D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

I realize that Story Now players aren’t a hive mind, but when I provided this example earlier, this wasn’t considered an example of GM Force.

I don't recall you earlier post except in vague details. But as I understand what you have posted, the GM authors <stuff> into Rainbow Rocks in order to motivate the players to declare actions that will take their PCs to Dark Clouds.

This is the GM using their backstory authority to manipulate the players' use of their authority over action declarations, in order to try and bring a pre-conceived event (the PCs' arrival at and exploration of Dark Clouds) into play.

To me it looks the same - in its structure - as my GM who establishes a Halfling-hating Ogre knowing that when the PCs approach the Ogre the players will have the Halfling PC be the "face". I described my example as Force-ish. Your example, if I've understood it, is the same.

To borrow some language from @Campbell, the GM is not a curious explorer of what happens when the PCs get to Rainbow Rocks.

For my own part, I don't really understand why this GM is faffing around with Rainbow Rocks at all - why not just frame the PCs into Dark Clouds? The only reason I can see is to maintain an illusion that the GM is indifferent to what actions the players declare for their PCs. But in fact the GM isn't indifferent to that! So why pretend otherwise?

The issue is not what it should be called, but lumping in something like the Rainbow Rocks scenario, where player agency is not affected, with something like @hawkeyefan ’s example, where to all intents and purposes, the PCs are in a cutscene.

I want to lump them together, in so far as I don't want to sit at either table, basically for the same reason.

Both affect player agency: in the Rainbow Rocks scenario, the players' decision to go to Rainbow Rocks is being treated by the GM as an opportunity to prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs that will take them to Dark Clouds.

To once again borrow some language from @Campbell, I'm not super-interested in the fact that one is Colorado and the other Utah, given that I'm trying to avoid altogether laying over in the west of the US, maybe trying to avoid the US altogether.

Let’s try with an example: one adventure within a campaign. The party starts trapped in a demi-plane filled with various biomes and factions.

How the party got trapped is not relevant for the example:

• it could have been GM Force;
• it could have been bad luck (a poor roll in trying to identify what a magical item does);
• it could have been the premise of the adventure (“Hey guys, what do you think of an adventure where your party is trapped in a demi-plane and is trying to escape?”)

The module provides several ways out of the demi-plane. Notably, the players can ally with various factions. As they wander through the demi-plane, they can learn more about the wizard that created the demi-plane.

As you describe it, this is not the same as Rainbow Rocks: the GM is not establishing backstory and narrating consequences in order to prompt the players to declare actions that will have their PCs engage with one faction rather than another, or explore one place rather than another.

To me, what you describe here looks like a (limited horizon) version of a "living sandbox".

That is also a type of RPGing in which I have little interest, but not for the same reasons as the examples that involve the GM's use of Force.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, if they're unfun for you or your group, then I understand that, and I would say not to use them. But if you don't use them, then what are you substituting? Sounds like "GM Decides What Happens".

Does this not sound like GM overriding the system's say? Or perhaps to be an alternate take on it? You're taking away a system to randomly determine events and replacing it with one where the GM decides. Combined with many other layers of GM decides.

How much of the game needs to be "GM decides" before it becomes railroading? I imagine that will vary from group to group, and your tolerance of it may be much higher than someone like @pemerton 's would be. My tolerance for it is somewhere between you two.

I would argue it does increase player agency because if the system is used to determine something, then there's some kind of formula, right? An hourly check via roll to see if a random encounter occurs, and if so, a table to indicate which one. That is an understandable thing that the players can base decisions upon. They know the odds and how those odds will be affected if they spend more time in the area or doing something that will result in another check.

Replace that with the GM deciding what happens based on what feels cool or right; what happens? There's no way to know the odds of anything, so any decisions the players are making are far less informed.

Yeah, I guess if there was a some sort of exploration minigame the players could try to anticipate and avoid random encounters it might matter.

But I think having the GM to decide encounters makes other kind of player agency easier. In such situations the encounters are probably going to be more considered, they're integrated in the world, so they can be foreshadowed. Enemies might also be more fleshed out, so there might be more material that allows more creative solutions.

