D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

Geography matters is to me so obvious a statement that I'm surprised it even warrants a mention.

Without geography there's no exploration, as there's nothing to explore; thus negating what 5e has (quite rightly IMO) defined as one of the three core pillars of the game.

Where's the exploration piece in any of this? Where's the part where the PCs/players get to choose when and-or by what means and-or by what route they travel from scene to scene? Where's the point at which, having decided to go from scene A to scene B, something seen or encountered during the journey can prompt a detour or a change of mind on the part of the PCs/players?

Are you really incapable of understanding that not everyone plays RPGs the same as you do?

As I posted upthread (post 267), whether to care about geography, or not, is a choice.

When my friends and I are playing Prince Valiant - for example - we don't want or need to "explore" 8th century Europe. We already have a map in front of us, that I photocopied from a Penguin historical atlas. Whether or not the PCs encounter the Huns is not something that is at stake. What is at stake is whether or not the PCs can lead their warband to victory against the Huns, and also whether or not the defeated Huns can be converted.

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.

Your assessment of B as lying rests on some premises that may be unremarkable in many episodes of RPGing, but that I think are worth bringing to the fore.

When the GM presents the party with several ways forward, that is a moment of narration. But what is it's significance at the table? If the players believe they are being presented with a choice as to which bit of backstory to "activate" - eg because they believe they are playing a hexcrawl or other sandbox - but the GM is intending to frame the same scene regardless of the choice the PCs make, then I agree that we have lying.

But there may be other understandings at the table. Perhaps the players believe, correctly, that the choice of whether to travel by plane or by boat is just colour. Or perhaps by choosing the travel route some other significant possibility opens up - maybe the players make a different check if the travel is overland or by boat, and the result of that check contributes a bonus or penalty to the ensuing encounter (in 4e D&D, this could be part of a skill challenge).

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?

My response to this is similar to my response to @prabe: it depends on additional premises.

You're describing a moment of scene-framing - An Ogre charges you from the dungeon entrance. Is that a good exercise of GM authority over scene-framing? So much depends on what the framework of play is understood as being. If the game is a classic dungeon crawl, and the GM has made up an Ogre with no reference to their notes, then it's not fair - it's cheating.

If the game is different in its framework - eg for some reason Ogres are highly salient as opposition, and it's understood that the GM is expected to present opposition even when the players try and squib (eg by saying "forget this" and turning around) - then maybe the Ogre is fair game.

As RPGers, we can choose how to allocate the authority to author different bits of the fiction - backstory, scenes/situations, outcomes of different sorts of action declarations - and we can choose what principles to use to direct and constrain that authority - eg constancy of prep to support skilled Gygaxian exploration; or narrating the PCs into conflict even when the players try and back away; or any of a host of others.

Recognising that range of possibilities does no one any harm, and opens up the conversations to being constructive rather than combative.

 

[Umbran]

There's a difference between making fiction and lying to your audience, and those who are objecting are objecting to the latter.

It seems to me that they are actually objecting to the use of tools and techniques because they associate those tools and techniques with lying. Kind of like objecting to hammers - they can be used to hit you in the head, after all, even though the nominal use of them is building houses.

 

[pemerton]

I appreciate the long example, but I can't imagine this answer would be satisfying for anyone concerned with the denial of choice in the quantum ogre scenario. The premise of your PV report is that the players don't object to GM fiat in setting the scene. So you put the ogre down in front of them and then start playing. But if you are bothered by the quantum ogre situation, you want the choice to go right or left, and you want that choice to matter. So, what counts as legitimate hard scene framing in a game where players don't care about certain kinds of "obvious contrivances" will read as a GM forcing content in any "-crawl" type dnd game.

(1) Who said it is hard scene-framing? Do you know what would have happened, at the table, if - when I narrated the storm - one of the players had declared that their PC prays for the storm to pass? Or, what would have happened if one of the players had declared that they speak to the masters with ships docked in the Dalmation ports to see if they can get passage?

(2) In the post you are quoting, I said this:

The notorious Quantum Ogre reveals many unstated assumptions that are part of typical D&D play.

So I'm not sure why you're making my point back to me as if it will be news to me.

