Helpful NPC Thom
Adventurer
The other thread about railroading is getting pretty incendiary, and there's a bit of confusion over terminology used. "Railroad" is very vague and not well-defined, so let us instead discuss participationism and illusionism, which are specific modes of play. The definitions of these terms are a bit muddy, and there's not an "official" RPG lexicon, but Darkshire.net has a fairly comprehensive glossary.
Railroading:
Illusionism:
Participationism:
Right there, the GM usurped player agency to narrate. The players are probably fine with it, though, so that's participationism.
By these definitions, we can talk about good, better, and best gamemastering.
Tools of the Trade
The GM's arsenal is filled with tools to enable these styles of gameplay. Most of us have done them at some point or another.
Fudging
The act of changing dice outcomes to achieve a preferred result. The characters defeat the climatic end-of-story boss in two rounds? The GM gives him another round or two worth of hit points to keep the tension up. The players missed an important roll by 1 or 2 points? The GM gives them the success anyway. The newbie takes a sneak attack critical hit in the first encounter and is about to be insta-gibbed? Turns out that the natural 20 was really a natural 19 all along.
Try, Try Again
The characters fail an important roll, but this roll is necessary for the story to proceed. Solution: try again until you make it! The single door behind which the MacGuffin resides is locked, and the rogue biffed it. Roll again until that lock comes loose. The clue upon which the investigation hangs is hidden due to a failed Perception or Investigate check? Test again...and again...and again until they find it.
Roll Calibration
The characters are trying something that isn't supposed to succeed, but it feels like the GM should offer them a roll, even if it's impossible. The solution is to set an arbitrarily high DC so the players feel like they have an opportunity to influence things, but gosh-darnit, they failed anyway. Alternatively, the characters are trying something that is theoretically risky but they're supposed to succeed? Give them a roll so it feels risky, but drop that DC to ground level so success is nigh-guaranteed.
The GM may also simply deny the option to roll when he feels it is vital. The players want to talk down the Evil Overlord into changing his ways and accepting the goodness and light of Pelor? No way, Jose.
Scripting
Scripting outcomes, events, and plot points is commonly seen in adventure paths, for both good and ill. The NPC refuses to barter with the players. The ritual completes at midnight. The bandits are gambling in their lair and don't notice the player characters. The villain will kidnap the princess when the players return from fighting the dragon. Etc., etc., and etc.
Dice Fishing
This one's a form of probability manipulation that's not quite the same as Roll Calibration. Similar to Roll Calibration, Dice Fishing seeks to enforce particular outcome, but it uses a multitude of dice rolls to manipulate probability. The GM calls for multiple dice rolls for something, and a single roll (success or failure) shapes the entire skill check. You might have six players rolling, but if one succeeds, they all succeed (or vice-versa). In d20-based games, natural 1s and 20s are exceptionally sought after as they provide justification for the results, as many groups than play these as special successes and failures. (Other games that specifically include critical success and failure mechanics are utilized in a similar capacity.)
Players can also do this, GM permitting, when cycling through characters to succeed at a skill check. If Gandalf fails his Intelligence check to guess the password to enter Moria, Frodo gives it a roll. Related to Try, Try Again, but relies on GM's willingness to permit it.
Accepting the Validity of Illusionism and Participationism
Some groups thrive on these styles of gameplay. The players want the GM to act as a story-weaver, telling a story in which their characters participate. They expect him to fudge dice, waive rolls, ignore mechanics, and alter outcomes as a normal part of the game. Personally, I chafe against this and detest it, but many players adore it. They have the opportunity to playact their characters in a grand story and be entertained for a few hours every week.
Adventure paths often rely on this. They state unequivocally that A > B > C progression happens, and the players are ushered along this path. It's called an adventure path, not an adventure off-the-beaten-path. Many GMs don't have the time required to plan out detailed adventures with battlemaps and interesting foes. They need the RPG equivalent of a takeaway dish, and adventure paths provide this option. Likewise, many players are more interested in the characters and story than forging their own paths, so they're happy to share the takeaway dish with the GM. They know he's ordering it and serving it, and they're content with that.
For many players and GMs, this style of gameplay serves them well.
Railroading:
The term is used interchangeably to describe moving a scenario from Point A to Point B to Point C, which is typical of adventure path design, and it is likewise used as a descriptor of GM behavior that usurps player agency. In the RPG community at large, this has strongly negative connotations, whereas the other two terms less so. But the basic gist of railroading is that the players don't get to do much beyond what the GM deems acceptable. Because this term spans a host of behaviors and rouses tempers, I don't think it's particularly useful when discussing GMing techniques.
