To think that all choices you make matter seems... great hubris. Everyone is a victim of the Universe from time to time, are they not?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism
- Thread starter Helpful NPC Thom
- Start date
- Status
To think that all choices you make matter seems... great hubris. Everyone is a victim of the Universe from time to time, are they not?
I think there is a difference between ...
A) The GM presents the party with one way forward, whether that's a door or a teleportation circle or a tunnel or whatever. The party can go forward or backward. There's not a lot of choice, but there's no deception.
... and ...
B) The GM presents the party with several ways forward, which all go to the same place. There appears to be choice, here, but that's because the GM is lying.
A) The GM presents the party with one way forward, whether that's a door or a teleportation circle or a tunnel or whatever. The party can go forward or backward. There's not a lot of choice, but there's no deception.
... and ...
B) The GM presents the party with several ways forward, which all go to the same place. There appears to be choice, here, but that's because the GM is lying.
Composer99
Hero
@Helpful NPC Thom
From where I'm standing, you are for the most part listing characteristics that relate to your preferred sort of gameplay, and how you prefer, when acting in the capacity of DM/GM, to facilitate games that satisfy those preferences. On my view, there is nothing inherently "fair" about them, they do not in and of themselves support a "fair game" (which a TTRPG is under no obligation to deliver in any event), and they do not make "fair" any less a buzzword.
The closest I can get to agreement is your point about not favouring particular players (although IMO there's no sense distinguishing between player and character in this case). But even then I wonder if by "not favouring" you are meaning an appeal to impartiality in the abstract. By my reckoning, the way to be fair to players is to facilitate the kind of gameplay they prefer (which is abstract in the general sense but concrete to a specific player), taking into account that different players have different preferences. (Any given player, of course, might well prefer to play in a game where the DM/GM aspires to impartiality in that abstract sense, thus matching what appears to be your preference if I'm not mistaken. Well and good.)
I would particularly like to take apart the remark on "good roleplaying". Roleplaying is, no more and no less, figuratively inhabiting a fictional character in a fictional setting and making decisions for that character more-or-less consistent with that character's position in the fiction and according to that character's personal characteristics. There is nothing nebulous about the concept per se, even when we grant that there are often many complexities involved in discerning fictional positioning or personal characteristics.
Moreover, when you put together game system, "table culture" (if you will), and other metagame considerations (in particular, "don't be a jerk") what will be "good" roleplaying at any given table will usually be clear enough to be getting on with - often even when the "table culture" has not been articulated aloud by anyone.
Likewise, there is nothing particularly nebulous about how, say, D&D 5e's Inspiration mechanic is supposed to reward roleplaying: the DM has the option of awarding it (or using the variant rule where players award it) when a player makes decisions for their character that are discernably congruent with the formalised personal characteristics set out for that character (traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws) in ways that the DM (or the other players when using that variant) feels contributes to making the gameplay experience more satisfying. I don't believe that GMs generally are incapable of discerning such contributions when they arise, even if any given contribution might come across as "I'll know it when I see it".
Suffice to say I do not buy the assertion that "good roleplaying" is so subjective and nebulous that a "fair" GM cannot reward it.
From where I'm standing, you are for the most part listing characteristics that relate to your preferred sort of gameplay, and how you prefer, when acting in the capacity of DM/GM, to facilitate games that satisfy those preferences. On my view, there is nothing inherently "fair" about them, they do not in and of themselves support a "fair game" (which a TTRPG is under no obligation to deliver in any event), and they do not make "fair" any less a buzzword.
The closest I can get to agreement is your point about not favouring particular players (although IMO there's no sense distinguishing between player and character in this case). But even then I wonder if by "not favouring" you are meaning an appeal to impartiality in the abstract. By my reckoning, the way to be fair to players is to facilitate the kind of gameplay they prefer (which is abstract in the general sense but concrete to a specific player), taking into account that different players have different preferences. (Any given player, of course, might well prefer to play in a game where the DM/GM aspires to impartiality in that abstract sense, thus matching what appears to be your preference if I'm not mistaken. Well and good.)
I would particularly like to take apart the remark on "good roleplaying". Roleplaying is, no more and no less, figuratively inhabiting a fictional character in a fictional setting and making decisions for that character more-or-less consistent with that character's position in the fiction and according to that character's personal characteristics. There is nothing nebulous about the concept per se, even when we grant that there are often many complexities involved in discerning fictional positioning or personal characteristics.
Moreover, when you put together game system, "table culture" (if you will), and other metagame considerations (in particular, "don't be a jerk") what will be "good" roleplaying at any given table will usually be clear enough to be getting on with - often even when the "table culture" has not been articulated aloud by anyone.
Likewise, there is nothing particularly nebulous about how, say, D&D 5e's Inspiration mechanic is supposed to reward roleplaying: the DM has the option of awarding it (or using the variant rule where players award it) when a player makes decisions for their character that are discernably congruent with the formalised personal characteristics set out for that character (traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws) in ways that the DM (or the other players when using that variant) feels contributes to making the gameplay experience more satisfying. I don't believe that GMs generally are incapable of discerning such contributions when they arise, even if any given contribution might come across as "I'll know it when I see it".
Suffice to say I do not buy the assertion that "good roleplaying" is so subjective and nebulous that a "fair" GM cannot reward it.
