D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[overgeeked]

It’s would say my examples aren’t illusionism as the DM isnt presenting the illusion of choice. I think they deserve a different category. In the original quantum ogre the party had a choice of three doors and which ever they picked they got the same ogre first. That isn’t the same as meeting an ogre in the wilderness when they leave town.

If they meet the same ogre no matter which direction they go, then yes, it's still the illusion of choice.

A cliched example would be ‘a stranger approaches you in a bar and asks if you’re looking for work.’ Where the conversation occurs wherever the players decide to stay.

Only if it's the same stranger with the same job no matter where they stay.

 

[Mannahnin]

It’s would say my examples aren’t illusionism as the DM isnt presenting the illusion of choice. I think they deserve a different category. In the original quantum ogre the party had a choice of three doors and which ever they picked they got the same ogre first. That isn’t the same as meeting an ogre in the wilderness when they leave town.

A cliched example would be ‘a stranger approaches you in a bar and asks if you’re looking for work.’ Where the conversation occurs wherever the players decide to stay.

Right. I might start prep for my weekly session with "ok, some event is going to happen to start the session off with some action or an interesting decision", but in devising this event/encounter, I'm going to take into account the location the PCs are at, other recent events, what NPCs are in the vicinity, what kind of monsters live nearby, anyone they've helped or hurt recently, etc.

In this way I'm Instigating action, but I'm also being responsive to PC choices and trying to stay consistent with the established setting details.

 

[Mort]

Absolutely a great alternative. If used sparingly. I really don't like the idea of failing forward or success at cost as the default state. Sometimes people just fail. That's all part of the game (life and D&D). The idea that no matter what the PCs succeed just rubs me the wrong way. Even with a cost attached. On occasion, absolutely. But not the default.

Yeah, the "if used sparingly..." is key. Such as when it's a "must progress" situation (of course a best alternative is avoid those).

I do agree that failure should be an "option" (or a thing?). It's no fun when you always progress regardless. Plus, there's rarely only 1 way forward. If the rogue can't pick the lock, the barbarian can apply his lockpick method (Leading to fun exchanges from the rogue like when fleeing from the big bad "we could always lock the door behind us, oh wait!" - not that, that happened last Thursday or anything!).

 

[TheSword]

Right. I don't see it as much different than the "X happens when you arrive" form of illusionism. I don't run a game / world that's centered on the PCs. They're the protagonists, sure. They're the main characters of our shared, emergent story, absolutely. But the world doesn't literally revolve around them. Their presence doesn't trigger events. Events happen regardless of the PCs presence. NPCs have goals that they pursue. If the PCs get involved, the NPCs' plans change based on the PCs' involvement. But there are no dungeons filled with punch-clock villains on perpetual tea break waiting for the PCs to arrive.

I’m sceptical. Are you honestly saying the events of your world happen independently of the PCs and you track what happens in each place irresepctice of whether the PCs are involved - which seems extremely labour intensive for little game effect. Or do you forgo event based encounter design completely?

 

[Malmuria]

So, the "playacting" language here is kind of loaded, and, I think, dismisses a major point, which can be illustrated by one game - Ten Candles.

Ten Candles is a tragic horror RPG, and all the PCs WILL die. There is no question about this, no way to avoid it. No clever last minute saves. All the players enter into the game knowing this fact.

This gives us a different perspective on agency. You are going to die - you can resist and try to avoid, but it will happen. So, then, what other things can you have agency over? It turns out there's lots of things you still have control over - like, do you reconcile with your estranged parents? Do you die bravely, or cowered in a corner? Do you embrace your faith, or reject it? And so on - the game is determining not whether you end, but how you end.

Even if you are on a plot railroad, you still have agency over the character, who they are, what kind of person they choose to be, how they feel, and so on.

Love this game. But it is also very explicit about when and how the players have narrative control, especially in (imo) the most fun part of the game, the truths, where players can establish almost anything they want about the situation. And this works best when the players create complications for each other, so as to further the spiral toward death.

 

[Malmuria]

Feel this tweet is relevant for this discussion:

 

[Marc_C]

Railroads are great... so many possibilities!

 

[TheSword]

If they meet the same ogre no matter which direction they go, then yes, it's still the illusion of choice.

Only if it's the same stranger with the same job no matter where they stay.

Ahh, in the absence of information to the contrary (ogres are more prevalent in the forest dontcha know) the direction is completely independent of ogre sighting and therefore the DM hasn’t created an illusion that it is. There are an infinite number of directions a PC could take from a given point. Unless the DM artificially limits this by grouping into types or provided natural barriers the PCs aren’t ever going to be likely to walk directly into the path of a given ogre. Fate has to intervene to place challenges in the path of a Pc

Even random encounters assume that the encounter does cross the path of the PC - based on a set probability .

 

[TheSword]

Feel this tweet is relevant for this discussion:

Ouch. There’s a line between fudge and why-bother-rolling-dice. I hope the tweet has a context that doesn’t just suggest combats last until Daniels had enough.

 

[TheSword]

There is a further railroading technique I would refer to as Tailoring. Whereby the DM tailors encounters to the capabilities of the party. If the party contains a rogue they add in a few locked doors/chests and traps. If there is a ranger they add some survival/wild animals etc.

Another version of tailoring is where magic items are selected to maintain party balance or appeal to a particular PC that magic studded leather foe the rogue. A magic axe because that’s what the barbarian likes to use.

I feel tailoring is on the whole positive and makes the game more fun. Though I accept there is a downside when it comes to player choice mattering… hence me including it in a conversation about railroading.