D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Maxperson]

Not quite, I don't think. There's still a whole bunch o' gamers out there who are quite happy with linear campaigns and-or adventures.

And thogh in general I'm not a fan of 'em, even I'll admit that once in a while a linear adventure can be good. Boring when it comes to choice-making, sure, but if the encounters on the string are themselves engaging and entertaining it can be fun.

This. Some do not like it, but it doesn't carry the negative connotation that railroading does with all but a small percentage of gamers.

 

[Oofta]

And this is where I remind everyone that there is no reason not to call "linear" railroading. Linear is just "pre-planned" railroading. And your example shows this. Having only one door, or having two doors with an ogre that will always be behind the door that you open is exactly the same thing.

Railroading ,to me, is the DM telling my PC what they do or say. If I say my PC goes left, the DM says that they decide to go right.

Of course. Because based on what you are saying here... I'm thinking you as one of those types of players who is trying to "win". Winning the fight is what matters most importantly, whereas the reason for having the fight seems to be less important (at least as I am interpreting your posts, but admittedly I could be wrong). It doesn't really matter why the fight happens when the fight happens, what is truly important is playing the game such that you are trying your best to play most effectively in counter to what the DM presents so that you and the other players "win".

The reason why I say D&D combat is pointless is because they are fights put in the game just to have fights in the game... not because the story of the campaign being generated NEEDS to have fights for the story. I mean what's a Random Encounter Table in an adventure other than a random assortment of monsters that 9 out of 10 times you will just fight just because? No practical reason story-wise to meet these monsters, nothing gained from the fight other than the meta-currency of Experience Points, they just show up randomly in the path of the party, the party probably fights and kills them, and then they move on with their day. This is exactly what I see as "pointless" combat. And depending on the adventure, I could easily suggest probably 4 out of every 5 fights I run into could be considered that way.

And when it happens? Heck, I oftentimes almost rather have the DM just handwave these pointless fights that serve no real purpose other than being a metaphorical speed bump on the way to the actual story. And it's not just TTRPGs... but video games are even worse. Mass Effect... World of Warcraft... just mob after mob after mob placed out there in the world for you to fight because "that's the game". The game is you go out and fight stuff. Which is fine I guess... and I'm sure there are plenty of people reading this shouting at the monitor "Yes! Exactly! THAT IS THE GAME!!! That's the whole point!!!" But it's not something I genuinely find all that entertaining when it happens so often. I'll take the narrative over the board game any day of the week.

I haven't used random encounters in ... actually I don't remember ever using random encounters. Whether or not the PCs can avoid encounters may be somewhat random and based on various checks. But if a high level group is traveling through wolf infested woods, it may get narrated but that's it.

On the other hand, some encounters always going to be, if not filler, not "essential". If the group is trying to kill the BBEG liche, there are going to be defenders before they get to the liche.

 

[Maxperson]

Railroading ,to me, is the DM telling my PC what they do or say. If I say my PC goes left, the DM says that they decide to go right.

That's an unusual definition of it. Most people seem to go with negation of player choice, which would include that, but also includes much more.

 

[Umbran]

This is my default view of the game. If all the deadly monsters that the PCs encounter were as common in general as they seem, the civilized world would be dead. PCs just encounter them much more frequently for whatever reason, "I'm sorry, you are The One" being as good a reason as any.

Well, then the Quantum Ogre is well aligned with that view, rather than opposed to it. If the Universe cares, having the GM make choices for the Universe seems reasonable.

 

[Mort]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. Linear with no choice still = railroad. You are forced along the rails. Linear as modules present them do have choice. I can go through that one door, or I can go back and leave. I still have a choice, but if I choose to go forward there is but one option.

I actually don't disagree (you'll note I presented going back as an option). Just meant no choice as far as forward. But I think the gist mostly got through.

 

[prabe]

Technically, I was assuming the Universe was uncaring.

Admittedly, there can be game worlds that do care - the PCs can have a special place within the world, and that may impact events ("I'm sorry, you are The One. You attract encounters like carrion attracts vultures.")

I have long been of the opinion that TRPGs are more interesting if the PCs are weirdness magnets.

I mentioned this at one of the tables I'm DMing, and when (because reasons) the party acquired a river vessel they named it the Weirdness Magnet. Oddly, the Weirness Magnet isn't a weirdness magnet.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not really a fan of linear play, but I am a huge fan of pro wrestling (ultimately I am a dude bro). My experience and appreciation of the art form has only improved by knowing it was staged. As a fan I can lean in and appreciate the storytelling more because I know I am being told a story. Even better if I can do my part to make the story more interesting.

I absolutely see linear play as an equally valid way to play. It's just not the only valid way to play. I also want to be able to choose to play the type of games I agree to play in so I can bring the right type of energy to it.

On the fun bit I want GMs to run exactly the kind of games they want to run. The more you actively try to read me and serve my apparent interests the more likely the game will not be fun for me because I'm not able to puzzle out the purpose of play. Doing things well whether it's collective story telling, playing my character with integrity, or playing the game well can all be a lot of fun. What's not fun for me ever is shifting sands beneath my feet. By trying to read the room instead of running your game in a cohesive way it becomes a miserable experience for me. I need to know what fun we are supposed to be having together.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, then the Quantum Ogre is well aligned with that view, rather than opposed to it. If the Universe cares, having the GM make choices for the Universe seems reasonable.

Nah. Just because I hold the view that the PCs are special and encounter monsters much more frequently, doesn't mean that as the universe I want to railroad them. The universe(me) also wants their choices to matter, even if those choices are made without a lot of information.

 

[Lyxen]

Technically, I was assuming the Universe was uncaring.

Admittedly, there can be game worlds that do care - the PCs can have a special place within the world, and that may impact events ("I'm sorry, you are The One. You attract encounters like carrion attracts vultures.")

This is exactly the case with many works of fiction of the genre, for example see the chosen one, or the Ta'veren of the Wheel of Time. It's a great concept, just not to be overused like many other concepts.

 

[Lyxen]

I disagree. I think that trust not built on honesty is at best unearned and probably false. I don't believe that the lying GM will inevitably be exposed, but I believe they'll very probably be exposed, and the radical reduction of fun when that happens is not worth the marginal increase of fun before then.

The thing that you don't get is that the players don't want to expose the DM in any case, they just want to play an epic story. It's a game of make believe anyway, and the DM can create whatever they want, on the spot, just "because". He does not even need to lie to destroy you, if that is what he wanted.

Honestly, sometimes the defensiveness of some people (not specifically you) on these matters makes me think that they don't understand that the DM does not play against the players. It would be really silly if he did, because he would win instantly every single time.

The DM is playing alongside the players, in fully cooperative mode, to tell an incredible story. Assuming that he would harm you would be akin to your trusty coach sabotaging you. But even your trusty coach can lie now and then if he thinks you need it, and although you might see through it later, you will still be OK with that, because he told you exactly what you wanted and needed to hear.

Now, the DM sometimes makes mistakes, who doesn't. But again, the players forgive him because even when he made mistakes, it's still with the intent of making the best game he can for the players.

Really, this time, trust me, it makes the game much better.