D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

If his purpose is to be a disruptive jerk, that's where I tell him that his PC is now an NPC and he is no longer welcome at the table. As an NPC he will take an action I think appropriate for the NPC to take. The DM(and everyone else at the table) is not required to tolerate disruptive players.

Bingo. Which is true for the player as well when the DM railroads.

Again, there is no need to differentiate. It is finger wagging.

 

[Maxperson]

Bingo. Which is true for the player as well when the DM railroads.

Other than walk away, what are they going to do? They can't actually stop railroading. They can only quit.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Which is it?
A) Railroading negates player agency.
B) Railroading forces outcomes from altered fiction and mechanical manipulation.

If you are instead declaring a cause and effect: railroading forces a preferred outcome by altering fiction and mechanical manipulation, and therefore, results in the negation of player agency. Then, player agency is not real - ever.

And for the record, the player can also alter the fiction. They can mechanically manipulate. Does this result in the loss of DM agency? If so, why have separate terms?

It's A) and B) simultaneously:

• Railroading is a practice that negates player agency.
• Forcing a preferred outcome negates player agency.
• Railroading describes the practice of forcing an outcome that thereby negates player agency.

Player agency is as real as the GM permits in D&D, and yes, there are certain elements of player characters that limit the GM's agency, with the caveat that the DM can spontaneously override them by virtue of his position as GM.

Players can say, "I cast fireball, save or take 8d6 damage," and the GM can negate this. How?

• He can describe the PCs as having entered an antimagic zone (even if they haven't).
• He can roll a saving throw and modify the roll result so it is successful.
• He can grant an NPC fire immunity.
• He can grant an NPC additional hit points so he doesn't perish from a fireball.
• He can have the NPC unleash counterspell even if he doesn't have it prepared (or cast spells otherwise).
• He can give the NPC a magical item that foils all fireballs cast at him.
• He can declare that the PC bites his tongue, foiling the spell.

The players cannot do any of this...at least not without cheating. The GM is given authority in D&D where he can manipulate outcomes without it being considered cheating. (Although I personally view fudging as a form of cheating.)

There's a difference in terminology because the power disparity exists between GM and players. Railroading is used as a pejorative to describe that style of GMing. There are negative behaviors ascribed to players that don't have a GM analogue: munchkins, rules laywers, powergamers.

The defensiveness over discussing bad GMing is bizarre to me. I remember back in the days of 3e where everyone bemoaned rollplayers (barf), and I still witness people complaining about min/maxing (I'm one of them), yet the moment we describe the GM as fallible, suddenly we get a "ummm, sorry sweaty, players can railroad too" chorus to minimize a bad GMing practice.

Players can't railroad because players lack the power to railroad.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's A) and B) simultaneously:

• Railroading is a practice that negates player agency.
• Forcing a preferred outcome negates player agency.
• Railroading describes the practice of forcing an outcome that thereby negates player agency.

Player agency is as real as the GM permits in D&D, and yes, there are certain elements of player characters that limit the GM's agency, with the caveat that the DM can spontaneously override them by virtue of his position as GM.

Players can say, "I cast fireball, save or take 8d6 damage," and the GM can negate this. How?

• He can describe the PCs as having entered an antimagic zone (even if they haven't).
• He can roll a saving throw and modify the roll result so it is successful.
• He can grant an NPC fire immunity.
• He can grant an NPC additional hit points so he doesn't perish from a fireball.
• He can have the NPC unleash counterspell even if he doesn't have it prepared (or cast spells otherwise).
• He can give the NPC a magical item that foils all fireballs cast at him.
• He can declare that the PC bites his tongue, foiling the spell.

The players cannot do any of this.

There's a difference in terminology because the power disparity exists between GM and players. Railroading is used as a pejorative to describe that style of GMing. There are negative behaviors ascribed to players that don't have a GM analogue: munchkins, rules laywers, powergamers.

The defensiveness over discussing bad GMing is bizarre to me. I remember back in the days of 3e where everyone bemoaned rollplayers (barf), and I still witness people complaining about min/maxing (I'm one of them), yet the moment we describe the GM as fallible, suddenly we get a "ummm, sorry sweaty, players can railroad too" chorus to minimize a bad GMing practice.

