Avoiding Railroading - Forked Thread: Do you play more for the story or the combat?

[Krensky]

I understood that. In my post, I said that that level of control is not sufficient to satisfy me as a player.

What if you don't know you don't have that control? The techniques described largely revolve around the players having the illusion of control. If they choose to go to City A, where they discover that the villain is drinking coffee in the cafe across the street. They choose to go to town B, the villain is drinking ale in the pub down the block. Or with a different example, the extradimensional invaders set up their beachhead wherever the players happen to be.

If you do not know the world is adjusted so the action and plot always happens around the PCs, is your enjoyment of that action effected? The argument they're making is that what you do not know does not lessen your enjoyment of the game.

 

[apoptosis]

What if you don't know you don't have that control? The techniques described largely revolve around the players having the illusion of control. If they choose to go to City A, where they discover that the villain is drinking coffee in the cafe across the street. They choose to go to town B, the villain is drinking ale in the pub down the block. Or with a different example, the extradimensional invaders set up their beachhead wherever the players happen to be.

If you do not know the world is adjusted so the action and plot always happens around the PCs, is your enjoyment of that action effected? The argument they're making is that what you do not know does not lessen your enjoyment of the game.

Well like i think anything if you don't know then you will enjoy it as if you had real power.

I think players generally figure it out though.

Going one step further, i wonder what people would think if the same thought pattern held to not only encountering the challenges but to the challenge themselves.

What if the entire combat was an illusion. Attacks succeeded or not based on the DM thinking it would be cool, enemies died at appropriately interesting times and in that vein, enemies wouldn't go down until an appropriately cool moment.

(i bring this up as one of my old DMs basically did this).

 

[Hella_Tellah]

What if the entire combat was an illusion. Attacks succeeded or not based on the DM thinking it would be cool, enemies died at appropriately interesting times and in that vein, enemies wouldn't go down until an appropriately cool moment.

(i bring this up as one of my old DMs basically did this).

It sounds like your DM failed at Illusionism, then, because you figured it out. Like a lot of posts in this thread, you've essentially said that Illusionism is bad when it fails, and you've never seen it succeed. But maybe it's been used on you before, and you didn't notice--meaning it worked. You'll only notice that the GM is using the technique if the illusion breaks down.

Does it always have to fail? Couldn't a really good GM pull it off?

 

[apoptosis]

It sounds like your DM failed at Illusionism, then, because you figured it out. Like a lot of posts in this thread, you've essentially said that Illusionism is bad when it fails, and you've never seen it succeed. But maybe it's been used on you before, and you didn't notice--meaning it worked. You'll only notice that the GM is using the technique if the illusion breaks down.

Does it always have to fail? Couldn't a really good GM pull it off?

The person i mentioned was particularly bad at it. And frankly we had fun in the game but that was mostly because of the other players.

I am sure a good GM could do it, but in the end if i did find out I would never trust that the specific GM is not doing it in the future and this would be an issue that would lessen the enjoyment of the game for me. Now this is not an all or nothing type of thing, i am sure illusionism exists to some level in most games, but at a certain threshold, my enjoyment is impaired.

As I mentioned earlier a good GM could fake the entire combat and make it so that your characters abilities, the tactics the players use etc. are in reality irrelevant (if you do A the critter dies, if you do B the critter dies, if you roll X he dies in 5 rounds if you roll Y he dies in 5 rounds). A good GM could make it so you thought your choices and die rolls were relevant but that the entire combat is more or less already decided and plotted out (how long the combat lasts, how much damage the PCs should take, how many resources they should use etc.) before it begins.

Do you think this illusionism is good? Or is it just bad if the players find out. it is a similar question.

 

[pemerton]

I said that because in the example given it is true. This doesn't make it wrong if its what the group wants.

Well, it's not true that a choice is meaningless if, in fact, it is meaningful for those who make it (eg a choice about theme or flavour which (i) the players get to make and (ii) is something that they care about).

