D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think force is inherently problematic or problematic at all. I just like having a shared orientation towards play. If we're trying to tell the best story possible let's do that. If we're digging in deep to character let's all do that. If we're playing a game to overcome a challenge let's all do that. This can change from moment to moment, but it should still be shared or it's not fun for me.

Like if I'm having a moment where like I'm really embodying my character and having this fraught conversation with an NPC or other PC if that other player is like trying to drive the narrative to fulfill some character arc then that interaction loses some of the raw nature of that interaction. The worst case for me came in a Blades in the Dark game where the GM basically decided what one of my character's defining relationships should look like and was playing the NPCs to put pressure on me to make a decision for my character that kind of felt really unnatural to me. I ended up having a conversation with him about the principles of play. He basically intimated that he was not cool with playing to find out if it meant that it could end badly so I moved on. Basically the GM did not trust me enough to not mess up my own character's narrative. A game that started out so strong basically became one of the worst experiences I ever had in gaming. I was willing to risk things not ending well, but he wasn't willing to give me the chance to really experience those conflicts.

The same thing is largely true for more gamist play priorities too. I can't get into really enjoying a tactical challenge if there are players that are not into it. It just saps the fun for me. Same thing if the GM is not playing the fight hard. There's no joy in defeating a rigged challenge.

Likewise I can't imagine it would feel good to run a game with an elaborately crafted plot that players do not give a crap about. I would want players that are invested in it and like working with me to make it as good as possible.

Yeah, good post. I always say that one of the most important things is that everyone is playing the same game.

 

[Maxperson]

How it is not? Certainly prep was by fiat, and in disregard to player input, as it was done before the players could give their input! Also by your definition GM unilaterally improvising or inventing anything is force.

Prep does not disregard player input. There's no player input at that point to regard or disregard. The player input comes when they encounter or avoid what you have prepped. If you prep a circus and they decide to ignore it, having it follow them around appearing at every town they do is disregarding their input. The latter is force. The former is not.

 

[Oofta]

My perspective on this is that the entire campaign world, ogres and all, are quantum until revealed. If I write up my notes for a session that Billy the barber is the serial killer, he's not the serial killer until it's been confirmed in game. Maybe I change my mind and it's really Sweet Sally the seamstress because it's more interesting or because I thought it would be more fun to play Mad Sally than insane Billy.

Does it matter if I change my mind five minutes after I make my initial note about Billy? Two days later? Morning of the session? Snap decision right before I drop a critical clue? Personally I don't see how it matters.

If I'm doing it in a way that makes the story inconsistent then it's a problem. If I didn't change some last minute clues to indicate Sally, it could possibly be an issue. Beyond that I don't see how that can be a bad thing, the identity of the serial kill didn't really exist until exposed.

There's a huge difference between modifying existing, confirmed, information to force a result and the DM simply changing their minds or improvising something on the spot.

 

[Lanefan]

From my perspective it's not about when the decision is made. It's about what is guiding that decision making process.

Agreed. And at that point, in theory the discussion becomes one of preferences over what guide(s) is(are) being used to make those decisions, and why; and that - along with what guides are or aren't acceptable - is of course going to vary from table to table and from DM to DM.

 

[overgeeked]

You seem to be wiping out context to make a point...

Not really, no.

Going north indoors, in a cavern or dungeon of twisty rooms and corridors is not the same as going north 40 miles of outdoors overland travel.

The context doesn’t matter. The DM presents a choice to the players, and no matter what they choose, the DM will negate that choice and put what the DM wanted the players to choose in front of the players. Whether that choice is two doors, two rooms, left or right in a dungeon, which direction at an intersection, or 360° of potential directions to choose from in overland travel. The DM is lying to the players by presenting a false choice. It doesn’t matter what they choose, the DM has already decided what they will get.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think force is inherently problematic or problematic at all. I just like having a shared orientation towards play. If we're trying to tell the best story possible let's do that. If we're digging in deep to character let's all do that. If we're playing a game to overcome a challenge let's all do that. This can change from moment to moment, but it should still be shared or it's not fun for me.

Like if I'm having a moment where like I'm really embodying my character and having this fraught conversation with an NPC or other PC if that other player is like trying to drive the narrative to fulfill some character arc then that interaction loses some of the raw nature of that interaction. The worst case for me came in a Blades in the Dark game where the GM basically decided what one of my character's defining relationships should look like and was playing the NPCs to put pressure on me to make a decision for my character that kind of felt really unnatural to me. I ended up having a conversation with him about the principles of play. He basically intimated that he was not cool with playing to find out if it meant that it could end badly so I moved on. Basically the GM did not trust me enough to not mess up my own character's narrative. A game that started out so strong basically became one of the worst experiences I ever had in gaming. I was willing to risk things not ending well, but he wasn't willing to give me the chance to really experience those conflicts.

The same thing is largely true for more gamist play priorities too. I can't get into really enjoying a tactical challenge if there are players that are not into it. It just saps the fun for me. Same thing if the GM is not playing the fight hard. There's no joy in defeating a rigged challenge.

