D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[TheSword]

There is a technique I’d like add that is a form of railroading, which relies on encounters being triggered by the presence of the PCs.

Im not sure what it would be called maybe the Twist of Fate, but essentially it’s the narrative conceit that the action just happens to take place as the PCs are traveling through.

- The PCs are traveling down the Main Street just at the moment the manticore in the market escapes it’s cage.

- The PCs are walking through the sewers at the same moment the thief is returning to their hideout.

- The inn the players choose to stay at has various hijinks and capers occur throughout the night that the PCs can participate in as they choose.

These examples all involve putting encounters in front of the PCs arbitrarily, irrespective of when (or in some cases even where) they choose to go. Nevertheless I think they are useful techniques for improving pace, adding plot hooks and driving the story forward.

 

[Composer99]

I think these kinds of discussions are bound to run onto the shoals of Internet Disagreement because not only is there no widespread consensus as to the definition of potential terms of art (such as what, exactly, "railroading" ought to mean) but often no widespread consensus at the conceptual level.

For instance...

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.

Here I must perforce disagree with the general thrust of this paragraph (that the GM's narration of the journey to the Mad Hermit's Hut qualifies as "usurp[ing] player agency").

First, obviously, in D&D 5e (an obviously pertinent example since, as far as I can tell, this thread is being posted in the D&D forum category), the central gameplay loop as described on page 5 of the PHB leaves it to DMs to narrate the results of the decisions the player characters made and the actions they endeavoured to undertake. But, crucially for the sake of player agency, it does not leave it to the DM to make those decisions or attempt those undertakings.

Secondly, on principle, the players have in fact exercised their agency by deciding to travel to the Mad Hermit's Hut. Leaving it to the DM to narrate the result of that decision is not, so far as I am concerned, a surrender of their agency. (At worst, it might be a partial delegation of it.)

Thirdly, player agency does not begin and end within the fiction, at least not if we are calling it player agency. If the players agree to play in a linear-plot adventure and agree to stay within its bounds, they are exercising their agency by agreeing to remain within the premise of the adventure.

(At this point, I should note I am in full agreement with you that what might be "GM misbehaviour" becomes, with player consent, "legitimate GM technique".)

---

So... uh... yeah, like I said, it's hard for these discussions to have lasting traction (in the sense of coming up with definitive terms of art) because we as an aggregate can't seem to agree on either terms or concepts.

 

[HammerMan]

does anyone here use Roll20? if so I find the unalterable in front of everyone die rolls has meant no fudging on either side... "Did I just drop a double crit on the first level wizard... sorry bye bye"

 

[Mannahnin]

There is a technique I’d like add that is a form of railroading, which relies on encounters being triggered by the presence of the PCs.

Im not sure what it would be called maybe the Twist of Fate, but essentially it’s the narrative conceit that the action just happens to take place as the PCs are traveling through.

- The PCs are traveling down the Main Street just at the moment the manticore in the market escapes it’s cage.

- The PCs are walking through the sewers at the same moment the thief is returning to their hideout.

- The inn the players choose to stay at has various hijinks and capers occur throughout the night that the PCs can participate in as they choose.

These examples all involve putting encounters in front of the PCs arbitrarily, irrespective of when (or in some cases even where) they choose to go. Nevertheless I think they are useful techniques for improving pace, adding plot hooks and driving the story forward.

Yeah, I agree that it's a useful and common technique. I think a couple of folks in the other thread referred to this as Instigating by the DM.

I wouldn't call it Railroading because it doesn't involve a set path where the PCs MUST go from point A to point B. They are given situation A and could go any number of directions with it, including simply running away and refusing to deal with it.

 

[TheSword]

does anyone here use Roll20? if so I find the unalterable in front of everyone die rolls has meant no fudging on either side... "Did I just drop a double crit on the first level wizard... sorry bye bye"

You don’t have to use the dice rolling feature, and it is pretty easy to alter monster/npc stats on the fly. Changing a miss into a hit is harder but giving a monster extra hp or making it’s attack harder is pretty easy

 

[prabe]

Yeah, I agree that it's a useful and common technique. I think a couple of folks in the other thread referred to this as Instigating by the DM.

I wouldn't call it Railroading because it doesn't involve a set path where the PCs MUST go from point A to point B. They are given situation A and could go any number of directions with it, including simply running away and refusing to deal with it.

I would agree that instigating an event doesn't really fit into railroading, especially if there's no preconceived outcome.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I agree that it's a useful and common technique. I think a couple of folks in the other thread referred to this as Instigating by the DM.

I wouldn't call it Railroading because it doesn't involve a set path where the PCs MUST go from point A to point B. They are given situation A and could go any number of directions with it, including simply running away and refusing to deal with it.

It‘s railroading in the sense that there’s no meaningful choice leading to the event, therefore no meaningful choices that could avoid the event. No matter what the DM will put this event in front of the PCs. It’s the same illusionism-railroading as the quantum ogre.

 

[TheSword]

Yeah, I agree that it's a useful and common technique. I think a couple of folks in the other thread referred to this as Instigating by the DM.

I wouldn't call it Railroading because it doesn't involve a set path where the PCs MUST go from point A to point B. They are given situation A and could go any number of directions with it, including simply running away and refusing to deal with it.

They choose to ignore it, though that encounter is in their way, whether they like it or not. Avoidance might require resources hence it being seen as railroading.

 

[Mannahnin]

Secondly, on principle, the players have in fact exercised their agency by deciding to travel to the Mad Hermit's Hut. Leaving it to the DM to narrate the result of that decision is not, so far as I am concerned, a surrender of their agency. (At worst, it might be a partial delegation of it.)

As it's used in that paragraph it isn't the DM narrating the travel that's referred to as Participationism. The part where he takes (minor) control over from them is where he ends the narration outside the hut, pauses to see if they want to do anything, then immediately narrates them moving inside the hut without requiring further action declaration.

Normally in the standard play loop, once he's described the exterior of the location, it would be common for the PCs to make another action declaration at that point. Which could be shouting hello, scouting around the perimeter, or just walking in. If, for example, I were the DM and knew there was something dangerous inside, I would be unlikely to move forward from this point and state "you walk into the hut", without a specific declaration from the PCs to that effect.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

These examples all involve putting encounters in front of the PCs arbitrarily, irrespective of when (or in some cases even where) they choose to go. Nevertheless I think they are useful techniques for improving pace, adding plot hooks and driving the story forward.

Absolutely. I would classify these as Scripting, but regardless, I don't think it's poor GMing to present dangling plot hooks for the PCs. This works especially well for getting the game started or prodding the PCs to take action if they're twiddling their thumbs. The way I like to utilize these is by giving a series of random events a chance to happen and rolling to see if they occur. This allows me, as GM, to disclaim responsibility, as the storygamers say, and it provides a less-arbitrary method of event scripting than would otherwise occur.

Mind you, it's all arbitrary, all the way down: I'm the one writing the events and choosing the probabilities, so it's not like I'm unaware of what I'm doing. But a big part of my gaming style is that sense of immersion within a living (albeit fictitious) world. Having a 1-in-6 chance of the PCs encountering Artful Dodger being chased by his latest mark and offering them the opportunity to choose how to react to that improves the game, from my perspective.

They exist. They are used. They're incredibly bad tools. DMs can do better.

I agree with your assessment and am one-hundred-por-ciento with you. I view the majority of these tools to be the province of novice GMs who aren't aware they're poor form or are too inexperienced and rely on them as crutches.