D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

I can't just decide "nope, different perp, just 'cause I feel like it." Even if the reason I feel like it is because the players have come up with a really really cool theory, I have to actually do the work of justifying that theory. Otherwise, I'm pulling the wool over my players' eyes; I'm making them believe that there is a real, durable, understandable, predictable world, when there isn't one, there's just "stuff I said before" and "stuff I'm saying now," and the stuff I said before is literally 100% completely malleable if it sounds better for what I'm saying now.

<snip>

by preparing, I have more to leverage. I can improvise, but I find that I only have a finite amount of improv in me before I have to tap out.

<snip>

My reason for adhering to prep is that I want my players to know that the world is (in some sense) real, durable, predictable. That they can always attempt to validly reason from the information they have.

<snip>

If I switch up the killer solely because the players had a good idea, then one of two things happened. The first, as previously discussed, is that I screwed up really badly (and that isn't impossible! My players totally have outsmarted me, more than once!) The second is that I'm now changing what stuff is in the world, but in a way that the players should never be able to determine even in principle, because while last week they would have been wrong to accuse the Princess, this week they're now correct, but nothing about the things they found has changed in any way. The past events have changed, but literally all the evidence available to them has not.

<snip>

this is one of the reasons why I try to avoid over-prepping as much as possible. If I haven't got prepped evidence to examine, then it literally cannot be the case that I am giving them evidence that doesn't "work." The players and I are discovering, together, what evidence "works." When I do prep evidence in advance, as I did for this murder mystery, I put a great deal of effort into ensuring that, though it may be a challenge, it should be possible to piece together the truth, just like a good mystery novel.

<snip>

I don't want my game to ever be the tabletop equivalent of a bogus mystery novel, so I either avoid unnecessary prep (so that I'm learning the truth right alongside my players), or very thoroughly review my prep to make sure it "works."

This all seems quite coherent to me: you are using your prep to generate responses to action declarations along the lines of what do we see? or what results do we get from the forensics lab? or we search the Princess's wardrobe and also to feed into scene-framing and some aspects of social resolution, such as We accuse the Princess!

In basic structure this seems similar to the "whodunnit" I described upthread, though I am guessing more elaborate than mine!

The one bit I wasn't fully clear about was when you toggle between (i) prepping and relying on prep, and (ii) discovering and learning along with the players. How do the players know you've switched gears from (i) to (ii)?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This all seems quite coherent to me: you are using your prep to generate responses to action declarations along the lines of what do we see? or what results do we get from the forensics lab? or we search the Princess's wardrobe and also to feed into scene-framing and some aspects of social resolution, such as We accuse the Princess!

In basic structure this seems similar to the "whodunnit" I described upthread, though I am guessing more elaborate than mine!

The one bit I wasn't fully clear about was when you toggle between (i) prepping and relying on prep, and (ii) discovering and learning along with the players. How do the players know you've switched gears from (i) to (ii)?

I don't always explicitly flag it, but I do sometimes. E.g. "Hmm, I dunno, let's find out" or "I'm not sure. What do you think?"* Often, even when I have made prep work I'll mix in such things. E.g. I'm currently preparing an archaeology expedition to an active volcanic caldera that used to be a city inhabited by efreet and marid (as the leadership had been a co-ruling couple, an efreeti lord and a marid lady). I intend to have a set of locations within the city prepared out, like the Royal Library, the Treasury, the Grand Forum, etc., since those are reasonable and expected locations that Stuff Could Be Found In. But I will also do things like asking our Bard (played by an anthropologist), "What does the city layout look like to you?" or ask the Battlemaster "What sticks out to you about the city's fortifications?"

Sometimes these things just end up being setting dressing. Sometimes they become plot-critical. Sometimes they're important but not critical. I embrace whatever comes from such things.

*And sometimes I'll just be straight-up "I have no idea, lemme improvise something," but I try to avoid being too explicit about it when we're "in the moment" as it were. I have, on the other hand, said after session-wrap stuff like "man it's a good thing we ended there, I'm not sure how much more improvising I could do" or "honestly surprised I got through all that without really knowing what I was doing" or the like. As I said, I tend to be very candid with my players so I can get constructive feedback.

Edit: Having spoken with one of my players, it apparently comes down to more or less my manner of speech. It's not always obvious, but we've known each other for a long time. There are cues, but they can be subtle. From their report, I sound more formal and structured when I'm working off of notes, and more fluid and dynamic when I'm improvising. I imagine there are more pauses and subtle filler tactics, but I haven't paid close enough attention to what specific things I'm doing to be able to specify more finely than that.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Without knowing how seriously/casually this was done I can't say much more, really. That said, for my own part before I say "I'm in" for anything more than a one-off I at least try to get a vague idea of what the DM has in mind and how seriously she's taking it; if it's only intended to be a short-term thing (e.g. I'm only going to run it for the fall term, then I'm leaving town) or if I get the sense it's being done as a lark I almost certainly won't join.

