D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

I agree 100% - until something is encountered by the players - it can be changed. That said, I likely would not change something based on a player idea like that - seems a bit too reactionary (not sure that's the right word there).

I will say, this is FAR from universal. There was a discussion a while back and there were some VERY strong opinions that once it's written down, even if not encountered by the players, - cannon (surprised me a bit, but it was not a lone opinion).

That was in one of the sandbox discussions, wasn't it?

 

[iserith]

While I agree it is acceptable within the appropriate context, the term "force" is loaded with a negative connotation. But the inherent badwrongness of force is a cultural phenomenon in the same way that the discussion of "authority" at the game table leaves most gamers feeling "icky." But the application of force and assertion of authority are neutral at worst; it matters entirely their implementation and the ends to which they are implemented.

Ultimately, this is what that terminology sounds like to some people:

"Your baby is ugly. But there's really no problem with having an ugly baby in certain contexts."

And I'm pretty sure that people using this terminology know that's how it is commonly received - it's obvious in the replies they are getting - and persist anyway.

 

[Mort]

That was in one of the sandbox discussions, wasn't it?

Think so, may have to look it up now.

 

[Maxperson]

That's cool. My preferences run the other way: I'd be disappointed if the DM didn't change things in order to run with a new, more-exciting idea, and instead insisted on running things with the less-exciting original solution.

My point is that getting it wrong is also very exciting. Once you know that you messed up, how do you fix it? Can it be even fixed, or is patching the country the best you can the only way to proceed? It opens up whole new avenues that were not there prior.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that you shouldn't prefer a change. Just pointing out another perspective to that situation.

 

[Maxperson]

EXACTLY. And in addition to the "less-exciting" drawback (which is fundamental), the original has the major drawback of being LESS player-centric, since it probably came only from the DM's pre-planning and plotting, whereas the new, improved solution is actually the consequence of the player's actions, plotting and collaboration.

How can such a new solution not be BETTER for the game ? This is where putting constraints on your DMing for theoretical reasons HAMPERS your capability to run a better game, if player fun is what you have in mind.

You do realize that literally everything there is subjective, right? What you are suggesting can be both less exciting and much worse for the game, depending on who is playing.

 

[Xetheral]

If I am playing a game to solve mysteries having that mystery be a façade makes the game less fun for me. If my skill at playing the game is not determinative then I cannot evaluate when I have made poor decisions. If I cannot determine when I have made poor decisions I cannot endeavor to make better ones. I therefore cannot improve in skill and see better results. Therefore I am not having fun.

If I know it's all a sham (like professional wrestling) then I can just play into it. I can stop worrying about trying to solve the mystery and just have my character do interesting things in pursuit of the mystery. I can have fun.

If sometimes the mystery is real and sometimes it is not then it's just a terrible experience because I do not know what skilled play even looks like. The only way I even know how to engage is just assume it's always a sham. That's pretty much what I do in most of the more linear games I have played in. I stop trying to play them well.

I'm with @prabe on this point. How do you get better at solving mysteries when your deductive skills are better than the DM's ability to make sure that the evidence points most strongly towards their intended solution?

As a DM who runs improv-heavy sandboxes, I encounter this issue a lot. I've been in situations where I'm running murder mysteries off the cuff, and leaving clues before I've even had a chance to decide how they all fit together. Usually I come up with the best solution before my players do, but sometimes they see an implication of a clue that I missed, so I run with that instead. Their ability to be skilled sleuths absolutely still matters, because the "correct" solution is going to be the one that best fits the evidence (regardless of whether I came up with it first or the players found it before I came up with it).

If skilled play is your focus, I don't see how the DM always sticking with the pre-planned option furthers your goal, unless the pre-planned option is always the one best-supported by the evidence. I know I can't guarantee that condition will be met as a DM, even when I'm not improvising.

 

[Lyxen]

You do realize that literally everything there is subjective, right? What you are suggesting can be both less exciting and much worse for the game, depending on who is playing.

I completely, 100% agree. As I told @EzekielRaiden, I think I totally get the kind of game he is playing (probably a variant of CaS), and in this case, I totally and fully support his way of prepping and running the game, no worries.

The only thing that I've been battling for is the fact that it's not inferior, nasty, bad, whatever to use different principles for running the game and to use "devious" methods if you have a different audience and a different aim in mind (fun instead of "fairness for fun" if you will).

I will even go as far as to say that although these are just tools, they are more dangerous tools than simply running straightforward games with constraints. If a DM is not well-intentioned (never met one, but some people on these forums insist that they exist) and uses them, I agree that it's worse than if he was not using them, as they are inherently devious.

And I will finally temper this by saying that it's not an unforgivable crime if a DM uses them "off-key" (rather than with nasty intentions, again, never met one), because for me it's the mark of a DM who needs help, who is in over his head, and who needs understanding from his players rather than having a door slammed in his face.

Are we good ?

 

[prabe]

I'm with @prabe on this point. How do you get better at solving mysteries when your deductive skills are better than the DM's ability to make sure that the evidence points most strongly towards their intended solution?

As a DM who runs improv-heavy sandboxes, I encounter this issue a lot. I've been in situations where I'm running murder mysteries off the cuff, and leaving clues before I've even had a chance to decide how they all fit together. Usually I come up with the best solution before my players do, but sometimes they see an implication of a clue that I missed, so I run with that instead. Their ability to be skilled sleuths absolutely still matters, because the "correct" solution is going to be the one that best fits the evidence (regardless of whether I came up with it first or the players found it before I came up with it).

If skilled play is your focus, I don't see how the DM always sticking with the pre-planned option furthers your goal, unless the pre-planned option is always the one best-supported by the evidence. I know I can't guarantee that condition will be met as a DM, even when I'm not improvising.

I think @Campbell is saying that if he's supposed to solve a mystery, he should be able to get it wrong, even if he's better at it than the GM. There seems to be an implication that the mystery should be something objective for the player to find. That the goal of solving a mystery is different from the goal of creating a solution to a mystery, and Campbell doesn't like when the goal shifts from one thing to another in play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I am playing a game to solve mysteries having that mystery be a façade makes the game less fun for me. If my skill at playing the game is not determinative then I cannot evaluate when I have made poor decisions. If I cannot determine when I have made poor decisions I cannot endeavor to make better ones. I therefore cannot improve in skill and see better results. Therefore I am not having fun.

If I know it's all a sham (like professional wrestling) then I can just play into it. I can stop worrying about trying to solve the mystery and just have my character do interesting things in pursuit of the mystery. I can have fun.

If sometimes the mystery is real and sometimes it is not then it's just a terrible experience because I do not know what skilled play even looks like. The only way I even know how to engage is just assume it's always a sham. That's pretty much what I do in most of the more linear games I have played in. I stop trying to play them well.

I have pretty much opposite opinion on this. I don't care what's going on behind the curtains and I don't even want to know. Did I experience a thrilling mystery, did it feel like I cleverly solved it? If yes, then great, I don't care how it was achieved.

 

[Campbell]

I think @Campbell is saying that if he's supposed to solve a mystery, he should be able to get it wrong, even if he's better at it than the GM. There seems to be an implication that the mystery should be something objective for the player to find. That the goal of solving a mystery is different from the goal of creating a solution to a mystery, and Campbell doesn't like when the goal shifts from one thing to another in play.

Totally this. If the point of play is to solve the mystery. Sometimes (like in games like Apocalypse Keys) you might be solving a mystery in the fiction, but both the players and the GM know it's the other stuff surrounding it that is actually important. A lot of the games I play are like this. That's awesome too. It's when I'm confused about what we are doing.