Likewise I can't imagine it would feel good to run a game with an elaborately crafted plot that players do not give a crap about. I would want players that are invested in it and like working with me to make it as good as possible.

This is the ideal to strive for, to be sure.

Unfortunately, oftentimes we just have to work with what we have and in so doing accept there's always going to be a greater or lesser* degree of preferential variances around the table at any given time.

* - it varies widely even within a consistent group: people's moods change, interest in particular story elements might wax and wane, and so forth.

 

[Lanefan]

Prep does not disregard player input. There's no player input at that point to regard or disregard.

Hold up just a minute there.

Oftentimes a DM finds herself prepping in direct response to player input. For example:

Players, collectively: "OK, Ms DM, we've decided that the Gnasty Forest holds no interest for our PCs; so instead we're going to sail across the Wherthehelarwe Sea on a trader ship and find adventure on the other side."
DM: "OK, cool! Buuuut, as I didn't expect anyone to go there so soon I haven't got any real notes at all about what lies across that sea and I ain't about to try dreaming up a whole new land right off the cuff. <roll roll roll> The voyage itself is uneventful and you get there in one piece after ten days at sea, but you'll have to leave it with me to figure out for next week just what it is you've got to."

Here, if the DM decides to just put the Gnasty Forest adventure on the other side of the sea such that the PCs will hit it regardless then IMO that's bad form no matter what capital-letter Term gets put to it.

Flip side: it's bad form on the players' part if at the start of the next session they inform the DM (who's spent the week designing whatever land lies across that sea) that they're not sailing across the sea after all but instead have decided to check out the Mountains of Stupendousness to the south.

 

[Maxperson]

Hold up just a minute there.

Oftentimes a DM finds herself prepping in direct response to player input. For example:

Players, collectively: "OK, Ms DM, we've decided that the Gnasty Forest holds no interest for our PCs; so instead we're going to sail across the Wherthehelarwe Sea on a trader ship and find adventure on the other side."
DM: "OK, cool! Buuuut, as I didn't expect anyone to go there so soon I haven't got any real notes at all about what lies across that sea and I ain't about to try dreaming up a whole new land right off the cuff. <roll roll roll> The voyage itself is uneventful and you get there in one piece after ten days at sea, but you'll have to leave it with me to figure out for next week just what it is you've got to."

Here, if the DM decides to just put the Gnasty Forest adventure on the other side of the sea such that the PCs will hit it regardless then IMO that's bad form no matter what capital-letter Term gets put to it.

Flip side: it's bad form on the players' part if at the start of the next session they inform the DM (who's spent the week designing whatever land lies across that sea) that they're not sailing across the sea after all but instead have decided to check out the Mountains of Stupendousness to the south.

That's true!

 

[pemerton]

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.

I can tell you my view on the imagined event that you describe, assuming that the gameplay is supposed to be standard map-and-key based dungeon crawling: it's a serious authorship/editing fail! It's not up there with a (hypothetical) error in Q1 which makes it ambiguous as to where Lolth is, or whether she has 66 or 666 hp. But it's a fail.

Given that, I read your question as: how do/should GMs deal with damage control and resultant fallout? My sense of things is that this was a vigorous topic of discussion back in the day (ie circa 1980). Related sorts of discussions include what to do if the players want their PCs to move down a corridor to a part of the dungeon that hasn't yet been mapped or keyed; or what to do if the players want their PCs to move through a recently-raided/looted part of the dungeon that the GM hasn't yet had a chance to restock.

My view is that the fairest and simplest solution to the problem you posit is to flip a coin. As you describe it, the players' choice seems pretty random, and so flipping a coin doesn't vitiate any choice they made and also precludes any GM bias.

For the sake of clarity: in a game that does not rely on map-and-key resolution (eg Prince Valiant; 4e D&D in some moods), or where the norms of play don't rely on players engaging stable, pre-authored-by-the-GM backstory, then the significance of what you describe is completely different (it might just be authorial/editorial economy) and my response would therefore be different also.

EDIT: And I move to the next page to find I've been ninja'd by @Ovinomancer. But I do take some reassurance from the fact that someone else applied the same analysis: we're talking about damage control in response to a mistake, and a coin toss seems the simplest and fairest way. I also agree with Ovinomancer that a GM who - in the moment - just opts for the ogre instead isn't doing anything wrong, although that may not be the best decision they could have made.

 

[pemerton]

Not, usually, in D&D; which is the main focus of discussion here despite your valiant (Valiant? ) attempts to bring in other systems.

I've repeatedly pointed to 4e D&D resolution of travel via skill challenge as an example of geography as colour.

There's also the different options and encounters that might occur depending on how the party choose to travel.

This rests on premises that aren't universally true. I have run AD&D in a style where this is not really important about 35 years ago. I have run 4e in a similar style, where the pacing of encounters is based on skill challenge results.

These are viable ways to play, including viable ways to play D&D, in which geography does not play the role it does in your play in (i) determining what encounters occur, and (ii) in determining what goals the PCs achieve. In which geography is colour, not the crux of choice and action resolution.