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.

The DM might not be an indentured servant but if she can't or won't at least say "I'm committing to show up each week and run this game, provided people want to play in it and I'm still in general enjoying it" there's a big red flag goes up the pole.

The flip side is if a player can't or won't at least say "I'm committing to show up each week and play in this game, provided you're still willing to run it and I'm still in general enjoying it", up goes the red flag on the DM's side.

That's the sort of commitment I'm talking about; and there's an unspoken assumption that the phrase "in general enjoying it" will be given enough leash by all to paper over a few rough patches now and then, as such are kind of a fact of life in any long-lived game or group.

Put another way, a certain degree of shared commitment is almost essential for a group to get started and then last any length of time. And that commitment is IME much more easily found among people who already know each other (e.g. workmates, school chums, fellow members of other groups or clubs, etc.) than among strangers or distant adquaintances. Obviously there's exceptions both ways, of course.

 

[Lanefan]

I have, on the other hand, said after session-wrap stuff like "man it's a good thing we ended there, I'm not sure how much more improvising I could do" or "honestly surprised I got through all that without really knowing what I was doing" or the like.

Ayup - been there, done that, many a time!

 

[Manbearcat]

Effective improvisation is deploying a very different muscle than working from prep. I’ve seen a lot of people say they don’t believe that either (a) they can do it (and maintain coherence) or (b) that anyone can do it (and maintain coherence).

I’m sure there are a small number of folks in the world where (a) is true (because some of the below becomes a barrier). However, (b) is is absolutely not true because GMs have done it and have been doing it for a time.

Things to work on to become better improvisers:

* Practice your listening skills (the less you talk, proportionately, the better you become at improvising).

* Be humble, ask questions (about the setting at large, about the present situation), and offload some of your mental overhead onto table/system.

* Embrace structure. Chunk your information mentally so it’s very digestible and write down pithy statements as play develops so it mentally cues you for future use (Master Seargeant Rosco Hicks, I say I say, loves mint juleps).

* Pick the right system. Systems with overwhelming cognitive load (and that doesn’t mean rules heft, although it might…that absolutely can mean setting and expectations of canonical lynchpins for play) or creative restrictions (that you must reference) are not good for consistent improvization. Systems that embrace improvisation will provide clear and organizing structure for the conversation of play and moving around it and will be an intuitive and creatively liberating experience for all participants at the table.

* Start small (practice various conflicts and get good at that before you put it all together), set goals, be mentally prepared for stumbles and adversity, and recognize what success looks like (it’s not perfect).

 

[jmartkdr2]

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

I'm trying to tie down the difference between Force and railroading - are you saying the certain tools are railroading and other aren't? Or is it how the tools are used?

If the former, which ones, and why? What makes those tools bad dming? If the later, then what's the difference?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm trying to tie down the difference between Force and railroading - are you saying the certain tools are railroading and other aren't? Or is it how the tools are used?

If the former, which ones, and why? What makes those tools bad dming? If the later, then what's the difference?

Force is a singular instance of a GM subordinating a player’s thematic/strategic/tactical input or subbing the GM’s own say for the “system’s say” (when by rule and principle, the system should have its say), thus sufficiently wresting control of the trajectory of play from one party to the GM.

A Railroad is a sufficient number/magnitude of instances of Force (could be in sequence, could be spread out, could be the magnitude) to pass the player’s particular litmus test.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Force is a singular instance of a GM subordinating a player’s thematic/strategic/tactical input or subbing the GM’s own say for the “system’s say” (when by rule and principle, the system should have its say), thus sufficiently wresting control of the trajectory of play from one party to the GM.

A Railroad is a sufficient number/magnitude of instances of Force (could be in sequence, could be spread out, could be the magnitude) to pass the player’s particular litmus test.

That's a much more usable definition of force than was given before.

 

[Malmuria]

It seems the default assumption when it comes to GM fiat or railroading is that it is done to minimize player agency at the expense of the players. This makes sense, as it maybe speaks to rpghorrorstories we may have experienced at some point in the past. But I get just as annoyed, as a player, when I feel DMs are fudging things in our favor. I'm most content when the world feels neutral: reacting to our character's actions but not revolving around them. For example, and per the earlier (or in another thread) example of "I search the room"


My character may be a rouge who wants to do rouge-ish things but this feels...forced.

 

[Maxperson]

Force is a singular instance of a GM subordinating a player’s thematic/strategic/tactical input or subbing the GM’s own say for the “system’s say” (when by rule and principle, the system should have its say), thus sufficiently wresting control of the trajectory of play from one party to the GM.

A Railroad is a sufficient number/magnitude of instances of Force (could be in sequence, could be spread out, could be the magnitude) to pass the player’s particular litmus test.

1