D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[el-remmen]

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.

Sure, I sometimes make those choices (and sometimes players make them, when possible) but I am not thinking about the kinds of beats and resolution I would keep in mind while writing a story when I am designing the scenario or running the game because I don't know what will happen (and I want it that way!). I am not a "rule of cool" guy - though when I have the opportunity to include something cool, I do. But I am not gonna (for example) keep a PC from dying in a random encounter that went bad just because dying during the final confrontation of the module would be more dramatic (though some games are designed to have such mechanics and that is fine for those games - but not what I want out of D&D personally) in the moment it will be dramatic enough.

I guess, the way I look at it is not in total disagreement with you, but there are a wide variety of kind of "good stories" (and that includes ones where all the good guys die) and I am not trying to push it towards any particular kind (save perhaps for the limits established by setting and theme), but am open to the ones that emerge.

 

[Oofta]

Heh... and there might be some of us who already believe that most of D&D combat is pointless already. And we only have it because that's what the game is D&D was designed for. So a DM just making explicit the fact is actually doing a service by not pretending like the thousands of combats a D&D character gets into over its career actually had meaning and wasn't just people playing the board game.

It's only pointless if you never lose or have to make tough decisions because you won at a cost. Of course, playing D&D is kind of pointless but at least for me it's less pointless than watching people run around a chasing after some ball or puck.

I just don't see the point of even rolling dice if the DM just makes it up ... just say "woo-hoo! I hit again!" and everybody cheers.

Standard disclaimer applies of course. Just because I don't understand the whole watching people in different colored uniforms chasing around a ball like hyperactive golden retrievers, a lot of people enjoy it. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Oofta]

Still doesn't mean the outcome was predetermined. One can choose dynamically based on events without tracking hit points.



So, interestingly, "not tracked" does not mean "never care how much was done". There's a spectrum, from tracking in detail, to watching in a general sense how many are done per hit, but not writing it down, to not caring at all.



And that's great for your table.

But, it doesn't make it okay to make poorly founded assertions about someone else's techniques. I mean, did you even spend one minute thinking through what that technique might look like in practice, or did you just assume the worst, and state that? The ease with which I can state alternatives suggests the latter.

Having preferences and opinions is fine. Shoddy argument isn't fine.

If the DM is tracking something else, anything else, it isn't clear. Whether just declaring a monster dead when it's dramatic works is a matter of personal opinion, I don't see anything "shoddy" about saying that it wouldn't work for me and I don't see the point. If it works for other people, good for them.

 

[Oofta]

Choice does not imply an informed decision. I can choose to flip a coin. I must choose to arbitrarily open a door of my own volition. All choice implies is more than one option.

If I give people a choice, I try to make it a meaningful choice as often as possible. Flipping a coin is not meaningful IMHO. That's all.

Edit: it's not exactly the same thing as quantum ogres, it's a different aspect of the illusion of control.

 

[Maxperson]

If I give people a choice, I try to make it a meaningful choice as often as possible. Flipping a coin is not meaningful IMHO. That's all.

Sure. I agree with that. That's not the point of this discussion, though.

 

[Xetheral]

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

Question for you:

Let's say the only thing the PCs know is that there are two doors, and they plan to open both of them to find out what is behind each door. The DM has notes on what is behind the doors, but didn't actually specify which door is which.

If the players arbitrarily choose to open the left-hand door first, how do you think the DM should decide which room from their notes to present first without railroading?

From my standpoint, since neither the DM nor the players care which room is encountered first, railroading is impossible in this scenario, no matter what method the DM uses. (The players weren't trying to express agency, so there can be no denial of said agency.) But I'm not sure that you'd agree with that so I'm interested in hearing your perspective.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. I agree with that. That's not the point of this discussion, though.

See my edit. I think decisions made based on sheer luck is another aspect of the illusion of control.

 

[Oofta]

Actually it does not. The player did not have information about where the ogre was. He did not choose the door with an ogre or the door without an ogre. He just choose the left door or the right door. And that choice is not invalidated. He could not choose a door with or without an ogre, he could not choose a door with or without a fight, he had no information which was which anyway.

Is it Schrodinger's Ogre?

 

[Maxperson]

See my edit. I think decisions made based on sheer luck is another aspect of the illusion of control.

Where the illusion of choice is railroading.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

That's not what's normally meant by "quantum ogre," which is where you're getting pushback. Quantum ogre assumes the players don't know about the ogre aside form a knowledge that ogres exist in DnD.

The question you were responding to made different assumptions than what you based your answer on.