D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

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.

This is an interesting statement, for many reasons. Foremost is that you think that making a claim puts the onus on others to disprove, rather than on you to prove. If this is the case, please prepare for many things I could say about your play that will cause you to do lots of work to disprove or accept that they are correct because you do not. I'm pretty sure this is unacceptable, but I'm not sure why you think it's okay in reverse.

Secondly, yes, we have done that work and explained how it can't happen. That you think you know better about a game you have limited to no experience with and can dismiss these statements (by multiple posters) is equally telling. Please prepare for the many things I can say about your play, with no experience at your table, that I feel you cannot defend because I want to be right! Again, this is unacceptable, but I'm not sure why you think it's okay in reverse.

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?

Most simply, the middle part doesn't work, because you're not free to frame whatever you like. Doing so would be obvious and breaking the rules. You are badly off about how scenes get framed in these games. They are directly framed from what the players are declaring they want their PCs to do. So unless what the GM has planned is well aligned with what the PCs want to do, this doesn't work. If it is well aligned, then we're at a weird place for Force, yes? The ability for the GM to lead is grossly exaggerated in your mind. I mean, stop for a moment and think about what the design intent for these games was -- it was to avoid GM lead stories and to build a platform for organically constructing story in play. Your claim is that it's super susceptible to standard GM lead storytelling techniques when this was expressly designed against. You're entire concept has foundations of loose sand.

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.

Yeah, this is a stretch. This is trying to argue that a prepared plotline that has a few, well constrained choice points is sufficient to defeat being called a railroad (apparently the ability to switch tracks gets you off the train) or else no amount of planned endings evades it. This fails on three counts -- one, there's a limit to the ability to actually plan endings; two, the adventure plotted was built to force players down the prepared lines; and three, there aren't and really can't be prepared endings for Story Now games. This is like trying to say that because there are different kinds of noodle they can't all be called pasta, and that if they are all called pasta, then green beans are also pasta.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

I think what you are saying would also be considered Force in this definition. It's not just a shorter version -- it's changing "their preffered outcome" to "a preferred outcome" allowing for Force in service of an outcome that isn't just the GMs

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.

I'm ok adding a "consistent use" clause to railroading. Although I think, as you say people have different tolerance levels and at different levels of the Force. Fudging a few die rolls in the background? Fine. 1 instance of the shrodinger dungeon or orge and many of the same people will scream railroad.

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.

Yes, I can add a more explicit "onboard" wording to this. The definition is meant to mean the group is sanctioning the Force so will change that.

A clear railroad that is not viewed negatively would be the case for participationism.

Agreed I can have fun in Participation games as well. In my definition I'm trying to completely seperate out railroad because of this. When the Force/Illusionism is sanctioned and in service of the larger goal of staying on the rails, it is not longer a Railroad at all. In this definition, as soon as it enters Participationism with the goal of staying on the rails you don't have Railroading at all, you have a Linear Participatory Adventure that is enhanced by GM Force/Illusionism.

So:

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

Anyway, I could use your definitions as well, but we get back to the "so what"?

What does adopting one of these definitions get us? How can we pull out interesting insights or implictions from this that help us game better or is this another round of (somewhat fun) mental ************?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think what you are saying would also be considered Force in this definition. It's not just a shorter version -- it's changing "their preffered outcome" to "a preferred outcome" allowing for Force in service of an outcome that isn't just the GMs

I do not see how. The GM must make a choice here, because that's the job. They are, presumably, doing it according to the system's say (if one exists) and are selecting between outcomes that are on the table, thereby not ignoring them. The outcome being preferred by the GM here isn't sufficient because it's not ignoring other things to do so -- it's literally making a choice between two viable options. If this is being labeled Force, then the term is no longer useful to categorize play, because any decision made by the GM could be so considered outside of random dice rolls.

I'm ok adding a "consistent use" clause to railroading. Although I think, as you say people have different tolerance levels and at different levels of the Force. Fudging a few die rolls in the background? Fine. 1 instance of the shrodinger dungeon or orge and many of the same people will scream railroad.



Yes, I can add a more explicit "onboard" wording to this. The definition is meant to mean the group is sanctioning the Force so will change that.


Agreed I can have fun in Participation games as well. In my definition I'm trying to completely seperate out railroad because of this. When the Force/Illusionism is sanctioned and in service of the larger goal of staying on the rails, it is not longer a Railroad at all. In this definition, as soon as it enters Participationism with the goal of staying on the rails you don't have Railroading at all, you have a Linear Participatory Adventure that is enhanced by GM Force/Illusionism.

So:

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

Again, I feel this definition is too vague and captures legitimate play. And it in the vagueness of what "other considerations" means.

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

Anyway, I could use your definitions as well, but we get back to the "so what"?

What does adopting one of these definitions get us? How can we pull out interesting insights or implictions from this that help us game better or is this another round of (somewhat fun) mental ************?