A great example of this is the Dragonlance module series. To play this out as written, the players have to accept that certain things will happen. The flavor and tone of the story may differ from the novel version but story events keep moving on much the same.

In fact this is a very poor example because the players have no capacity to change the flavour or tone. There is nothing in there (as far as I recall from my knowledge of those modules) that corresponds to what Cadfan and Tigerbunny are talking about, such as the thematic significance and context of an encounter changing depending upon the prior player choices and PC actions.

I understood that. In my post, I said that that level of control is not sufficient to satisfy me as a player. Like Cadfan said, roleplaying is a real thing, but I think that it is hardly the only thing a player may want out of a campaign.

I didn't say that it is. I just said that it's not true to say that all that changes is the location of the encounter (in fact, in Cadfan's example, that does not change at all).

 

[pemerton]

Do you think this illusionism is good? Or is it just bad if the players find out. it is a similar question.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I don't think illusionism is particularly good, especially as it is likely to be pretty clunky or ham-fisted a lot of the time.

But I don't think the only alternatives to illusionism are either sandbox or railroading. A game in which the GM is primarily in charge of determining the circumstances in which conflict arises need not be a railroading game, if the players are allowed to make choices about how that conflict should be resolved, and if those choices then repercuss into future conflicts.

In Cadfan's example with the Necromancer repercussion takes place. It is not repercussion as to degree of challenge. But it is repercussion as to theme and flavour that surround that challenge.

EDIT: Illusionism seems to be a technique for providing satisfactory stories to players who (i) want to take part in creating stories and (ii) have the (generally) false belief that sandbox play will provide them. Once (ii) is abandoned then the GM can be upfront about what s/he is inputting into (i), and the players can concentrate on making their contribution to the story without becoming upset that the gameworld is a fictional one responding to the imperatives of fiction rather than a real one responding to cause and effect.

 

[SKyOdin]

What if you don't know you don't have that control? The techniques described largely revolve around the players having the illusion of control. If they choose to go to City A, where they discover that the villain is drinking coffee in the cafe across the street. They choose to go to town B, the villain is drinking ale in the pub down the block. Or with a different example, the extradimensional invaders set up their beachhead wherever the players happen to be.

If you do not know the world is adjusted so the action and plot always happens around the PCs, is your enjoyment of that action effected? The argument they're making is that what you do not know does not lessen your enjoyment of the game.

I don't think that the trick of "illusionism" as described is really good enough to fool people except under the most limited of situations. So far, the only examples of illusionism described involve the players making minor decisions: which city to go to, which road to take, whether they go to meet the necromancer or wait for him to come to them, etc. In all of these situations, the DM already has encounters and events worked out ahead of time that he can adapt slightly to place in multiple different situations.

However, it is not possible to justify the same encounter in every situation. For example, suppose the DM has planned out an encounter where the PCs leave the city and fight a gang of bandits on horseback. This encounter can work no matter which road out of the city the PCs choose to take. But, in a surprise twist, the PCs decide to travel to a completely unexpected destination, by ship. Suddenly, the DM is in a bind, since his encounter makes no sense if the PCs are at sea. He is forced to do one of two things: prevent the players from leaving by ship (railroad), or toss his planned encounter out the window. The PCs could alternatively teleport to their destination, stick around in town and pursue local politics/crime adventure, or so on as well and cause the DM the same problem.

I guess that I will admit that illusionism is not really bad. But it is not some kind of fool proof strategy to avoiding railroading. Since it is nothing more than a DM adapting his planned adventure to different circumstances, it isn't really a useful tool for dealing with PCs who behave in a completely unexpected manner. At the end of the day, the DM is still forced to decide between railroading the players so he can still use his planned encounters, or tossing his notes out the window and letting the PCs do what they want.