 

[prabe]

Your assessment of B as lying rests on some premises that may be unremarkable in many episodes of RPGing, but that I think are worth bringing to the fore.

Sure. Based on the rest of your post, I'm kinda getting at the idea of where the choices lead immediately--the idea that one can reach a place, eventually, by more than one path isn't damaging or objectionable to me.

When the GM presents the party with several ways forward, that is a moment of narration. But what is it's significance at the table? If the players believe they are being presented with a choice as to which bit of backstory to "activate" - eg because they believe they are playing a hexcrawl or other sandbox - but the GM is intending to frame the same scene regardless of the choice the PCs make, then I agree that we have lying.

Yes. This is very much what I was thinking. Well, probably as close as possible, considering how differently we think about TRPGs. Basically, if the players have reason to think the choice matters, it seems to me it should matter. (barring communication failures and the like)

But there may be other understandings at the table. Perhaps the players believe, correctly, that the choice of whether to travel by plane or by boat is just colour. Or perhaps by choosing the travel route some other significant possibility opens up - maybe the players make a different check if the travel is overland or by boat, and the result of that check contributes a bonus or penalty to the ensuing encounter (in 4e D&D, this could be part of a skill challenge).

I guess I would wonder why a choice was being offered between, e.g., traveling by plane or boat, if it wasn't going to matter in the game. I agree, though that table expectations (or other play considerations) will make a difference, here.

 

[prabe]

It seems to me that they are actually objecting to the use of tools and techniques because they associate those tools and techniques with lying. Kind of like objecting to hammers - they can be used to hit you in the head, after all, even though the nominal use of them is building houses.

I'm pretty sure I've been consistent (and I hope clear) about objecting to lying. I agree that the tools and techniques being discussed can be used honestly, and I think I've been clear I don't have a problem with that. I may be committing the error of believing that others must believe as I do, however.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

I fully agree that this sounds like a total shocker.

How do we explain that. The notion of a "spectrum" from sandbox to "linear"/"railroad" won't tell us anything. Nor will invocations of "bad faith" vs "good faith" GMing - as if there's a single thing that GMing is.

What sort of authority has the GM purported to exercise? Authority over the situation: you, the players, have taken the situation to include a jewel shop you can rob. You're planning the robbery - and if it's anything like my table that planning is a un-self-conscious and free-flowing mix of in character and out of character discussion, note taking, equipment mustering, etc.

The GM knows that that is how you are planning to engage the situation. And she changes it.

In structure - though perhaps not in time wasted at the table - it would be similar if you were about to cut down the PCs' worst nemesis and the GM just declared, by fiat and out of nowhere, the the nemesis NPC is "beamed up" to safety and so your sword cuts through empty air.

Here's the best summary version I know of why this sort of GMing sucks:

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority [ie authority over what is part of a scene/situation] you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the SIS [= shared fiction] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.​

Your GM radically failed to present situations that are worth anyone's time. In fact she did the exact opposite. I personally wouldn't call it a railroad, because she didn't manipulate the outcomes of declared actions (whether by fudging the dice or fudging the fiction). But that terminological point is secondary. The important point is that what you describe is a completely unprincipled, gameplay-wrecking use of the GM's authority over situation.

The reason I've analysed it in this sort of detail is to try and illustrate that until we start talking with some precision about which bits of the fiction and which principles, we can't talk meaningfully about what GMs should and shouldn't do. Just saying the GM sets the scene and then, once actions are declared by the players, the GM narrates outcomes is completely inadequate as an account of what GMing is about.

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

No it's not. It's a "freeze frame" room (in the terminology I learned from early White Dwarf). But the players don't encounter it wherever they go.

Now if distribution of events in time mattered to mainstream RPGing as much as geographic location does - things might be different. But I don't think that's ever been the case.

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.

We're agreed, but I've tried to further bring out the implicit premises. Your bit before the dash assumes that geography matters but time doesn't - and then on the right hand side of the dash you think of a situation in which time might matter, and then correctly diagnose that under those conditions it is parallel to the "quantum ogre".

