D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I don't know what the anything else is representing here. Yes, the definition clearly catches the two (die rolls would be system say) examples you give, but it also catches cases where the GM overrides player backstory (ie, player input) to achieve a preferred outcome as well. The example that @hawkeyefan provided where the GM partially ignored the character's Folk Hero background feature was ignoring both the system say and the player input because it clearly disregarded the player's intent of selecting that ability and how it would work for their character.

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).

Sure. Although I think it would have to be a very intentional 5e game to totally avoid Force. Very intentional. The system has too many spaces where it invites Force.

Fair enough.

Cool.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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



we get



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

I don't see that non-immediate input is somehow okay to violate. If I provide background for my character, and it's accepted, but later the GM rewrites it to support what they want to do, this is clearly ignoring my player input and Force is occurring. Timing is actually unimportant, here. The ignoring system say can reach pretty far back, especially when a GM walks back a previous win. I don't see timing being a particularly useful constraint on Force.

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"

 

[Ovinomancer]

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).

Illusionism has little to do with level of prep. It's about using Force in a way that is hidden. The classic example of this is the ogre that shows up as an encounter no matter what the players choose to do. The is Force, but it's not readily detectable because there's no way for the players to know what would happen given other choices made. The example below of rerouting to the prep through a gimmick is a form of Illusionism.

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.

Not even Force, here. No preferred outcome is enforce, players just get a bit of secret backstory revealed. They can follow that or not.

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.

Right.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I don't see that non-immediate input is somehow okay to violate. If I provide background for my character, and it's accepted, but later the GM rewrites it to support what they want to do, this is clearly ignoring my player input and Force is occurring. Timing is actually unimportant, here. The ignoring system say can reach pretty far back, especially when a GM walks back a previous win. I don't see timing being a particularly useful constraint on Force.

I'm talking about a "hiearchy of input". And it's the other way. The non-immediate input is likely the "priority" input and actually less okay to violate. Timing is important only in so much as the first inputs at session 0 likely contains overriding input, but of course that overarching input can change if the table agrees. See the AP social contract example.

I am trying to neuter the definition of Force, not have it be negative off the bat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

I don't think it is reasonable to expect anyone to generate made up play report.

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.

Of course I am not claiming that use of force is equally easy in Dungeon World than in D&D. That would be absurd. It clearly is far easier in the latter. I'm merely pointing out that it is not black and white and exist more as a spectrum.

How can it?

Support your argument.

Do you deny that how GM frames things influences the direction the game takes? Do you deny that what sort of consequences the GM employs influences the direction the game takes? What you're actually disagreeing with here?

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.

Right. And this is part of this spectrum. GM might occasionally do this. Or they can do it often. At which point it becomes a railroad? Similarly, at the branching path adventure design, how many branches there needs to be for it not to be a railroad? These things are not black and white either or things.

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.

Sure. And frankly, I can't imagine ever planning 15 sessions in advance. Having some vague ideas for two sessions in advance seems like a lot.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Is “overrides world mechanics” an equitable criterion though? It seems to me that it would unjustly favour PbtA games rather than prepped games. After all, if nothing is prepped, the clue only exists once it has appeared onscreen, whereas in a more prepped game, the mere fact that you are inserting clues pointing back is considered GM Force.

 

[pemerton]

You intend 'honoring the fiction' to have some additional requirements than just honoring the fiction as one might use it in ordinary language. I'd say this is another place where jargon is getting in the way of communication.

See @Campbell's post:

My view of honoring the shared fiction comes from an expectation that when a GM designs a scenario they should have a clear idea about the motivations and capabilities of all NPCs involved so that players can leverage the fictional positioning they have to influence the scenario. Changing those details after the fact is not honoring play because instead of following the natural logic of the fictional scenario you are trying to lead it.

Right. If the module is written so that there is a default bad guy, but in the event that the PCs defeat that bad guy "early" then a new bad guy written up in a sidebar is to be dropped in to replace the defeated on, how are the players supposed to change the course of the pre-scripted events?