Players can't railroad because players lack the power to railroad.

One mans tasty is another mans ‘bard’. I would say that what is being objected to isn’t bad GMing it’s calling things bad GMing that aren’t inherently bad. There’s a major difference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You seem to be differentiating the two - I am not. They are one on the same.

The outcome of a DM's "railroad" has "forced outcomes." They are taking away the players' choice. They do this by fudging rolls, rewriting the fiction, etc. They are forcing the story they want. The outcome of a player's "railroad" has forced outcomes. They do this by fudging play, declaring actions that creates consternation in the DMs fiction, etc. They are forcing the story they want.

In both cases, it only takes one person to do either.

Deploying the definition of force, which is the player enforcing a preferred outcome, regardless of DM input or DM actions; railroading is when you deploy consistent force over time.

Do you see how this can be true? Just because it leaves out one variable doesn't make it untrue.

They both are authoring the fiction. Whatever the player narrates the PC doing happens. And a player has every authority to author the fiction. They author the fiction by action declaration.

If player agency exists, they can create the tracks. The DM can take them away - yes. The players can take away the DM's as well. That is the point.

Let's agree, for arguments sake. Now I can deploy railroading in so many different places! "Man, I hate it when Bob railroads us into watching the movie he wants to watch." Or, "man, I hate that Bob guy, always railroading our project to do what he wants." Or even, "Senator Bob today successfully railroaded the nation by forcing the Bob's Awesome bill though Congress and getting the President to sign it. The next challenge is to see if Senator Bob can railroad the Supreme Court and get a favorable ruling!"

Now that we've successfully made railroading a generic term to say that we don't like it when other people get their way, what term would you suggest to discuss how games actually work and how the GM is using game assigned authority the players lack to force outcomes in D&D? Railroading is successfully devalued to do useful work here, so what would you suggest?

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

One mans tasty is another mans ‘bard’. I would say that what is being objected to isn’t bad GMing it’s calling things bad GMing that aren’t inherently bad. There’s a major difference.

Railroading is nonetheless a pejorative, and it nonetheless rests upon denial of player agency through forcing outcomes. I suppose there's no accounting for taste. Given the nature of the Internet, a steak could have the taste and texture of cowhide and someone would come along to tell me how much he enjoys leathery steak.

If the players enjoy being railroaded, then by all means, railroad without ceasing in your games.

Let's agree, for arguments sake. Now I can deploy railroading in so many different places! "Man, I hate it when Bob railroads us into watching the movie he wants to watch." Or, "man, I hate that Bob guy, always railroading our project to do what he wants." Or even, "Senator Bob today successfully railroaded the nation by forcing the Bob's Awesome bill though Congress and getting the President to sign it. The next challenge is to see if Senator Bob can railroad the Supreme Court and get a favorable ruling!"

Now that we've successfully made railroading a generic term to say that we don't like it when other people get their way, what term would you suggest to discuss how games actually work and how the GM is using game assigned authority the players lack to force outcomes in D&D? Railroading is successfully devalued to do useful work here, so what would you suggest?

Noooooooooooo, you can't just describe a GM behavior negatively! Players are bad, too! A PC being disruptive is definitely analogous to the GM wielding his narrative authority to control and limit player agency!

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think it comes from the need to criticize a DM's choice of playstyle. It is applying a new word to make sure the DM knows how naughty they are.
For forty years, players have been able to "derail" the game. Only lately, have DMs been railroading.

I don't agree that DM railroading is a new term, or a new idea.

Douglas Niles, AD&D 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1986):

Linear adventures work well for tournament play, since all players encounter the same series of challenges, but for less structured
play it is generally undesirable. Players become frustrated by the absence of choice, and feel that the DM is railroading them through the adventure. Occasionally, however, you may find a linear adventure useful in a dungeon or other underground setting. Directed play with the illusion of choice can succeed while actually being linear, as players feel that they control their own destiny.​

Steve Maurer, "The Pitfalls of Game Mastering" in Dragon Magazine #170 (June 1991):

Railroading
GM: "So one of your characters pulls the lever on the wall by the computer console, and a huge –"
Player: "No, wait! No one in the group is going to pull that lever! We never said anyone was doing that!"
GM: "Fine. Suddenly, Zack the astrogator trips, flails his arms, and accidentally pulls the lever. Just then, a huge..."