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

No, there is a difference. The option on where to go in town is meaningful -- it changes the order in which players experience the fiction and that can have knock-on effects for downstream choices. They may choose to never go to the alchemist, and that's certainly meaningful in this context. That a prepared scene occurs that specifically engages the choice made is not Illusionism -- the players made a specific choice to engage the fiction of the alchemist and get an alchemist related bit of fiction in return. They are getting what they want. Having encounters keyed to locations is very much not Illusionism -- there's no negation of choice.

Illusionism is specifically about negation of choice and hiding that negation. The Quantum Ogre example isn't about the ogre, or something being behind the door, but the fact that an apparent meaningful choice is presented -- that there would be a different thing if you chose a different door -- but that none actually exist. If you offer a choice, but regardless of what is chosen the same thing happens. This is different from a scene opening regardless of when you get there that is directly related to the choice made.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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 mean, if I were running this (and I have run things vaguely analogous to it), the choice of where you go first can affect what you see or the events involved. E.g., if you put the alchemist shop off until the next day, then the alchemist wouldn't be covered in soot--they'd have cleaned up and would be resigned to the process of putting the shop back together. Like, if I'm going to go for "X event happened," then whether the party goes immediately after that event or the next day should have some impact. It might only be flavor, but it should matter.

Sometimes timing matters a LOT. The murder mystery adventure I ran a while back, for example, it made a big difference which clues the party sought first. Or another time, the party was chasing down some druidic eco-terrorists, and had two options for which stronghold they could start with. Both which location they chose to go to, and the nature of their trip, affected the story. (They struggled on the journey, thus arriving late--meaning an ally chose to investigate the other location independently, leading to that ally nearly dying and going into effective retirement afterward.)

Of course, sometimes it really doesn't make more than incidental differences where the players choose to go--just as people can choose to do their daily errands in whatever order they like, most of the time. But...at that point, why make it appear to be a choice? "Alright, you know you need to go to X, Y, and Z today. You don't really have any reason to go to any of them first, so...anyone have a preference?" It's quite easy to avoid implying that the players are making an important choice when they aren't.

And, I mean, it's not like there aren't a ton of things players do that aren't and don't need to be meaningful choices. Hair and eye color, for example, is almost always fluff. (The druid in my game is an exception, his eyes are part of his druid tell.) Likewise, if I decide at the last minute that an NPC has red hair instead of black hair, that pretty clearly has little to no impact on whether the choices I offer my players are actual choices and not railroads that look like they offer choices.

Because, again, that's the core thing for me: fudging, illusionism, and undetectable retconning all end up doing the same thing. They all present something to the players (not the characters, the players) as though it is something it isn't, and forbid the players from doing anything that could reveal this false presentation. Fudging (which, to be clear, I only mean secret fudging--openly changing results is different) presents the mechanical system as though it were a consistent entity, but it isn't, it's always contingent on the DM being okay with it. Illusionism presents choices that appear to actually matter, but don't. Retconning (and, again, I mean secret stuff--it's fine to openly go back to fix continuity because of a mistake) presents the world as understandable and learnable, but it isn't, it's contingent on the DM believing that their original plan is still good.

 

[prabe]

We're agreed, but I've tried to further bring out the implicit premises. Your bit before the dash assumes that geography matters but time doesn't - and then on the right hand side of the dash you think of a situation in which time might matter, and then correctly diagnose that under those conditions it is parallel to the "quantum ogre".

In some circumstances, time is just a thing that keeps everything from happening at once.

More seriously, my thinking about encounters in a town/city is probably shaped by the fact both my long-term D&D parties split up when they're doing urban-ish stuff, and/or have multiple things they want to do. Those things have to happen in some order, around the table. If that order is intended to matter, I'd strongly prefer for that to be made clear. I think we are understanding each other, though.

 

[Umbran]

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.
...
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.

Sure, there's crummy gaming out there.

But arguing with a GM who is trying to be fair, honest, and work in good faith, about a tool or technique because Bad GMs misuse it, is completely failing to address their actual problems. They need a discussion about how to determine if a GM is bad early on, and how to have conversations with GMs that set expectations for fair, honest, good faith play.

Hint: If a GM is reluctant to have a discussion about expectations and fair, honest, good faith play, then maybe you need to avoid that GM.