Also, while illusionism may be impossible to notice when done well, it is pretty obvious when illusionism isn't being used. For example, the players are given the choice between hunting down the evil necromancer, and hunting the dragon who possess the artifact that destroys undead. In this situation, the nature of the two adventures is so different that no encounter can be shared between them. So, the players are making a meaningful choice, not an illusionary one. I think a player can notice the difference.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I run mostly published adventures, RPGA adventures, and the like. My players know that they are playing a published adventure and everything that comes with it. They know that there will be a plotline that they will be following, they know that if they follow the plotline most of the encounters will be plotted out for them.

But they are good with that. They find that the challenge and fun in the game is two-fold: Seeing if they can defeat the encounters and trying to find the correct route to the end of the adventure.

Most adventures provide a couple of different routes to each each encounter. Part of the fun is knowing that you have to figure out who is behind the plot, why it is happening and choose a route. Figure out who to talk to, choose the right skill for the situation, and so on.

 

[Krensky]

However, it is not possible to justify the same encounter in every situation. For example, suppose the DM has planned out an encounter where the PCs leave the city and fight a gang of bandits on horseback. This encounter can work no matter which road out of the city the PCs choose to take. But, in a surprise twist, the PCs decide to travel to a completely unexpected destination, by ship. Suddenly, the DM is in a bind, since his encounter makes no sense if the PCs are at sea. He is forced to do one of two things: prevent the players from leaving by ship (railroad), or toss his planned encounter out the window. The PCs could alternatively teleport to their destination, stick around in town and pursue local politics/crime adventure, or so on as well and cause the DM the same problem.

From an encounter perspective, they get waylayed by pirates or a street gang. Of course, it may not make narrative sense, it depends why they were going to get jumped by the bandits. The trick is not to limit the choices, but to influence the outcome. If the plot requires someone to show up when the players are getting done with a good carouse, gasp out a message, press a MacGuffin in their hand, and die, it's gonna happen the next time they go a drinking. You don't plan encounters in the typical D&D sense, you outline scenes and beats. Much easier to adjust reality when you have some improve notes rather then a tight script.

I guess that I will admit that illusionism is not really bad. But it is not some kind of fool proof strategy to avoiding railroading. Since it is nothing more than a DM adapting his planned adventure to different circumstances, it isn't really a useful tool for dealing with PCs who behave in a completely unexpected manner. At the end of the day, the DM is still forced to decide between railroading the players so he can still use his planned encounters, or tossing his notes out the window and letting the PCs do what they want.

I never said it's a panacea, just that it's an important tool. I also reject your premise that the GM will have to either railroad or throw his notes out. Most of my games run using stock elements re-skinned as needed and hung on the appropriate structure.

Also, while illusionism may be impossible to notice when done well, it is pretty obvious when illusionism isn't being used. For example, the players are given the choice between hunting down the evil necromancer, and hunting the dragon who possess the artifact that destroys undead. In this situation, the nature of the two adventures is so different that no encounter can be shared between them. So, the players are making a meaningful choice, not an illusionary one. I think a player can notice the difference.

Really? I'd bet you eighty percent or so of those adventures are or could easily be interchangeable on the back-end. I know in my games they are. They get different descriptions, some tweaks to pacing, names, swap a few antagonists, and the climax is obviously different, but yeah... same structure and stats for a lot of both of those.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Most of my games run using stock elements re-skinned as needed and hung on the appropriate structure.

Yeah, me too. I calculate the PCs' average hit bonus, damage, hit points and such, then make a stock NPC that the average PC can hit 70% of the time, dies in an average of 1 hit per PC in the group, etc. Games like D&D do that work for you with Challenge Ratings and monster levels, so I don't bother with those, but for World of Darkness or Victoriana, it's pretty necessary. It's what lets me make up a gaming session pretty much on-the-fly, since I don't have to go build a new creature every time something unexpected happens.Then I slap on something that makes that NPC interesting and unique.

Is that Illusionism? I always just called it "lazy."