This is another poor plot manipulation that will get players very upset, because you take away the only thing they have control over – their characters. Again, if you designed the plot with enough flexibility in the first place, you won't have to railroad your PCs.​

​

 

[Manbearcat]

Is there a reason why we can’t just use the normative terms:

Co-Conspirator - When a player conspires with the GM (whether explicitly or implicitly) to impose story trajectory on one or more other players.

This would be an aggressive Participationist at a table where some/all other players are not.

Bully - A player who aggressively projects there interest over the interests of one/some/all other players (there is a suite of behaviors that falls under this).


+++++++

Those are striaght-forward terms that I would hope would be well understood, non-controversial, with no needs haggle over “Railroading” or “Force”. It should be clear because players dont have the unique framing and consequence handling responsibilities that GMs possess (even games with player-authored kickers and ask questions and use the answers have a serious tilt toward GM authority with respect to framing and consequences) across games (and sometimes don have the GM level of authority when it comes to genre credibility test and action resolution handling).

 

[Maxperson]

Railroading is nonetheless a pejorative, and it nonetheless rests upon denial of player agency through forcing outcomes.

It's not always a pejorative. Railroading can be a fine way to play if the players have agreed in advance to playing on rails. I think it was this thread(but it's hard to remember with so many railroading threads), but I provided an example where when one of my players wanted to try DMing for the first time, he came to us and asked us not to deviate from the where the adventure took us. He said it was because he was new and was worried that he wouldn't be able to handle us properly if the group went wherever it wants like they can in my game. We all agreed and hopped aboard the choo choo.

I suppose there's no accounting for taste. Given the nature of the Internet, a steak could have the taste and texture of cowhide and someone would come along to tell me how much he enjoys leathery steak.

One of my players likes his steak like that. I've almost had to ban him a few dozen times over the last few decades. My wife liked hers that way when we met. I've since gotten her down to medium, though when she tries my steak(medium rare), she always says how good it tastes. She refuses to order it that way, though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, but a group could need to go somewhere (via agreement to play an adventure), and a player could insist on burning down the docks or sinking the ship. Then, when they get to the stables, the player slaughters or poisons all the horses.

Both are ridiculous. And personally, I have only seen it done by very young players. But both are railroading.

Again, I do not see this as "railroading," because players simply, emphatically do not (in general) have the power to declare that such events happen. DMs do have that power, consistently.

Like...are you honestly trying to claim that a player can simply say they burn down the docks? That they can just say "I poison all the horses" and suddenly that's definitely absolutely 100% true?

I'm not saying player choice can't be disruptive. It absolutely can. I've dealt with a very small amount of that in my own game (mostly from the two players, one of whom has left the game for unrelated reasons, who had never played TTRPGs before). I see this as either a failure of understanding (which is what it was in my group) or a failure to truly get everyone on the same page for what the game is about (which happened in a friend's game where I'm a player).

But--again--there are key differences between "player who doggedly pursues disruptive actions" and "DM that does not permit disruptive actions." The former, yes, can as a consequence change the state of play so that some events are no longer realistically possible, but--again--that is true if LITERALLY ALL player behavior that has meaningful consequences. If "player burns down the docks" counts as "railroading" solely because it alters the future events of the game, then "player choosing to make a heroic sacrifice with the character" is "railroading" because it prevents all future interactions between the now-dead character and all other characters, PC or NPC. This, again, means literally anything that causes consequences with any degree of permanence is "railroading" your party, which is obviously nonsense.

Railroading has a valid meaning: It isn't just "bad DM is bad," it very specifically means "setting a fixed--not merely unchanging but unchangeable, route through the narrative of the game." It isn't automatically disruptive, either; as I mentioned earlier, if the railroad happens to go unnoticed, then by definition it can't be disruptive (e.g. if it was designed in such a way that the players on it never would attempt to go off the rails, such that they never realize it's happening.) Whereas the disruptive player behaviors people repeatedly give examples of are (a) not at all fixed and unchangeable, (b) literally overt so they can't possibly go unnoticed (meaning, they're automatically disruptive), and (c) gated through the action resolution systems that ALL character actions are gated through, while the DM retains the freedom to manipulate things without such resolution metrics. (I don't roll dice to determine whether a lying NPC successfully lies in DW, for example; players have the responsibility and tools, usually meaning one or more rolls, to find out whether and why the NPC is lying.)

