D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

You are posting this as if it is disagreement with what I said: whereas it seems to me to be 100% in agreement. There is no resemblance between listening to an omniscient narrator tell you things and living and knowing those things via your own perceptions, memories, feelings etc.

Sure. But you can't possibly expect that you will create all of it and the GM will create none of it? What would you do if you and another player have conflicting ideas about what's going on right here?

What is actually much closer to my own perceptions, feelings, etc are my own imaginings, daydreamings etc! Hence the most immersive way for me to play my character is to imagine things, and then imagine what would might be there, or follow, or whatever. There are RPGs that build on that (to me) obvious fact so as to make genuine immersion in my PC possible, but none relies on omniscient narration.

Again, this appears to be agreeing with me. Space aliens. I just don't find that a very immersive experience.

So your characters never travel anywhere new?

I mean, if your entire game takes place in a single location... sure, why not. City-based games are a thing. My current game will take place entirely within a county, with very little need to travel outside of it (at least no need that I can think of atm). But you have to realize that most games involve at least some traveling, and many games are entirely travelogues. The "hobo" part of "murderhobo." Even my game has the characters traveling from one town to another in it.

(And the notion of encyclopaedic knowledge is a red herring. Everyone who lives in my neighbourhood knows where the main shops are, is familiar with basic customs around how one greets people, how one boards or alights from public conveyances, how to cross the road, navigate through crowds, approach a stranger for directions, etc. They don't have to ask an omniscient narrator to tell them how to do all those basic human things.)

I may know where the shops are in my particular neck of the woods, but that doesn't mean I have any idea what's going on a town or two away--or even a neighborhood or two away. I don't travel all that much (I don't drive), and most people in any sort of pre-modern society would travel even less. So yes, you would need to have an encyclopedic knowledge unless your game takes place entirely within a relatively small area.

It's not Space Aliens if you're going from one country to the next.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you disagreed with it. I don't think you "corrected" it because I think you're wrong. This is what you said:



1) Okay. Why not?

Because players in traditional games that aren't turned into railroads have agency. Agency and railroad are mutually exclusive things.

2) What agency does it allow?

It allows you to make decisions for your character about what he says and does that have meaning. Agency.

Honestly, I think agency is best viewed over longer terms rather than one moment of play like that. As one instance of play, it doesn't display agency. Do I think I'd label any game that included such an instance of play as a railroad? Probably not. But a game that had constant or frequent moments of play like that? Yeah, probably so.

Again, look back to the OP. The players had agency by your definition. Yet still... it's a railroad.

I don't think it was a railroad. Abusive, sure. But the players had full agency to surrender in the first place, fight or flee and CHOSE to surrender. Then when the figure came they could have turned the figure down and figured out a way to escape on their own, but CHOSE to accept the offer to be magically bound to do the figure's quest. At that point they were probably on rails(depending on the nature of the binding and how much freedom they had), but not before then and they went willingly onto those rails.

This is pretty absurd. But kudos to say this and in the same breath point out how absurd others are for not expressing the absurd extreme you just came up with.

What? I didn't say anything about others being absurd for not expressing an extreme. I simply pointed out the flaw in the rather vague and open ended argument being put forth. As for what I expressed.......I expressed that I didn't think that you guys intended for omniscience to be required.

Can you answer that flaw, though? At exactly what point is someone informed enough to not be deprived of agency?

 

[bloodtide]

Humility

Humility?!?? Me?

subtitle

Subtitle?

Going back to the two doors if you say to the DM that you open the door on the right and the DM doesn't want you to go left, if he puts in a stone block preventing you from going left, he has forced you left. He invalidated your choice and agency and moved you where he wanted to go. Then if he puts in a wand that destroys stone in the ogre treasure so that you can go right and leave the dungeon after the fight, he has forced you down that path as well.

That's railroading.

As an offical Railroad Baron, I'd call into question this.

It's simple: if the DM wants 'Event A' to happen.....then just have ONE door. It's so simple: At the end of the hallway is ONE door. Open it and you will have whatever the DM wants to happen...happen.

You only need two doors if the DM wants too choices.

this is unlike a railroaded adventure where anything you try will fail unless it is the GM's pre-approved solution or all solutions/choices ultimately result in the same outcome,

There is a problem here though. I'd call it Easy Button Players (players that think they should be able to alter game reality on a whim, in their favor) and Buddy DMs (When the DM is a "fan" of the and lets the players alter game reality at will). Or when the players only do a tiny effort, but expect reality to be altered.