Lyxen
Great Old One
So, the DM tells you that there are three doors, and that there's an ogre behind one of them. You pick a door, and then the DM opens another door and tells you that you can stay with the same door, or change to the third one, still closed. Should you change the door that you selected ?
Justify your answer, in particular taking into account that it's a good or bad DM....
No it is intersubjective, not subjective - which is a huge difference.
The gaming community has decided that the term railroading has a negative connotation (sure the definition is not always easy to pin down but connotation is negative), one not attached to merely linear design.
It's not MY personal preference. Linear and Railroad are not the same thing. One involves no choice (other than maybe reversing course), and one involves the illusion of choice. That's 2 very different things.
Only because they were successfully deceived. See how they react when you say "haha, either door led to the ogre."
Linear doesn't mean they can't turn around (maybe they can't and succeed in their goal, but going back to town might still be an option in a linear adventure). Railroad means, no matter what they do, no matter how many options they THINK they have, they really only have one.
Lyxen
Great Old One
If it's linear, in A), you can only go forward. And in B), you don't know if the DM is lying. If you are playing in the proper spirit, you trust your DM that he is here to entertain you, and you know that if he is lying, it's for your fun. I much, much prefer the second one.
Composer99
Hero
@Lyxen
I think you'll not be surprised when I assert that there is a distinction to be made between the DM/GM lying to the players versus the world attempting to deceive the characters (hidden traps, illusions, lying NPCs, that sort of thing). The first is IMO a no-no and the second is just part of most games.
Thus there is a distinction between linear content and railroading, which you have correctly discerned (one is presented just as it is, the other is not just an artifact of gameplay but a deceit by the DM/GM). It's just, I would not be comfortable knowing the DM is lying to me as a player. But if (using an adaptation of the current hypothetical put forward in this thread), an NPC were to tell me "one door leads to safety, the other to ogre", and it turns out the NPC was lying (say, one of the doors actually opened to a portal that opened out into the ogre corridor, so they both go to the exact same place) - well, that could very well end up a rather entertaining moment, and I would doubtless get much enjoyment down the road vicariously wishing vengeance upon that NPC. Such a situation might need some handling with care by the DM/GM, so as to make sure it came across as intended to me and the other players, but in principle it could turn out great.
I think you'll not be surprised when I assert that there is a distinction to be made between the DM/GM lying to the players versus the world attempting to deceive the characters (hidden traps, illusions, lying NPCs, that sort of thing). The first is IMO a no-no and the second is just part of most games.
Thus there is a distinction between linear content and railroading, which you have correctly discerned (one is presented just as it is, the other is not just an artifact of gameplay but a deceit by the DM/GM). It's just, I would not be comfortable knowing the DM is lying to me as a player. But if (using an adaptation of the current hypothetical put forward in this thread), an NPC were to tell me "one door leads to safety, the other to ogre", and it turns out the NPC was lying (say, one of the doors actually opened to a portal that opened out into the ogre corridor, so they both go to the exact same place) - well, that could very well end up a rather entertaining moment, and I would doubtless get much enjoyment down the road vicariously wishing vengeance upon that NPC. Such a situation might need some handling with care by the DM/GM, so as to make sure it came across as intended to me and the other players, but in principle it could turn out great.
Last edited:
That's ... roughly the opposite of my preference. I'd prefer the DM not lie to me except in the person of a dishonest NPC.
Of course. Because based on what you are saying here... I'm thinking you as one of those types of players who is trying to "win". Winning the fight is what matters most importantly, whereas the reason for having the fight seems to be less important (at least as I am interpreting your posts, but admittedly I could be wrong). It doesn't really matter why the fight happens when the fight happens, what is truly important is playing the game such that you are trying your best to play most effectively in counter to what the DM presents so that you and the other players "win".It's only pointless if you never lose or have to make tough decisions because you won at a cost. Of course, playing D&D is kind of pointless but at least for me it's less pointless than watching people run around a chasing after some ball or puck.
I just don't see the point of even rolling dice if the DM just makes it up ... just say "woo-hoo! I hit again!" and everybody cheers.
The reason why I say D&D combat is pointless is because they are fights put in the game just to have fights in the game... not because the story of the campaign being generated NEEDS to have fights for the story. I mean what's a Random Encounter Table in an adventure other than a random assortment of monsters that 9 out of 10 times you will just fight just because? No practical reason story-wise to meet these monsters, nothing gained from the fight other than the meta-currency of Experience Points, they just show up randomly in the path of the party, the party probably fights and kills them, and then they move on with their day. This is exactly what I see as "pointless" combat. And depending on the adventure, I could easily suggest probably 4 out of every 5 fights I run into could be considered that way.
And when it happens? Heck, I oftentimes almost rather have the DM just handwave these pointless fights that serve no real purpose other than being a metaphorical speed bump on the way to the actual story. And it's not just TTRPGs... but video games are even worse. Mass Effect... World of Warcraft... just mob after mob after mob placed out there in the world for you to fight because "that's the game". The game is you go out and fight stuff. Which is fine I guess... and I'm sure there are plenty of people reading this shouting at the monitor "Yes! Exactly! THAT IS THE GAME!!! That's the whole point!!!" But it's not something I genuinely find all that entertaining when it happens so often. I'll take the narrative over the board game any day of the week.
- Status