When players can literally MAKE the adventure follow one, and ONLY one, fixed and unchangeable path, without having to resort to merely ATTEMPTING to do so, then I will grant that players can railroad. Until then, it seems absolutely clear to me that players cannot do this thing, while DMs can, because players have fewer powers over the narrative and progression of the story than DMs do.

Anytime the player makes an action declaration he’s forcing the GM and other players to respond to that particular change in fiction.

In some sense the whole game is about applying force.

...so everything is always railroading all the time?

Are you actually biting the bullet now? I want to be sure of what you're saying. Because now it starts to sound like you genuinely do believe that literally all player actions ever taken, in any game ever, have been "railroading," despite your earlier implied rejection of my assertion that your definition was over-broad.

Doesn't it depend why the attack roll missed? (And maybe you had that in mind in your post and didn't think it needed spelling out.)

For instance, if the attack roll misses because the GM makes up or alters the NPC's AC to make it higher than the player's roll, that could be an instance of railroading, by way of "fudging".

If the attack roll misses because the GM decides, at some point during the resolution process, that there is a friendly invisible helper in the scene who places a sudden buff on the NPC or who casts a "Turn aside the shafts" or similar spell on the PC's arrow, etc - then that, too, looks like railroading, by manipulating the fiction in the scene so as to control the outcomes of action resolution.

If the attack roll misses because the NPC has a very high AC, which (i) the GM doesn't "fudge" in the moment but which (ii) the GM has deliberately made much higher than it "should" be, given the fiction and the prior outcomes of the PCs' action as declared by their players, in order (iii) to try and ensure that a particular pre-conceived scene or event is part of the fiction - then that could also be railroading, by way of deployment of authority over backstory and resultant scene-framing.

As these examples show, my view is that railroading is about using authority over the backstory and/or scene-framing, or using authority over mechanical processes (ie "fudging"), to ensure that a pre-conceived scene or event is part of the game even though - if one was following the fiction and/or honouring the success/failure of action declarations - it shouldn't be.

Given my absolute anti-fudging stance (I 100% see fudging as cheating and neither do it in my own game nor accept it being done in games where I play), I was assuming DMs that don't do that. It would be arguing in bad faith. I also consider "X thing made unjustifiably and arbitrarily high" close kin, but sure, not formally fudging as I define the term (that is, secretly changing either the statistics or the roll result in order to cause a specific outcome, despite pretending that the outcome was the natural result of what happened with zero manipulation). It's the unjustified nature that bothers me so, and what makes it such close kin to fudging and other such methods.

But yes. If the DM is playing in good faith, using the system consistently, not trying to pass off false or manipulated results as true and unaltered ones, and not secretly fixing the results in advance by making absolutely insurmountable obstacles without justification, then I see no reason why an attack roll that results in a miss would count as "railroading." I find it rather tedious that I must make so many caveats on what should be a simple, straightforward statement, but I guess that's unavoidable at this point.

So. Given the foregoing, as a lengthy and (God I hope) sufficiently comprehensive list of all the caveats necessary to remove all the underhanded or unjustified exercises of power a DM might potentially employ (and which the player usually has no possible way to employ themselves), we have a missed attack roll. That miss is a pure, honest miss, just an unlucky throw against a perfectly hittable target, which hasn't been manipulated or dismissed or whatever else. Do we agree that "player missed an attack roll," in this context, does not coint as railroading? Because the definition on offer from FrogReaver (and possibly Scott Christian) appears to count such things as railroading, alongside basically all other actions ever taken by PCs in every game of D&D ever played. I am not using hyperbole when I say that; when FrogReaver said, "Anytime the player makes an action declaration..." that seemed pretty conclusive to me that the definition of "railroading" offered is so broad it literally, actually does describe every action of every participant player in every game ever played.

When a term meant to single out a specific kind of behavior instead refers to literally all behaviors within the set being considered, the term is no longer particularly useful.