argument is only useful until work is necessary for it.

Right. So in Story Now game the GM can direct the game in their desired direction but doing so is no force? Fine by me, I don't care to debate definition of force, as long as such lenient interpretation is consistently applied.

Ah, the goalpost shift. We went from a bit of prep -- a dungeon area or an encounter -- to directing the game in a desired direction. You haven't shown this, at all, or even argued it. You can't just make a very weak case for one thing and insist it allows for something else. This is like the reverse of motte and bailey arguing -- you argue the motte, and when you see some daylight for that sliding through, you insist on the bailey.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Everyone's still not on the same page with this, but I think it's a workable defintion. However, I prefer:

GM Force: Force is when the GM overrides other considerations to enforce a preferred outcome

This is a shorter version of mine and I'm not sure that there aren't easily discard able considerations. Like, say, if player A has dramatic need A in this situation, and player B has dramatic need B, but the GM, for whatever reason, prefers A then this counts as force here because consideration of need B is being overridden. I think the specificity helps.

Illusionism: GM Force that that player's are not explicitly aware of

Railroad: GM Force / Illusionism that enforces the GM's preffered outcome against the player's wishes

This is a rewording of Force, though. Most people are totally fine with Force in moderation, but dislike it at a certain level. Defining railroading as the consistent use of Force to direct large parts of play is more useful, I think.

Participationism: GM Force / Illusionism in service of the collective group's higher level goals -- most often that goal is staying on the rails (at least at a macro level) of a prewritten adventure path

No, the key part of participationism is that the players are onboard for it. This just says that Force in service of the group is participationism. This isn't necessarily so.

I prefer to define Force and Illusionism as tools that can be in service of both Railroading and Participationism. I also prefer to save Railroad for the negative version of Force, as it is mostly associated with that anyway.

My definition of Force is very clearly the presage for Illusionism, Railroading, and Participationism. Railroading is going to be viewed negatively. A clear railroad that is not viewed negatively would be the case for participationism. One of my most memorable games as a player was very much participationism. We knew it going in. Still a total blast.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So you don't want to offer any kind of example to demonstrate your claims, you just prefer to point in the general direction of the rules and say "see, it's all right there" and assume your incomplete assessment is as valid as people who have actual experience playing and running the game in question?

Okay, cool.

People who have experience playing and running the game seem to be unable to explain why these things cannot be done. Appeal to authority alone will not suffice, you still need to back it up with something. It is perfectly possible I am wrong, but if that is the case, coherent argument for why that might be has not been made.

Prep the desired outcome, frame situations that are likely to evoke actions that take the play towards the desired outcome, when deploying consequences use ones that take the game towards the desired outcome. It is highly likely that we get to the desired outcome eventually. Why can't this be done?

Also note that the huge branching flowchart with several directions and paths things could take was deemed as a railroad by some. It didn't require one specific predestined path or destination. So if having sever preplanned scenes that might happen and several things that might happen after them is enough to make thing a railroad, then the GM doesn't even need to have one specific preferred outcomes in mind, they can have several and nudge the game towards which seems most feasible, and it still would be railroad.