D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

I lived through the clash between ToH-style play and DL-style play. And it's various offshoots, like "rolllplaying" vs "roleplaying". The clash was real.

If I walk into a club and want to know what sort of D&D game is being played, part of what I want to know is Will the GM fudge rolls and/or fiction for the sake of the story? A good proxy 30 years ago was whether their copy of the rulebooks was AD&D or AD&D 2nd ed. I don't know now quite what the comparable proxy would be; but the conversation is certainly one that I would want to have!

I never found that proxy to exist. DMs are individuals, and their style is individualistic as well. It takes into account their likings, and almost always, the players' likings as well. They all "played" D&D.
And if the question is asked, and they say: "Sometimes I feel like I have to, especially if it looks like a TPK is going to happen." What then?

All that said, none of this has to do with the premise that these terms are useless when discussing how to improve as a DM. And they are too nebulous to support a philosophy that hinges on definitions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes I've seen that kind of GM move before, either as a sort of automatic default to sim even if it would be irrelevant or, more likely, as a sort of illusionist's gamble where if everyone fails their save the cut scene is hidden as rules-as-normal. Of course, even one success shows the situation for what it is. I've seen a similar behaviour with perception and stealth rolls where the 'incorrect' result leads to an almost immediate reroll on spurious grounds to get to the right story beat after all.

Yeah, it seems like he was hoping everyone would fail the save, but since two of us didn’t, he just moved forward with the getaway. This is why I’d suggest just narrating the getaway.

I think the GM was perhaps being nice to you; in that the woman/raven could just as easily have flown away without revealing her nasty ability. As it is, your lot learned about a trick she's got going for her and can plan around it if-when next you meet.

While I appreciate your attempt to read the situation in as favorable a light as possible, we’d already heard she could beguile people with a glance, so I don’t think that was the reason. I think it was a misstep.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm not just talking about feel, but about the degree of steering going on; the preplanning 1 second ago is still going to have more ability to deflect events that have already happened in a direction the GM wants than the preplanning a GM did a week ago (which can't account for that).

First, did you mean "reflect" instead of "deflect?"

If so, I see it as the exact opposite. The prepped DM, the one that did the work to plan it all out can much more easily take player comments and statements into consideration. They can much more easily interweave a PC's story. They can do this because they know the area or people or elements of the story.

 

[Campbell]

I really do not get this cynicism around being selective about who you play role playing games with. I have had similar conversations with players who have opted not to play in my games because I don't engage in spotlight balancing, don't fudge, or have particular interpretations of the setting I was using. No harm. No foul. I don't see this is fundamentally different than say looking for a Pathfinder game instead of a D&D game.

I also don't just invite everyone to play in my games. I invite specific people and will hang out with or run a one shot for perspective players. I'll ask questions about play style. I have been on the other end of it too. The last Vampire game I played in I met the GM at the bar to talk gaming and then did a board game night with perspective players where we talked shop. Not everyone who made it to the board game night was invited to the campaign.

That's not an unusual experience for me either. That's how social events work. We get to choose who we do stuff with and what we choose to do with them.

 

[Scott Christian]

So the issue is that many people here have said they care about this stuff in their games. That's pretty much what the whole discussion has been about. Many people have explained why they have these preferences. Even if you don't quite get why they feel that way, despite their attempts to explain it, I would expect that you'd accept they feel that way.

I said this earlier, and say it again.

Does anyone video their story now games using D&D or other such RPGs? If so, I would like to see it so I could compare and contrast.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes I've seen that kind of GM move before, either as a sort of automatic default to sim even if it would be irrelevant or, more likely, as a sort of illusionist's gamble where if everyone fails their save the cut scene is hidden as rules-as-normal. Of course, even one success shows the situation for what it is. I've seen a similar behaviour with perception and stealth rolls where the 'incorrect' result leads to an almost immediate reroll on spurious grounds to get to the right story beat after all.

I am just not sure why the DM wouldn't have one round of fighting. If she is designed well, she'll have a reaction. Then, during her turn she can change and leave. At least that would have given the players a bit of foreshadowing. But, it is very easy to second guess in hindsight. My guess is, if it was ever brought to the DMs attention, and then alternatives were given, the DM wouldn't create the cut scene again.

