D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Umbran]

Nope. In my book only informed choices matter for agency. Blind guess is not a choice, so GM dictating outcome of such is not negating agency; the player had no agency on the matter in the first place.

In sociology, Agency isn't "having choices" it is having the ability to act upon one's will.

One cannot have will with respect to things they are ignorant of. If you don't know about the ogre, you cannot desire to meet or avoid it, so you have no agency in the choice.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But what if they open both doors at the same time? That’s something the players at my table would do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And here is where I have to disagree. I think as DM I am at least 50% responsible for the table's fun, but I do not see myself as crafting a story at all. A story may emerge from the events at the table or in-game occurrences - but that is not what I am trying to do while running a game.

But like you're saying, the process produces a story. So you're creating a story. Not a specific predetermined story, but story nonetheless. And I think it is weird to pretend otherwise. And when when deciding whether X or Y happens (whilst either would be reasonable and fit previously established facts,) choosing the one which seems more dramatically interesting is perfectly good criteria. Oh, and whether you realise or not, as GM you will decide things based on what's 'cool to you' or 'dramatically resonates'. I think it is better to be aware of this instead of pretending that you could be some sort of creatively blank automaton, or that being such would even be desirable.

 

[Composer99]

@Lyxen
I do not think I can get behind the idea that a stage magician is deceiving their audience. And indeed, your reply to me with respect to that analogy includes references to the audience playing along, being in on the trick even when they have no idea how it works and/or are allowing themselves to be fooled. On my view, the intent to deceive is the difference between a stage magician and a con artist. (Apropos of that, it's no coincidence that many stage magicians have also been heavily involved in efforts to debunk or expose con artists.)

Getting back to TTRPG gaming, this is why, when I refer to terms of art used to describe GM misbehaviour (railroading or what-have-you), I prefer to drill down to GM intent and player buy-in. If all is going well, the GM's intent is not to deceive, but to facilitate a satisfying gameplay experience, just like the stage magician's intent is to deliver an entertaining performance.

@Helpful NPC Thom
In my estimation, "fair" is just as much a buzzword as "fun" - perhaps moreso, since at least "the game is fun for everyone at the table" can be a stand-in for "each participant's gameplay preferences have been at least adequately satisfied by a given instance of gameplay", whereas "fairness", insofar as it rests on how the GM configures challenges, is in many ways part of the illusion that is being weaved in gameplay.

What is more, in principle, everyone is in favour of satisfying their own gameplay preferences (I would hope!), and most folk are also in favour of the other people at their table satisfying their own gameplay preferences (to the extent that everyone's preferences are sufficiently compatible), but oftentimes players (in particular) don't want a fair game: they want to enact a power fantasy, or live out an immersive scenario, or what-have-you, where the situation is manifestly unfair - whether tilted towards the player characters or against them.

All that is to say that fairness (however it is meant to be taken to mean) can be a goal of for a GM, but it is hardly a sole or even primary goal.

 

[tetrasodium]

Of course the stage magician is setting out to deceive the audience, which is not necessarily willing to play along but who accepts that they might indeed be fooled, while at the same time just enjoying the show. There is absolutely no difference with what a DM might do, because in all cases, it's for the fun and entertainment of the audience (and the stage magician needs this badly because if the audience does not have fun or is being made fools, they won't like it and will not come back, just as if there is no "magic").

And exactly like stage magic, the audience knows that they are possibly being fooled, but they don't know when, how often and certainly not how, which absolutely fine as they are indeed playing along. I'm sorry, but you can't call what a stage magician is doing anything else than deception.



The stage magician needs to deceive the audience, it's the basis of his job, because magic does not exist in our world. Now, it's up to you, but if I want my villains to be real geniuses, for example, I will have to use some tricks for that, because I don't think I'm an evil genius myself. So no, if you play D&D as a combat game, there is need for that. If you play a complex game of intrigue, then it becomes quite necessary.



There, I completely agree, what is a problem for me is when some DMs who play in a certain style absolutely need to label things like railroading, deception, fudging, etc. as bad things. To each his own, using the tool just before does not make one a "bad DM".

IMHO, what makes a DM a bad DM is when a DM is taking decisions with something else than his players' fun in mind. After that, a good intentioned DM might be awkward, or too transparent, or just a beginner, or unsure of himself, or less comfortable with improvisation, but it doesn't bring anything to anyone to call him a bad DM.

Not quite. The difference is subtle but important. A magician sets out to entertain first and foremost, deception misdirection showmanship & so on are simply tools used to entertain the audience. Someone could be the best magician in the entire history of mankind on a technical level, but if they cant make that an entertaining show they have failed as a magician.

A magician who goes out to deceive as the goal rather than entertain would be like a surgeon going into the OR with the goal of causing pain rather than a goal of healing. Sure an orthopedic surgeon (I think?) Might cause someone months of excruciating tears in the eyes grown macho men whimpering in a room full of people rehab, but the goal was to repair their screwy knee with knee surgery because nobody is going to get knee surgery just to enjoy the rehab if they dont need it.

 

[Maxperson]

In sociology, Agency is the ability to act upon one's will.

One cannot have will with respect to things they are ignorant about.

There is not complete ignorance here, though. They know there is an ogre behind one door. They know the other door has an exit. They know that if they get lucky, they will avoid the ogre. They don't need certainty in order to exercise their will on the attempt to get out of the exit they know is a possibility.

Those arguing in favor of the quantum ogre are also saying that it's okay for you to use a two headed penny in a contest where I have chosen tails to win in a coin flip.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

He made his choice based on information provided by the DM.

DM: "Pick a door and if you get lucky, you will find the exit. If not, an ogre awaits you."

His choice was based on that information and he had the agency to make it and possibly avoid the ogre. The DM is obligated to uphold what he said and keep that information true.

But this assumes that the player has information about the ogres, odds etc, and that's usually not the case. It's just 'there are two doors' or 'do you go left or right?' etc.

 

[Maxperson]

But this assumes that the player has information about the ogres, odds etc, and that's usually not the case. It's just 'there are two doors' or 'do you go left or right?' etc.

That's not the scenario here, though. The scenario that there are two doors. An ogre is behind one and the exit(or whatever it originally was) is behind the other. Make your choice. That implies that the PCs know at least what the possibilities are.

So let's now assume that they have no idea and just see two doors. What if they listen to the doors to see if they hear something behind them?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's not the scenario here, though. The scenario that there are two doors. An ogre is behind one and the exit(or whatever it originally was) is behind the other. Make your choice. That implies that the PCs know at least what the possibilities are.

It didn't imply that. It was just the setup, not what the PCs knew.

So let's now assume that they have no idea and just see two doors. What if they listen to the doors to see if they hear something behind them?

Then it is possible that they gain relevant knowledge, and it stops being a blind guess. Though if there is a lengthy corridor behind the door and the ogre is further away this wouldn't work.

 

[Maxperson]

It didn't imply that. It was just the setup, not what the PCs knew.


Then it is possible that they gain relevant knowledge, and it stops being a blind guess. Though if there is a lengthy corridor behind the door and the ogre is further away this wouldn't work.

However you want to word it, you are forcing the players down your path and that's railroading.