D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Xetheral]

@EzekielRaiden Thanks for the detailed response! I like learning about different approaches, so I really appreciate the time and effort that went into providing so much detail.

Another way of putting this is: If you're in a relationship (be it romantic, platonic, economic, whatever) and the other person misrepresents their actions, actively prevents you from trying to find out about it, and if/when called out tells you that "it's for your own good" or "it's in your best interest," you should get out of there immediately. That's an incredibly dangerous thing in any relationship that affects your real life. I consider "the game group" another relationship that affects my real life.

For clarity, I am very upfront with my players about my DMing style and the tools I use, especially the ones that can be controversial. Because I'm aiming for immersion I don't flag my use of such tools in real time, but I make it clear to my players that if they're ever curious they can always ask me out of game and I'll be happy to discuss what was occurring "behind the curtain". In my experience some choose to ask afterwards (usually well afterwards), others prefer not to know, and some don't care what techniques were employed in the first place.

So while I do employ misdirection at the table, the players know that in advance. I've always been a big fan of the magic show analogy, where the participants know they're being deceived, and are happy to participate even with that knowledge. As a player I enjoy the same thing--the better the GM can decieve me into treating the game setting as real, even though I know it's not, the easier it is for me to become immersed.

However, I have a much more stringent standard of "established in play" than you do, I think.

We definitely have different standards, but I see mine as "stricter" in the sense that much less counts as "established in play". For me, only the events/objects/descriptions themselves count as established, and only to the level of detail explicitly mentioned--any implications do not count as a established. (That's practically a necessity at my table--a large percentage of the time when I introduce or describe something I don't know what it means yet! I'm just giving myself material to work with later.)

One other place where our standards differ is that I'll also take into account how the players interpreted the events/objects/descriptions when gauging what counts as "established in play". If I tried to accurately communicate A, but it becomes apparent that the players heard B, I'm going to treat B as what was "established in play" unless doing so would create unresolvable contradictions (in which case I'd correct the miscommunication OOC and let the players retcon any choices based on B--as that can be disruptive, my first choice is to simply run with B).

 

[el-remmen]

I'm using a Wiki, which allows the players to create pages but the DM (me and the other DMs, I've got a group per campaign, for example here and here and here) can also create his own, and there is access control. That way, when the players of one campaign search, they will search only their pages, but when the DM searches, it's the whole campaign.

And I've just realised that it's been running for almost 20 years now...

I use a wiki for game info and logs too. My old homebrew had a wiki covering 25+ years of games in that setting (unfortunately, while I have a back-up on my computer, the wiki site went out of business) - but my new one is just for the current campaign and its homebrew hodge-podge micro-setting.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh+ Wiki

 

[tetrasodium]

So the difference between railroading and not railroading is a system difference? Like, you need to change to core assumptions of DnD (the core game loop, really) to not railroad?

Given that "railroading" is a pejorative term, whether you want it to be or not, that's a rather powerful claim to make. It's pretty easy to see why this reads as "Dungeons and Dragons is badwrongfun."

You are literally ignoring all of the tools and methods being discussed in this thread.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Another way of putting this is: If you're in a relationship (be it romantic, platonic, economic, whatever) and the other person misrepresents their actions, actively prevents you from trying to find out about it, and if/when called out tells you that "it's for your own good" or "it's in your best interest," you should get out of there immediately. That's an incredibly dangerous thing in any relationship that affects your real life. I consider "the game group" another relationship that affects my real life.

This is just trerrible comnparison. It is factually miosleading andf extremely inflammatory as it compares gaming practice in real life toxic relationship. I real life objective truth exists, in RPG the truth is just completely made up. GM changing their mind is in no way comparable to lying in real life, and it is insulting to imply so.


(* Presumably. Metaphysics are weird.)

Whether or not it is railroading (and I definitely do not see it as such, though I very, VERY rarely do anything like this), it isn't secret. I'm not hiding it from the players. Hiding things from the players--making yourself appear to never make mistakes, appear to be as smart as the whole group combined--is the problem.

It is railroading and that it is not a secret makes it way worse, not better.

I emphatically don't see it as railroading for the sole reason that introducing wrinkles like this is a vital part of DMing almost any game. Again, I very, very rarely do this because I vastly prefer to have justifications established well in advance, and in my own game, I have only had to do something vaguely like this exactly one time. Every time my players have outwitted me, I have absolutely supported it, even if I felt disappointed about doing so.

Of course GM can support their deus exes in fiction! Good illusionism relies on it. The asspull seems to make perfect sense in the context! That's what makes it work.

You have vehemently objected quantum ogres, quantum potions, quantum cults etc on several threads on several forums, yet inventing this boosting vial for the wizard is the exact same thing!

The one and only time I did anything remotely like this was when I made a fight intentionally over-tuned to see if I could actually challenge them, because I had been having trouble giving them fights that were actually difficult. I succeeded at making a too-difficult fight. The players decided to hyper-focus the big shadow monster, and brought it very close to death. Since shadows like these had powers to absorb life energy (which the players had seen, both in this fight and previous fights), I used a rather liberal interpretation of the move I'd written for that ("steal life with its blows") to say that this powerful shadow could steal life from the numerous weak shadows accompanying it in order to heal itself. This allowed me to fix the primary problem with the fight (too many opponents).

After the session, I was very clear to my players that this had been a test of whether I could actually threaten them with combats, and the result had been "yes, in fact too much." I apologized for throwing a combat at them that really was too tough, and said I would learn from that mistake to do better combats in the future. The players had no problem with this, said they kinda suspected that I'd had to switch gears mid-fight, and said they appreciated my candor about what happened and why.

