D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[FrogReaver]

So when a DM manipulates the fight to have their preferred outcome - one time - that's not railroading.

Got it.

I wonder how many times it must occur before it becomes railroading.

 

[Campbell]

Curious, do you believe a GM can be a neutral arbiter in a linear adventure?

It certainly is possible as long as the other players act as co-conspirators in a way (by eagerly biting adventure hooks and working to solve the mysteries of The World™). Basically the game becomes a question of progressing through The Story™. A whole lot of Pathfinder Adventure Path play functions like this in my experience. There's real tension over if the players' characters will complete The Story™, but what that story is remains pretty much set.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And do you see how this is forcing the DM to respond to the player's fiction. It is not the DM's.

And how many games have you been in where the DM throws someone out? How many games have you been in where a player decides to do something stupid and the party completely abandons them? In my experience, never. The PCs might defuse the fight or watch and then heal the railroader once they fall. But they never completely abandon the PC.

You seem to fundamentally be misunderstanding what's going on, if you're calling a player action declaration some form of Force or railroading. The player cannot determine an outcome here. They cannot force the game into a direction of their choosing. If you look at the outcome space of a declaration to attack, it's wide open and includes a number of outcomes the player would likely find quite disagreeable (being killed, hunted, incarcerated, etc.). This isn't railroading. This is play. You're describing play in terms of railroading, and I'm questioning why. If it's to defend GMs, then you've essentially said that all play from there is railroading as well. You've again made railroading a useless term, and so I'd like to solicit from you what term you'd like to use for a GM using their authority to declare a preferred outcome while ignoring player input, action declarations, or system say.

 

[FrogReaver]

It certainly is possible as long as the other players act as co-conspirators in a way (by eagerly biting adventure hooks and working to solve the mysteries of The World™). Basically the game becomes a question of progressing through The Story™. A whole lot of Pathfinder Adventure Path play functions like this in my experience. There's real tension over if the players' characters will complete The Story™, but what that story is remains pretty much set.

Maybe then you can elaborate on how a GM that is a neutral arbiter has a preferred outcome that he’s forcing? If I understand you, that’s what would make a linear game a railroad and I’m not seeing how that happens given that stipulation?

 

[Scott Christian]

Honoring a dumb decision by having it affect the fiction isn't me being railroaded.

So honoring a dumb decision made by a DM by having it affect the fiction isn't the players being railroaded.

 

[Scott Christian]

You seem to fundamentally be misunderstanding what's going on, if you're calling a player action declaration some form of Force or railroading. The player cannot determine an outcome here.

I have to disagree. I feel it is you simply want to use a separate term for DMs as opposed to players. And there is no need. It is finger wagging.

Here is the disagreement: The player is determining the outcome just as much as the DM. The can railroad according to your definition.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have to disagree. I feel it is you simply want to use a separate term for DMs as opposed to players. And there is no need. It is finger wagging.

Here is the disagreement: The player is determining the outcome just as much as the DM. The can railroad according to your definition.

You need to explain to me how the player is enforcing a specific desired outcome on the GM. I'm not seeing it. Step through it for me, point out how it happens.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is play. You're describing play in terms of railroading, and I'm questioning why.

You are using the term railroading to describe play as well. The difference is, it's mostly a finger wag. A no-no. A look how bad this DM is.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have to disagree. I feel it is you simply want to use a separate term for DMs as opposed to players. And there is no need. It is finger wagging.

Here is the disagreement: The player is determining the outcome just as much as the DM. The can railroad according to your definition.

Maybe the better way to say that is: players can railroad as long as GMs do not.

 

[Maxperson]

So honoring a dumb decision made by a DM by having it affect the fiction isn't the players being railroaded.

What? I didn't say anything about that.