D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

I just said the literal opposite of that. So...

Similarly, improv can be directly in line with the player's choice, if the GM is improving answers that align to that choice and input. If the GM has the idea of "ogre" and then just inserts it regardless of choice, we have Force. If the GM is improving in ways that really don't consider the player's choices, at best we're in a strange middle place, but quite often we're in Force territory because the GM is still selecting an outcome that doesn't care what the players actually did.

By your definition any improvisation that is not informed by player choices is force, or at least middle ground close to force. Considering that GM has to improvise a crap ton of stuff than cannot reasonably be directly derived from player choices, that's a lot of force.

Like seriously, the GM describes a door. PCs, without any particular expectations decide to open the door. What are the possible methods for the GM to determine what's behind the door, and which of these are force? Preplan it specifically for every door the PCs might see? Randomise? Make it up on the spot? Decide beforehand that first door the PCs open has thing X behind it? Have couple of vague ideas of things that could be behind doors, and put what feels appropriate for the mood of the table at the moment there? And most importantly: why does it matter?

 

[payn]

I see we are well on our way to solving this whole railroading thing.

 

[Campbell]

By your definition any improvisation that is not informed by player choices is force, or at least middle ground close to force. Considering that GM has to improvise a crap ton of stuff than cannot reasonably be directly derived from player choices, that's a lot of force.

Like seriously, the GM describes a door. PCs, without any particular expectations decide to open the door. What are the possible methods for the GM to determine what's behind the door, and which of these are force? Preplan it specifically for every door the PCs might see? Randomise? Make it up on the spot? Decide beforehand that first door the PCs open has thing X behind it? Have couple of vague ideas of things that could be behind doors, and put what feels appropriate for the mood of the table at the moment there? And most importantly: why does it matter?

From my perspective it's not about when the decision is made. It's about what is guiding that decision making process. It's important to me because I want us to fundamentally be playing the same game. I do not think it has to be important to anyone else. It's important to me because if I'm going to get invested in these characters (as people) or this game (as a game) I need to feel confident that the other players (including the GM) are also invested.

 

[niklinna]

By your definition any improvisation that is not informed by player choices is force, or at least middle ground close to force. Considering that GM has to improvise a crap ton of stuff than cannot reasonably be directly derived from player choices, that's a lot of force.

That part you bolded is not a definition. It's a particular context in which improvisation is probably being used to Force an outcome.

Like seriously, the GM describes a door. PCs, without any particular expectations decide to open the door. What are the possible methods for the GM to determine what's behind the door, and which of these are force? Preplan it specifically for every door the PCs might see? Randomise? Make it up on the spot? Decide beforehand that first door the PCs open has thing X behind it? Have couple of vague ideas of things that could be behind doors, and put what feels appropriate for the mood of the table at the moment there? And most importantly: why does it matter?

Without any particular player expectations about what's behind the door, I would say that none of those examples is Force.

It matters because if a GM repeatedly defies players' reasonable expectations of outcome by overt use of Force, it has a high likelihood of annoying those players and making them less likely to want to play with that GM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

By your definition any improvisation that is not informed by player choices is force, or at least middle ground close to force. Considering that GM has to improvise a crap ton of stuff than cannot reasonably be directly derived from player choices, that's a lot of force.

No. Read words. Improvisation that disregards player input, choice, or mechanical resolution is Force. Disregards means that it exists and you have to ignore it in order to place the outcome. If the players have made a choice, and you are ignoring it because you have to in order to reach the outcome you want, this is Force.

Take a game like Blades in the Dark. The GM's ability to prep is very, very shallow, and improv on the part of the GM is by far the norm (and must be). Yet, Blades in the Dark has no problems at all with Force. This is because 1)using Force is expressly against the rules of the game and 2) using Force is immediately obvious to everyone involved. This is because of the structure of play in Blades -- it's structured so that if the GM puts their finger on the scales it's immediately apparent because the GM cannot ignore the player inputs or the resolution mechanics. So, clearly, it's not improvisation that caused Force, but rather how it's used.

Like seriously, the GM describes a door. PCs, without any particular expectations decide to open the door. What are the possible methods for the GM to determine what's behind the door, and which of these are force? Preplan it specifically for every door the PCs might see? Randomise? Make it up on the spot? Decide beforehand that first door the PCs open has thing X behind it? Have couple of vague ideas of things that could be behind doors, and put what feels appropriate for the mood of the table at the moment there? And most importantly: why does it matter?

Randomize is a good approach, and one long embraced by D&D. Improv is fine as well. I think there's a weird place with just "okay, then.... OGRE!" as improv, because this is still a fiat decision, but not one that necessarily trips up on Force because you're not really offering any real choices to the players -- effectively, I think you might be avoid Force here by just making agency pointless with an "improv everything by fiat" approach.

Regardless, why are you so set on finding a way to not engage in Force? I don't much bother to completely avoid it in my running of 5e, and I'm pretty tolerant of it as a player provided it's been established up front (I'm playing in an AP right now, so I bought into lots of Force situations, if not an outright railroad). Why do you feel the need to avoid these things?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Without any particular player expectations about what's behind the door, I would say that none of those examples is Force.

Yeah, sounds reasonable. But a lot of people in this thread wouldn't agree with that.

It matters because if a GM repeatedly defies players' reasonable expectations of outcome by overt use of Force, it has a high likelihood of annoying those players and making them less likely to want to play with that GM.

