D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

* - yes I found a way to put a swamp-based adventure in the middle of a desert!

That is awesome!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Dungeon World, though I've had several discussions where various people either straight-up say I use it wrong, or suggest my usage of it runs counter to its purpose. (I have, for example, used house-rules to ignore the "after level 10 you retire or change playbooks" rules, based off stuff a friend once did for a game where I was a player. Overall, it works quite well.)


Examples are hard since it's a rare failure state I desperately avoid. But let's use my "murder among nobles" analogy. Assume the murder, and the party's interest in it, arises purely from play, no "I want the players to solve a murder" on my part. The Count was murdered. The Baron, the Duke, his lover, and his wife are all suspects.

Earlier, you wondered about my "illusionism of a different color," and this works. I dislike a "quantum killer," only resolved after observation, e.g. leaving the killer undefined until we all "discover" that it was the Countess (or w/e). But that's not the players discovering anything, they're very literally creating the past that led to their current actions, indeed somewhat "causing" that past and not some other past. You can't "discover" things that you, yourself, built with your own hands. It would be like saying Tolkien "discovered" Arda, or that I "discovered" the words of this post. Pretending otherwise is, to my eyes, a form of illusionism. It is the pretense that the story, the fiction, in any way meaningfully "exists" when it not only can be but must be continually overwritten in order that whatever becomes true right now was "always" true even in the past.

For some things, I can't accept that. That much wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-ball-of-stuff highlights with painful clarity exactly how artificial and made-up it is. I surely don't need literally every factual truth of the world nailed down from session 1, that would be boring. But certain really important facts need to exist independently--so they can be discovered, not just invented. So, working from the fiction, I do select someone who is the real killer--but do not pre-determine whether the party solves the case. There will be consequences based on who they blame and how strong their case is; I could never predict all such consequences in advance, so I give a rough sketch of some and we, together, find out exactly what consequences will result. Nothing ever goes fully according to plan anyway, so there's not much point in over-planning, is there?

Thus I feel a need for a knowable answer to some questions, like "who killed the victim?", before the players piece the evidence together. But if the answer exists, it must be accessible, and I am responsible for that. Being human--flawed and finite--I necessarily do so imperfectly. Mostly this just means my clever group surprises me. Sometimes, though...it means I paint myself into a corner, with facts that are necessary but difficult to access, e.g. even if I wrack my brain I can't conceive of more than one way to do it. I work hard to avoid such pits (and, thankfully, rarely fall into them), because that becomes Mother-May-I gaming, people just dancing to my fully-prewritten tune, dragged along by the ear, rather than a world that both I and my players contribute to and build collectively.

I suppose a jazz analogy works alright. Jazz isn't 100% improv all the time, but without improv, it dies. Without a common piece or at least a common structure (like call-and-response), it can become discordant. Yet the whole point is to show off the performer, not the piece or composer. That tension between improvisation being where the real life of the game occurs, and some amount of common structure being at least extremely useful for enabling that improvisation, is where my DMing style seems to lay, at least for Dungeon World.


But...I use both things. Frequently. Almost all of the NPCs that exist in the game, for example, are not like Shen, and are more like Hafsa (who resulted from the first group, not the current one, looking for a trustworthy Waziri to help them). All of the siblings that take turns ruling Mount Matahat, for example, only became relevant because the players went looking for receptive Jinnistani nobles to cut a deal with. That Jinnistan exists, as another example, came out of the Session 0 discussion where we worked out some things (I didn't want "demon blood" being a readily-available thing in this setting--demons are scary and people don't truck with them casually--so instead it became Jinnistani wine, which then led to questions asked on all sides about what Jinnistan is like.) I included some setting elements because I thought they were fun. After it was already established that Devils and Demons are always evil (but, unlike their standard D&D cousins, not stupidly self-sabotaging), that's when I knew I needed a reason why they could be both fully sapient and also "always evil."