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Force is a very blurry continuum, and I think that all GMs utilize force, but the discussion should be on how much force is desirable or "good form."

Vincent Baker (Apocalypse World creator) would surely believe that force as described by @Ovinomancer is a gaming negative, yet hard and soft moves can both be used to "enforce a preferred outcome," regardless of player input. When the GM makes a hard move, the players can't change the outcome.

Let us take the dragon / eagle / whatever flying off with a player character. The GM views this as a preferred outcome and would like for it to happen.

The players look to him, giving him a golden opportunity. He makes a move--as hard as he likes--so a great green dragon swoops down and carries off one of the PCs. E Is this Force?

If the PC rolls a 7-9 to Act Under Fire and the GM offers a hard bargain that the player character succeeds but the green dragon is going to swoop off with his friend if he does so, is it force?

If the PC rolls a 6- and the GM uses the dragon swoop as his hard move, is it force?

Finally, if the PCs want to stop the dragon carrying off their friend but the GM says "no, I'm making my move," is it force?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I haven't sad that it "cannot be done"; I've already granted you that semantic victory twice. And I think plenty has been offered in support of the fact that Dungeon World resists the use of GM Force. Pages of it. But now you're asking for more, but when you're asked to present an argument to support your claim that consists of more than vague references to the rules, you decline. Does that seem reasonable to you?

But what is the point here? What are you driving at? That a system that clearly resists Force but can't eliminate it entirely is the same as a system that does nothing to resist it and in some ways actively promotes it? That any chance of Force at all is equal to all the Force ever?

I mean, at this point in the conversation, are you actually trying to say that Dungeon World and 5e D&D are equally susceptible to Force? Or areyou just looking for the semantic win that Force is technically not impossible in DW? This is a genuine question and I'd really appreciate if you'd answer it.

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?

How can it?

Support your argument.

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.

Do you mean the branching paths that mostly fold back on each other and resulted in 3 possible outcomes after 15 to 20 sessions? Assuming each bubble is a session, of course. I suppose they could be scenes rather than entire sessions, but I think my comments would still apply.

The issue is that you're not getting how DW and similar games work. If run and played as intended, you can't have all the bubbles on that flow chart filled in ahead of time. That all requires a large amount of preparation to have all those elements determined ahead of time, and then it takes effort to keep them relevant to play so that they remain available when their time comes. I know this because I've GMed plenty of games like that. Mostly, that's fine because it's expected....the players buy in and accept that there's a story in place and the story isn't really their characters' story so much as they are simply playing a part in THE story. Swap out the entire group and the steps in the flowchart remain unchanged.

So much of actual play of DW is about how the mechanics snowball events so that where things go is not easily predictable. Could there conceivably be a situation where a GM frames a scene and has a solid idea of what the players will doand the rolls go the right way and so he has the next step prepared? Yes, of course. This may happen from time to time. I don't generally see that as Force, but if you'd like to....well, consider this my third acknowledgement of your semantic victory.

Could a GM do that for the minimum of 15 stops along that flowchart that was shared? If you can predict where your game will be 15 sessions from now, then yes, I'd say you're most likely railroading. Or you're playing a game where the players don't expect to leave the path that's there for them to follow. If this is what they expect, then it's all good. I've played plenty of these games and had fun, so I get the appeal.

Want to know an easy way to avoid that? Don't plot out 15 sessions ahead of time. A GM for Dungeon World will most likely not do that as it is clearly contra to the principles laid out in the book. They're specifically told not to do so by the book. They're specifically given many other principles of play that, if followed, will prevent the exact thing you say is possible.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Again, the definition of Force is the GM enforcing a preferred outcome while disregarding player input, action declarations, or system say. If we evaluate your ask, the GM is not enforcing a preferred outcome because there is not a different outcome suggested that is less preferred.

I think most people would agree that overruling a player’s reasonable action declaration is GM Force. I also think most people agree that overruling the results of dice rolls (including by fudging) is also GM Force. I think anything else is something that some posters would consider GM Force and others not.

But let’s accept that definition of GM Force for the sake of argument. It seems to me that based on that definition, whether or not a given 5e campaign uses no, a little, or a lot of GM Force depends a lot on the GM (even in a non-sandbox play).

But, let's say the GM is indeed wanting to fly off with a character in the claws of a giant eagle for some reason, so this conditionally meets preferred outcomes. We then look to see if this is disregarding player input. Not really any here, the player clearly have agreed to the game and are attempting this dangerous task in this location, so this isn't being disregarded. Then look at action declaration. Again, not much input here as the declared action is not intended to counter this result, so we're not disregarding it to get here. Now system say. Here we're actually actively regarding system say, not disregarding it. We've done everything the system says to do, and the system is telling us that we have this authority and that this action is permittable under the principles and goals of play. We're green to go, not Force.