Illusionism:
The term is used to describe the "magic trick" of providing the illusion of player agency yet performing trickery to ensure that the game proceeds as he has envisioned it. A style of railroading.
Participationism:
The interesting part here is the players-aspect. I'm sure we've all had GMs who fudge the dice and script encounters, yet participationism relies on the acceptance and participation of the players. The GM is given the authority to control character actions and deny player agency, within reason. We have all done this, and it's pretty normal. I'll give an example I'm sure we can all relate to: the party is talking amongst themselves about their next course of action, and they've decided to visit some location, say the Mad Hermit's Hut. They stop and stare at the GM at this point, which is the GM's cue to say, "You travel to the Mad Hermit's Hut, a residence of dubious quality. The thatched roof is half-rotten, and you're uncertain if the crumbling mortar in the stone walls could withstand a heavy rain. (Pause to see if anyone has anything to say. No characters act, so the GM continues.) Entering the structure, you see the Mad Hermit himself..."
Right there, the GM usurped player agency to narrate. The players are probably fine with it, though, so that's participationism.
By these definitions, we can talk about good, better, and best gamemastering.
Tools of the Trade
The GM's arsenal is filled with tools to enable these styles of gameplay. Most of us have done them at some point or another.
Fudging
The act of changing dice outcomes to achieve a preferred result. The characters defeat the climatic end-of-story boss in two rounds? The GM gives him another round or two worth of hit points to keep the tension up. The players missed an important roll by 1 or 2 points? The GM gives them the success anyway. The newbie takes a sneak attack critical hit in the first encounter and is about to be insta-gibbed? Turns out that the natural 20 was really a natural 19 all along.
Try, Try Again
The characters fail an important roll, but this roll is necessary for the story to proceed. Solution: try again until you make it! The single door behind which the MacGuffin resides is locked, and the rogue biffed it. Roll again until that lock comes loose. The clue upon which the investigation hangs is hidden due to a failed Perception or Investigate check? Test again...and again...and again until they find it.
Roll Calibration
The characters are trying something that isn't supposed to succeed, but it feels like the GM should offer them a roll, even if it's impossible. The solution is to set an arbitrarily high DC so the players feel like they have an opportunity to influence things, but gosh-darnit, they failed anyway. Alternatively, the characters are trying something that is theoretically risky but they're supposed to succeed? Give them a roll so it feels risky, but drop that DC to ground level so success is nigh-guaranteed.
The GM may also simply deny the option to roll when he feels it is vital. The players want to talk down the Evil Overlord into changing his ways and accepting the goodness and light of Pelor? No way, Jose.
Scripting
Scripting outcomes, events, and plot points is commonly seen in adventure paths, for both good and ill. The NPC refuses to barter with the players. The ritual completes at midnight. The bandits are gambling in their lair and don't notice the player characters. The villain will kidnap the princess when the players return from fighting the dragon. Etc., etc., and etc.
Dice Fishing
This one's a form of probability manipulation that's not quite the same as Roll Calibration. Similar to Roll Calibration, Dice Fishing seeks to enforce particular outcome, but it uses a multitude of dice rolls to manipulate probability. The GM calls for multiple dice rolls for something, and a single roll (success or failure) shapes the entire skill check. You might have six players rolling, but if one succeeds, they all succeed (or vice-versa). In d20-based games, natural 1s and 20s are exceptionally sought after as they provide justification for the results, as many groups than play these as special successes and failures. (Other games that specifically include critical success and failure mechanics are utilized in a similar capacity.)
Players can also do this, GM permitting, when cycling through characters to succeed at a skill check. If Gandalf fails his Intelligence check to guess the password to enter Moria, Frodo gives it a roll. Related to Try, Try Again, but relies on GM's willingness to permit it.
Accepting the Validity of Illusionism and Participationism
Some groups thrive on these styles of gameplay. The players want the GM to act as a story-weaver, telling a story in which their characters participate. They expect him to fudge dice, waive rolls, ignore mechanics, and alter outcomes as a normal part of the game. Personally, I chafe against this and detest it, but many players adore it. They have the opportunity to playact their characters in a grand story and be entertained for a few hours every week.
Adventure paths often rely on this. They state unequivocally that A > B > C progression happens, and the players are ushered along this path. It's called an adventure path, not an adventure off-the-beaten-path. Many GMs don't have the time required to plan out detailed adventures with battlemaps and interesting foes. They need the RPG equivalent of a takeaway dish, and adventure paths provide this option. Likewise, many players are more interested in the characters and story than forging their own paths, so they're happy to share the takeaway dish with the GM. They know he's ordering it and serving it, and they're content with that.
For many players and GMs, this style of gameplay serves them well.
Last edited:
