D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Maxperson]

So you ignored the context of the post, which is probably why your answer didn't make any sense.

I just told you that I couldn't see who you were talking to.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, this.

The fiction of the game isn't real--and can be considered an illusion--but using fiction-making techniques as a GM isn't the same thing as Illusionism. I think there's been some confusion, and some blurring around the edges.

Because it is blurry. What if the GM had not decided at all what is behind the doors before PCs open one, then they just make up the ogre on spot? What then, was this illusionism? The player's choice didn't influence the outcome. And whilst this might not commonly happen with doors, it happens all the time with GM making stuff up as response to player action. Or does it become illusionism if GM had decided use an ogre beforehand? How firmly they need to decide? Is briefly thinking before game that 'ogres seem to be appropriate challenge level for this group' enough to make it illusionism and railroading?

These discussions always lead to utterly bizarre though policing of the GM. Seriously, forget it, it doesn't matter. The PCs will open the door, fight the ogre, gain XP and treasure and be happy.

 

[Lanefan]

Going north indoors, in a cavern or dungeon of twisty rooms and corridors is not the same as going north 40 miles of outdoors overland travel.

The first question that must be asked, of course, is are they all alike or all different?

 

[Campbell]

Because it is blurry. What if the GM had not decided at all what is behind the doors before PCs open one, then they just make up the ogre on spot? What then, was this illusionism? The player's choice didn't influence the outcome. And whilst this might not commonly happen with doors, it happens all the time with GM making stuff up as response to player action. Or does it become illusionism if GM had decided use an ogre beforehand? How firmly they need to decide? Is briefly thinking before game that 'ogres seem to be appropriate challenge level for this group' enough to make it illusionism and railroading?

These discussions always lead to utterly bizarre though policing of the GM. Seriously, forget it, it doesn't matter. The PCs will open the door, fight the ogre, gain XP and treasure and be happy.

I care mostly about intent here. I'm not going to judge an isolated incident, but if I feel there's a pattern of behavior where a GM (or other player) is trying to influence play in a given direction I will talk shop to see if it's going to be the sort of game I can see myself continuing to play. We're all going to draw these lines differently. Our evaluations might not always be right. It's not about policing the GM. It's just evaluating if you want to play this particular game with these particular people. You know relationship stuff.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I just told you that I couldn't see who you were talking to.

But you can see my posts, and decided to ignore some of those. Yet I'm somehow supposed to know you only read some of my statements?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I care mostly about intent here. I'm not going to judge an isolated incident, but if I feel there's a pattern of behavior where a GM (or other player) is trying to influence play in a given direction I will talk shop to see if it's going to be the sort of game I can see myself continuing to play. We're all going to draw these lines differently. Our evaluations might not always be right. It's not about policing the GM. It's just evaluating if you want to play this particular game with these particular people. You know relationship stuff.

How do you play a RPG without influencing play into certain direction? Replace the players and GM with random charts so no one can have any ideas, wishes or intentions?

 

[Campbell]

How do you play a RPG without influencing play into certain direction? Replace the players and GM with random charts so no one can have any ideas, wishes or intentions?

You just try to be a curious explorer of the fiction, trust in your scenario design, and just like play the characters to see where it goes. Make an active effort to avoid curation. I mean obviously have desires or wishes or hopes, but like just try to play the characters with integrity. I'm not saying everyone has to do so or even that it's the best way to play. Just how I prefer to (assuming character focused play).

 

[Composer99]

I disagree with this. There's an implicit understanding that the choice matters -- that going left at the fork with have a different result than going right at the fork. That this choice is blind -- we have no information about what would be different -- doesn't change the fact that this is the assumption offered by the choice. Illusionism shows up here because there's no way to know that what's presented is going to be the same no matter what the choice because we cannot make both choices simultaneously (I mean, I guess we could split the party, but that's outside the scope of the thought experiment). So, the GM is Forcing an outcome (Force is where the GM ignores player choice or check results and goes with their preferred outcome), and since it's hidden from the players so they cannot detect the Force, it is Illusionism.

In general, my position is that 5e often requires the use of GM Force in moderation -- the nature of heavy prep games generally does this -- and that this is not an inherently bad thing. Illusionism is a tool that lets this Force be less intrusive. However, players' tolerance for Force (and therefore Illusionism) is not the same, and some will have problems where others do not. Adapt to the table. I've found that I can significantly reduce my use of Force in game by prepping situations rather than outcomes, or by focusing on site based prep rather than plot based. But, the moment you have a node based design, or even a plotline, Force becomes an essential tool - at least sometime.

The players have made a choice that matters - choosing a fork with a distinct and meaningful difference in outcome to the other ("this way to the exit, that way to traps and treasure", or indeed, any decision point with any given number of two or more options).

If an unpredictable event - by which I mean, as I have already stated, unpredictable to the player characters in the context of the in-game fiction - happens between the decision point and the destination, it has not made the choice somehow meaningless, or indeed matter less in any meaningful way - so I would contend, at any rate.

That is true whether the unpredictable event was the result of procedural content generation or the GM making it up on the spot on a whim.

Hence why, if we are defining "railroading" as a term of art to refer to a kind of GM misbehaviour, such an event is not railroading qua railroading (although chronic use of such events might very well be symptomatic of same). In fairness, obviously, a different operational definition of "railroading", will conclude otherwise. (Hence my remark rather early on about how these discussions tend to founder on such things as operational definitions of terms.)

As for the remarks summed up as "adapt to the table" - I am in full agreement. The GM and players should openly communicate and come to agreement about such things. (For instance, at many D&D tables I would expect it's considered bad form for the PCs' adversaries to, say, attempt to burn all the party wizards' spellbooks.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

You said Force was when the dm did something without considering the player's choices first. Si if the pc's choices would have been irrelevant (ie naming the town), that's Force.

No, I said it's when the GM uses fiat to compel an outcome in disregard to player input, choices, or a mechanical resolution. Prep is none of these.

So If I prep an ogre encounter in the woods, but not in a specific part of the woods, is that Force? I haven;t let them choose to go to the part fo the woods without ogres, ergo I've disregarded their choice that they didn't have in the first place.

Maybe. Depends on how you deploy it. That you have it prepped doesn't really matter to the discussion at all. Technically, if I own a MM, I always have an ogre (or ogres) prepped.

So - to not railroad, don't play DnD? I feel like that's a pointless comment on a DnD forum. Or just defines railroading too broadly to be a useful thing to say.

No, to not ever use Force, you there are better games than D&D. Using Force is not railroading. Railroading is the pervasive and consistent use of Force. This is easily avoided in D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

How do you play a RPG without influencing play into certain direction? Replace the players and GM with random charts so no one can have any ideas, wishes or intentions?

You don't. Influence is inevitable. The DM influences play simply by setting up an encounter. Players influence play by deciding they want to go to the bar. Influence in his post probably should have been undue influence. If the DM plants a plot hook and the players don't want to bite, he should let it go. Continuously placing it in their path is undue influence. It has gone beyond simple play and into DM forcing his will territory.