As an example, in my last game the party had a preplanned "random encounter" (i.e. a small "filler" encounter while travelling) with a sabre-tooth tiger. I knew that the tiger was hostile because it was hungry and wounded, and thus likely to attack. I also knew why the tiger was wounded. But somewhat unexpectedly the PCs actually defused the situation by using a healing spell on the tiger. (Low levels with gritty rests, so it was a meaningful expenditure of resources.) They also used 'speak with animals', and managed to learn a bit about the thing that had wounded the tiger which was relevant later. Now could I have just improvised all that had I rolled a tiger on the random encounter chart? Perhaps, but unlikely.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First of, I think this is more how I would have ran it. If we roll saves and some people succeed, they get a round of actions before the enemy escapes. However, I don't think it actually would have affected the outcome. This is presumably some boss level foe with legendary resistances, so it seems unlikely the PCs would have had anything they could have used to stop her from leaving in such a short time. (Now if this is not the case, then it is another matter.)

I'm not sure if she has legendary resistance or anything quite like that. He didn't elaborate other than to say that it was his intention to have her make an appearance so we have a face for this general fey threat, but he has plans for her later on.

This sort of thing I think is a blemish. It is a tad awkward moment, but I don't think it in itself says that much about the overall level of agency in the campaign. The actions the PCs were denied wouldn't have altered the trajectory of events anyway. But how constrained are the paths the PCs can take overall? Will there be several possible way to deal with this fae queen? Can you eventually trick her, make a deal with her, learn her weaknesses, or defeat her in many different ways? Or is there just one preplanner outcome and the GM blocks other paths?

Yeah, it's just this instance of play. Or rather, a few instances spread out over the campaign. Overall, I don't feel like there's a lot of Force or that we're being railroaded. There are just specific instances where that's the case and I bring them up on these threads as examples.

Overall, I'm enjoying the game just fine.

Yeah, it's just that rolling saving throws first is kinda sensing mixed messages. Is this a combat or a cut scene?

Right. Don't paint it one way and then have it be the other. Just pick which it is and then do that. Not that I'm a fan of cut scenes, but I can at least accept them for what they are.

 

[pemerton]

There would seem to me few arguments that support hiding dice rolls from players.

I think that hiding rolls makes sense when (i) the numerical result of the roll, when compared to what the GM narrates as a consequence, will reveal information about backstory, and (ii) that backstory is intended to remain unrevealed except on certain particular numerical results.

The classic example is the roll to find a secret door in dungeon-crawling play: if (a) there is no secret door, and (b) it is intended that the fact of the absence of a door should remain unrevealed until some decisive means of detection is used (like a wand of secret door detection), then (c) an open roll will defeat that intention if the roll is a good one (either 1 or 6, depending on whether the table uses a roll low or roll high approach). So a secret roll can make sense.

Classic Traveller is similar in relation to the presence or absence of a branch of the Psionics Institute on a given world.

Obviously for hidden rolls to differ from "GM decides", the rule that correlates results to outcomes needs to be both clear and applied.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I guess if there was a some sort of exploration minigame the players could try to anticipate and avoid random encounters it might matter.

But I think having the GM to decide encounters makes other kind of player agency easier. In such situations the encounters are probably going to be more considered, they're integrated in the world, so they can be foreshadowed. Enemies might also be more fleshed out, so there might be more material that allows more creative solutions.

As an example, in my last game the party had a preplanned "random encounter" (i.e. a small "filler" encounter while travelling) with a sabre-tooth tiger. I knew that the tiger was hostile because it was hungry and wounded, and thus likely to attack. I also knew why the tiger was wounded. But somewhat unexpectedly the PCs actually defused the situation by using a healing spell on the tiger. (Low levels with gritty rests, so it was a meaningful expenditure of resources.) They also used 'speak with animals', and managed to learn a bit about the thing that had wounded the tiger which was relevant later. Now could I have just improvised all that had I rolled a tiger on the random encounter chart? Perhaps, but unlikely.

