D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

I might not prefer a game like @pemerton describes, where every scene is framed into play and the interstices are ... mostly elided (as I understand the descriptions of that table's play) but it doesn't sound as though there are any illusory decision points being deployed--it's fundamentally honest.

My approach to scene-framing is something I've developed, over the course of my experience, since some time in 1986 when I first GMed AD&D OA.

My ability to think coherently about it rests mostly on reading stuff by Ron Edwards and Paul Czege on The Forge.

A big breakthrough for me was working out, at some point or other, that geography is not the be-all and end-all. Maps and terrain matter to wargaming; but in a game that want to emulate (say) The Wizard of Earthsea they're mostly colour. That's not to say that travel doesn't matter - of course in an Earthsea game it's fundamental. But if travel is going to be more than just narration to move things along - if it's travel with stakes - then you resolve it via a check, and then if the check fails you narrate being washed up on an island by a storm, or whatever else seems appropriate, using the map in the books to inform that narration. I use the GH maps the same way in my Burning Wheel play. And the maps of Britain and Europe when playing Prince Valiant. (In 4e this is the domain of skill challenges; and maps provide colour for narration in just the same way.)

I think that identifying (i) what is, or is not, just colour, (ii) how actions are resolved (eg map and key vs skill challenge), and (iii) how scenes are framed (by whom, in accordance with what principles) is more fundamental than talking about eliding interstices. Everyone does that; otherwise we could never pass more than 4 hours in a session of play, and our PCs would never even make it to the dungeon entrance.

 

[Umbran]

What I am objecting to is the GM lying about the fiction. "These doors go to different places" when, in fact, they don't (or won't). "These paths are different" when, in fact, they aren't. "Evil NPC# 61895 is running this particular evil plot" when, in fact, if the PCs kill Evil NPC #61895 then someone else will pick up the threads and the story will go the exact same place. Your alchemist example--where there's just been an accident, no matter when the PCs arrive--is IMO fine, unless the GM has said the PCs can possibly prevent the accident.

Have I managed to adequately articulate what I find objectionable?

Yes, but now a question - how is the GM communicating those things to you?

Because, there's a huge difference between, "I have come to have this expectation," and, "The GM explicitly told me out-of-game". NPCs can and will lie, or be incorrect, from time to time. Players can jump to conclusions and not realize that they are missing information. Players can occasionally misinterpret, or forget, or fail to investigate...

Did the GM say, "You can prevent that accident," or did they say, "You can try to prevent that accident"? Where do you get the surety that the information you have is accurate?

 

[prabe]

I think that identifying (i) what is, or is not, just colour, (ii) how actions are resolved (eg map and key vs skill challenge), and (iii) how scenes are framed (by whom, in accordance with what principles) is more fundamental than talking about eliding interstices. Everyone does that; otherwise we could never pass more than 4 hours in a session of play, and our PCs would never even make it to the dungeon entrance.

I don't particularly disagree. I hope you took my statement to mean that you seem to elide more than I would prefer, and that I meant it as a statement of fact.

 

[pemerton]

There's a reason why 'Choose-Your-Own-Adventure' books are not seen as the highest level of literary quality, and it's not because you get to choose the direction of the story.

But Choose Your Own Adventure books are railroads. I mean, almost literally - the paths are all laid out and you can draw them up in a little diagram. (I assume that that's what the authors do when they're writing them!) The only exception I recall is the one about UFOs where there was one entry you couldn't get to via any of the choices in the book, and if you turned to it the book commented on what you'd done (I can't remember now if it chided you for cheating or praised you for discovering utopia - I'm remembering something from about 40 years ago).

When I'm making choices in a RPG, of the sort that I enjoy playing, I'm not choosing from a menu, or choosing which of the GM's pre-authored latent situations to activate. I'm making new fiction here-and-now with my PC, and my PC's struggles, at the heart of it.

 

[pemerton]

The DM is still lying by omission. The placement of two door and the two passages behind going to two different areas is the DM saying that choice matters.

Only if you add in the additional premise that geography and architecture matter.

