D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I don't see how different approaches to play having different engagement with different tools is unjust. PbtA games work very differently from D&D games. It would make sense that they engage certain tools in different ways. PbtA games do not engage Force -- they don't expect it, don't tolerate it well, and their design is expressly to avoid it. I don't see how that's unjust.

To the specific example, I think the concept of "world mechanics" is messy and unclear, especially sense if any such things exist it's wrapped up in the system's say.

And, again, Force has very little to do with prep in execution. It can be as easily deployed in improv as in prep. I think that it's fair to say that the level of prep increases the odds of Force being deployed to protect/enable the prep, but that's a second order function of Force.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’m sick as hell so I can’t engage my brain with any commentary.

But the definition of Force Ive always used is:

Subordinating the system’s say or a player’s thematic, tactical, or strategic input in favor of GM preferred outcome.


That catches everything from degenerate framing and consequences (meaning they don’t follow the fiction, honor the integrity of the gamestate, observe the rules/structure) to decision-points and declared actions, to fudging results, to thematic interest in both scenes and play trajectory.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sure there are probably GM-less story-now games; are there any that have gained traction/an audience? I could see that being an ideal for some groups

I ran a session of Orbital - no dice, no masters - earlier this year. But it still needs someone to frame scenes.

A friend and I have started a shared GMing Burning Wheel game - we each have a character, and each is responsible for framing and consequence narration in relation to the other's PC.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Talking about Force or Railroading in this sort of play is just a category error. There's no step in framing or resolution where the GM is entitled or expected to use backstory as a touchstone for saying what happens next. So there's no "curtain" to hide ad hoc decision-making behind. There's just the back-and-forth of the conversation and the dice rolls.

Agree on Story Games. Those Moves are sanctioned by the primary "player input" of I want to play a Story Game with these mechanics.

I think this does point out a sort of gap in D&D. How the world is created and works isn't really spelled out like it is in Story games. And the PH and DMG sometimes talk about table norms, but not really about what "world creation mechanics are you adopting"

 

[pemerton]

It would probably be bad GMing in DW to narrate giant eagle nests into the mountains, just whenever, I agree.

I don't think it would be bad GMing either as a soft move, or as part of a player move that allowed them to notice potential threats around them (I don't remember if Discern Realities gives the GM this opportunity).

I think it's bad GMing to narrate giant eagle nests when you're not interested in eagles as a threat/opportunity, but rather think that's just a naturalistic response to fantasy mountains.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an interesting point if I follow you--basically, that GM improv can still appear like Force or railroading even if there was not a pre-planned set of events. That is, just by the nature of the role the GM has more authority to direct the narrative even if they are improvising within the bounds of the conversation. I'm sure there are probably GM-less story-now games; are there any that have gained traction/an audience? I could see that being an ideal for some groups

Yes, it's why the definition I use is the way it is -- it doesn't care if the GM is ad-libbing or referring to notes.

As for a GMless Story Now game, Ironsworn, a free game found here, has GM, GM-less, and solo play modes. A more well known story game (not quite story now) that has no GM is Fiasco.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

I necessarily don't. Or I don't care if it is as the definition is nebulous. But you agree that by this means the GM can direct the game in their desired direction?

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.

How much of tabula rasa should the GMs mind be for Story Now game then? Because We all have ideas, influences etc. If the GM has watched a ghost themed horror film on the previous night and start describing things in a manner evoking ghost story themes and introducing ghost-related phenomena as complications is this GM directing the game to their desired direction? And is this a bad thing?

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.

Sure. I am kinda thinking about softer influences here, where the GM directs the and nudges the game without explicit force (at least as defined by @Ovinomancer.)

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.

Right. And I don't of course think people should actively try to work against the system. But again, see my ghost example, it's not that clear cut, yes?

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?

Presumably in a game which benefits from some prep, they're to prepare the GM for most likely events that might occur in the game.

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.

I feel that more developed the characters and their surroundings become, more will interesting things develop organically.

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.

Perhaps. Then again, if it is done subtly enough, is it a problem? And I don't know if that is even necessarily the case. For my last game I prepped five and half combat encounters. Two fights actually occurred, the PCs resolved other situations peacefully.

 

[Ovinomancer]

re: Participationism

I understand the definition people here have provided, but I do find it a bit confusing, perhaps because it is not (afaik) an autonym. My perception is that, like railroading and illusionism, these terms are commonly (though not exclusivly) used as a negative, i.e. how to produce gameplay that is not that. So, for example, is ten candles an example of participationism, given that everyone knows what's going to happen to a certain degree? What's at stake there seems to how it all goes down. In that way, it strikes me as similar to what is fun about even a very trad horror game like CoC.

Ten Candles, as I understand it, is not, because Force isn't deployed, the system itself is doing the work of driving to the end point. So there's no need to be onboard with Force (which is usually usually used to manage Story or Pacing). And, yes, most CoC is chock full of Force, and often very entertaining!

There's nothing at all wrong with Participationism. You aren't incorrect that it can be a term for what some people like to avoid, just like railroading is, or even Force. Preferences and tolerances vary. I don't think it's something to avoid, and it's a useful descriptor of a play where everyone's bought into the premise that the GM has a Story and play will be about discovering it. Again, one of the most memorable D&D games I've ever had was actually pitched as a railroad and we agreed to Participate. Tons of fun, massive Force used to really create some amazing scenes of play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not trying to favor anything. As I said above, I'm actually trying to neuter GM Force, as I don't want it associated purely negatively.

I am associating prepped games with more likely to use GM Force. But I am also trying to say GM Force is OK when in service of the higher level "player input" on what they prioritize. The AP is the easiest example. But even a home brewed game that relies on prepped encounters, you hopefuly have the session 0 that says "this is the kind of game I'll be running. Because of X,Y,Z I usually do some prepping of encounters, clues, etc. Sometimes I'll use llusionism to use these." and the players are saying "Yes, I agree. Please use Illusionism/Gm Force if you have to because I want you to save time and we usually have a better experience when you prep then when you do pure improve or use random tables. The 'better experience' can trump the immediate agency or world mechanics if needed." [some tables also add -- please minimize the use if you can and only illusionism]

Now, tables don't always have these discussions as frankly but the tables that run smoothly I believe have agreed to this at some level.

I am trying to save value judgement for GM Force and Illusionism for the times it is done without player social contract.

GM Force and Illusionism in service of player social contract = Participationism

GM Force and Illusionism at odds with player social contract =Railroading

From my experience, Story games tend to have very little GM Force because they aren't heavily prepped and the GM "moves" are part of the game structure.

This is a losing game, because people are going to have different tolerances. I have a moderate to low tolerance for Force these days (it was much higher in the past), and will have issues long before most people get to calling the game a railroad. Similarly, others may have a very high tolerance and not cry railroad when most people would. The idea that you can safe a term and make it totally neutral is, as I opened, a losing game. Someone will always complain about it being loaded, negative, or not a word they would use.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’m sick as hell so I can’t engage my brain with any commentary.

But the definition of Force Ive always used is:

Subordinating the system’s say or a player’s thematic, tactical, or strategic input in favor of GM preferred outcome.


That catches everything from degenerate framing and consequences (meaning they don’t follow the fiction, honor the integrity of the gamestate, observe the rules/structure) to decision-points and declared actions, to fudging results, to thematic interest in both scenes and play trajectory.

Yup, we're saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.