D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

Sometimes it's difficult to tell--it certainly seems that some of the most-commonly-cited uses of force involve unrevealed backstory.

Yes. The most commonly cited instances of theft - let's say - involve cars. Not all cars are, or ever have been, stolen.

A serious question: Outside of something with a keyed map of some sort (like a dungeon or a hexcrawl) how could one use unrevealed backstory in a way that wasn't force? I guess using it to frame a situation wouldn't be force (leaving aside any debate/s about situation-first or backstory-first). I think I've seen it said that using unrevealed backstory to adjudicate action resolution is force--is this only true if the GM is using that unrevealed backstory to point the narrative of the game in a specific direction, or toward a specific outcome?

Start with the map-and-key example: player declares I look for secret doors. If the GM answers by reference to the key, that's not Force - guessing or figuring out the secrets of the map is part of play. To put it another way, there's no principle that says every search demands a check.

Consider a different sort of sandbox-y example: the notes say that the Ogre in the Hill Cave hates Halflings, and always attacks them. The players have failed to learn that stuff (eg they didn't pick up the right rumour, or do the right divination) and so the Halfling PC approaches the Ogre hoping to get information from it. But the GM decides the Ogre attacks. I don't think that's Force - again, guessing or figuring out the "unrevealed backstory" is part of play.

If the backstory is so complex and evolving that it's not realistic to think the players can figure it out, that becomes a bit different I think: it's not necessarily Force, but it might be a pretty frustrating game.

But if the GM places a Halfling-hating Ogre because they know the PCs use the Halfling as their "face", so that the players will be discourage from taking such-and-such an approach to the ingame situation and will instead go about things this other way . . . well, to me that looks a bit Force-ish (in this case, using authority over backstory to generate pressure on how the players exercise their authority over action declaration for their PCs).

 

[Campbell]

Is there some acceptable language to differentiate games that are basically played like cooperative Mass Effect so I can avoid them when I don't want to play them and seek them out when I do? I understand there's a great deal of nuance between different forms of games* that are focused on collaborative storytelling. There's also a good deal of nuance between different Story Now games. Most of you here have probably seen some substantial differences of opinion between @pemerton or @Manbearcat and myself about things like intent and task, walking towards conflict, and a host of other issues. That does not mean talking in broader strokes is not useful. You lot are talking about Colorado versus Utah when I'm trying to avoid an accidental layover in the United States.

Note: Example is just an example. I'm a proud Army veteran who proudly resides in Colorado which would definitely win out over Utah. Still love you Salt Lake City.

* Mostly talking individual games here because it's quite possible to play traditional games without playing them in a Mass Effect way. Does that work? Almost everyone loves Mass Effect.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My point of confusion is that I think you can be fully on with, say, using an adventure path and also not be ok with the GM calling for rolls and then ignoring them, or fudging dice rolls, or any number of similar GM practices that are annoying. So I read @hawkeyefan 's account as an example (or at this point, examples plural) of bad GMing rather than endemic to 5e. Or to use my above example: I enjoy CoC, but I would not enjoy a keeper who ignores dice rolls in a similar way. I find a term like "GM storytelling" to be too vague to really capture the variety of playstyles and practices available within "trad" games.

(Further, it has been stated that it's easier to tell or more obvious when a gm is using Force in, say, Dungeon World, but I'm not sure it's all that difficult in trad games either, as the account shows.)

I’d say the examples I’ve shared are instances of bad GMing. I think each has involved Force to one degree or another, though the Force itself is not always what I’ve objected to. I do think a lot of it is related to 5e being the game in question simply because the rules don’t do anything to prevent this kind of thing. In some ways, they even encourage it.

I don’t think that it’s always easy to spot the use of Force in 5e D&D. Sometimes it is, but other times it’s impossible. A simple example is if a DM rolls in the open. Much harder to fudge in that case, right? Another is if the DM announces any and all DCs for any roll that’s about to be made.

If your DM is rolling behind a screen and never openly shares DCs, he’s not breaking any rules. But telling if Force is being used is much harder as a result. The system does nothing to lessen the chance here. Only the DM can do that by making attempts to do so and by GMing in specific ways .

Many games, including Dungeon World and most other PbtA games, avoids these two pitfalls by never having the GM roll dice; all rolls are made by the players. And the target scores for rolls are always the same; 10+ is a hit, 7-9 is a hit with a setback or a partial hit, 6 or less is a miss. The system renders it impossible for the GM to fudge a die roll or to change a DC on the fly. He simply cannot do it. The players will always know the results of all rolls and the outcomes.

Just some basic examples of how systems can either enable Force or resist it.

 

[pemerton]

My point of confusion is that I think you can be fully on with, say, using an adventure path and also not be ok with the GM calling for rolls and then ignoring them, or fudging dice rolls, or any number of similar GM practices that are annoying. So I read @hawkeyefan 's account as an example (or at this point, examples plural) of bad GMing rather than endemic to 5e. Or to use my above example: I enjoy CoC, but I would not enjoy a keeper who ignores dice rolls in a similar way. I find a term like "GM storytelling" to be too vague to really capture the variety of playstyles and practices available within "trad" games.

(Further, it has been stated that it's easier to tell or more obvious when a gm is using Force in, say, Dungeon World, but I'm not sure it's all that difficult in trad games either, as the account shows.)

