D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Campbell]

From my perspective play to find out means play to find out what happens without a player/GM level agenda for how it should turn out. It means having the ability to compartmentalize so you make rulings based on the fictional situation rather than to a desired outcome. It means you design scenarios that are fundamentally questions. It includes all sorts of play that fundamentally do not have a strong storytelling component to them. That includes Story Now play. It also includes sandbox play. It also includes B/X dungeon crawling. It also includes the sort of character focused traditional play I mostly engage in. There are tons of ways to play role playing games that do not involve GM or player storytelling. Usually some storyfinding, but storytelling is not integral. It can be valuable if that fits your group, but its not integral.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just to be clear, as we are on a D&D forum, which is why I keep using the term DM, not GM.

So most of D&D played is railroading. Does D&D exist easily with Story Now?

Ive written a lot on this.

I don’t know how much of D&D is railroading, but a healthy portion. The majority play style is AP/metaplot play where players are happily passive to cosplay tropes and kill bad guys (there is nothing wrong with this…as I’ve said many time, the community needs to be honest about this and embrace this).

But there is plenty of space within D&D for not railroading. I’ve run tons of Story Before (setting/backstory) D&D + aspects of aim-situ emergent content (Reaction Rolls + rolling on tables to procedurally generate when required) content that isn’t railroading. I’ve run Story Now D&D (that definitionally isn’t railroading) via 4e.

Others have done one or both of those things ( @pemerton ran a Story Now-ish AD&D using OA + intent and task resolution and fail forward + PC dramatic need in the crosshairs…a bare-bones and vestigial Burning Wheel).

With that in mind, what might railroading in a story now look like?

What if the GM at most every opportunity frames scenes and creates contests that are designed to put player A closer to a particular situation. Say having to choose between two of his priorities. I'm not really sure what makes that not be railroading?

It can’t exist. A Story Now game that is a railroad is definitionally a game that has been drifted to be incomprehensible with the premise and procedures of play.

And it would take WORK to do that. WAY more cognitive work than it would for a GM-facing game with opaque procedures and a mandate to find the fun/storytell.

And, as such, it will be obvious to the players. So unless you actively enjoy self harm (and that certainly is a thing)…why are you doing this thing?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 applies to the players and GM both. Think of it in the sense of watching a TV show and no one has seen it before. Everyone watching is discovering together.

Now imagine one of thw writers ofthe TV show is watching it with friends. He hasnmt yet seen the actual show…buthe helped write it. So he may be surprised by an edit or an actor’s choice or some other element, but he’ll have a good idea of how it will go. He’s not finding out what will happen.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but just think of play with

I am very curious how some people run their first session and not railroad.

Prep a situation and drop the players in. Don’t make it so that there is a “rightway” to deal with the situation. Allow for different ideas offered bythe players to matter. Don’t use previously unknown information to thwart player ideas. Don’t decide what session 2 will involve based on what’s likely to happen in session

With that in mind, what might railroading in a story now look like?

It looks incredibly obvious in most cases because the processes of play are designed to avoid it.

 

[Maxperson]

So most of D&D played is railroading.

That is an untrue statement. So long as player agency exists, and it exists in the vast majority of D&D games, including linear, then there is no railroading.

 

[Scott Christian]

Story now typically requires a mechanical process to determine fiction. D&D has none built for that purpose but either ability checks (probably wouldn't work well in 5e) or layering on such a system on top of the core D&D mechanics would seem to potentially get us there or close to it (doable because D&D is very customizable with home rules). Still not the best game for such a style but it might be able to emulate it well enough.

Thanks for the information.

Someone on these forums a long time ago gave me a video for Blades in the Dark. I watched the first episode. I saw how it was run, but didn't get the book. I think I just need to go buy the book and see how it is presented to get a complete view. Thanks again.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t know how much of D&D is railroading, but a healthy portion. The majority play style is AP/metaplot play where players are happily passive to cosplay tropes and kill bad guys (there is nothing wrong with this…as I’ve said many time, the community needs to be honest about this and embrace this).

None of that is inherently railroading, though. The players have a choice in whether they continue the adventure path or DM plot, take a hook or ignore it, go off and pursue their own goal, or whatever. It's only when there is no choice for the player to make at all, or if the DM removes choice, that railroading emerges.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ive written a lot on this.

I don’t know how much of D&D is railroading, but a healthy portion. The majority play style is AP/metaplot play where players are happily passive to cosplay tropes and kill bad guys.

But there is plenty of space within D&D for not railroading. I’ve run tons of Story Before (setting/backstory) D&D + aspects of aim-situ emergent content (Reaction Rolls + rolling on tables to procedurally generate when required) content that isn’t railroading. I’ve run Story Now D&D (that definitionally isn’t railroading) via 4e.

