D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lyxen]

Did the DM actually set up a fair choice? Or did he have a whatever you choose, oops there's an ogre scenario. I agree with @Maxperson that if it's the latter - that's railroading.

If the DM wants the PCs to fight the ogre - just have one door, that's linear but it's not railroading.

And this is where I remind everyone that there is no reason not to call "linear" railroading. Linear is just "pre-planned" railroading. And your example shows this. Having only one door, or having two doors with an ogre that will always be behind the door that you open is exactly the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Disagree - illusion of choice that bother players is railroading. If no one's annoyed, then no bad gaming has occurred, and I define railroading as bad gaming - it's not bad because it's railroading, it's railroading because it's bad.

No. If you have three encounters that will happen regardless of player choice(Illusionism), then you have them on invisible rails and they are forced from A to B to C. That they are unaware that you are railroading them doesn't make it okay. It just means that you got away with it.

I mean, if I have a rich friend and I snag 20 from a counter that he never notices, it's still bad regardless of the fact that he never gets annoyed.

 

[niklinna]

Incorrect. He blindly chose the left door in hopes that he would get lucky and avoid the ogre. The choice was to avoid the ogre via luck. Your moving the ogre negated that choice.

Wait what? The player knows there's an ogre behind one of the doors in this scenario?

In that case, I open both doors!

 

[Maxperson]

Whereas I would try to broad cast that there's an ogre behind the door or there's a longer route that bypasses the ogre at the cost of a significant (to the current situation) time. So as a DM I haven't decided that the PCs will fight the ogre, just that it's one of the optional paths to their goal(s).

An example would be that I had a recent scenario where the PCs needed to get from point A to point B. They had an alternative to go along the road which would be faster but they knew patrols were looking for them. It was likely (not inevitable) that they would have to have some tough fights and potentially let the opposition know where they were and where they were likely headed. The alternative was to go through the "old road" which took longer and had it's own dangers, likely more less deadly encounters. However, the odds of their opposition finding out about any encounter was significantly less.

To me, that was a significant choice. Random result is just the illusion of control over your fate. Not the same as railroading, still an illusion.

Besides, I'd rather focus my game time on things that matter. Exploring empty rooms with nary an ogre in sight, to me, does not add anything to the game. YMMV of course.

That's very different from the Quantum/Schrodinger's ogre, though.

In my game if they came to the two doors, first I'd know already which door the ogre was behind and it wouldn't change. Second, there would be things that they could do to figure it out. Whether it's listening to the door, getting close and smelling stink, or something else. If they just walked up and ripped open a door, either there would be an ogre behind it or it would be the other thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait what? The player knows there's an ogre behind one of the doors in this scenario?

In that case, I open both doors!

Do I detect a murdertransient?

 

[niklinna]

Do I detect a murdertransient?

Maaaaybe.

<stab!>

 

[Mort]

And this is where I remind everyone that there is no reason not to call "linear" railroading. Linear is just "pre-planned" railroading. And your example shows this. Having only one door, or having two doors with an ogre that will always be behind the door that you open is exactly the same thing.

I disagree.

Linear does not have a negative connotation and simply means going in a straight line. There is no deception involved, no denial of player choice. For example, the players COULD choose to turn around and not go through the door. The important thing is the players KNOW there is only 1 choice (maybe they don't like it but they know).

With Railroading, the players THINK they have more than 1 choice but they don't. No matter what they choose - ogre. This is not merely linear because there appears to be 2 options.

Here's a more blatant example: There are 2 doors, the players decide, forget this, we're going back to town. As they turn around - an Ogre charges them from the entrance (even though there was no indication of any kind that there was an ogre anywhere along the way so far). Is that fair?

 

[Lyxen]

If the players carefully listened at the door, smelled the ogre on the left, chose the right door and found an ogre anyway, you've railroaded because the dm has invalidated a (seemingly meaningful) choice by the players.

And then maybe it was a nasty dungeon created by Grimtooth, in which there is a spell that channels the sounds and smells of the ogre to the next room, who knows ? Maybe if the PCs had detected magic ?

 

[Lyxen]

I disagree.

Linear does not have a negative connotation and simply means going in a straight line.

I'm sorry, but it means that you are applying a non-negative connotation to linear and a negative one to railroading. It's the only reason there, and it's not a factual reason, it's a perfectly subjective reason on your part.

For me, honestly, I don't like linear (note that it's again, totally personal and subjective), because it smacks of lack of imagination. Whereas I can go with railroading because it's just a DM who does not know how to still run the adventure, so I'm absolutely prepared to help him move forward.

You can't decide things are different based on your personal preferences.

There is no deception involved, no denial of player choice. For example, the players COULD choose to turn around and not go through the door. The important thing is the players KNOW there is only 1 choice (maybe they don't like it but they know).

With Railroading, the players THINK they have more than 1 choice but they don't. No matter what they choose - ogre. This is not merely linear because there appears to be 2 options.

And then, what I call good players will not mind, because they will say, "OK, it's our bad luck again, we had to pick the one with the ogre".

Here's a more blatant example: There are 2 doors, the players decide, forget this, where going back to town. As they turn around - an Ogre charges them from the entrance (even though there was no indication of any kind that there was an ogre anywhere along the way so far). Is that fair?

First, they can't do this in a linear dungeon, they have to go through the door and fight the ogre. In this case, they have to fight the ogre. How is this different ?

 

[Umbran]

There is not complete ignorance here, though. They know there is an ogre behind one door.

No, they still lack agency. The choice they make is not actually impacted by their will.

This can be seen trivially in how two groups in the same situation, with different desires (one to avoid the ogre, one to confront the ogre) make the same choice. Ergo, the choice is independent from the will, and not an act with agency.

They know the other door has an exit. They know that if they get lucky, they will avoid the ogre. They don't need certainty in order to exercise their will on the attempt to get out of the exit they know is a possibility.

They do not need certainty - they do need some ability to impact the odds. If you leave them ignorant, there is no agency. If you say there's a 66% chance the ogre is behind the left door, and 34% chance it is behind the right door, then there is agency, as their act of will impacts the odds of getting what they want.