D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

The purpose of my question and hypothetical was to increase my understanding of how @Maxperson defines the term "railroad" in practice. Based on what I understand of their views on railroading so far, I don't think their answer to my question is going to be variable based on campaign style. Accordingly, I don't think the question required more information to be useful for its intended purpose.

That said, I'm happy to discuss my question in the more general context in which you've framed it. I entirely agree that if one is playing at a table where there is an expectation that room contents be fixed in advance, it is problematic to either not have the room contents fixed in advance (as my question supposed) or to re-arrange room contents on the fly, as the GM would be violating the social contract in either case.

The focus of my question, however, is on how a GM might fix the problem of incomplete notes that don't unambiguously assign contents to the two rooms. For example, a module might list:

Area 19. Two identical 15x15 rooms originally intended for storage. One contains assorted bags, chest, barrels, and shelves full of long-decayed perishables. The other has been cleaned out and repurposed as a bunkroom for an Ogre, who is sitting at a small table eating a meal.​

Suppose the DM doesn't discover that the module fails to indicate which room is which until after the PCs have declared that they open the left-hand door. My interest is in learning from those with more-absolute definitions of railroading what techniques can be used at this point (if any) to avoid the GM railroading the players as they try to fix the oversight in the prep.

And for specificity, my interest in asking the question at all is because I personally view GM motivation as important to determining whether or not something is railroading, and I want to better understand the position of those who think that GM motivation is not relevant to what is and is not railroading.

A random roll seems appropriate. The situation is somewhat strained already, though, in that the GM choosing the ogre via fiat does seem to be an intentional nullification of the player's choice but more of a 'crap, Imma make a call' that unintentionally does this. There's no intent to deceive, just a choice between rather lackluster and non-great options for how to fix a mistake. I'd likely be open about this and tell the players that there's a mistake in the adventure I've just noticed that doesn't correctly key these rooms so roll me a die -- even it's the first listed, odd it's the second.

Because, at the end of the day, this is a blind choice, which isn't particularly enabling of agency or authority even though dungeons are full of such choices unless the GM makes a concerted effort to foreshadow.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, when you INFER that they lead to different locations, that's not a lie on the GM's part. The mere existence of multiple doors is not sufficient to be a promise.

The GM should not be telling you out of game where doors lead, if the characters having that information has not been established.

Again, I'm not talking about an inference. I'm talking about when the DM really does deceive the players by giving the illusion of choice, knowing that the choice doesn't matter and X is going to happen no matter what. That's a lie.

I agree with you that the DM shouldn't be telling us out of character information, but it does happen. There have been multiple times over the decades where we have been told that one door has danger and the other freedom or treasure. Maybe they say it to heighten the tension of the choice. Maybe some other reason.

Sometimes when we made those decisions, we hit bad stuff. Other times we hit good stuff. Were those times illusions of choice? I have no idea. However, if any of them were the DM placing either the bad stuff or the good stuff behind whichever door, passage, chest, or whatever we chose, then those would be intentional deceptions on the part of the DM, otherwise known as lies.

 

[Composer99]

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.

The second situation you present is not, on its face, illusionism, deceit, or railroading.

The potential of an ogre encounter is only materially relevant to a meaningful choice being offered to the players if they are predicating the choice, at least in part, around its potentiality.

If the the meaningfulness of a choice doesn't rest on the potential existence of monsters in between the decision point and the destination, then the presence or absence of monsters in the event is not materially relevant to the choice. It is orthogonal to the choice.

The existence of an orthogonal rider to the outcome of a player choice (meaningful or not) does not railroading make in and of itself, nor does it make the GM deceitful.

---

In the game world, just as in ours, unpredictable things happen that don't relate back to the things our PCs contrive to do. But because we can only ever incompletely model the game world, these things happen as a result of some procedural game mechanic (procedural content generation before or during play, action-resolution mechanics that introduce complications during play, or what-have-you) that someone (usually the GM in D&D) has to willfully invoke, or by GM or player discretion (i.e. simply narrating that the unpredictable thing now happens). In D&D, where the players are not assumed to be able to author the fictional world beyond their PCs (and to their PCs' backgrounds, to some extent), player authorship of random events in the game world is not assumed to be available except perhaps at a superficial level.

Unless the players and the GM have agreed in advance that unpredictable things won't happen (or that certain kinds of unpredictable things won't happen, or that they won't happen except via procedural mechanics), then when unpredictable things do happen (such as the GM deciding on the spot that there is a monster down both paths the PCs can choose when it's immaterial to their choice), then the players have no business calling it "railroading".

