D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lyxen]

Bingo. I do not run games that are illusionist or participationist in my home games. I let the player characters direct and drive things, and I allow the dice to fall where they may. If a pre-published adventure requires some degree of participationism, I will advise the players that there is an assumed path/flow of the adventure module and they'll need to work within those confines as part of the adventure.

At least, your position is clear.

However, I will almost always alter the module to accommodate the actions and desires of the players overall.

So you will allow revisionism for the actions and desires of the players. Then why not to make sure that they enjoy the game more overall, even if it's not specifically voiced ? Is there an arbitrary limit ? Why ?

While I agree it is acceptable within the appropriate context, the term "force" is loaded with a negative connotation. But the inherent badwrongness of force is a cultural phenomenon in the same way that the discussion of "authority" at the game table leaves most gamers feeling "icky." But the application of force and assertion of authority are neutral at worst; it matters entirely their implementation and the ends to which they are implemented.

Thanks a least for this, since it's the core of what I've been trying to say...

Matt Mercer certainly calls upon The Force (TM) when running Critical Role, yet people adore him. Matt Mercer is a talented gamemaster, yet he is required to use The Force when gamemastering because he's taken on a position as a writer, entertainer, and stageshow magician to craft an experience for his players and audience.

Why, yes, I'd like to reiterate that statement: Critical Role is less of a D&D game and more of a D&D experience.

This, on the other hand, annoys me. Honestly, who do you think you are to make such a statement ? To re-label something that is clearly not only the way it's played by many players, but that is also clearly the way advocated by the rules and the designers intent themselves ?

If you go that way, I am certainly tempted to say that all those who ignore the clear designer intent (To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game.) to play a game which focuses on RAW and rolling openly and having the DM submit to the same rules as the players and playing on a grid pushing miniatures as not really a D&D Game, but a D&D Boardgame...

 

[Xetheral]

You aren't asking me, but I'll give my opinion, because it's what we do in threads like this.

I would be upset if I found out about it. First, sometimes evidence does more strongly point at the wrong person. Second, getting it wrong results in different stories, but ones that are often as good or better. I'd hate to lose out on those stories.

If I found out later that the DM had changed things, I'd be really disappointed.

That's cool. My preferences run the other way: I'd be disappointed if the DM didn't change things in order to run with a new, more-exciting idea, and instead insisted on running things with the less-exciting original solution.

Communication-wise, in the moment I'd prefer the DM not draw attention to the change (because I'd rather be focusing on the awesome fictional scenario rather than thinking about DMing techniques), but I wouldn't mind if I found out later.

 

[Lyxen]

That's cool. My preferences run the other way: I'd be disappointed if the DM didn't change things in order to run with a new, more-exciting idea, and instead insisted on running things with the less-exciting original solution.

EXACTLY. And in addition to the "less-exciting" drawback (which is fundamental), the original has the major drawback of being LESS player-centric, since it probably came only from the DM's pre-planning and plotting, whereas the new, improved solution is actually the consequence of the player's actions, plotting and collaboration.

How can such a new solution not be BETTER for the game ? This is where putting constraints on your DMing for theoretical reasons HAMPERS your capability to run a better game, if player fun is what you have in mind.

Communication-wise, in the moment I'd prefer the DM not draw attention to the change (because I'd rather be focusing on the awesome fictional scenario rather than thinking about DMing techniques), but I wouldn't mind if I found out later.

Same here.

 

[prabe]

Out of curiosity, what if the player's flash of insight was wrong according to the DM's notes, but was both better-supported by the clues thus far and made for a better, more entertaining story?

Specifically, let's say the player suddenly realizes that the Princess is framing the Baron, and explains their character's reasoning to the other players. Upon hearing the reasoning, the DM realizes that the clues they had intended to point towards the Baron point even more strongly towards the framed-by-Princess theory. The other players are excited, and start exclaiming about how awesome the solution to the mystery is.

Would you object to the DM "secretly retconning" the framed-by-Princess theory to be correct in this circumstance?