I don't see what's unlikely. Like, nothing in your example as you presented it couldn't be easily improved. I'm sure there's some details left out here, but by leaving the out you've not made a case.

 

[prabe]

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

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).

Thanks for the reply. It clarifies things, somewhat--and I suspect what it fails to clarify are on my end, not yours (meaning the problem is with the receiver, not the transmitter).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, I guess if there was a some sort of exploration minigame the players could try to anticipate and avoid random encounters it might matter.

But I think having the GM to decide encounters makes other kind of player agency easier. In such situations the encounters are probably going to be more considered, they're integrated in the world, so they can be foreshadowed. Enemies might also be more fleshed out, so there might be more material that allows more creative solutions.

As an example, in my last game the party had a preplanned "random encounter" (i.e. a small "filler" encounter while travelling) with a sabre-tooth tiger. I knew that the tiger was hostile because it was hungry and wounded, and thus likely to attack. I also knew why the tiger was wounded. But somewhat unexpectedly the PCs actually defused the situation by using a healing spell on the tiger. (Low levels with gritty rests, so it was a meaningful expenditure of resources.) They also used 'speak with animals', and managed to learn a bit about the thing that had wounded the tiger which was relevant later. Now could I have just improvised all that had I rolled a tiger on the random encounter chart? Perhaps, but unlikely.

I expect this is the kind of thing that will vary from person to person. There's nothing about an encounter with a wild animal that's hurt and/or hungry that I think can't be improvised on the spot. Especially if you're rolling on a table and get what would appear to be an odd result. You have to come up with an idea why this creature would be here and that need can be the source of some great inspiration. Often, those kinds of encounters where you have to come up with a bit of a spin are the ones that wind up being the most memorable precisely because there's something about them that makes them different.

Now, as I said above this'll depend on the GM and their strengths/weaknesses. If having to improv such details causes a GM to lock up and the game grinds to a halt....sure, that's no good.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And I'd argue those have different implications for how much Force as its generally used here is involved. There's a difference between your example and "Y seems slightly the more likely, so from lack of a better reason, do that" or "Since there's no obvious reason to chose one of the two over the other, roll a die."

(And yes, I understand avoiding anticlimax can be a legitimate motivation; if you'll note I have a leg on both sides of this discussion. I just do think there's a difference that can be acknowledge).

There is a difference, but I don't think it is force either way. GMs job is to decide certain things and them doing so is not force.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's an error here, and that's that you're massively extending the nature of the hard move in the dragon example and then comparing it to a different hard move where a player tries to interrupt it. The hard move here is separate the players. Originally, this was a large bird, a reasonable threat capable of doing this, but now it's being expanded to a dragon (a serious threat in and of itself and a very hard move just bringing it in) AND separating the PCs (removing the PC from the climb is separation) AND then separating the PCs again by having the players watch the dragon fly off (out of bowshot range) and take the PC somewhere far away. What you're leveraging to say this cannot be interrupted is an example of a much more contained hard move where the player is trying to prevent the move from taking effect at all. The more analogous example would be the player trying to take an action to prevent being snatched from the wall -- that has passed, it's part of the move. Once that's done, though, the play should be about what happens next -- the bird appears and snatches the player. This is about the extent of the move that can reasonably happen prior to reaction. Extending it and claiming the protection is not play that's normal. You've introduced a flawed example and are trying to claim it comparable.

Honestly, I understand what you're saying here, and you could essentially reduce all of DW/PbtA to the absurd by silly things like making moves that simply extend to any length. OTOH the game itself doesn't, mechanically, really define exactly what constitutes the 'granularity' of moves. TO A DEGREE this may be a stylistic choice which is largely in the hands of the GM. We're really treading fairly close to the line here IMHO. So, a GM might legitimately claim that snatching the PC back to the dragon lair is a 'single move'. I think it is really a question of story telling acumen more than anything. Is that feeling like it obviates important decision points and opportunities for the other PCs to act? I'd say the "oh, and the ranger can't get his bow up in time" feels rather lame, personally, and rather smells of GM "I don't want interference with this course of events", but that may be more sloppy telling vs a really procedural issue (and I freely admit there's at best a fuzzy line there in a game like DW where fiction is a procedural part of the game).

