D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[kermit4karate]

I don't have a lot of tolerance for illusionism either. For one thing, I don't like it as a player and I always strive hard to be the GM I would want to have as a player.

But take a figure like Seth Skorkowsky whose work I admire and in whose discussions about prep I see someone who has very similar aesthetics to my own and who doesn't in the slightest have that "I can improvise!" arrogance that has come to have a really bad taste in my mouth. This is a guy who is seriously talent and seriously experienced and he never is like, "I can just wing the game." He often has to improvise, but he's doing it in the context of someone who has prepared really hard for play. In short, I have a lot of reasons to trust his judgement based on the fact he seems to be a really good GM producing the sort of games that I also strive to produce.

And yet he's very open about the fact that he sometimes has to use illusionism and railroading techniques to make the game fun, and he's out putting this out there saying, "And at this point I had to use some GM force to make the situation better than I had prepared for or deal with some situation I hadn't prepared for, or just coral my confused players back toward the fun", and he's got players. Players that seem to very much enjoy what he does for very obvious reasons. And I to find myself in situations where I'm like, "Is it really better to not introduce a fortunate coincidence here?" or "Is it really better to not just pretend this monster has 20 hit points less than what I wrote down?" or what have you because I'm not perfect and sometimes it's best to just take that hit and reconfigure on the fly.

Interesting comment.

In my case, I have deep, core belief aversions to cowardice and hypocrisy. I have zero problem admitting that I railroad and that I use illusionism, or "DM magic," or whatever we call it, to keep a good game going. I'm not going to pretend I don't use them, and I have no shame about it either.

I take my job as Dungeon Master seriously, and I don't care how someone else defines the job or the role. I only care about how I define it. My role as DM is to make sure the people who play with me come away from each game feeling good, maybe even better about life than they felt before. I'm Dr. Feelgood.

I don't owe anything to gaming or Gary Gygax or the game designers, literature or the "larger RPG community." I don't owe poo niblets to anyone other than the people who play with me, so if they're happy, I'm happy with myself.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet he's very open about the fact that he sometimes has to use illusionism and railroading techniques to make the game fun, and he's out putting this out there saying, "And at this point I had to use some GM force to make the situation better than I had prepared for or deal with some situation I hadn't prepared for, or just coral my confused players back toward the fun", and he's got players. Players that seem to very much enjoy what he does for very obvious reasons. And I to find myself in situations where I'm like, "Is it really better to not introduce a fortunate coincidence here?" or "Is it really better to not just pretend this monster has 20 hit points less than what I wrote down?" or what have you because I'm not perfect and sometimes it's best to just take that hit and reconfigure on the fly.

There can be some minor cases here where if you know your players right a bit of no-foul slight-of-hand is okay--but you'd better know them well (and by that I mean better than I suspect most GMs do), because illusionism is one of those things that if people care about it at all, one failed attempt at it can wreck your ability to ever run a game well for that person again, and depending on the dynamic of the group.

My own feeling is its, at best, never worth the risk. My own feeling these days is in your latter example is "You know, I overtuned this, let me fix it" is the better way to go. Maybe that breaks some people's immersion to say that, but I think that's far less likely to have ongoing consequences than for someone to think you're running the game straight when you're palming the cards sometimes. And to be clear, I used to feel otherwise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Interesting comment.

In my case, I have deep, core belief aversions to cowardice and hypocrisy. I have zero problem admitting that I railroad and that I use illusionism, or "DM magic," or whatever we call it, to keep a good game going. I'm not going to pretend I don't use them, and I have no shame about it either.

Ironically, I think if you're up-front about using illusionism with your gaming group, that's fine; then they can either tell you that's not what they want to happen or take a walk or whatever upfront, too.

But a lot of GMs don't want to, well, break the illusion, and want to act like they're playing straight and then not doing it when its inconvenient. And you'll see lots of them who say "My players will never know" who are being pretty bloody optimistic about the perceptive ability of players.

 

[kermit4karate]

Ironically, I think if you're up-front about using illusionism with your gaming group, that's fine; then they can either tell you that's not what they want to happen or take a walk or whatever upfront, too.

But a lot of GMs don't want to, well, break the illusion, and want to act like they're playing straight and then not doing it when its inconvenient. And you'll see lots of them who say "My players will never know" who are being pretty bloody optimistic about the perceptive ability of players.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I don't reveal all my cards (dice) at the table either. I do literally pretend sometimes if I feel it's for the greater good.

