D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[prabe]

I know I do. Story hooks have no timetable.

Unless they do, in which case the timetable is probably part of the hook. Or at least part of the point.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

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.

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.

I don't think you quite manage to articulate what you're actually objecting to.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Unless they do, in which case the timetable is probably part of the hook. Or at least part of the point.

True. I was trying to be pithy for effect.

But yes, the story related to the hook might have a timetable, but more often than not the hook itself will remain in place and available to be engaged with for as long as it makes sense. I don't put time limits on most hooks for when they just suddenly disappear under the illusion that the problem got solved "in the background" by someone else. I don't give a rat's ass about my game worlds that much to have that many details being resolved away from the PCs. LOL.

For the most part when I run my games... only the area and time around the PCs are actually in focus. And its only as they move around that new stuff pops into existence, including plot hooks.

 

[prabe]

For the most part when I run my games... only the area and time around the PCs are actually in focus. And its only as they move around that new stuff pops into existence, including plot hooks.

That's about how I normally do it, too, unless I have a good reason to keep track of something in an ongoing manner. Like ... something the PCs specifically chose not to engage with, that was described as having a clock--that, I'll keep track of; or if there's an antagonist working offscreen.

That is different, I think, from working out how a place has changed if the PCs come back to it. There's no tracking those changes while the PCs are off doing something else; there's just looking at things and figuring out what's happened.

 

[prabe]

I don't think you quite manage to articulate what you're actually objecting to.

Well, upthread you at least played at taking the position that "fiction" and "lying" are the same thing, so it's definitely plausible we can't communicate on this.

But, I'll try again.

What I am objecting to is the GM lying about the fiction. "These doors go to different places" when, in fact, they don't (or won't). "These paths are different" when, in fact, they aren't. "Evil NPC# 61895 is running this particular evil plot" when, in fact, if the PCs kill Evil NPC #61895 then someone else will pick up the threads and the story will go the exact same place. Your alchemist example--where there's just been an accident, no matter when the PCs arrive--is IMO fine, unless the GM has said the PCs can possibly prevent the accident.

Have I managed to adequately articulate what I find objectionable?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Don't assume that most DMs do that. What I would do is assign a chance for an accident to occur as the PCs arrive and roll dice. If that chance happens, they arrive and see smoke pouring out of the shop. If I roll close, but not enough for an accident, they would arrive while he is cleaning up from a prior accident. If it's not close there is no accident. Since it's pretty clear from your example that his is a recurring NPC, eventually they will arrive and see an accident happen.

I have also seen multiple DMs here who would plan out on what day and at what time an accident will happen. If the PCs arrive before, there is nothing to see. If they arrive during, they see the explosion. Soon enough after will see the clean-up, and if they take days to get there the accident will have come and gone and they will have missed it.

There are lots of ways to play D&D and illusionist railroading is only one of them, and not one that I would enjoy.

 

[Campbell]

We had a great session of Infinity last night where everybody really brought it. At several points throughout the session the GM made certain to point out that he was not expecting us to do a certain thing. That as long as it makes sense in the fiction we can do whatever we want to do. I really appreciate that. It feels good to be playing with people who trust me not to mess the story up. To have a GM who treats us as collaborators and not audience members.

I totally get that a lot of people, even maybe most people, who play roleplaying games very much are there in part because they want to see what story the GM has prepared for them. That's not really me or the group I played with last night. For what I am looking for from roleplaying games when I care about the story I want it to be something we are fundamentally building together, where we all see how it unfolds. I trust the GM, but I also want to be trusted. I'm not looking for walled off gardens that are designed to guide me through a designated path. That includes from my fellow players too by the way.

This quote from John Harper's blog encapsulates a lot of my feelings on trust in roleplaying games:

Trust in Me​

This is an old post. I didn't publish it way back when, because the situation was still very charged, and I didn't want to make it all about that one specific interaction. But, we've moved on now and I think there are some general points here worth sharing and discussing. So here it is.

A few interactions in one of the weekly games I'm in has highlighted some issues of trust in roleplaying so I figured I'd say a few words on the subject.

"As the GM, I describe the failure."
"Right. But you can't just say anything, right? It has to suit the character and not violate the player's vision, and it has to make sense with what has come before and..."
"Uh, that's not what the rule says. It says the GM describes the failure. Here's the actual text: 'Every so often, you’re going to lose control of your character for a moment. When you attempt to do something and fail your test, the GM gets to take over and describe something that went wrong. He can tell everyone about something you did that was misguided or even bad. Or, he can describe an unforeseen effect that your actions caused. He gets to stick it to you for a moment.'"
"Well, sure, that's what the book says, but you still have to make sure it's okay with the player and doesn't mess up their idea of the character..."

And that's when I realized that the player -- on some deep level -- just didn't trust me, as GM, to "do it right" when it came time to take control of their character on a failure. And not just their own character, but any PC.

And it turns out that the trust issue encompasses not just PC agency, but "the story" as well. Here's another exchange between two players:

"Yeah, I could have my character really go down this dark path..."
"But that's not great for the story, though. It's one dimensional to have a character that just spirals down like that."
"Yeah, well, that's where I see this going."
"I know, but it makes a weaker story that way. One-dimensional characters are boring..."