A classic example: A bunch of foes are in a tavern. Instead of just doing a direct attack, the players try something they think is "clever". The characters go over to the store and buy twelve flasks of lamp oil. Then they sneak over to the tavern and spread the oil around. Then light the oil with a torch and wait for the tavern to explode and automatically kill all the foes inside. Though as DM I point out while the tavern does catch on fire....nothing explodes. This is where many players will complain that "It's a Railroad".

Even if you sign on willingly a linear adventure is still not a railroad. With a linear adventure that you signed on to, you can still step off the line and go do something else. With a railroad you can't.

Well, problem here too. People will say "it's OK" if the characters rob a bank, and the bankers in response send bounty hunters after them. And the players can't just "take a step" and "wish" the bounty hunters away. But if the DM, completely independent of anything the characters do, can just have some goblin thieves show up and target the characters.....THEN people will say that the players MUST be able to just "take a step" and "wish" the goblin thieves away.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a misdescription of this thread. Other things have also occurred in the thread.

I'm not describing the thread. I'm describing the effect of you insisting on your definition of railroad in the face of fairly strong opposition.

 

[Autumnal]

[I'm not sure if you're familiar with Dworkin's discussion of the evolution of the use of "courtesy" as a normative standard in his book Law's Empire,

They don’t let you leave American social history programs alive without reading him.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because players in traditional games that aren't turned into railroads have agency. Agency and railroad are mutually exclusive things.

How so?

It allows you to make decisions for your character about what he says and does that have meaning. Agency.

And what is the player seeking when he opens the door? What reason does he have to pick one door over the other? In what way can he effect change that he wants on the fiction?

I don't think it was a railroad. Abusive, sure. But the players had full agency to surrender in the first place, fight or flee and CHOSE to surrender. Then when the figure came they could have turned the figure down and figured out a way to escape on their own, but CHOSE to accept the offer to be magically bound to do the figure's quest. At that point they were probably on rails(depending on the nature of the binding and how much freedom they had), but not before then and they went willingly onto those rails.

No matter what they chose, they were going to wind up in that jail cell and meet the stranger. The GM, who just proclaimed himself a Railroad Baron, already said this. Their choices were not really choices… they either saw no other options or else they were trying to do what they were “supposed to do”.

What? I didn't say anything about others being absurd for not expressing an extreme. I simply pointed out the flaw in the rather vague and open ended argument being put forth. As for what I expressed.......I expressed that I didn't think that you guys intended for omniscience to be required.

No, you crafted an absurd extreme that no one has argued and then dismissed folks statements based on your absurd extreme.

Can you answer that flaw, though? At exactly what point is someone informed enough to not be deprived of agency?

I think it really depends on the situation. I think it depends on the scope of what we’re talking about. I don’t think it’s really easy to grab one moment of play and hold that up as indicative of an entire game.

The example with the doors, as much as this example can display agency, I think that some information that makes a distinction between the two doors. Or at the very least, the opportunity for such information. Without that, there’s nothing about the choice that matters to the players.

 

[uzirath]

I don't think it's about making the world. It's about deciding what the players' characters will be doing in it. What they care about and what their goals are. If all that is determined by (or entirely subject to the approval/inclusion of) the GM, then how is the player to exercise their agency?

People can buy into that kind of game. I do it plenty myself. But isn't it a railroad in that we know ahead of time how it's largely going to go? Are little cosmetic changes that don't affect the overall direction of play really enough to say it's not a railroad?

I'd love to see people actually interrogate that idea and what it means rather than just get outraged at the use of the term railroading. Because there is something worth considering there.

I'm having trouble keeping up with the madcap pace of this thread, but this bit interested me, so I'll dive in.

I typically play in relatively traditional games where the GM has much of the authority over the fiction. I wouldn't say all of the authority because it's more collaborative than that. Typically the group chooses a genre together (maybe from a menu of options from the GM) and then the players design characters in consultation with the GM. The GM puts together some sort of adventure, taking into account the genre expectations and particular characters, and play begins. Play involves players declaring actions and the GM narrating consequences, mediated by dice and rules.