Others have done one or both of those things ( @pemerton ran a Story Now-ish AD&D using OA + intent and task resolution and fail forward + PC dramatic need in the crosshairs…a bare-bones and vestigial Burning Wheel).

This seems to align to my speculation earlier. Some view that the only way to not railroad is to include some aspect of story now-ish elements in the game.

It can’t exist. A Story Now game that is a railroad is definitionally a game that has been drifted to be incomprehensible with the premise and procedures of play.

And it would take WORK to do that. WAY more cognitive work than it would for a GM-facing game with opaque procedures and a mandate to find the fun/storytell.

And, as such, it will be obvious to the players. So unless you actively enjoy self harm (and that certainly is a thing)…why are you doing this thing?

I agree fudging and forcing a specific outcome for any challenge isn't really possible. But railroading is more than those activities. The game itself often functions on and advises DM's to push PCs and challenge their PC's beliefs, etc.

It doesn't seem to me that there's any fundamental difference in forcing PC's into a challenge/test that pits 2 of their objectives against each other and then letting the dice/mechanics determine the outcome of that situation and and forcing PC's in a D&D game into a particular combat and then allowing the dice/combat mechanics to determine the outcome of that combat.

 

[Manbearcat]

None of that is inherently railroading, though. The players have a choice in whether they continue the adventure path or DM plot, take a hook or ignore it. Go off and pursue their own goals. Or whatever. It's only when there is no choice for the player to make at all, or if the DM removes choice, that railroading emerges.

Yup. I don’t disagree.

Unrevealed backstory doesn’t = railroading. Metaplot doesn’t necessitate railroading.

Both of those things are required for railroading and both of those things absolutely tempt a GM to deploy Force to (a) keep that unrevealed backstory relevant and/or (b) keep the metaplot online or (c) use various forms of social pressure/hierarchy to ensure their prep/$ invested doesn’t go to waste (you see that all the time on ENWorld…people calling players all kinds of derogatory things because they refuse to stay mainlined on unrevealed backstory or metaplot).

However, that doesn’t mean the above paragraph will transpire. You can run D&D like that and have Force not be a trajectory-affecting aspect of play.

But you are a unique and special snowflake if you pull that off!

 

[Maxperson]

Yup. I don’t disagree.

Unrevealed backstory doesn’t = railroading. Metaplot doesn’t necessitate railroading.

Both of those things are required for railroading and both of those things absolutely tempt a GM to deploy Force to (a) keep that unrevealed backstory relevant and/or (b) keep the metaplot online or (c) use various forms of social pressure/hierarchy to ensure their prep/$ invested doesn’t go to waste (you see that all the time on ENWorld…people calling players all kinds of derogatory things because they refuse to stay mainlined on unrevealed backstory or metaplot).

However, that doesn’t mean the above paragraph will transpire. You can run D&D like that and have Force not be a trajectory-affecting aspect of play.

In my experience it happens the vast majority of the time. Most DMs will allow the players' choices to matter. It might be tempting for some DMs to try and keep things going in a certain direction, but only a few succumb to that temptation(if they feel it at all).

But you are a unique and special snowflake if you pull that off!

I don't agree. It's really, really easy to pull off. All you need to do is want the players to be happy and have their choices matter. I think most DMs, even new ones, understand that in a game like D&D where the DM is supposed to respond to and narrate the results of player decisions, that he's not supposed to invalidate those decisions to make his own story move forward the way he wants it to.

 

[Manbearcat]

This seems to align to my speculation earlier. Some view that the only way to not railroad is to include some aspect of story now-ish elements in the game.


I agree fudging and forcing a specific outcome for any challenge isn't really possible. But railroading is more than those activities. The game itself often functions on and advises DM's to push PCs and challenge their PC's beliefs, etc.

It doesn't seem to me that there's any fundamental difference in forcing PC's into a challenge/test that pits 2 of their objectives against each other and then letting the dice/mechanics determine the outcome of that situation and and forcing PC's in a D&D game into a particular combat and then allowing the dice/combat mechanics to determine the outcome of that combat.

It’s trivial to determine if a GM is taking advantage of their situation framing responsibilities to impose a trajectory of play:

* Does the current gamestate follow from the prior gamestate?

* Does the current fiction honor prior established fiction (party wins and losses and the related orientation of all objects in the shared imagine space).

* Is the GM following the rules?

* Is the GM’s framing principally constrained by system (or is it deviating/arbitrary)?


It will be obvious if those things are true and obvious if any one of them are not. I screwed up the other day in a game (I forgot a thing). A player (correctly) called me on it because it was obvious. We trivially resolved it and I reframed.