Fair enough.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I do not see how. The GM must make a choice here, because that's the job. They are, presumably, doing it according to the system's say (if one exists) and are selecting between outcomes that are on the table, thereby not ignoring them. The outcome being preferred by the GM here isn't sufficient because it's not ignoring other things to do so -- it's literally making a choice between two viable options. If this is being labeled Force, then the term is no longer useful to categorize play, because any decision made by the GM could be so considered outside of random dice rolls.

I could add your wording back in with slight tweak. Instead of

disregarding player input, action declarations, or the system's say.

we get

disregarding player immediate input, action declarations, or the system's say.

The overall intention is to say that players and groups can set different levels of "input".

An overarching player "input" can be

"I want to play through the main plot points of this AP, and we all sanction our DM to use Force or preferably Illusionism if needed to keep us on the rails to experience those main plot points. Staying on the rails is our most important consideration". This is often the social contract you enter into when signing up to play an AP.

So, say the PCs deside to explore The Rainbow Caves which they heard about in passing but isn't related to The Plot. They were suppose to go to the Dark Clouds.

The DM doesn't know anything about the Rainbow Caves, and decides there is a cave in so only a few rooms are open and decides to make up some connection to the Dark Clouds that is found in the Caves. The PCs then go to the Dark Clouds and are back on the rails

This is Illusionism, a form of GM Force. This is countering the consideration of immediate player input "we want to explore the Rainbow Caves" but in fact is in service of and not ignoring the "primary" player input.

Anyway, done for now until I see a clearer purpose. But for those that like it better:

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

Illusionism: GM Force that players are not explicitly aware of

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

Participationism: Group sanctioned GM Force / Illusionism in service of the collective group's higher level goals / preffered outcomes. For example, a primary goal to stay on the rails (at least at a macro level) of a prewritten adventure path or a prime goal of "increasing dramatic pacing"

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

Here, I can definitely see overruling a PCs stated reasonable action declarations, backstory, or any die rolls in the game as an expression as GM Force. I am not sure that overruling other considerations is necessarily GM Force, since it seems that other considerations should be in the service of the game. For instance, to take a D&D example, traditionally, climbing is an Athl check. The monk proposes to use Acrobatics to parkour up the side of a building. The DM thinks this is cool, and their preferred outcome would be to allow it. The system generally doesn’t though, but I’m not sure I would consider it an application of DM force to allow the PC to do it.

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

Depending on where we land with “other considerations”, not all illusionism would be GM Force. For instance, if GM Force is limited to overruling player agency and dice, than a quantum ogre would not necessarily be GM Force (but would probably remain illusionism).

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The DM doesn't know anything about the Rainbow Caves, and decides there is a cave in so only a few rooms are open and decides to make up some connection to the Dark Clouds that is found in the Caves. The PCs then go to the Dark Clouds and are back on the rails

This is Illusionism, a form of GM Force. This is countering the consideration of immediate player input "we want to explore the Rainbow Caves" but in fact is in service of and not ignoring the "primary" player input.

This is the part that I have trouble accepting as Illusionism. Or rather, it seems to be adopting a definition of GM Force for the purpose of promoting one style of play (less prep, more improv) at the detriment of another (more prep, less improv).

I can accept that if the party goes to the Rainbow caves, an NPC tells them there has been a collapse, they can explore two caves (30 min tops) and the only thing they find is a clue that sends them back to Dark Clouds, this is a pretty textbook case of Illusionism.

It is a lot less clear to me that if the party goes to the Rainbow Caves, spends a session fighting Rainbow Trolls, gets some cool stuff and also finds a clue pointing to the Dark Clouds that there has been Illusionism.

After all, in this case, the player’s agency has not been impacted. They went to the Rainbow Caves, interacted with them, and next week they can go to the Dark Clouds. Or elsewhere, if they want.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I can accept that if the party goes to the Rainbow caves, an NPC tells them there has been a collapse, they can explore two caves (30 min tops) and the only thing they find is a clue that sends them back to Dark Clouds, this is a pretty textbook case of Illusionism.

It is a lot less clear to me that if the party goes to the Rainbow Caves, spends a session fighting Rainbow Trolls, gets some cool stuff and also finds a clue pointing to the Dark Clouds that there has been Illusionism.

After all, in this case, the player’s agency has not been impacted. They went to the Rainbow Caves, interacted with them, and next week they can go to the Dark Clouds.

There aren't definitions we all agree to so it's hard to say universally. And my definition may be incomplete.

In general, I think it "overides world mechanics", which I haven't explicitly included, because no matter where they go they will be given clues pointing toward Dark Clouds. In this case it isn't Railroading but rather Participationism because the primary goal of the group is to go through the Plot. So yes, I would agree that immediate player agency is not impacted.

Would probably need to incorporate this better, as the idea that "all roads lead to rome" seems like classic illusionism to me.

In my definition, I'm trying to decouple GM Force with strict negativity so I don't think it is favoring one style. In campaigns that rely on more prep less improv, there is likely more need for some Gm Force but often within the social contract so it's fine. GM Force is appllied within Participationism.