Again, the trust just isn't there. The PC going down this dark path is "doing the story wrong" (as if that was possible) or at the very least, making the story somehow worse. The objecting player has certain standards that must be honored, or his enjoyment of the game will suffer -- which is perfectly normal, of course -- but he doesn't trust the rest of us not to mess it all up for him.

As a result, we often end up debating the merits of player decisions, story points, NPC behaviors, and rules applications whenever any of them begin to diverge from the standards and preferences of this player. He's worried that we're going to weaken the story, make a critical error, do something that doesn't "make sense," or otherwise disrupt the fictional space inside his head. On some level, He just doesn't trust us to get it right.

When the trust is there, there's no need for lots of front-loaded debate and discussion before establishing the action. A fellow player does something that seems odd or the story takes a bizarre turn or a rule is applied in an unexpected way and it's okay. If you trust everyone sitting around the table, you can take a wait-and-see approach. Maybe it seems a little odd or unexpected now, but you trust that it will all work out. You give the benefit of the doubt.

When the trust is there, everyone is free to play hard, be bold, and put their stamp on the game. Their vision might be different from your vision, and that's okay. Playing with trust means coming to the table excited to hear what the other players are going to say -- whatever it may be. That's why we play these games with particular people, right? That's why we stay in groups with creative, interesting, engaging players and leave the groups that don't click for us.

Sure, sometimes you need to be firm and hold your ground. Sometimes you fight for your specific vision of the game. But when it comes from a place of trust, you're fighting with your respected peers. You're advocating for your ideas, not shooting theirs down. When it's not based in trust, you're trying to shepherd the other players -- steer them, guide them, show them the right way. You're fighting to protect yourself from their "bad ideas."

I'll say that again: You're fighting to protect yourself from the so-called bad ideas of your fellow players. If you're in this place, it's time to reassess. Do you really want to be playing with these people? Maybe play with people you trust more. Do you really want to trust this group, but find it hard to? Maybe press on and try to release the iron grip of control.

Also, consider this question: What did these people do to lose your trust? Often, the answer is "nothing." The lack of trust may be coming from past experiences or other issues. Try to give your fellow players the benefit of the doubt. Relax, and fly casual. The thing that seems so wrong or strange to you right now may turn out to be really cool if you allow your fellow players to take risks and be spontaneous.

For what I am looking for when it comes to roleplaying games where I care about the unfolding narrative I view other players (including the GM) trying to impress their vision on all of us a violation of trust. Not our trust in them, but their trust in the rest of us. They are showing they are afraid we are going to screw it up and be poor collaborators.

Fundamentally I just do not see the people I play games with as audience members. I am not saying you should not. I am just saying that I do not.

I feel like this thread has turned from one based on showing railroading/linear play as a viable style of play (which I absolutely believe it to be by the way) into one of trying to argue that it's the only viable way to play and the rest of us are secretly doing it anyway. That last bit is probably the part that I take the most umbrage to. I do not see how I can have a meaningful conversation about play techniques with someone who does not trust me to evaluate my own wants, desires, and play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I am objecting to is the GM lying about the fiction. "These doors go to different places" when, in fact, they don't (or won't). "These paths are different" when, in fact, they aren't. "Evil NPC# 61895 is running this particular evil plot" when, in fact, if the PCs kill Evil NPC #61895 then someone else will pick up the threads and the story will go the exact same place.

But this is not what the GM says. They say 'there are two doors' or 'which path you choose?' That they lead to different places might be implied, and is certainly true in fiction, but this is no different than 'where you go first' implying that timing matters, when it actually doesn't.

Your alchemist example--where there's just been an accident, no matter when the PCs arrive--is IMO fine, unless the GM has said the PCs can possibly prevent the accident.

Have I managed to adequately articulate what I find objectionable?

I don't think the distinction you're making is coherent. The things simply are not so clear cut in practice.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One thing I will say in regards to this whole choices / illusionism thing... is that I personally do not put nearly as much stock in having the ability to make meaningful choices as others do. Because quite frankly, meaningful choices to me are meaningless if the results of those choices end up being bland, boring, incomprehensible, or just outright bad. If a poor-quality DM just doesn't have their crap together to produce fun and interesting content... the fact that I could choose how to engage with it doesn't make it any better.

I will almost always take and play through a fantastic DM's personalized and virtually unchangeable, linear, railroady story over a DM who just doesn't do a good job, has bad stories and boring reactions but allows me to make whatever choices I want. There's a reason why 'Choose-Your-Own-Adventure' books are not seen as the highest level of literary quality, and it's not because you get to choose the direction of the story.

 

[prabe]

But this is not what the GM says. They say 'there are two doors' or 'which path you choose?' That they lead to different places might be implied, and is certainly true in fiction, but this is no different than 'where you go first' implying that timing matters, when it actually doesn't.

I dunno. "Where do you go first?" sounds like a question of "What are we going to resolve first?" especially if the PCs have several things they want to do. If there's no indication matters, there's no deception on the part of the GM. The inevitable accident is only illusionism (as opposed to an illusion/convenience) if the PCs have any reason to believe they can prevent it, or arrive enough after cleanup that it doesn't smell like an accident anymore.

I don't think the distinction you're making is coherent. The things simply are not so clear cut in practice.

Seems both clear and coherent from in my head. It feels increasingly as though we're failing to communicate on this.