D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[overgeeked]

And then, once more, it has to be a terrible crime ?

Yes. It shows the DM isn’t interested in fair play, honesty, or players having meaningful choices to make that influence the supposedly collaborative game.

The players don't even try to understand why it was done, they just slam the door, walk away and use the DM as a "bad DM" example until the end of their days ?

There’s nothing to understand. The DM decided to negate player choice. To take away the one thing the players get to do in the game. The one thing they control. The DM wasn’t satisfied controlling literally everything else in the game...that wasn’t enough...they had to control the players’ choices, too.

And yes. Walk away. That’s bad DMing.

 

[Hussar]

And then, once more, it has to be a terrible crime ? The players don't even try to understand why it was done, they just slam the door, walk away and use the DM as a "bad DM" example until the end of their days ?

I have a different take on this, which is that there was a REASON for which the DM did what he did. But honestly, people in here are much too self-righteous and theoretical to ask WHY the DM did it. Because in my experience, it's because he looked for another solution to try and please the players and did not find one. So does it make such a terrible crime ?

Ok, let's dive down a little deeper here.

I know exactly why the DM that I had railroaded us. Back in a 2e game, she was running Keep on the Borderlands. We were playing away and then had the idea to rob the jewel merchant. Spent an entire session planning, working it around, scouting, the works. We were going to go on A HEIST! The entire group was involved. Then, when it came time to execute our cunning plan, she declared that the night before, the jewel merchant, without any prior notice, had closed shop and left in the night never to be seen again.

Now, I know why she did this. She didn't want us to do this. She had seen her campaign go off in a completely different direction and had decided to get things back in the "right" way again. I know this because she told me so afterward.

We still immediately quit the game.

Again, this gets back to my contention that the purpose of a GM is to run a game that the players enjoy. If the players are right into something, completely focused on it, playing the game and having a blast, and the DM then plonks down a big "THOU SHALT NOT" sign, well, that's bad faith. Had she told us about this before we spent several hours of game time planning and whatnot, then it probably would have been okay. But, she made a mistake, didn't step in when she should have and then stepped in in the worst possible way - total railroad.

And, to make matters worse, she insisted that she did nothing wrong. She did not see why we were unhappy. So, we walked.

In other games where I've seen this sort of thing rear its head, it's generally always been the same thing. The DM wants to enforce a specific outcome because the DM has decided that that specific outcome, come hell or high water, is the "best" for the enjoyment of the table, irregardless of the perspectives of the players. It's the NPC who will refuse to give out information because that will make things "too easy". ((So, the players bypass this by resorting to magic, and, next time, the NPC will be impervious to charming - then the DM pisses and moans that the players never talk to NPC's)) It's automatic roadblocks the pop up to "make things more difficult" which instead mean that the players never try anything that isn't specifically called out by the mechanics. ((resulting in DM's bitching about how their players just aren't creative anymore)) So on and so forth.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, I've heard this many times. Get to the table and the GM cant make sandbox interesting, and even more players are likely to wander around aimlessly wishing they were in a linear adventure instead. Both styles require GM skills to be honed and player proactivity to be successful. Both can be uninteresting due to lack of exploration and meaningful choices. It's entirely on the group and not the style.

Maybe, maybe not.

I suspect newer DMs, or those with less time to prep, might find linear adventures easier to run; and newer players might find linear adventures easier to play, at least to start with. Some tables might be quite happy to stay there while others will later move away from linear into something else, be it sandbox or some other more exploration-centric model. (I'm sure the reverse also happens, where a group starts out non-linear and moves to linear, but my guess is that'd be rare)

I think a non-linear style asks a bit more of both the DM and the players - the DM has to do more prep and the players have to get a bit more stuck in - and it's fine if not all players and-or DMs are ready and willing to answer this bell every time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Only in the sense that Christopher Lloyd was lying when he claimed to be King Lear on the stage this summer.

We are not Thermians, and differentiate between a lie, and presentation of fiction for entertainment.

Some here seem to have trouble with the concept.

These discussions always boggle my mind. It always seems that a lot of people seem to totally lack awareness of how presentation of fiction necessitates certain amount of illusion. An RPG world is not only non-real, it is mostly also empty and non-existent. To make it seem real and full of detail requires illusion, but some people seem to vehemently object that. At the same time I really don't believe that they understand what that stance would in practice mean, and I doubt that they in actuality run games where every square metre of the world is constantly simulated at every moment, and never just place things conveniently where and when PCs happen to be.

 

[Lanefan]

Some here seem to have trouble with the concept.

These discussions always boggle my mind. It always seems that a lot of people seem to totally lack awareness of how presentation of fiction necessitates certain amount of illusion. An RPG world is not only non-real, it is mostly also empty and non-existent. To make it seem real and full of detail requires illusion, but some people seem to vehemently object that. At the same time I really don't believe that they understand what that stance would in practice mean, and I doubt that they in actuality run games where every square metre of the world is constantly simulated at every moment, and never just place things conveniently where and when PCs happen to be.

The bolded is the theoretical ideal, as far as I'm concerned. Impossible to achieve in practice, sadly, but one can always try as best one can...

The bigger over-riding issue here isn't the use of illusion or similar techniques, but whether players are willing and able to trust their DMs to run their games/settings fairly, honestly, and in good faith. This is where it seems some posters run aground.

 

[Hussar]

The bolded is the theoretical ideal, as far as I'm concerned. Impossible to achieve in practice, sadly, but one can always try as best one can...

The bigger over-riding issue here isn't the use of illusion or similar techniques, but whether players are willing and able to trust their DMs to run their games/settings fairly, honestly, and in good faith. This is where it seems some posters run aground.