This is not to say that the players aren't allowed to be upset. But a mismatch between player and GM expectations or preferences is not ipso facto illusionism, although it is a breakdown in communication, which does need to be addressed.

---

But, why is the GM giving the player absolute truth information about the adventure that the characters have not established? Who does that?

The simple solution to this "lying" is to not give the players information they have no reason to have.

Tying back to something @pemerton and @Lanefan were talking about, I think it's fair to say that two common premises of D&D games in particular are that (1) geography-as-backstory is largely already established before play (improvised content notwithstanding), and (2) geography matters.

In other words, if you haven't already spelled out with the players that routinely defining or switching up of geography as a game-time decision ("the first door you open goes to Room X, regardless of which door it is") is part of the make-believe, then they have just reason to, if not feel deceived, then at least feel you've done something in bad form.

 

[Maxperson]

The second situation you present is not, on its face, illusionism, deceit, or railroading.

The potential of an ogre encounter is only materially relevant to a meaningful choice being offered to the players if they are predicating the choice, at least in part, around its potentiality.

Nowhere in any definition of deception or lie is meaningful choice required. If I hold up both fists and tell you that in one is a dime and in the other is a quarter, pick one, and both are dimes, I have lied to you. End of story. The Schrodinger's ogre example is an example of a lie through illusionism.

 

[Manbearcat]

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread (and I think the lack of resolution on "the quantum ogre problem" is doing some heavy lifting here) about subordination of thematic, or tactical, or strategic decision-making.

For instance, if either a game's premise or the situation we're playing through is about answering the question of "how do I perceive my brother and how will I react when his honor is at stake", then its a matter of course that the PC in question is going to be put in a provocative situation that orients the player to resolving that question...full stop. Questions about "can I avoid confronting my perception of my brother and my own emotional/physical reaction when his honor is at stake" is entirely missing the point! That will never be an input to action resolution in the first place so there won't be a meaningful decision where that is relevant!

Alternatively, if journeying/transporting across topographical distance is a fundamental aspect of play, then of course "what can I do to not face ogres (assuming you actually don't want to face ogres)" becomes fundamental to play. The players then make a move which becomes one of the primary inputs (if not exclusive) to action resolution. Once that action resolution is resolved, then, the GM MUST honor the input + resolution in their consequence handling; eg if the player doesn't want to face ogres + makes a move to not face ogres + action resolution says "good job no ogres" then consequence = OMG OGRES is a complete subordination of the player's thematic, tactical, and/or strategic decision-making.

That is a clear instance of Force. String those together or pass whatever table litmus test there is and you get a railroad.

But Quantum Ogres isn't a thing in all play. In the prior play, you're (a) never going to deal with the cognitive workspace of "how do I avoid facing questions/emotions/realties about my brother's honor" and therefore (b) there is no such thing as "Quantum Brother's Honor" when it comes to situation framing! You're going to have to confront a provocative situation around your brother's honor because its the point of play!

I'm left wondering if this confusion is an outgrowth of "D&D DOES EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME(!)"-itis.

 

[Xetheral]

I have a broader question--how do people feel about the techniques in the OP when they are used to effect player agency rather than stymie it?

For example, if the fed-up PCs decide to give up on their quest and decide to go do something else, is it reasonable for the DM to have whatever option the PCs choose to extricate themselves simply work? What about if giving effect to the PCs' high-level choice to leave requires making their lower-level choices about how to extricate themselves all lead to the same place?

As an illustrative example, if the PCs are trying to resolve political intrigue on an island, but get fed up with all the factions and decide to depart, the choice of which boat captain to approach for passage to the mainland should be significant--depending on which faction the chosen boat captain belongs to, they may not want the PCs to leave! Is it reasonable for the DM to instead have any boat captain approached allow the PCs to escape the island, thus giving effect to the decision to leave at the cost of using illusionism regarding the choice of boat captain?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The second situation you present is not, on its face, illusionism, deceit, or railroading.

The potential of an ogre encounter is only materially relevant to a meaningful choice being offered to the players if they are predicating the choice, at least in part, around its potentiality.

If the the meaningfulness of a choice doesn't rest on the potential existence of monsters in between the decision point and the destination, then the presence or absence of monsters in the event is not materially relevant to the choice. It is orthogonal to the choice.

The existence of an orthogonal rider to the outcome of a player choice (meaningful or not) does not railroading make in and of itself, nor does it make the GM deceitful.