The GM in this case is neither honouring prep - they're changing it, adding fictional elements to maintain the pre-planned sequence of events - nor honouring the players' success in play - they're negating it by adding in a fictional element that renders the apparent change to the fiction (ie defeating the bad guy) ineffectual to change anything (a newly-minted second string just takes over and keeps everything on the same path).

And this is not a hypothetical example. It's what is recommended to GMs in the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken Souls.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect anyone to generate made up paly report.

Well to be honest, it'd be a lot cooler if you offered an actual play report. But since that's impossible, what I'm asking is for you to give a bit more detail to your hypothetical.

Of course I am not claiming that use of force is equally easy in Dungeon World than in D&D. That would be absurd. It clearly is far easier in the latter. I'm merely pointing out that it is not black and white and exist more as a spectrum.

Do you deny that how GM frames things influences the direction the game takes? Do you deny that what sort of consequences the GM employs influences the direction the game takes? What you're actually disagreeing with here?

That scene framing or establishing consequences are not examples of Force. Influencing play isn't the significant qualifier for Force, I don't think, or else just about everything is Force.

Yes, the GM influences the direction of play by framing a scene. So what? How do you see this as Force?

Right. And this is part of this spectrum. GM might occasionally do this. Or they can do it often. At which point it becomes a railroad? Similarly, at the branching path adventure design, how many branches there needs to be for it not to be a railroad? These things are not black and white either or things.

I think it may happen from time to time even when a GM of Dungeon World isn't applying Force, yeah. I'd likely say it's more of a coincidence than an intentional thing because Dungeon World specifically says not to do that, but sure, let's continue to ignore that part.

I think that persistent Force was offered as a definition for a railroad early in the thread, and at least a few times since by @Ovinomancer, so yeah, I'm fine with that definition. It seems to suit.

I don't know where this black and white caveat came from.....I tend to avoid absolutes because there are almost always exceptions.....and we wind up arguing about edge cases instead of common or expected practice. Again I'll mention how Dungeon World specifically says not to do this, so people who do are pretty much ignoring the system and are edge cases.

About the branches. Instead of trying to determine some magic number that moves us from railroading into something else....let's just look at them and ask what purpose do they serve?

Sure. And frankly, I can't imagine ever planning 15 sessions in advance. Having some vague ideas for two sessions in advance seems like a lot.

My prep has gotten less and less with time. If I'm running 5e, my prep would largely be front loaded prior to session 1. After the first session, any prep I make will consist of a few bullet points of what may happen that session, and perhaps some stat blocks if I know certain enemy types may be needed.

Honestly, I think it's the way D&D 5e functions to require some amount of prep, and that need for prep becomes a feedback loop that shapes play as a result. GMs are more inclined to move things toward what they've prepared than what they've not prepared.

 

[pemerton]

I’m not to clear how these examples are not GM force, even if the GM was not expecting the wizard to Spout Knowledge.

You seem to be describing GM consequence narration. There is no manipulation of mechanics. There is no manipulation of established fiction or unrevealed backstory. There is no introduction of new fictional elements to undercut the significance of a declared and resolved action. There is no social manipulation to get the players to exercise their authority over action declaration in one particular way.

What am I missing? Where are you seeing force?

 

[pemerton]

The claim was that in Story Now the GM cannot direct the game towards their desired outcome without it being obvious. I call BS on that. That's it.

This is an empirical conjecture. In my view it's false.

If the GM narrates mountains with giant nests in them, it's obvious that the GM is interested in giant birds of prey. That's the whole point of the soft move!

If the GM narrates Elves turning it up and driving away the Orcs that were threatening the PCs, and there's nothing on the PC sheets that makes Elves salient, then it's obvious that the GM is the one who is keen on Elves.

When authorship is overt, how do you think it's being hidden?

The contrast with (say) AD&D played using wandering monster tables is obvious: when I roll fire beetles as a wandering monster, no one thinks that I as GM am especially excited by fire beetles. It's just what I happened to roll!