That premise often won't be contentious. But it's not universal. The doors and passages might just be colour, and the players might know that. It's like when a GM narrates an inn, and describes multiple tables, and the players say that they sit at the table near the door or the table in the corner or whatever it is. I can't remember an occasion when that wasn't just colour, even though in the fiction there were options and the PCs selected one and not the other.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but now a question - how is the GM communicating those things to you?

Because, there's a huge difference between, "I have come to have this expectation," and, "The GM explicitly told me out-of-game". NPCs can and will lie, or be incorrect, from time to time. Players can jump to conclusions and not realize that they are missing information. Players can occasionally misinterpret, or forget, or fail to investigate...

Did the GM say, "You can prevent that accident," or did they say, "You can try to prevent that accident"? Where do you get the surety that the information you have is accurate?

We aren't talking about what NPCs say in game. We're talking about the DM himself lying to the players directly. Either overtly, "There are two doors in front of the party, one leads to freedom and the other has an ogre behind it.", while knowing that an ogre is going to be behind both doors, or covertly through illusionism, "There are two doors in front of you." while knowing that the players' choice is irrelevant since there will be an ogre behind whatever door they choose.

 

[prabe]

Yes, but now a question - how is the GM communicating those things to you?

Egads. It's been almost thirty years since I took a Communications class ...

One hopes the GM has communicated these things by actually saying them (aloud or in written form). One presumes there is information in how they are communicating, as well. Plus, over time, one learns one's GM, and one bases one's expectations on that.

Because, there's a huge difference between, "I have come to have this expectation," and, "The GM explicitly told me out-of-game". NPCs can and will lie, or be incorrect, from time to time. Players can jump to conclusions and not realize that they are missing information. Players can occasionally misinterpret, or forget, or fail to investigate...

I think the GM has something like a duty to report the PCs' experience as accurately as possible. If the players are acting based on not having information the PCs have (like, sensory information, or basic facts about the world) then I think the GM should make sure the players are on the same page as the GM. I think there is a difference between the GM lying to the players, and the GM roleplaying a lying (or misinformed) NPC.

I think that if the GM is presenting a choice, then that choice should matter. If the players can't botch that choice, I'm not sure it really matters (which I think covers your last sentence, here).

Did the GM say, "You can prevent that accident," or did they say, "You can try to prevent that accident"? Where do you get the surety that the information you have is accurate?

In the case of the accident-prone alchemist (the best kind!) I think it's more a matter that the GM didn't say anything to indicate there was any meaningful choice about when to swing by, so that wasn't a choice that mattered, so the fact the alchemist has just violently redecorated their lab when the PCs arrive, whenever the PCs arrive, isn't objectionable.

If the GM isn't reliably giving accurate information, that's probably not a game I'm going to stick with for long. An unreliable narrator is fine in fiction, but it's roughly hell in real life.

 

[pemerton]

I guess I would wonder why a choice was being offered between, e.g., traveling by plane or boat, if it wasn't going to matter in the game.

See my example just posted in reply to @Maxperson, of the seats at the inn. Sometimes these "choices" are narrated because someone things it "makes sense", or there's a habit, or whatever other reason.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if you add in the additional premise that geography and architecture matter.

That premise often won't be contentious. But it's not universal. The doors and passages might just be colour, and the players might know that. It's like when a GM narrates an inn, and describes multiple tables, and the players say that they sit at the table near the door or the table in the corner or whatever it is. I can't remember an occasion when that wasn't just colour, even though in the fiction there were options and the PCs selected one and not the other.

Two things. First, if the players know that the illusionism is happening and are okay with it, then no harm no foul. They've agreed to it. Second, in your inn example there was choice and the players chose. It might not be a major deal, but it matters in the fiction because the are near the exit or back in the corner. If a fight or fire breaks out, their positioning could end up being very important. You didn't negate their choice.

 

[prabe]

See my example just posted in reply to @Maxperson, of the seats at the inn. Sometimes these "choices" are narrated because someone things it "makes sense", or there's a habit, or whatever other reason.

Heh. In the last D&D campaign I started, it kinda did matter, but that's because the stuff hit the fan while the PCs were in the tavern (and they had reason to think it might, even aside from the knowledge it was the start of a campaign). That doesn't argue against your point--it's just an anecdote, and you did say "sometimes."