That's sort of my problem with a lot of this stuff. I feel as though I'm being told (essentially) "Oh, you always use Story Before in a game meant for Story Now," or "Oh, so you only use Story Now in this Story Now game?" And the real truth is...I use both. There are some Story Before elements so that (for example) if the players travel to a brand-new locale, it will feel rich and vibrant when they arrive, because I'll have basic answers to expected questions (local food, for example, is something the party almost always asks about, so I have done research on various North African cuisine so that I can give rapid-fire but not strictly "prepared" answers to such questions.)

I had some Story Before elements I wanted to include, because I think they're fun (e.g. at an extremely high level, "Arabian Nights fantasy"). My players are okay with that. But I also bend over backwards, almost as hard as I possibly can, to support and engage with whatever my players pursue in Story Now terms. Half or more of my campaign came (and continues to come) from fun things that arose through answering Discern Realities questions, or the Bard exploiting his Bardic Lore, or the Druid calling on spirits for aid, or the Wizard remembering an obscure bit of arcane knowledge that points toward a surprise or advantage.

The problem with alternating is that you create a situation where the players are confused about what they are allowed to do. In fact, it's going to push them into checking with the GM and being passive. This is because they don't know if a move will result in a backstory block or if it's open to play, so most players aren't going to keep risking running into the blocks to check if the way is clear, they're going to announce moves to engage the GM's fiction instead of driving it themselves. This incoherency in approach pretty much drives the game into Trad play and away from Story Now, even if the GM is thinking that since they occasionally just run with it means that things are really both. Without a clear signal in place, it's not both, it's Trad play where the GM plays around some.

And you can do that. I did it in my 5e Sigil game (not to be confused with @hawkeyefan's 5e Sigil game) with skill challenges, but I also put up a clear signal for these. If you aren't signaling, though, you end up with players that play it like normal Trad games and don't engage the Story Now driving of the game. Especially if you're introducing large plot points that are backstory driven and not play driven.

I have no problem saying that if you're running DW in the way you suggest that it's very much not a Story Now game, even if you occasionally engage that part of the system, and that you're probably doing a lot of work to resolve the incoherencies the system will generate in that mode of play (most likely by either using strong Force or just ignoring system requirements). You've certainly decided to ignore or discard the principles of play in DW, and those are not suggestions, they are rules. It's great that you've found a way to play that you enjoy, and I mean that sincerely -- it's cool. I don't wish you ill. However, claiming the system or Story Now for your play because you've hacked a system that started as that kind of game doesn't mean it still is. Nothing in your description of play aligns with how DW is meant to be played or with the tenets of Story Now play. Instead, you have a hacked version that's delivering pretty normal Trad play.

 

[Scott Christian]

I can't speak for @Scott Christian but were that my flowchart I'd be utterly shocked (and a bit disappointed) if there wasn't any divergence by halfway down page one!

I can say that it is set up like an adventure path, therefore many of the lines are predetermined. My players, due to lack of time, like cohesiveness in their storytelling. They are not necessarily fans of spending an hour talking to a shopkeeper or veering down a road where things are just made up on the spot. Like I said, that can be fun, but it's not for everyone. (Personally, I wrote out about 200 pages for that particular adventure: NPCs, maps, setting pieces, etc.)
That said, I have run this twice with two completely different groups. One group did crush and break the King's Heart while inside the tomb. They felt it was going to curse everyone. So the latter half of the adventure was impromptu, and it worked out just fine. Just as if any group thwarted any adventure path design.
For me, I just find the notion of railroading a bit silly. It's like the question @Crimson Longinus asked earlier: How many paths are needed to not call it railroading? I mean, technically speaking, there are only so many paths the adventurers can take.

