D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Manbearcat]

But as you go into more story-oriented play, especially if you have a lot of intrigue, and therefore a lot of improvisation (another characteristic of that kind of game is that it goes much faster because there is much fewer combat, so you get much much faster into unknown territory leading to improvisation), I'm sorry, but these devious tools become critical and almost a necessity.

I suspect you probably feel like you’re getting dog-piled a little bit and I sympathize. I hate dog-piling and when I see it happening, I typically try to go the other direction if I’m able.

The way you run your games is totally fine if your players dig it. Totally great for you and your players and tons more in this world (the way you’ve depicted your play is probably the majority play style in the world).

However…

you need to understand…

what you say above here?

It’s empirically not true. I’ve been running “by the seat of my pants” Story Now games for a long…long time. Little to no prep. I’ve done it for hundreds of players (there are several on here that I’ve run various games for).

You don’t have to prep metaplot. You don’t have to use overt Force or Covert Illusionism to make compelling (at least for the participants), emergent narrative come out of play.

I would encourage you to question why you think this is true…and try some other games or be a player in a game with a GM who is highly proficient in this mode.

Should be an eye opener.

 

[Mort]

Looping back, I think a lot of the discussion is talking about a "pure" example of quantum ogre, which isn't how it tends to actually manifest.

More likely, it'll look like: the pc's are in Hamletville, and can chose one of three sidequests (or just leave and go to Townsborough): there's an orc camp to drive off, a fay-touched cave to explore, or rumors of a banshee to investigate.

The dm has prepped a cool ogre encounter. The dm has decided, ahead of time, that whichever side quest they choose, they will encounter the ogre along the way.

Is that railroading? Illusion of choice? Bad dming? I would say no to all three: the choice was never "do you want to encounter an ogre?" The choice was orthogonal to ogres, and is still valid.

Railroading would be having the orc already gone and the banshee not really there, so the players must go to the cave. Illusion of Choice would be if the orcs are in the cave, with the banshee.

For me, this is fine. It's essentially a flavor encounter along the road, and the DM just didn't want to do 3 different ones (and why would he).

You're not stepping on any player agency by having this be a set encounter. And, hopefully, the choice the players did make - going to the town they want to, isn't impacted at all (well unless it's a TPK or something like that - but them's the breaks).

 

[Cadence]

You're not stepping on any player agency by having this be a set encounter. And, hopefully, the choice the players did make - going to the town they want to, isn't impacted at all (well unless it's a TPK or something like that - but them's the breaks).

If I'm reading correctly, that's apparently far from agreed on around here...

 

[prabe]

If I'm reading correctly, that's apparently far from agreed on around here...

Evergreen post.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Did you read my example? The party can go to point A, B, or C. How is this not a choice? Is the choice not valid if there's a random encounter? Do I need to fully inform them of every possible random encounter along the way?

Okay, so, no, you don't. The difference is how Force operates. Force is when the GM chooses an outcome regardless of player input, choice, or mechanical result. It's a useful definition to isolate those things the GM is doing solely by fiat decision, and especially in disregard for player inputs. It's not inherently a bad thing -- I think 5e, for instance, effectively requires it to some degree. The adventure books are full of suggested Force.

So, in the example, the GM is choosing to deploy a specific example no matter what and in disregard to player input, choice, or mechanical resolutions. It's just Force. Again, not necessarily bad. Heck, I do this stuff all the time because it cuts down on prep. But, that doesn't make it not Force -- it's still Force.

Then we have Illusionism, which is a subset of Force where the Force is disguised or hidden from the players. Here the Force is hidden because they players cannot ever know that this would happen regardless of their choice. The cause is hidden from them. So, we have Illusionism.

If the GM made a wandering monster check and got the encounter and deployed it, this would be a part of the expected resolution of the game systems, and the GM isn't choosing this outcome by disregarding a mechanical resolution. Presumably, the players are aware that this is part of the game, so the result is fully expected to be possible.