(For reference, from my standpoint my notes are just suggestions until established in play or in the player-facing campaign documentation, so no "retconning" would be required to proceed with the framed-by-Princess scenario. But I'm using your terminology since I know we differ on that point.)

This probably isn't something I'd do as a DM--I tend to feel more committed to story elements I come up with than your hypothetical DM--but it wouldn't bother me as a player. The GM is allowed to change his mind about a thing up to the moment it is established, IMO.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This probably isn't something I'd do as a DM--I tend to feel more committed to story elements I come up with than your hypothetical DM--but it wouldn't bother me as a player. The GM is allowed to change his mind about a thing up to the moment it is established, IMO.

Another way to say it: Prep is not canon.

In that spirit, I love Sly Flourish's tip for creating 10 secrets and clues before each session. If/when appropriate, you can drop them into the session. If some don't get used, they get discarded. Then you create 10 more before the next session based on where things have gone.

 

[Xetheral]

How can such a new solution not be BETTER for the game ? This is where putting constraints on your DMing for theoretical reasons HAMPERS your capability to run a better game, if player fun is what you have in mind.

I think the answer to your question is very straightforward: such a change is not compatible with everyone's preferences. For players for whom the downside of knowing about a "secret retcon" would outweigh any gain in excitement, making the change would not be a net improvement. Thus, making the change would make for a worse game from the perspective of those players.

 

[Campbell]

If I am playing a game to solve mysteries having that mystery be a façade makes the game less fun for me. If my skill at playing the game is not determinative then I cannot evaluate when I have made poor decisions. If I cannot determine when I have made poor decisions I cannot endeavor to make better ones. I therefore cannot improve in skill and see better results. Therefore I am not having fun.

If I know it's all a sham (like professional wrestling) then I can just play into it. I can stop worrying about trying to solve the mystery and just have my character do interesting things in pursuit of the mystery. I can have fun.

If sometimes the mystery is real and sometimes it is not then it's just a terrible experience because I do not know what skilled play even looks like. The only way I even know how to engage is just assume it's always a sham. That's pretty much what I do in most of the more linear games I have played in. I stop trying to play them well.

 

[prabe]

Another way to say it: Prep is not canon.

I'm there. The fact I probably wouldn't do it as DM doesn't mean I absolutely wouldn't. I do always prep a session with the idea that it needs to be consistent with prior events.

 

[prabe]

If I am playing a game to solve mysteries having that mystery be a façade makes the game less fun for me. If my skill at playing the game is not determinative then I cannot evaluate when I have made poor decisions. If I cannot determine when I have made poor decisions I cannot endeavor to make better ones. I therefore cannot improve in skill and see better results. Therefore I am not having fun.

If I know it's all a sham (like professional wrestling) then I can just play into it. I can stop worrying about trying to solve the mystery and just have my character do interesting things in pursuit of the mystery. I can have fun.

If sometimes the mystery is real and sometimes it is not then it's just a terrible experience because I do not know what skilled play even looks like. The only way I even know how to engage is just assume it's always a sham. That's pretty much what I do in most of the more linear games I have played in. I stop trying to play them well.

OTOH, if you're better at solving (or writing) a whodunit than the GM ... maybe your solution makes more sense. I have no idea how a GM would go about explaining that to you in a way you'd be happy with.

 

[Mort]

Another way to say it: Prep is not canon.

In that spirit, I love Sly Flourish's tip for creating 10 secrets and clues before each session. If/when appropriate, you can drop them into the session. If some don't get used, they get discarded. Then you create 10 more before the next session based on where things have gone.

I agree 100% - until something is encountered by the players - it can be changed. That said, I likely would not change something based on a player idea like that - seems a bit too reactionary (not sure that's the right word there).

I will say, this is FAR from universal. There was a discussion a while back and there were some VERY strong opinions that once it's written down, even if not encountered by the players, - cannon (surprised me a bit, but it was not a lone opinion).