I am very curious how some people run their first session and not railroad. I've run the sandbox before, but found some groundwork still had to be laid for a story to exist. I watched session one of Critical Role, and it was, for all intensive purposes, a complete railroad. It was just done by one of the players instead of the DM. But the DM had everything all set up. So how does everyone run their first session?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can say that it is set up like an adventure path, therefore many of the lines are predetermined. My players, due to lack of time, like cohesiveness in their storytelling. They are not necessarily fans of spending an hour talking to a shopkeeper or veering down a road where things are just made up on the spot. Like I said, that can be fun, but it's not for everyone. (Personally, I wrote out about 200 pages for that particular adventure: NPCs, maps, setting pieces, etc.

This is a common misconception that play without plot or plan is aimless or incoherent improv. If you are sticking to the same approaches and goals and methods as normal Trad play then this is pretty much correct outside of some exceptional cases. If you realign to a different set of goals and approaches, play doesn't do this at all.

That said, I have ran this twice with two completely different groups. One group did crush and break the King's Heart while inside the tomb. They felt it was going to curse everyone. So the latter half of the adventure was impromptu, and it worked out just fine. Just as if any group thwarted any adventure path design.
For me, I just find the notion of railroading a bit silly. It's like the question @Crimson Longinus asked earlier: How many paths are needed to not call it railroading? I mean, technically speaking, there are only so many paths the adventurers can take.

If you have planned endings, that's a sign that railroading exists. Make 20, doesn't change much. It's the plan and aligning play to it that's the issue. Choose your own adventure books often had multiple endings, but you couldn't get off the tracks. It's more a matter of how you travel than where you end up.

I am very curious how some people run their first session and not railroad. I've run the sandbox before, but found some groundwork still had to be laid for a story to exist. I watched session one of Critical Role, and it was, for all intensive purposes, a complete railroad. It was just done by one of the players instead of the DM. But the DM had everything all set up. So how does everyone run their first session?

Simply put, you don't run a 5e game. That's too simple an answer, but there it is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it’s very common for many of us who’ve been playing games for many years to make changes to a game without even realizing it, or to smuggle in processes from other games, either knowingly or unknowingly.

When we do that, it’s not always easy to capture what the change means. Sometimes it may be clear, other times it may just be that it feels right.

I know I’ve done this many times. Most notably with 4e D&D. When the game first came out, I engaged with the most obvious changes from 3e and other prior editions, and missed a lot of the more subtle changes.

With 5e, I’ve been actively doing things differently than presented in the books, flavored by Story Now and games like Blades in the Dark. Even in a case where I’m actively deciding to make such changes, it’s not always easy to describe their impact.

That’s why I wouldn’t go so far as to say my 5e game is a Story Now game. It’s more that I’m GMing using some Story Now principles. I certainly feel that my game is more player driven than typical 5e play. I’m a player in a 5e game now and that feels much more reactive in nature, much more linear and GM directed.

I have to say that I’m finding it a little harder to gauge changes to 5e than I would to another game like Dungeon World may be; this is because the processes in 5e are so loosely defined, where as Dungeon World and Blades and similar games have very clearly defined processes. It’s easier to see changes made when the starting point is more stable.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is a common misconception that play without plot or plan is aimless or incoherent improv. If you are sticking to the same approaches and goals and methods as normal Trad play then this is pretty much correct outside of some exceptional cases. If you realign to a different set of goals and approaches, play doesn't do this at all.

As someone who has DMed this way many time and played as a player many times, I can distinctly say it is not nearly as cohesive. It has always taken more sessions to finish the campaign. The records for the "notekeeping player-type" are not nearly as clear or accurate. And the storyline waxes and wanes (which can be a really good thing). But it is not a misconception. If you have a series of scenes and settings, and everything in those are laid are plot related, as opposed to making something up, then the cohesiveness is clearer. It is almost more direct, which is not to some players liking. That's okay. To each his own.

I should mention we like our campaigns to last 4-8, four hour sessions. That's it.