Conversely, there are more than a non-zero number of DM's who don't run their games/settings fairly, honestly and in good faith, which results in players who are less willing to blindly trust DM's. Remember, that player might be new to your table, but, they're probably not new to gaming and they are viewing you through the lens of every other DM they've ever had.

It's something that has become so apparent to me having run online games for so long. The hoops players will jump through to "protect" themselves from DM's is astonishing. New player at my table, first thing he did when he could was cast Arcane Lock on every single piece of equipment he could so that I could never, ever steal anything.

In forty years of gaming, I don't think I have ever stolen anything from a PC. It certainly never comes to mind.

Heck, here's a direct quote from our Discord channel from a couple of days ago:

I'll be happy with whatever Hussar is happy with, pretty much why I usually steer clear of illusions, too fuzzy.

That last bit is the telling part. The players, having been bitten by DM's in the past, simply don't use stuff that isn't hard coded. I've seen it over and over and over again with players that come to my table.

I once polled En World, ages ago, about people's experiences with DM's. About a third reported terrible experiences. As in, Would never recommend this DM level experiences. That's HUGE. That means if you have five players, probably two of them have had terrible experiences with DM's in the past. Turning around and then expecting that the players will automatically trust you to act in good faith is a bridge that is WAAAAY too far.

Frankly, I became a DM out of despair of actually playing a fun D&D game. I had negative experience after negative experience for years. So, if I wanted to play D&D, I decided to run almost exclusively. And it was that way for a long time for me. It wasn't until the past few years that I actually got to play again. Fantastic DM's and I was lucky to have them. But, I think people tend to not realize just how much crap gaming there is out there. There's a LOT of garbage DM's out there.

 

[prabe]

Some here seem to have trouble with the concept.

These discussions always boggle my mind. It always seems that a lot of people seem to totally lack awareness of how presentation of fiction necessitates certain amount of illusion. An RPG world is not only non-real, it is mostly also empty and non-existent. To make it seem real and full of detail requires illusion, but some people seem to vehemently object that. At the same time I really don't believe that they understand what that stance would in practice mean, and I doubt that they in actuality run games where every square metre of the world is constantly simulated at every moment, and never just place things conveniently where and when PCs happen to be.

People objecting to "illusionism" in threads like this aren't (mostly) objecting to ... storytelling-ish devices, to make the world feel real. They're mostly objecting to efforts to present the illusion of choice, or the illusion of being central to the game. There's a difference between making fiction and lying to your audience, and those who are objecting are objecting to the latter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

People objecting to "illusionism" in threads like this aren't (mostly) objecting to ... storytelling-ish devices, to make the world feel real. They're mostly objecting to efforts to present the illusion of choice, or the illusion of being central to the game. There's a difference between making fiction and lying to your audience, and those who are objecting are objecting to the latter.

The difference you describe doesn't really exist. It is a continuum at most.

The example I used a previous thread on the topic: the characters are in a town, they want to run certain errands. Visit the blacksmith, the alchemist, and the library. So the GM ask where they go first. When they arrive to the alchemists shop smoke is pouring out of windows, and they find the alchemist in middle of disarray and destruction, covered is soot. They just had an accident. This is a fun way to introduce the accident prone alchemist. But this introduction would happen just the same, regardless of whether they go to the alchemists shop first, second, third or even the next day. And this is the exact same thing than the quantum ogre, the thing illusioned just is time and not the location. And I am sure almost every GM does things like this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The difference you describe doesn't really exist. It is a continuum at most.

The example I used a previous thread on the topic: the characters are in a town, they want to run certain errands. Visit the blacksmith, the alchemist, and the library. So the GM ask where they go first. When they arrive to the alchemists shop smoke is pouring out of windows, and they find the alchemist in middle of disarray and destruction, covered is soot. They just had an accident. This is a fun way to introduce the accident prone alchemist. But this introduction would happen just the same, regardless of whether they go to the alchemists shop first, second, third or even the next day. And this is the exact same thing than the quantum ogre, the thing illusioned just is time and not the location. And I am sure almost every GM does things like this.

I know I do. Story hooks have no timetable.

 

[prabe]

The difference you describe doesn't really exist. It is a continuum at most.

The difference between lying and not? I suppose you have diplomacy/tact/social lubricant stuff in a sometimes-blurry middle ground, but it feels very much as though the distribution clusters at the ends, to me.

The example I used a previous thread on the topic: the characters are in a town, they want to run certain errands. Visit the blacksmith, the alchemist, and the library. So the GM ask where they go first. When they arrive to the alchemists shop smoke is pouring out of windows, and they find the alchemist in middle of disarray and destruction, covered is soot. They just had an accident. This is a fun way to introduce the accident prone alchemist.

Sure. I don't see this as objectionable, because it's not (that I can tell) impinging on player/character choice--unless there's some further narrative that depends on a sequence of things happening in the town, or maybe there's an implication the PCs could have prevented the accident by getting to the alchemist's shop more quickly.

But this introduction would happen just the same, regardless of whether they go to the alchemists shop, first, second, third or even next day. And this is the exact same thing than the quantum ogre, the thing illumined just is time and not the location. And I am sure almost every GM does things like this.

The Quantum Ogre is an imperfect distillation of the idea of illusory choice, not (as I see it) saying that framing things is bad. I might not prefer a game like @pemerton describes, where every scene is framed into play and the interstices are ... mostly elided (as I understand the descriptions of that table's play) but it doesn't sound as though there are any illusory decision points being deployed--it's fundamentally honest.