Force and Illusionism are really talking about GM intent and how the structure of the game is working with regards to the back and forth of play. I don't think either are inherently bad, although a given player or GM might feel very strongly one way or the other on them. I don't mind a little bit of it, but I do mind pretty quickly, both as a player and a GM. I don't much care about it with regard to filler/flavor encounters, but I absolutely mind if any steps are taken with intent by the players that are then thwarted by the Force. For instance, if the encounter in the example happens if the players choose a fast or slow overland speed, then I'm in problem area -- these things should have weight in play and I'm discarding that by just throwing out an encounter regardless.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've defined Illusionism very recently and clearly. Illusionism is when the GM deploys Force but obscures it from the players so it isn't obvious. Force is when the GM chooses an outcome with disregard to player input, choice, or the outcome of mechanics.

And example of Force would be if the player tries to Counterspell an opponent and the GM declares it fails because they want that spell to happen, even though there's no reason for it to fail. A GM may deploy some smokescreen here, and if that smokescreen is effective, then we've moved to Illusionism. However, in this case, most players are going to see through the smokescreen so it's most likely not Illusionism.

Illusionism would be an example where the GM has determined that event A must happen, and, no matter what the players choose, even including actions to avoid event A, the GM Forces it in a way that makes it impossible to tell that it wasn't just luck, chance, or error on the players' part that caused it. The Quantum Ogre is a useful example in it's original format (the constant altering of this example in discussions is making it less useful).

I probably shouldn't go down this rabbit hole, but:

If the player characters have no way to influence a factor in the fiction (are there ogres), then is it really "disregarding player input" to decide that that are ogres without consulting with the players? Because if it is - I don't see a meaningful distinction between Force and "any time a dm makes a choice." Which makes the concept of Force uselessly broad.

I wouldn't consider it "disregard" that the dm didn't consult me before planning encounters.

If Illusionism is "any time the dm doesn't fully explain themselves" then the whole game is illusionism, because the alternative is unplayable.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not even speaking to you, and there is no "your side". And I don't even want to spend time looking for the things that you might or might not have said, since you obviously did not even read my post in its entirety.



Read the post and then come back with something which is not a strawman, because this is a huge one.

Quote to me a single person in this thread who wants both sandbox play with improvisation and absolute sticking to prepared notes.

 

[Mort]

If I'm reading correctly, that's apparently far from agreed on around here...

Which is why I started the post with "for me..."

It's certainly not "pure" enough for several posters - but for me it works.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you read my example? The party can go to point A, B, or C. How is this not a choice? Is the choice not valid if there's a random encounter? Do I need to fully inform them of every possible random encounter along the way?

You: Illusion of what, though?

Me: Choice

You: What choice? They still get to pick which sidequest they go on. They knew ahead of time that there might be encounters they haven't been told about. (Where is A, B and C?)

Me: Are you really arguing that there will only be one choice on an adventure? Whether to go on it or not?

You: Did you read my example? The party can go to point A, B, or C. How is this not a choice?

There is no A, B and C in your posts. You show no choice other than the first one for the side quest.

 

[Lyxen]

The way you run your games is totally fine if your players dig it. Totally great for you and your players and tons more in this world (the way you’ve depicted your play is probably the majority play style in the world).

It’s empirically not true. I’ve been running “by the seat of my pants” Story Now games for a long…long time. Little to no prep. I’ve done it for hundreds of players (there are several on here that I’ve run various games for).

You don’t have to prep metaplot. You don’t have to use overt Force or Covert Illusionism to make compelling (at least for the participants), emergent narrative come out of play.

Did I ever say that you have to ? The only thing that I'm saying is that they can help and that it does not make the game a bad game and the DM a bad DM, since in the end, the players were always very pleased. And we've been playing in my current groups with some people for almost 40 years now, and we are still having tons of fun, as players and DMs both, alternating between the roles.

I would encourage you to question why you think this is true…and try some other games or be a player in a game with a GM who is highly proficient in this mode.

Hum, you know that you do sound a bit patronising, don't you ? Because I've been playing this mode for very probably as long as you and possibly longer, with various groups and DMs and clubs on 4 continents. And yes, for discussing it with them, I know that a good number of them employed these tricks now and then, in particular the "taking into account the players discussions" part, because honestly it would be a shame to let all these good ideas that float around die in vain.

But then, I'm sure that you are more highly proficient than all of them. And that you can play a plethora of evil geniuses in parallel, since you are obviously one. I'm just teasing you here, obviously, but maybe re-read your sentence above ?