D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[EzekielRaiden]

The term you get in engineering is "single point of failure", and yeah, I could tell a story of where that can lead you from my younger days when having built one into a TORG adventure left me sitting here going "Well, for--what the heck am I going to do now?"

Fortunately, such things are very rare in my game. If things look like they might be drifting in that direction, I generally try to rely on the "your character would know" response: even if the player doesn't see the information, the character knows many things the player wouldn't. That option, or excuse if one prefers, makes it much easier to simply tell the player information they need. I used that excuse more than once in some of the recent sessions, involving the party Bard learning the doctrine of the assassin cult...and how that cult's understanding of that doctrine had been selectively focused, when it could be focused elsewhere without being negated. Now, the bard has the responsibility to use the enlightenment (or perhaps endarkenment?) he has gained to find ways to rehabilitate these folks, while still respecting their faith. I've no idea how he'd like to do that, but I'm eager to find out where that goes....later. (For the time being, we'll be doing some lighter, low-impact, more action-adventure fare as a palate cleanser. The bard has been carrying a lot of the game for several months now and needs a good break.)

 

[Lanefan]

That...honestly sounds kind of unplayable, for me at least. I don't think I could maintain character every single second of a gaming session.

Sometimes the only way to shut down annoying table chatter is to flat-out rule that if you say it, your character says it. This has, in the past, led to some rather hilarious sequences where a few PCs have found themselves suddenly and inexplicably talking about some group they've never heard of called the Vancouver Canucks...until said PCs remembered they're on a stealth mission...

And the expectation isn't that you maintain charcter for the whole session; it's that when you're out of character you stay quiet and let those who are in character do their thing.

 

[Scott Christian]

@Scott Christian, for myself I'd say that's probably a more accurate representation of what a linear adventure is than what normally comes to my mind.

What do you think? My answer is, "obviously." I'd like to see an argument for this not being a railroad alongside an example of what would count as a railroad.

@Scott Christian I think it entirely depends on what happens if the characters try to diverge from these paths. For example if they try in some logical but unforeseen way take a shortcut between bubbles that don't have arrows on these charts, will the GM use force to stop them from doing so? The GM merely anticipating likely course of events is not railroading.

One question - three answers. Some with layers. This is a point I was trying to make about the ambiguity, and therefore, the tsk-tsk'ing of the term "railroad."
This is set up very similar to any adventure path I have ever run, be it WotC's 5e or Piazzo's PF. So it leads me to believe that all tables have a bit of railroading and all tables have a bit of non-railroading. Then there is a swingy part that determines how much or how little.

The more I think about it, the term actually shouldn't ever be used and is invalid. It shouldn't even be a word the gaming community uses.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One question - three answers. Some with layers. This is a point I was trying to make about the ambiguity, and therefore, the tsk-tsk'ing of the term "railroad."
This is set up very similar to any adventure path I have ever run, be it WotC's 5e or Piazzo's PF. So it leads me to believe that all tables have a bit of railroading and all tables have a bit of non-railroading. Then there is a swingy part that determines how much or how little.

The more I think about it, the term actually shouldn't ever be used and is invalid. It shouldn't even be a word the gaming community uses.

APs are usually pretty heavy railroads. You will end up at the end station. If you canvass multiple groups that played through them, the stories told are largely the same with some different details. There's actually value to this, as shared experiences is a pretty strong community builder.

And, yes, I agree a lot of D&D tables and games that share the authority structure and play assumptions of D&D have quite a bit of Force and railroading. Other games completely avoid it, though. These games aren't better for this, just different. PbtA games, for instance, are structured such that Force and railroading just aren't really possible unless you're intentionally playing the game in a way it's not designed to play and against how you're told to play it. It's against the rules, essentially.

 

[Lanefan]

One question - three answers. Some with layers. This is a point I was trying to make about the ambiguity, and therefore, the tsk-tsk'ing of the term "railroad."
This is set up very similar to any adventure path I have ever run, be it WotC's 5e or Piazzo's PF. So it leads me to believe that all tables have a bit of railroading and all tables have a bit of non-railroading. Then there is a swingy part that determines how much or how little.

The more I think about it, the term actually shouldn't ever be used and is invalid. It shouldn't even be a word the gaming community uses.

I suspect you're blending two different concepts here and coming up with mud.

Those storyboards in and of themselves aren't railroads. They're ideas.

It's whether or not you force the players/PCs to stay within what's on those pages and-or do things in the listed sequence once the campaign starts that tells whether you're railroading or not.

 

[Lanefan]

APs are usually pretty heavy railroads. You will end up at the end station. If you canvass multiple groups that played through them, the stories told are largely the same with some different details. There's actually value to this, as shared experiences is a pretty strong community builder.

Agreed.

What's not clear from Scott's storyboards is whether he's designing a hardline AP there or just spitballing how things might go, with the whole thing open to change and revision - or complete rewriting - as the campaign develops. I took it as the latter, perhaps because I do very much the same thing for my game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed.

What's not clear from Scott's storyboards is whether he's designing a hardline AP there or just spitballing how things might go, with the whole thing open to change and revision - or complete rewriting - as the campaign develops. I took it as the latter, perhaps because I do very much the same thing for my game.

But then there’s the question of if even writing down ideas about how it “might go” then influences a GM. I would say that’s certainly possible.

I made a mind map for a recent campaign I began for another game and none of it was sequential. It was all the situation at the start and the relation between different elements of the game world…this faction at odds with that one, this NPC aiding that group, and so on.

I feel like once you go “Okay, once this happens, then that happens” or even “once this happens, then that might happen” you may be laying down tracks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But then there’s the question of if even writing down ideas about how it “might go” then influences a GM. I would say that’s certainly possible.

I made a mind map for a recent campaign I began for another game and none of it was sequential. It was all the situation at the start and the relation between different elements of the game world…this faction at odds with that one, this NPC aiding that group, and so on.

I feel like once you go “Okay, once this happens, then that happens” or even “once this happens, then that might happen” you may be laying down tracks.

And I feel it is completely unreasonable to expect GM to not think what might happen, at least on general sense. I'd go so far to say that it is literally impossible in a game where the GM sets up the setting and the situations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I feel it is completely unreasonable to expect GM to not think what might happen, at least on general sense. I'd go so far to say that it is literally impossible in a game where the GM sets up the setting and the situations.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a GM to wait until play begins and the players have engaged with the initial scenario before he gives real consideration about what happens next. Nothing wrong with having some ideas, but the more those are committed to, the more likely the GM is to steer things that way. Not certain, but I think it’s a strong possibility.

I’m not saying you can’t prep. I’m saying if you’re determining what session 2 will be before you’ve even played session 1, then you’re very possibly laying tracks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a GM to wait until play begins and the players have engaged with the initial scenario before he gives real consideration about what happens next. Nothing wrong with having some ideas, but the more those are committed to, the more likely the GM is to steer things that way. Not certain, but I think it’s a strong possibility.

I’m not saying you can’t prep. I’m saying if you’re determining what session 2 will be before you’ve even played session 1, then you’re very possibly laying tracks.

But we were not talking about determining. We were talking about considering what might happen. And I think avoiding that is basically impossible. And the idea that somehow not considering such things would be a virtue sounds blatantly ludicrous to me.