I disagree with this. There's an implicit understanding that the choice matters -- that going left at the fork with have a different result than going right at the fork. That this choice is blind -- we have no information about what would be different -- doesn't change the fact that this is the assumption offered by the choice. Illusionism shows up here because there's no way to know that what's presented is going to be the same no matter what the choice because we cannot make both choices simultaneously (I mean, I guess we could split the party, but that's outside the scope of the thought experiment). So, the GM is Forcing an outcome (Force is where the GM ignores player choice or check results and goes with their preferred outcome), and since it's hidden from the players so they cannot detect the Force, it is Illusionism.

In general, my position is that 5e often requires the use of GM Force in moderation -- the nature of heavy prep games generally does this -- and that this is not an inherently bad thing. Illusionism is a tool that lets this Force be less intrusive. However, players' tolerance for Force (and therefore Illusionism) is not the same, and some will have problems where others do not. Adapt to the table. I've found that I can significantly reduce my use of Force in game by prepping situations rather than outcomes, or by focusing on site based prep rather than plot based. But, the moment you have a node based design, or even a plotline, Force becomes an essential tool - at least sometime.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Building on some things that @pemerton and @Umbran have posted, I'll briefly speak of Quantum Ogres.

The phrase "quantum ogres" is a bit misleading, as that pertains specifically to Dungeon World GMing advice (and to a lesser extent, PbtA games as a whole) on how to handle the results of a miss (6 or less on the dice). It is akin to springing a random encounter on the players as the results of a failed skill check. But let us deal with the issue of the two doors, each leading to the nasty ogres upon the other side.

@Maxperson's objection relates to the GM pretending there's a choice given to the players, in that one door leads to ogres and one door leads to, hmm, shall we say a princess and treasure. This is deceitful, as he notes, but this deceit involves a huge overlap between illusionism and what storygamers call "the prep"--those notes and ideas and game elements created in advanced, established beforehand.

Take the two doors. Both lead to the ogre encounter. Consider the hypotheticals of the situation.

Basics: GM has prepared an ogre encounter and included a bunch of details that he believes will make the game more fun. He wants to include this for personal satisfaction and player enjoyment. The GM offers Door A and Door B, and there's a sign that says, "Ogres beyond! Choose wisely!"

Situation #1: No matter door the PCs select, they will stumble upon the ogres due to GM fiat.

Situation #2: Door A leads to ogres and Door B leads to freedom. The PCs choose Door B. The GM allows the PCs to exit, then later on has the PCs stumble into the ogre encounter in a different context.

Situation #3: GM's notes say that there is a 1-in-6 chance of a random ogre encounter once the PCs enter the next room. (This is similar to how Moldvay's Basic works: roll to see if there are monsters in the room.) GM rolls a 6 and the ogre encounter occurs regardless of which door is chosen.

Situation #4: Door A and Door B lead to ogres. The sign was lying, and it is revealed upon inspection that both exits into the ogre room can be retraced back to the initial room.

Situation #5: No matter door the PCs select, they will stumble upon the ogres due to GM fiat. The GM improvises that the sign was lying, and it is revealed upon inspection that both exits into the ogre room can be retraced back to the initial room.

Which of these is most egregious?

 

[Umbran]

As an illustrative example, if the PCs are trying to resolve political intrigue on an island, but get fed up with all the factions and decide to depart, the choice of which boat captain to approach for passage to the mainland should be significant--depending on which faction the chosen boat captain belongs to, they may not want the PCs to leave! Is it reasonable for the DM to instead have any boat captain approached allow the PCs to escape the island, thus giving effect to the decision to leave at the cost of using illusionism regarding the choice of boat captain?

Interesting point. I've not seen anyone object to illusionism if it happens to align with what the players want anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have a broader question--how do people feel about the techniques in the OP when they are used to effect player agency rather than stymie it?

For example, if the fed-up PCs decide to give up on their quest and decide to go do something else, is it reasonable for the DM to have whatever option the PCs choose to extricate themselves simply work? What about if giving effect to the PCs' high-level choice to leave requires making their lower-level choices about how to extricate themselves all lead to the same place?

As an illustrative example, if the PCs are trying to resolve political intrigue on an island, but get fed up with all the factions and decide to depart, the choice of which boat captain to approach for passage to the mainland should be significant--depending on which faction the chosen boat captain belongs to, they may not want the PCs to leave! Is it reasonable for the DM to instead have any boat captain approached allow the PCs to escape the island, thus giving effect to the decision to leave at the cost of using illusionism regarding the choice of boat captain?

I don't see how saying "yes" to the players ever engages GM-side Force. This question doesn't make sense to me, or rather, only makes sense from a position that considers the fiction to be an actual causal actor in the game such that the fictional political situation has a say, like in real life at the table, about what action resolutions look like. It doesn't, though, so a GM saying "yes" may be an example of softballing or whifflebatting, but not any use of Force.