It's a clear application of Force, and would be obvious for that at the table for the reasons I outlined -- it's ignoring the system say and denying action declarations to enforce an outcome the GM wants.

The GM could make a Hard move, but what counts as a golden opportunity? This is covered, it means that the players are ignoring clear threats to do a thing. So, yes, if you have a situation where the players are ignoring a clear fictional threat of this happening and declaring actions for something else, you are free to deploy this -- it doesn't ignore system say, player action declaration, or player input but rather requires all of these to be aligned prior to deployment.

Right, and this is where we start to see the greater issue of violation of principles with this kind of move. The GM needs to definitely TELEGRAPH it. If, as in @Manbearcat's example, there was a statement that flying baddies were a risk that the PCs were exposing themselves to, and maybe even further there was a dragon spotted in the distance, then when the players ignore these warnings, they INVITE the move. But if it is simply a dragon out of the blue, and then it flies off in a flash without any possible response, carrying away a character, that smacks of railroad.

The analogy here in 5e would be a known trap that a PC ignores to do something else, walking directly into it's trigger. What do you do? You trigger the trap. This is what this is talking about.

Given your assumption of what move is made in your example above for DW, it is analogous -- Force is being deployed in your example, and deployed in the 5e example. Honestly, I'd say the Force in 5e is even worse, because of all of the system say that's being ignored to implement it (the entire combat engine), but they're both Force.

If you dial back the DW example to the bird plucking the climbing PC from the cliff (separate them) and flying away, then no, not so, because both the plucked PC and the rest of the PCs have the ability to respond to this event, removing the Force from your example. The plucking, as has been covered, is directly in line with system say, player input, and action declarations. No Force.

It would be, if that was what was actually happening.

Right, otherwise you are reduced to absurdities like declaring that every GM move in a PbtA game is necessarily force! In both traditional and PbtA type games there has to be some daylight between "the GM says something happened" and "the GM forced the game into his chosen path."

 

[pemerton]

OK, if it is a DW game, then the question is whether or not the players have any interest in this 'maritime content' or not. The GM is certainly not doing something wrong by offering it as an option, but the players are going to decide if it suites them.

<snip>

There's undoubtedly an art to both formulating potential plot lines in the form of things like factions and maps, but not just doing all the work yourself as GM

At best introducing something totally new and unexpected like that as a hard move with weighty plot consequences is a pretty bold maneuver for a GM in that game. In fact it may WORK, but its not something I would pull very often, if at all. Not without at least some foreshadowing.

Right. I posted about this upthread.

Talking about railroading in relation to DW or AW makes no sense. The risk isn't railroading; it's the failure of art in formulating the fiction, the GM's fiction falling flat or being overly contrived. Obviously that risk is greater if the GM is being bold as you describe.

I definitely read it as Force. I just would have been more willing to accept it for that without the kind of halfassed use of mechanics that mattered in no way at all.

If the outcome of the encounter is a foregone conclusion, then why bother with it? Just tell me what happens.

<snip>

I actually spoke to the GM about it today because "auto-escape" seems to be a theme lately. He actually said that he thinks the game is too skewed to the PCs for a scene like this to ever actually work per the mechanics, and that's why he chose to narrate it.

To me, this is Exhibit A for the clash between what the GM wants out of the game and what the game mechanics and techniques are capable of delivering.

It's incredibly trivial to think of a mechanical framework which makes the dramatic escape possible: any sort of skill check (eg as part of a skill challenge) might succeed or fail, and on a failure the escape could be narrated. But 5e D&D doesn't offer up such a framework.

So the GM has to use free narration; but that ends up contradicting the game's both express and implicit assertions about the players' authority over action declarations for their PCs, and the place of mechanical processes in resolving those.