Yeah, no one does these sort of things all the time just because they can. People tend to have good reasons for it.

 

[Arilyn]

My prep does not solidify until it becomes part of the game play. Up until then it's subject to change because I've come up with a better idea, or the players have headed off in an unpredictable direction, or my prep has a plot hole I didn't notice. Even adventure paths and published modules usually end up far off the supposed rails.

Some games have very minimal prep anyway. If I was going to run a skilled play old school game, I would stick to the notes, but it's one of the few styles I will not play or run, so for me, it's moot.

I have fudged occasional dice rolls in the past back during 3rd and PF days, but only because the game could get incredibly swingy. 5e has enough "safety tools" in the player hands that it's no longer necessary. And 13th Age is the same. Most Non F20 games I've run did not require any fudging at all.

My "ogres" are quite quantum as long as the players know nothing about them. I'd never force "ogres" on players who are actively avoiding them or cleverly outwit ting them. I never make sure that situation A will occur no matter what players do. I might not have an area all keyed out ahead of time but I'll make sure I know what's down each fork before the players do, unless we are montaging it, or leaving it up to a random roll.

 

[Lanefan]

The kobold GM was someone I had known for about 3 weeks - ie the duration of the campaign.

In other words, not a longstanding friend, so that outside-of-game-effects part of my equation doesn't apply.

The week after his players (including me) left his game, and he declined to join the new game we were starting, he seemed to have attracted a new group of players.

I think framing this as any sort of moral wrong is frankly asinine.

When you sign up for a game, whether with friends or strangers, are you making any commitment to staying in it for the long haul?

If you are, then if things go wrong that commitment becomes part of the equation - whether to uphold your commitment or to break it.

If you aren't, then why are you signing up in the first place? The players have a right to expect some degree of commitment from the DM, it's only fair the DM be able to expect the same of the players.

 

[Arilyn]

If I had a player leave my game, I'm human, so I might feel a bit hurt. I'd realize though that I don't want someone at the table who is unhappy. As a player, I wouldn't want to drag myself to a game that I'm not enjoying. I can get through an evening playing a board game I don't like but RPGs can be a long term commitment.

With friends it may be trickier but I'm sure there'd be some way to work things out without the friendship falling apart.

 

[Campbell]

I suspect a good portion of this might be cultural. I tend to view gaming (and most social activities) like dating rather than marriage. For a new game, even one with people I normally play with in the initial stages of the game everyone is feeling it out. We don't even know what this is yet. If it works you just get naturally more committed to it over time. This is pretty much how everyone I know handles social stuff. You commit to each thing individually and like no hard feelings if it isn't your thing.

Sure, I have stepped out of games I wasn't feeling. I have also stopped running games that the people I was playing with were still on board for because I was not having fun running them anymore. The Open Door policy is for the GM too. I am still friends with the vast majority of people I no longer game with.

Brief aside : I do not view the way I approach gaming as player centric. I expect a great deal from the people I play with. If you show up to just play and do not put much energy into it a conversation is likely to happen. I also run games in the way I run them. In ways that are fun for me. Sometimes in a character driven style. Sometimes in a more OSR style. My Pathfinder Second Edition games use a hybrid approach.

I have certain boundaries as a GM :

• I only do prep that's fun for me.
• I will put individual players on the spot.
• I will not engage in spotlight balancing.
• I will not fudge dice rolls for your benefit or your detriment.

For character focused games also :

• I will not care about your character concept or narrative arcs you want to see.
• I will care about who your character is, who is important to them, and what they hope to achieve. I will expect you to care as well.
• I expect characters that are grounded in the setting with things connecting them to it.
  

I know it sucks when someone leaves the game you are running. Rejection stings. I have been through it plenty of times myself before I found the people I usually play with now. I went through guided character creation and a lengthy prep process for an Exalted game where the players decided after a couple sessions they wanted a more guided process and did not like the dice "defining their characters" as in they wanted me to fudge. We parted ways and I'm still friends with some of that crew. It sucked, but they wanted a game I could not deliver. We were better off not playing together.

From my perspective there's nothing wrong with being selective on either side of the screen. We all have a limited amount of time, often other hobbies, and many of us have families. Friends understand that not everything they find fun will be fun for you.

 

[pemerton]

When you sign up for a game, whether with friends or strangers, are you making any commitment to staying in it for the long haul?

Not come-what-may. Particularly if it's someone I've only just met at a RPG club, who has hung out his shingle looking for players.

If you aren't, then why are you signing up in the first place?

Because I turn up to the club and want to do some RPGing. The same as everyone else who joined that game! (One of whom, 30+ years later, is still a friend even though he has lived on the other side of the world from me for 20+ years now.)

The players have a right to expect some degree of commitment from the DM, it's only fair the DM be able to expect the same of the players.

This is wrong-headed in my view. If the GM thinks we all suck as players and wants to dump us, that's his prerogative. He's not an indentured servant! The same goes the other way too.

 

[Maxperson]

When you sign up for a game, whether with friends or strangers, are you making any commitment to staying in it for the long haul?

If you are, then if things go wrong that commitment becomes part of the equation - whether to uphold your commitment or to break it.

If you aren't, then why are you signing up in the first place? The players have a right to expect some degree of commitment from the DM, it's only fair the DM be able to expect the same of the players.

No. You are only making an initial commitment to see if that game is for you. For example, 20 or so years ago I was invited to play D&D with a group that I met at a game store. In the first session it became very apparent that they played a comedy game on the verge of being Xanth-like. I don't mind a comedy one or two shot, but I have no interest in playing that sort of campaign long term. At the end of the night I explained that to the group and thanked them for their time.