If you have planned endings, that's a sign that railroading exists. Make 20, doesn't change much. It's the plan and aligning play to it that's the issue. Choose your own adventure books often had multiple endings, but you couldn't get off the tracks. It's more a matter of how you travel than where you end up.

That's a very clear answer. All adventure paths, as written, are railroads. All the more reason to get rid of the term. Because if a DM gives five options, and all five lead to separate, yet still "desired outcomes," then most of the people playing with WotC products are railroading.

Simply put, you don't run a 5e game. That's too simple an answer, but there it is.

Sorry, I am not understanding. Could you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Campbell]

For traditional games we tend to have a fairly lengthy Session Zero where we lay out characters, motivations, and initial situation. The GM will already know what sort of situation to prep for the first session because they will have fairly strong indications of how PCs are positioned. We are a lot more individual character focused in the beginning, mostly to nail down motivations and introduce everyone to the NPCs who will be in play.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the phrase ‘playing to find out’ isn’t a very good description of the play you are describing. Maybe that’s part of the disconnect many have.

It’s the exact description of the play I’m describing. It’s explicitly the primary agenda feature of these games (and it’s basically in Dogs in its nascent form. VB wrote it out exactly in AW).

* All participants at the table (GM included) are playing to discover the nature of the setting and the nature of the characters within it (having character conception challenged through dramatic needs being expressed and tested is fundamental).

* Play is never a vessel for unrevealed backstory. Unrevealed backstory as the input for move resolution here but not there means that (a) the system isn’t having its say to generate content, (b) the players don’t know when their move is obliging the GM to generate content or reveal backstory (this is a big deal for cognitive disposition in the moment of orient > decide in the OODA Loop of player decision point), and (c) the GM can’t play to find out (they already know!)!

The easiest way to evaluate this is contrast Trad/Neotrad Knowledge checks vs the Spout Lore example I wrote above. The former is triggering an exposition dump that is gated behind Story Before. The GM knows and the player is using the Knowledge Check to move the info from unrevealed to revealed status. The latter is Story Now content creation. There is nothing to reveal. All participants at the table are learning about this forge, it’s place in the world, it’s nature, perhaps some improvised backstory (helpful in the 10+ result…harmful in the 6- result) and then subsequent play is turning on that (triggering more “finding out” by all participants).

@EzekielRaiden , See what @Ovinomancer wrote and what I’ve written above. There is no shame in drifting a game. People do it all the time.

I’m running a hack of Sean Nittner’s hack of Blades in the Dark whereby the players are basically playing an Untouchables/True Detective Crew of Inspectors with a squad of 6 Bluecoats where they have a mandate to investigate a huge number of missing children in Duskvol that was launched on the back of two prior Blades games where the Crew fell apart/perished (a Cult game and then a Vigilantes game). Story accreted as a result of our play and the players are interested in continuing our collective discovery of it, but from the opposite side.

It was either The Beyond (and use Duskvol rather than a supernatural instantiation of Victorian England) or use Nittner’s FitD hack. I didn’t love it and it was very roughed in and unfinished so I sured it up and overwhelmingly just reskinned things.

It’s not Blades in the Dark. It’s a hack of a hack. It won’t play like my normal BitD games do in the same way that your DW play won’t resemble the DW games I run in terms of persistent input > system say > output + feel + persistent play to find out.

It’s not a big deal. You’re loving it. Your players are loving it. I believe you’ve said this was your first foray into GMing? You should be extremely proud. It sounds awesome.

Buts it’s very much a drifting of DW. It should be ok to analyze that and, through that analysis, affirm the how and the why of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a very clear answer. All adventure paths, as written, are railroads. All the more reason to get rid of the term. Because if a DM gives five options, and all five lead to separate, yet still "desired outcomes," then most of the people playing with WotC products are railroading.

Speculation: Could it be that a number of posters view anything that is not 'story now' as railroading?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Speculation: Could it be that a number of posters view anything that is not 'story now' as railroading?

That’s how it tends to come across.