If we only have 30 minutes left to play before the Cleric has to go home, I might use a little DM magic to disable that last trap in the final antechamber and turn the last secret door into an open archway, etc.

I definitely do pretend and fake rolls from time to time, revise or eliminate encounters, manifest helpful NPCs out of thin air, all kinds of things in the game, and there are never any terrible consequences or rifts in space-time from it.

Maybe the difference is motive. I do it to help my players along, like a Hand of God type thing. I don't feel the players need to know how they miraculously survived the last encounter.

Yes, I just compared myself to a god, lol. But seriously, I don't do it for nefarious reasons or to kill an unruly character.

 

[bloodtide]

If we only have 30 minutes left to play before the Cleric has to go home, I might use a little DM magic to disable that last trap in the final antechamber and turn the last secret door into an open archway, etc.

Many DMs would agree with you and do such things.

Though many of people will say it is wrong for a DM to do anything ever, even for a good reason.

I definitely do pretend and fake rolls from time to time, revise or eliminate encounters, manifest helpful NPCs out of thin air, all kinds of things in the game, and there are never any terrible consequences or rifts in space-time from it.

Most DMs do too.

Maybe the difference is motive. I do it to help my players along, like a Hand of God type thing. I don't feel the players need to know how they miraculously survived the last encounter.

For a lot of players it is how they "feel".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not speaking for anyone else, but I don't reveal all my cards (dice) at the table either. I do literally pretend sometimes if I feel it's for the greater good.

Not a good policy in general IMO, but again, if the players know you do it in general, its not playing bait and switch.

Maybe the difference is motive. I do it to help my players along, like a Hand of God type thing. I don't feel the players need to know how they miraculously survived the last encounter.

No. A lot of people do illusionism thinking it'll be "better" for the game. The difference is whether the players buy into it (to make it clear, I'm talking in general here, not in the individual cases) or the GM just tries to keep them in the dark that its their habit.

Yes, I just compared myself to a god, lol. But seriously, I don't do it for nefarious reasons or to kill an unruly character.

Not necessarily at all relevant. There are plenty of people who don't like it even for their own benefit.

 

[kermit4karate]

Not a good policy in general IMO, but again, if the players know you do it in general, its not playing bait and switch.



No. A lot of people do illusionism thinking it'll be "better" for the game. The difference is whether the players buy into it (to make it clear, I'm talking in general here, not in the individual cases) or the GM just tries to keep them in the dark that its their habit.



Not necessarily at all relevant. There are plenty of people who don't like it even for their own benefit.

Fair points. Gotta say...I could never play with or DM for a player who insists on a literal interpretation of the rules. Could not tolerate it, so I guess the feeling would be mutual.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Not necessarily at all relevant. There are plenty of people who don't like it even for their own benefit.

Yeah, count me in that group. Play it straight, that's the point of having rules. If it was any other game, not following rules is considered cheating. Why is it that it's okay to cheat when playing a TTRPG? Also, how come it's okay for the GM to cheat but not the players? If it's okay for the GM to fudge stuff, then it should be okay for players to do it too!

 

[zarionofarabel]

Fair points. Gotta say...I could never play with or DM for a player who insists on a literal interpretation of the rules. Could not tolerate it, so I guess the feeling would be mutual.

I steadfastly refuse to play with GMs that don't roll in the open because I know that they will fudge rolls. If the GM manipulates rolls to get the outcome they want, then my agency as a player is either severely reduced or non-existent. No point in being a player in a game if my choices are meaningless. I have no interest in being a puppet in someone else's story. I want my PC to be the star of the show. If the star of the show is the GM's plotline, count me out.

 

[kermit4karate]

I steadfastly refuse to play with GMs that don't roll in the open because I know that they will fudge rolls. If the GM manipulates rolls to get the outcome they want, then my agency as a player is either severely reduced or non-existent. No point in being a player in a game if my choices are meaningless. I have no interest in being a puppet in someone else's story. I want my PC to be the star of the show. If the star of the show is the GM's plotline, count me out.

Understood. Likewise I don't think we'd have a good time together. I try to always use this same kermit avatar wherever I go, so you should be able to recognize me and can nope away.