Within this structure, I'm curious where the line is between a merely "cosmetic" change and something that alters "the overall direction of play." Some examples to consider:

1. A PC buys new clothes or decides that they whistle while they walk. Maybe the clothes affect NPC reactions. Whistling might prompt wandering monster checks. Neither is likely to cause any big changes to the GM's scenario. Safely in the "cosmetic" category?
2. PCs decide to do further research in town before heading off on some quest. Based on some good die rolls and GM improvisation, they learn something significant which changes their strategy (or gear or spell choices, etc.) such that their odds of success have improved significantly (or the cost of such success has been reduced). The adventure is unaltered in the sense that the GM already has a map and background info and NPCs and whatnot, but it will play out quite differently due to the choice to do some research. Still cosmetic? Or is this a substantial change?
3. In the midst of their quest, the PCs encounter a dangerous adversary. They elect to engage in conversation rather than combat. Through brilliant role-playing and/or dice rolls in combination with the GM's understanding of the adversary's personality and goals, they forge some sort of agreement or truce. This has shifted the plot significantly. Perhaps patrons or allies of the PCs will be upset. Perhaps the adversary will double-cross them. The GM will have some work to do before the next session to think things through.

Each example, to some degree or another, includes an element of surprise for the participants. The players did something that was potentially unexpected and this generated additional fiction. I can imagine any of these events happening whether the GM was running a home-grown adventure or something published. I can't quite put my finger on whether/how the cosmetic ⇿ substantial axis directly relates to the concept of railroading. (I admit that the latter term is not one I worry about much, despite its hot-button nature on the internet.)

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, specific goals can be set in classic play, but I would say that is a sort of leaking in of a more trad agenda. This is why 2e spent so much energy talking about how the PCs will get powerful items and emphasized that you can't buy magic.

I must have missed that memo, unless it was referring to magic specific to the character; as I recall 2e taking a similar approach to 1e in this regard, to wit that presence/absence/extent of a magic item economy was up to the individual DM at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

That's both true to my knowledge and unfortunate. But published adventures don't encapsulate how to play the game. They just represent what the publisher thinks they can sell, and  possibly what they consider the core gameplay to be.

And you have admit a traditional railroady adventure path is a lot easier to write than any other sort of adventure. That probably has a lot to do with why people keep publishing them.

In fairness APs can also be a lot easier to run, which might have a lot to do with why people keep DMing them.

 

[Lanefan]

At the very least if we are not allowed to use agency to refer to a player's ability to meaningfully impact the setting/scenario based on the informed decisions they make for their characters then we need jargon for that so we can meaningfully talk about it and not have to deal with arguments by definition meant to shut down discourse.

Thing is, as written that definition is being asked to do a lot of - as in, too much - work in order to arrive at agency.

There's three different things - related, but different - contained in that definition that can (and IMO probably should) be broken out into separate elements:

Ability to make meaningful decisions (at all). This covers whether the players' decisions have any downstream relevance, or whether the GM is going to shift things such that no matter what the players decide the same outcome will occur regardless. In short: the quantum Ogres problem. To me this is the very core of agency, along with the ability to make unexpected decisions e.g. to turn back and go somewhere else entirely.

Whether, and how, and to what extent those decisions are 'informed'. Must a player have all relevant information to hand before a decision can be said to have agency, even if the character making the decision in the fiction does not? I say no; and that if the character doesn't know it the player doesn't know it, and that this lack of knowledge does NOT count as a loss of agency. This also applies to (potential) consequences. Flip side, though: if the character would know something then it's on the GM to make sure the player knows it too.

Whether, and how, and to what extent (missing: and when) the setting/scenario will be impacted. Agency is lost here if a decision's reasonable impacts on the setting/scenario are overruled or ignored by the GM. That said, players still have agency to make decisions that ultimately have no downstream impact at all, e.g. if two doors both turn out to lead to empty dead ends there was still agency in the choice as to which one to go through first.

And there's a fourth relevant piece, missing from the definition quoted above, which IMO is also a huge part of agency:

Ability to declare actions. This is different from the ability to make decisions, as actions can be declared even when no decision has been (or can be) made. And note this includes declaring actions that don't make sense or that have absolutely zero chance of success - that they're nonsensical shouldn't prevent a player from declaring them anyway, and disallowing such declarations from even being made is a violation of agency. And actions that do or can make sense should - I would think obviously - always be declarable; with the proviso that if multiple players all want to declare actions at once some sort of mechanism needs be in place to determine in what sequence they get sorted at the table.

For me, agency consists of the ability to make meaningful decisions based on the info my character would have at the time plus the ability to declare actions; as those - plus the ability to speak as my character, but I'm assuming that's a universal thing - are all I need to play my character.