Sure, that certainly is the case. I just find it odd how so many people seem to have an issue with GM basically just deciding things the players had no any reason to expect to be in any particular way to begin with.

To me force only becomes problematic if it is used to thwart the player's intentional and informed choice. (And even that might be justified in some rare occasions, though of course should never be the norm.)

 

[niklinna]

Sure, that certainly is the case. I just find it odd how so many people seem to have an issue with GM basically just deciding things the players had no any reason to expect to be in any particular way to begin with.

I'd hazard that @Ovinomancer and I aren't among those people.

To me force only becomes problematic if it is used to thwart the player's intentional and informed choice. (And even that might be justified in some rare occasions, though of course should never be the norm.)

That's pretty much what @Ovinomancer and I were just saying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. Read words. Improvisation that disregards player input, choice, or mechanical resolution is Force. Disregards means that it exists and you have to ignore it in order to place the outcome. If the players have made a choice, and you are ignoring it because you have to in order to reach the outcome you want, this is Force.

This is still nebulous though. It is GMs job to decide what is possible or appropriate, set DCs etc. So GM can easily 'negate player choice' by simply making the thing they want to do impossible or very difficult. And what is fair and reasonable is pretty subjective.

Take a game like Blades in the Dark. The GM's ability to prep is very, very shallow, and improv on the part of the GM is by far the norm (and must be). Yet, Blades in the Dark has no problems at all with Force. This is because 1)using Force is expressly against the rules of the game and 2) using Force is immediately obvious to everyone involved. This is because of the structure of play in Blades -- it's structured so that if the GM puts their finger on the scales it's immediately apparent because the GM cannot ignore the player inputs or the resolution mechanics. So, clearly, it's not improvisation that caused Force, but rather how it's used.

Perhaps. I still feel your assessment of that game in this regard is far too generous, especially considering very broad definition of force you're using. But this is D&D forum and I don't want tot talk about a game I don't play.

Randomize is a good approach, and one long embraced by D&D. Improv is fine as well. I think there's a weird place with just "okay, then.... OGRE!" as improv, because this is still a fiat decision, but not one that necessarily trips up on Force because you're not really offering any real choices to the players -- effectively, I think you might be avoid Force here by just making agency pointless with an "improv everything by fiat" approach.

So what would make it force then?

Regardless, why are you so set on finding a way to not engage in Force? I don't much bother to completely avoid it in my running of 5e, and I'm pretty tolerant of it as a player provided it's been established up front (I'm playing in an AP right now, so I bought into lots of Force situations, if not an outright railroad). Why do you feel the need to avoid these things?

I absolutely don't. I'm just puzzled by why so many other people are bothered by these things and create countless incoherent definitions for them.

 

[niklinna]

This is still nebulous though. It is GMs job to decide what is possible or appropriate, set DCs etc. So GM can easily 'negate player choice' by simply making the thing they want to do impossible or very difficult. And what is fair and reasonable is pretty subjective.

But there is a difference between telling a player that no matter what they will fail, or that the DC is 35, and telling them it's 35 but when they roll a 37 that they fail anyhow, for reasons. Deciding what is possible or appropriate, even if pretty subjective, should at least be above board, and players can and do judge how fair/fun a DM is by how difficult they make uncertain tasks. (Well, I know I do.) Again and again, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, things come down to social contracts and trust, which is earned through action.

Perhaps. I still feel your assessment of that game in this regard is far too generous, especially considering very broad definition of force you're using. But this is D&D forum and I don't want tot talk about a game I don't play.

Mm, it's a bit of a shame this got posted under the D&D forum, as it is indeed a broad topic.

So what would make it force then?

If players could reasonably expect their choices to be consequential—and particularly if the GM defied the expected consequences—that would make it force. Other things might too, but I think this particular case is most relevant to the current discussion.

I absolutely don't. I'm just puzzled by why so many other people are bothered by these things and create countless incoherent definitions for them.

Mm, I get that, but I can't speak for those people.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think force is inherently problematic or problematic at all. I just like having a shared orientation towards play. If we're trying to tell the best story possible let's do that. If we're digging in deep to character let's all do that. If we're playing a game to overcome a challenge let's all do that. This can change from moment to moment, but it should still be shared or it's not fun for me.

Like if I'm having a moment where like I'm really embodying my character and having this fraught conversation with an NPC or other PC if that other player is like trying to drive the narrative to fulfill some character arc then that interaction loses some of the raw nature of that interaction. The worst case for me came in a Blades in the Dark game where the GM basically decided what one of my character's defining relationships should look like and was playing the NPCs to put pressure on me to make a decision for my character that kind of felt really unnatural to me. I ended up having a conversation with him about the principles of play. He basically intimated that he was not cool with playing to find out if it meant that it could end badly so I moved on. Basically the GM did not trust me enough to not mess up my own character's narrative. A game that started out so strong basically became one of the worst experiences I ever had in gaming. I was willing to risk things not ending well, but he wasn't willing to give me the chance to really experience those conflicts.

The same thing is largely true for more gamist play priorities too. I can't get into really enjoying a tactical challenge if there are players that are not into it. It just saps the fun for me. Same thing if the GM is not playing the fight hard. There's no joy in defeating a rigged challenge.

Likewise I can't imagine it would feel good to run a game with an elaborately crafted plot that players do not give a crap about. I would want players that are invested in it and like working with me to make it as good as possible.