How does an adventure path work if the players are really allowed to declare whatever actions they like for their PCs?

 

[Malmuria]

Is there some acceptable language to differentiate games that are basically played like cooperative Mass Effect so I can avoid them when I don't want to play them and seek them out when I do? I understand there's a great deal of nuance between different forms of games* that are focused on collaborative storytelling. There's also a good deal of nuance between different Story Now games. Most of you here have probably seen some substantial differences of opinion between @pemerton or @Manbearcat and myself about things like intent and task, walking towards conflict, and a host of other issues. That does not mean talking in broader strokes is not useful. You lot are talking about Colorado versus Utah when I'm trying to avoid an accidental layover in the United States.

Note: Example is just an example. I'm a proud Army veteran who proudly resides in Colorado which would definitely win out over Utah. Still love you Salt Lake City.

* Mostly talking individual games here because it's quite possible to play traditional games without playing them in a Mass Effect way. Does that work? Almost everyone loves Mass Effect.

That makes sense. And vice versa, if someone is planning a road trip across the US, saying to them "hey, have you thought about flying to Europe instead" is similarly not so useful.

 

[Lanefan]

What do you mean by "properly resolved"? AD&D and AW handle this completely differently. For instance, movement rates and action economy are a big deal in AD&D. They don't exist in AW.

By "properly resolved" I was trying to say "whatever resolution system is in use in whatever system is being played at the time" without having to type all those words, but now I've ended up typing them anyway.

Question still stands: in a story-now game, once the bird has flown off with its PC captive* who gets to say where it goes?

* - and before you or anyone else says "wait, how did the bird get to grab the PC in the first place without x, y, and z resolution methods being used?" I'm asking this in context of all those resolutions having already been done and, due no doubt to some bad luck, come out in the bird's favour.

 

[pemerton]

Question still stands: in a story-now game, once the bird has flown off with its PC captive* who gets to say where it goes?

In AW or DW, arriving somewhere is likely to be part of the GM's narration of their move.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is there some acceptable language to differentiate games that are basically played like cooperative Mass Effect so I can avoid them when I don't want to play them and seek them out when I do?

I don't know, I have never played Mass Effect. My understanding is that it is some sort of alien dating simulator...

 

[Lanefan]

In AW or DW, arriving somewhere is likely to be part of the GM's narration of their move.

OK, so the GM gets to say where the bird goes. Glad we got that nailed down.

Next question: what if anything is wrong with the GM using the bird's destination* (which she gets to determine, as noted above) as a means of introducing new content she wants to introduce e.g. a new realm, a potential adventure site, a different type of landscape?

For example, say the party's been doing lots of inland adventuring and she'd like to see a bit more maritime content, so she has the bird go to an island offshore. Or she's come up with a neat idea for a culture and sees this as a glorious opportunity to at least get the PCs into the right neighbourhood, so she has the bird go to a craggy mountain in the middle of said culture's realm. That sort of thing.

* - assuming the remaining PCs come to rescue their captured buddy at some point, of course.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would expect so, yes. I mean, they're in several of the official 5e products with which I'm familiar. The DMG spends a significant amount of time on them, and provides several examples of tables based on terrain type.

So I feel your disregard of a system other than "GM decides" seems pretty telling. Yes, I would agree with your assessment that the more the GM has the ability to just decide things without any kind of system restraining him, the more railroady it may start to get.

I feel that random encounter tables are one of those things that are liable to produce unfun results if the procedure is slavishly followed.

In any case, the point really here was to examine the definition of force. No player input has ben overridden, so no force (by the definition used by many in this thread) is used, and if railroading is continued use of force (the definition used in this thread) it shouldn't be railroading. Yet the result feels like railroading. So what gives?

Now, imagine there was a system that helped determine when and how and what happened, removing some of the GM deciding and replacing it with system deciding, and including a random element such as a die roll on a table, or perhaps an action roll indicating a complication. Then the system is having a big say in what happens, and the GM is working with the system.

Sure, shifting some decisions to the system reduces GM authority. It still doesn't increase player agency though. And all these scenarios involve die rolling anyway. In Dungeon World 'separate them' just works once invoked, but there are die roll before it can be invoked. In D&D bird can just be invoked without die roll, but then there are die rolls to see if dragging away succeeds. I'm not sure if this is particular drastic difference.

I wasn't making any comparison other than saying if everyone's on board with whatever play processes are being used, then all is good.

If you say so!

I've separated this bit because this is the relevant part. What if there was a resolution system that made it clear to all involved that the decisions made mattered and are not being undermined or subverted in some unknown way?

This way, there is no "if it was later revealed...." because nothing needs to be revealed; it's all open as part of play.

Again, there are games designed to cut to the action, too. D&D can do it, yes, but when they openly did so, the fanbase had a collective aneurysm. 5e Can do it, although the encounter budget and related elements will likely need to be jettisoned, too.

I think we're in agreement on this point.....I want the game to move at a proper pace. It may fluctuate based on what's going on, but I want things to move along. I don't want those moments that drag.

Sure. Different systems do different things better. One system might mitigate one sort of unfun. It might produce another sort of unfun. And yes, it makes sense to use whatever system the people involved produces most fun to them. But my point is that it is ultimately more about people than it is about about systems.