D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Metagaming isn't good or bad, to me it's just stating a preference on how the game works.

I'm not even sure what other word we would use. If the player is using knowledge their character doesn't have, that's perfectly normal at some tables and not others. To a certain degree if you've played long enough it's pretty much inevitable at least to a certain degree. Yo can't unlearn that it takes fire to kill a troll in D&D, even if you can try to react as if your character doesn't know.

Then there's the non-diegetic systems that some games use. Where you can gain karma or doom points to alter or declare some change to the world's fiction. I'd even argue that many forms of fail forward that I've read fall under this category.

It's preference whether you want to use these categories I consider metagaming, but I don't know what other label we'd apply.

 

[AlViking]

IMO. One reason power gaming could be reclaimed (not sure it ever actually needed reclaiming in the first place as it was often seen as a virtue depending on your social circle), but assuming it was reclaimed is because there were other words to describe the negative aspects that were sometimes coupled with a neutral meaning of power gaming.

If we take railroad to be the neutral term and equivalent to linear there’s suddenly no word left to describe certain negative aspects sometimes coupled with linear play.

I don't know that I ever considered power gaming all that bad until it got to the point of borderline cheating. Those people? We called them munchkin gamers.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here’s a fun question. Is illusionism inherently bad? I don’t think so. I think it’s possible for players to voluntarily sign up for some occasional illusionism as a preferred method for keeping a linear campaign moving forward. Likely preferred by some players to more overt or metagame channels to keep them on the path. IMO the moment illusionism becomes bad is when the player doesn’t consent to it.

 

[clearstream]

Same reason why anyone would argue against anyone else's application of a term, when the user believes they're correct: because the person arguing against it believes they aren't.

Sure, and then folk can get into why they think so.

If a poster criticises some play as "linear" and means that it incorporates "illusionism" and "GM-force", I'm not going to pick up on that. I'll default to assuming healthy linear (or branchingly) linear play.

I was responding to others who had asserted that "railroading" is always deceptive. I don't think that's true. I think it can exist without deception. Hence, my three-way categorization: linearity, when it's all above board and everyone knows what's up; inflexibility, when it's all tacit hope that things will go with the flow; and illusionism, when it's outright deceptive. I presented why I thought someone might confuse mere inflexibility with outright illusionism.

I agree with you that railroading is defined by multiple negative qualities, not all of which need to be in place.

I was also responding to an assertion that railroading can only exist if someone "pushes" against its boundaries--you can't find out you're on rails unless you try to go off of them. That implies more...active intentionality than I think is required. "Testing" the rails can be something as small as roleplaying in a way that doesn't conform, and thus generates a big ol' hoopla despite being seemingly unimportant. Or it could be a particular beat being especially jarring despite not being something the players actively resisted; a ham-fisted transition, for example, could make it clear that important things are being skipped or ignored or downplayed so that the one correct result can play out. Analogically: a poorly-designed roller coaster can fail to hold the cars to the tracks, if the designers put in a turn too sharp for the cars to actually follow. Thats obviously quite rare, train derailments of any kind are rare, but they can happen even without the party actively doing much if anything.

I'm not sure... yet to see compelling arguments either way. Semantically I agree with @FrogReaver... how am I forced to do that which I freely volunteer to do? Illusionism confounds that: I may freely volunteer to do X but it turns out we are really doing Y. Hence my question upthread seeking a non-tautological criticism of deception that doesn't amount to criticising failure to sustain it.

 

[clearstream]

Metagaming isn't good or bad, to me it's just stating a preference on how the game works.

To me "metagaming" ought to mean something like "across games" so metagame strategizing takes into account what has been learned across games. It's objectively neutral, but often, from within the magic circle of this game locally negative. One example is kingmaking in response to a backstab in a boardgame like Diplomacy: it's oriented to being winningest across games but frequently raises ire in this game.

Folk speak about metagame mechanics and currencies, and to me those misapply "metagame". I suspect that's just a result of an insufficiently developed lexicon. Meta-mechanics would apply across mechanics. Rules like "specific trumps general" are meta-rules. A metagame currency would be one that was portable from one game into another! Whilst a meta-currency would be one that is fungible across currencies within this game.

Still, meanings drift and "metagame" has gained some inertia.

I'm not even sure what other word we would use. If the player is using knowledge their character doesn't have, that's perfectly normal at some tables and not others. To a certain degree if you've played long enough it's pretty much inevitable at least to a certain degree. Yo can't unlearn that it takes fire to kill a troll in D&D, even if you can try to react as if your character doesn't know.