Or... they would because that is what their players enjoy.

 

[Maxperson]

Had our weekly 5e game last night. Let me run this new one by you; it irked me, but I’m curious if others will agree with my reason.

We were heading to the fort to rally the troops against a threat we’d uncovered, only to fond the fort had been taken over by hostile fey creatures. We infiltrated the fort and took out some of the fey, and we freed a couple of the officers. They told us where to find the leader of the occupying fey. They described her as a pale skinned woman with dark hair who could beguile a man simply by looking at him.

We head to the part ofthe fort where this leader’s believed to be, and we run into some of the elite fey and we manage to defeat them. We press on through a door and into a courtyard, and there she is: the dark haired woman. There are dozens of ravens perched in the trees. She looks over at us as we enter and smiles.

The GM calls for Wisdom saves from the entire group. Three of us fail, me and one other player make the save. I’m about to declare an action, but the GM says that the ravens all start crowing and the fey woman changes shape, becoming a raven. The other ravens all take iff and she joins them, flying away from the courtyard and the fort.

that was how the session ended. I honestly didn't mind the introduction and departure of the fey woman for the most part. It’s a little “cut-scene” for my taste, but I get it: here’s the villain, but she’s for another day.

What drives me a little crazy is the call for a saving throw to be beguiled by her or not. What for? The ones who made the save could do nothing more than those who failed. All it accomplished was it made me think I’d have a chance to do something…and then no, can’t do anything. Nobody can. I found that frustrating in what I woukd have otherwise accepted as a use of Force.

I wouldn't have been annoyed. I would assume that she was ready for party and prepared(something like a ready action) to make her escape. She may have a beguiling gaze that triggers if you meet her gaze like many 5e gaze attacks do. The DM could have just not had you save, but having you make the save gave you information for the next time you encounter her and if it was a gaze attack, would happen regardless of whether she was leaving or not. Now you know what she can do and can prepare to counter it and defeat her.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it seems like he was hoping everyone would fail the save, but since two of us didn’t, he just moved forward with the getaway. This is why I’d suggest just narrating the getaway.

I could have been that, but as I noted in my other post it doesn't have to be that. There are valid reasons for it happening the way that it did and I would give the DM the benefit of the doubt.

While I appreciate your attempt to read the situation in as favorable a light as possible, we’d already heard she could beguile people with a glance, so I don’t think that was the reason. I think it was a misstep.

Ah, well. Then it was probably that it just triggers when you meet her gaze like a lot of 5e gazes do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

First, did you mean "reflect" instead of "deflect?"

Nope. I meant as in "now that I know what's happened, I can set up things so that further actions on the part of players are unlikely to throw the game off the course I planned". Its much easier to do that when you know what the PCs did in the first half of the game than when you don't.

If so, I see it as the exact opposite. The prepped DM, the one that did the work to plan it all out can much more easily take player comments and statements into consideration. They can much more easily interweave a PC's story. They can do this because they know the area or people or elements of the story.

See above. My comment was in the context of trying to railroad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I really do not get this cynicism around being selective about who you play role playing games with. I have had similar conversations with players who have opted not to play in my games because I don't engage in spotlight balancing, don't fudge, or have particular interpretations of the setting I was using. No harm. No foul. I don't see this is fundamentally different than say looking for a Pathfinder game instead of a D&D game.

I also don't just invite everyone to play in my games. I invite specific people and will hang out with or run a one shot for perspective players. I'll ask questions about play style. I have been on the other end of it too. The last Vampire game I played in I met the GM at the bar to talk gaming and then did a board game night with perspective players where we talked shop. Not everyone who made it to the board game night was invited to the campaign.

That's not an unusual experience for me either. That's how social events work. We get to choose who we do stuff with and what we choose to do with them.

I suspect its because most people don't, functionally, have that option: what option they have is "deal with the players I have available or don't play." Especially with borderline cases, the latter is not always the attractive choice.