D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[jmartkdr2]

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.

D&D General - Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

The purpose of my question and hypothetical was to increase my understanding of how @Maxperson defines the term "railroad" in practice. Based on what I understand of their views on railroading so far, I don't think their answer to my question is going to be variable based on campaign style...

www.enworld.org

 

[Mort]

...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.

I agree here. I recognize the encounter is a force, but no problem (for me) unless further player activity is disregarded/ignored.

Your example of the pace is a good one. If the players are a sneaky bunch and choose a slow pace, expressly to avoid encounters like this? It better go differently than a group just tromping through the forest without a care as to stealth/avoidance.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Force comes from rails. If there is no choice or ability to avoid an encounter, it is forced.

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

Literally no one here is arguing that it is.

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

And nobody is saying this, either.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Okay, I think I see what your getting at. Force, as a concept, doesn't really seem to have much to do with railroading, though, or at least only in the sense of "Railroading is a type of Force" - which got me confused.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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).

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

So, I'm of the opinion that you aren't engaging player agency with this choice, even though it is Force. This is because you haven't put forth a choice that has weight to the players to begin with. Agency on route is not impacted by random (or fiat) encounters until and unless the choice of route is predicated on avoiding or engaging those same encounters. Force doesn't always impact agency, because there might be very little agency present to begin with.

For instance, a blind choice between door A and door B doesn't present much agency at all to start with. The idea that an ogre might be somewhere doesn't increase this because it's not knowledge the players have to base their decision on. Let's imagine that the situation is 100% played straight, no Force or Illusionism. Door B hides an ogre. Door A does not. The players have no information whatsoever other than doors A and B exist and they have to choose one. Is there any difference in agency if they choose door B over door A or vice versa? No, their only choice here is a door, so there only agency is door A or door B and the only way to violate that agency is to tell them they actually open the other door from the one they select (or maybe say they can't open that door).

Now let's add in Illusionism. The ogre will be behind whichever door they do open. Again, is agency impacted? No, because only the same agency exists -- to choose door A or B. Anything after that is not part of the choice the players can make. It's still Force and Illusionism, though.

Agency is a difficult topic, largely because people tend to pull in things from outside the actual decision point inputs and argue those things.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D General - Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

The purpose of my question and hypothetical was to increase my understanding of how @Maxperson defines the term "railroad" in practice. Based on what I understand of their views on railroading so far, I don't think their answer to my question is going to be variable based on campaign style...

www.enworld.org

I quoted to you everything I saw. Perhaps you were having a conversation with someone I can't see.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Force comes from rails. If there is no choice or ability to avoid an encounter, it is forced.

Literally no one here is arguing that it is.

And nobody is saying this, either.

Force also includes any other prep, so "Force = railroading" is massively overbroad.

I quoted to you everything I saw. Perhaps you were having a conversation with someone I can't see.

You can't see my posts? My link must not have worked. It's #356

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, I think I see what your getting at. Force, as a concept, doesn't really seem to have much to do with railroading, though, or at least only in the sense of "Railroading is a type of Force" - which got me confused.

For me, railroading is what you get from consistent applications of Force.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Force also includes any other prep, so "Force = railroading" is massively overbroad.

Force does not include any other prep. Force is when you Force an outcome. Having a keyed dungeon, for instance, doesn't implicate Force at all.

 

[jmartkdr2]

For me, railroading is what you get from consistent applications of Force.

But your definition of Force include encounter prep.

Maybe if I ask differently: what does a Force-free (or minimum-Force) campaign look like? How would I run a campaign without using any Force?