Then there's the non-diegetic systems that some games use. Where you can gain karma or doom points to alter or declare some change to the world's fiction. I'd even argue that many forms of fail forward that I've read fall under this category.

It's preference whether you want to use these categories I consider metagaming, but I don't know what other label we'd apply.

Depending on whether TTRPG remains something done at any sort of significant cultural scale, more specificity may become essential as understanding improves.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, and then folk can get into why they think so.

If a poster criticises some play as "linear" and means that it incorporates "illusionism" and "GM-force", I'm not going to pick up on that. I'll default to assuming healthy linear (or branchingly) linear play.


I agree with you that railroading is defined by multiple negative qualities, not all of which need to be in place.


I'm not sure... yet to see compelling arguments either way. Semantically I agree with @FrogReaver... how am I forced to do that which I freely volunteer to do? Illusionism confounds that: I may freely volunteer to do X but it turns out we are really doing Y. Hence my question upthread seeking a non-tautological criticism of deception that doesn't amount to criticising failure to sustain it.

To me illusionism and consent would be navigated by a type of pre-consent as the nature of illusionism is that ideally you shouldn’t know which moments it’s occurring.

So there’s a few critical states, you either pre consented or not and orthogonally you either are aware it’s happening or not.

On the axis of consent, illusionism is bad for the obvious reasons if you don’t pre consent to it.

On the axis of awareness, your awareness it’s occurring at any particular moment is in some respects a failure of the dm to actually achieve the desired state of illusion. That is having the illusion broken may not be something you’ve consented to even if you’ve otherwise consented to illusionism.

Then there’s the nature of no consent but no awareness in the moment, which is quite the degenerate case in that if the illusion ever falters then it’s quite the offense.

My conclusion is that each group should be asked in advance how they want to proceed in the event a linear adventure is veering too far and too long off the linear path. I think illusionism is a valid option there and for me may even be the best. This to me seems to thread the needle between the competing concerns.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, and then folk can get into why they think so.

If a poster criticises some play as "linear" and means that it incorporates "illusionism" and "GM-force", I'm not going to pick up on that. I'll default to assuming healthy linear (or branchingly) linear play.


I agree with you that railroading is defined by multiple negative qualities, not all of which need to be in place.


I'm not sure... yet to see compelling arguments either way. Semantically I agree with @FrogReaver... how am I forced to do that which I freely volunteer to do? Illusionism confounds that: I may freely volunteer to do X but it turns out we are really doing Y. Hence my question upthread seeking a non-tautological criticism of deception that doesn't amount to criticising failure to sustain it.

Oh, if you want a non-tautological criticism of deception, I've had one for years.

Learning to play the game.

In order to learn to play the game, you have to be able to correctly understand how your actions were the thing that caused particular good/bad effects. Your choice needs to be the overwhelmingly most important factor in the result, otherwise, your learning is inherently invalid. Now, one of the things you need to learn if playing D&D is that probability matters, and thus that reducing the chance that your actions fail by random chance is extremely important. Even outside of explicit mechanics, developing the ability to make wiser, better choices is very much one of the skills needed for becoming better at playing the "game" part of RPG.

Deception breaks this connection. Illusionism within combat makes it impossible for you to actually learn how your choices produce results in the world, because, by definition, they don't. The GM is the cause of everything. They just elect to do the rule-appropriate thing most of the time--but can and will elect to do whatever else, whenever they think it's warranted, and will make sure you can't know. Illusionism in non-mechanical portions has the same effect, just for different reasons: since whatever you choose, the same result happens, the vast majority of the conclusions you draw from the events you've experienced will be simply wrong. The player's perspective necessarily differs from the GM's, that is after all the point of illusionism, and thus that essential connection between choice and result is disrupted.

When you cannot even in principle validly conclude that your actions resulted in a given effect, you can't learn. Being able to make reasonably informed decisions--which includes sometimes making mistakes, or acting rashly, or failing to account for probability--is essential for there to be a game.

Or, if you like, answer a question: If players feel betrayed when they find out they've been deceived, even if they never actually tested the boundaries of their invisible rails, doesn't that still make it a betrayal even if they don't discover it?

If a group of friends plays poker, and one of them has cheated continuously for years but always carefully avoided getting caught, does that suddenly make it not wrong? If a man cheats on his wife for most of their marriage, but the wife never suspects a thing and dies without knowing, does that make his cheating morally okay? If a teacher intentionally teaches someone wrong, but the student never actually finds out that their "teacher" deceived them, does that mean the teacher didn't do something wrong? Etc.

