D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[prabe]

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!

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 think it seems plausible for avoidance to be a PC's reaction, and for how that happens to be the thread of play (for lack of a better way to put it).

I don't think you'd find it enjoyable, though--and I'd probably tire of it quickly, myself. But then, I tire quickly of honor mechanics in TRPGs more broadly.

 

[Umbran]

@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.

So, we should note that different playstyles treat prep information differently.

D&D players who are focused on the tactical & wargame aspects of play may view prepared information as established truth, even if it has not yet appeared in game - it may be seen as not playing in good faith to change encounters designed and placed in the notes, but not yet encountered. That is at least in part because "skilled play" for these styles often means marshaling resources for an unknown future - if that unknown future changes, it alters the meaning of previous resource allocation choices. The expectation is the GM comes to the table with a prepared and fixed scenario.

Story-oriented play may view prepared notes as ideas and potentials, and not sacrosanct - they could be ignored, added to, or edited on the fly as needed.

 

[prabe]

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 think fun around the table matters, and if the players want the game to be about something other than the political intrigue on the island, they should be given a reasonable opportunity to make it so (as in, leave the island). I think that if the DM wants the choice of boat captain to matter, that there should be some basis on which the PCs can decide which captain/s to approach--but if the players are really that fed up, I think the consequences of choosing the "wrong" boat captain should be something other than remaining on the island, in the scenario they are no longer enjoying.

 

[Maxperson]

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 actually had this happen in my last campaign. I tried Ravenloft as an experiment and after several sessions the players and I weren't having as much fun with it as we had hoped, so they came to me to talk about it. They let me know that they wanted a more traditional kind of game, even if that meant making new characters. I asked them if they wanted to make new characters, or would they rather play these characters if they got out of Ravenloft. They said they're rather continue on, so I said to them that I would make that happen. It might take me 2-3 sessions to get it worked out in game, but they would get out. They agreed and the game went on.

The difference there between that and what I'm talking about with illusionism is that everything was up front and the players were all on board with it. No deception was going on.

 

[overgeeked]

Blaming the players for the DM lying is certainly a novel approach. "I did not explicitly tell you there was a meaningful difference between going north or south, therefore it's your fault for assuming there was." Wow. That's a lot. Might as well go whole hog and blame the players for assuming they get to make choices. If the DM never tells them they get to make choices, well...it's clearly the players' fault for assuming they get to. No wonder so many players don't trust DMs. Damn that's toxic.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Looping back, I think a lot of the discussion is talking about a "pure" example of quantum ogre, which isn't how it tends to actually manifest.

More likely, it'll look like: the pc's are in Hamletville, and can chose one of three sidequests (or just leave and go to Townsborough): there's an orc camp to drive off, a fay-touched cave to explore, or rumors of a banshee to investigate.

The dm has prepped a cool ogre encounter. The dm has decided, ahead of time, that whichever side quest they choose, they will encounter the ogre along the way.

Is that railroading? Illusion of choice? Bad dming? I would say no to all three: the choice was never "do you want to encounter an ogre?" The choice was orthogonal to ogres, and is still valid.

Railroading would be having the orc already gone and the banshee not really there, so the players must go to the cave. Illusion of Choice would be if the orcs are in the cave, with the banshee.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

The implication I was making with CYOA was in comparison to actual novels. I was trying to imply that the novel was the complete railroad because the author is writing everything and there's no choice by the reader whatsoever... whereas you actually get to make choices in CYOA-- but that doesn't ipso facto mean the story is better because of it.

Most novels are better than CYOA books in quality even though you as participator get no choices to make. Which was meant to align to the comparison of choices in RPGs as well-- having them does not automatically make it a better experience.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I don't think this is correct at all. Quantum Ogres has been around as an example of Illusionism for a long time. Meanwhile, PbtA doesn't feature Illusionism at all -- it's a violation of the rules of play if you tried. It's not about a fail on a check in PbtA at all. You might be confusing this with discussion about appropriate hard moves in PbtA games without lead in scene framing or soft moves?

@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?

Hard to say. Which feature the GM making everything up on the fly and which involve prep about dungeon layout in the notes that the GM is using/ignoring to enact Force? I'm not sure the addition of the sign improves this thought experiment at all.

1. This is clearly Force. It may or may not be Illusionism, because it appears that the Force is detectable.
2. Not Force, especially as the details of the later encounter aren't apparent or relevant to the immediate situation.
3. Seems fine.
4. Illusionism.
5. Force if through unmarked door, Illusionism otherwise.

None are "egregious" unless the table thinks so. My internet opinion is just to evaluate the structure. Whether it's okay with the table is not my call.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Despite the fact that I really like the lead post (and only disagree on subtilties around the edges), I'm sprinting through this thread. This caught my eye. I just wanted to comment.

I'm assuming you do feel like (i) meaningful choices + (ii) provocative, interesting, intelligible consequences (and subsequent situation framing) can happily ride along together if the GM is skilled and the work the system does to facilitate play is on-point (functional/efficient/rewarding/coherent)?

Right?

You can have all of that stuff together?

If you agree that you can have all of that stuff together...is that preferred for you?

Well, sure... but I didn't bother making that point as it would be mainly self-evident. If I could have it all, of course I would. But if had to choose, I'd take the great DM with the railroad over the bad DM with me allowed to make all the choices I wanted.

And the only reason I brought it up in the first place was because it seemed to me that others in the thread were implying (if not outright stating) that players having their choices matter to what was going on had to be a part of playing the game for it to be even close to being thought of as worthwhile. And that being railroaded automatically killed the game. Now maybe the implications they were making were not actually as strong as it seemed to be from my reading of the posts... entirely possible, I admit... but I did just want to make it clear that there was at least one person out there who did not decry the railroad as the worst thing possible and indeed could even be preferable if the circumstances warranted it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Looping back, I think a lot of the discussion is talking about a "pure" example of quantum ogre, which isn't how it tends to actually manifest.

More likely, it'll look like: the pc's are in Hamletville, and can chose one of three sidequests (or just leave and go to Townsborough): there's an orc camp to drive off, a fay-touched cave to explore, or rumors of a banshee to investigate.

The dm has prepped a cool ogre encounter. The dm has decided, ahead of time, that whichever side quest they choose, they will encounter the ogre along the way.

Is that railroading? Illusion of choice? Bad dming? I would say no to all three: the choice was never "do you want to encounter an ogre?" The choice was orthogonal to ogres, and is still valid.

Railroading would be having the orc already gone and the banshee not really there, so the players must go to the cave. Illusion of Choice would be if the orcs are in the cave, with the banshee.

No, it's still Illusionism. The question really then is, "is it bad?" That's going to have varying answers. I don't think so. It's a flavor encounter really, but it's still always going to be the GM putting their thumb on the scales to Force it.