"It's only wrong if you get caught" has never been a valid argument.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Metagame is an interesting one.
I'm for metagaming where I deliberately make the mechanics player-facing as the the knowledge gained from those mechanics would be known by the characters and it is easier to relay that information via mechanics. It makes for better decision-making, and highlights immediately to the players that their decisions matter.
I've discovered over the years there are times where having the meta out in the open is just better enjoyment-wise for the table, instead of me playing solitaire behind the screen.
Also maybe not exactly metagaming, but when one PC is given a puzzle/riddle/mystery to solve while they are on their own and their character's INT in high, I generally allow one other player to assist them for every odd number above 11.

There are times ofc where I prefer not to give all the information to the players, as the decision being made requires a moment of truth, part of the crucible moment re the character's ideals and bonds and for that I do not wish the metagame to play a role in the player's decision.
I think it could spoil the enjoyment.

So I still have secret backstory.
i.e. As per my post upthread, the party could have rescued Drizzt in the Underdark had they chosen to continue with that quest. Now they are unaware of that missed possibility, at least for now.
The quest they're currently on though allows them to be present when King Hekaton, the Storm King, is betrayed by one of his own. You win some - you lose some.
The player that decided to have his character seed a tiefling as part of his debt within a Devil's Contract is unknowing that the tiefling was indeed a shape-shifting succubus. He did though discover there was a sense of famliarity between her mind and the Devil he made the pact with when he did a surface-level Detect Thoughts, but he thought not much of it at the time. I also hinted a sense of assertiveness with her but he put that down to her courtesan experience.

 

[clearstream]

Oh, if you want a non-tautological criticism of deception, I've had one for years.

Learning to play the game.

In order to learn to play the game, you have to be able to correctly understand how your actions were the thing that caused particular good/bad effects. Your choice needs to be the overwhelmingly most important factor in the result, otherwise, your learning is inherently invalid. Now, one of the things you need to learn if playing D&D is that probability matters, and thus that reducing the chance that your actions fail by random chance is extremely important. Even outside of explicit mechanics, developing the ability to make wiser, better choices is very much one of the skills needed for becoming better at playing the "game" part of RPG.

Deception breaks this connection. Illusionism within combat makes it impossible for you to actually learn how your choices produce results in the world, because, by definition, they don't. The GM is the cause of everything. They just elect to do the rule-appropriate thing most of the time--but can and will elect to do whatever else, whenever they think it's warranted, and will make sure you can't know. Illusionism in non-mechanical portions has the same effect, just for different reasons: since whatever you choose, the same result happens, the vast majority of the conclusions you draw from the events you've experienced will be simply wrong. The player's perspective necessarily differs from the GM's, that is after all the point of illusionism, and thus that essential connection between choice and result is disrupted.

When you cannot even in principle validly conclude that your actions resulted in a given effect, you can't learn. Being able to make reasonably informed decisions--which includes sometimes making mistakes, or acting rashly, or failing to account for probability--is essential for there to be a game.

That seems reasonable to me. From the point of view of "let's pretend, with rules" the second part cannot be engaged with in a gameful fashion if it is concealed and misrepresented. What happens when the focus of play isn't engaging with it in a gameful fashion, but rather playful? I'm thinking of the difference between Caillois' paidia and ludus. Another axis to consider is the difference between prioritising engagement with story in engagement in game. I suppose these would be some of the sorts of motives players might have for choosing as @FrogReaver proposes.

Or, if you like, answer a question: If players feel betrayed when they find out they've been deceived, even if they never actually tested the boundaries of their invisible rails, doesn't that still make it a betrayal even if they don't discover it?


If a group of friends plays poker, and one of them has cheated continuously for years but always carefully avoided getting caught, does that suddenly make it not wrong? If a man cheats on his wife for most of their marriage, but the wife never suspects a thing and dies without knowing, does that make his cheating morally okay? If a teacher intentionally teaches someone wrong, but the student never actually finds out that their "teacher" deceived them, does that mean the teacher didn't do something wrong? Etc.

"It's only wrong if you get caught" has never been a valid argument.

While I agree that there are moral concerns around deception, my interest is in specifically how it affects play. One feature of the "magic circle" is the suspension of normal morality, from the distance of let's pretend. This is not a perfect safety -- not a shield against bleed into normal life -- especially as I picture player as having one foot in and one not-in the circle at all times. However, it must accomodate complex intentions such as irony, parody, and investigation.

Is that the direction of your worry here? That what is done in play or for the sake of play would have moral ramifications outside it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nor would I. But it's not a specific campaign with a beginning, end, and points along the way. More like, but not the same as, what @Lanefan does in my estimation.

I think the thing that makes Lanefan's campaign a notable outlier is not being a sandbox, but the length-of-run.