D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, but it is an actual interaction and not just passively watching one, which makes it more personal.

Perhaps. My issue here is the potential quality of the performance. If your portrayal of the teary-eyed king... designed to elicit a specific emotion... doesn't land... let's say it makes me chuckle... then the scene may actually be counter productive.

What other way? By narrating the situation dramatically? But the same objection can be raised, the average GM is not a professional author or narrator either. Ultimately you somehow need to get the players emotionally invested to the situation and actual roleplay with NPCs is probably the best way to do so.

The immediacy of the task at hand is important to me. Remember, we're talking about a situation where the GM has a prepped adventure ready. If that's the case, why dilly dally? Jump to the beginning of the actual adventure. Put the characters in some kind of situation that demands action.

To me, that's far more valuable than trying to elicit specific emotions via NPC portrayal.

Eh, that is rather fraught. You can do flashbacks sometimes, but I don't think it is good idea to retroactively change how the characters have felt about the situation whole time. It is very bad for immersion.

You can do flashbacks whenever you like. It need not retroactively change anything. You could, for instance, bring up the teary-eyed king after the first encounter, as the PCs may be taking a moment to gather themselves. Pick one of the PCs and bring up the teary-eyed king and ask them how they felt about that. This way, you're still offering these details, but you're also allowing the player to tell you how their character feels about it. It doesn't rely on eliciting sympathy or any other specific response. Different characters may have different motives for getting involved... designing a scene to try and garner sympathy seems to me to assume one motive.

And it can be done quickly, and after other elements have been established. There's no need for a drawn-out interaction. The players will already be engaged, and know where this leads them to, but then they may have an opportunity to offer some insight to their character.

I'm not saying that NPC portrayal cannot be a useful tool or that it has no place. We were talking specifically about the beginning of play and how to avoid players dicking about until they "bite the hook". My point is that why bother with the bait and hook? Just jump to the start. You can always flesh things out as you go, if needed.

As for what's bad for immersion, that's subjective. I could say that watching a DM act out a crying king is bad for my immersion because I just want to get to the game, not watch him act.

 

[pemerton]

It’s likely less effective because the average GM isn’t a highly skilled actor or author. Your portrayal of a teary-eyed king isn’t going to do the heavy lifting that a professional portrayal will do. That’s why I would personally get to the point, and try to establish the stakes in another way.

My issue here is the potential quality of the performance. If your portrayal of the teary-eyed king... designed to elicit a specific emotion... doesn't land... let's say it makes me chuckle... then the scene may actually be counter productive.

There can also be more to it than the quality of performance.

When watching a film or a theatrical performance, I don't have the opportunity to intervene and diffuse whatever tension might be rising. The performance may generate pathos, or may incline towards bathos, but either way I have to sit there and let it wash over me. Whereas, in a RPG, I am a participant, not just an audience member. I can intervene to defuse, or affect in some other way, a performance that is making me feel uncomfortable. That sort of intervention can take the form of declaring an action for my character, but it can also take the form of a direct interjection into the social (real world, OOC) situation at the table.

And even if a performance is not feeling me uncomfortable, as a participant I can make those sorts of interventions, and thus change the meaning of what is going on. Only in very GM-directed play am I, as a player, obliged to sit at the table like an audience member and accept the GM's performance on its own terms.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps. My issue here is the potential quality of the performance. If your portrayal of the teary-eyed king... designed to elicit a specific emotion... doesn't land... let's say it makes me chuckle... then the scene may actually be counter productive.

Well, if the situation is that dire then the GM certainly needs all practice they can get and they should do more of such scenes!

The immediacy of the task at hand is important to me. Remember, we're talking about a situation where the GM has a prepped adventure ready. If that's the case, why dilly dally? Jump to the beginning of the actual adventure. Put the characters in some kind of situation that demands action.

To give context to why we are even doing this at all! Action without reason seems narratively rather pointless to me.

To me, that's far more valuable than trying to elicit specific emotions via NPC portrayal.

Not specific emotion. Some emotion. Perhaps the character ends up thinking that the king is a pathetic fool, and they need to rescue the princess from the dragon to make sure that that the leadership of the realm will be in better hands. Perhaps they pity the king and they wish to save his beloved daughter. And yeah, if it turn out that none of the characters care about the king or the princess, then we probably should not next play and adventure about rescuing said princess!

You can do flashbacks whenever you like. It need not retroactively change anything. You could, for instance, bring up the teary-eyed king after the first encounter, as the PCs may be taking a moment to gather themselves.

I mean it changes how they felt before the flashback occurred. Granted, if it is just after the first action sequence it is unlikely matter terribly much.

Pick one of the PCs and bring up the teary-eyed king and ask them how they felt about that. This way, you're still offering these details, but you're also allowing the player to tell you how their character feels about it. It doesn't rely on eliciting sympathy or any other specific response. Different characters may have different motives for getting involved... designing a scene to try and garner sympathy seems to me to assume one motive.

This just seems like a way worse way of doing the same thing. Why not just actually play the bloody scene properly, and then the players will naturally come to know how their characters feel a bout it? Why are we creating this needless distance and hashing this out from some writers' room, instead of getting into the heads of the characters and letting them experience the thing?

And it can be done quickly, and after other elements have been established. There's no need for a drawn-out interaction. The players will already be engaged, and know where this leads them to, but then they may have an opportunity to offer some insight to their character.

I'm not saying that NPC portrayal cannot be a useful tool or that it has no place. We were talking specifically about the beginning of play and how to avoid players dicking about until they "bite the hook". My point is that why bother with the bait and hook? Just jump to the start. You can always flesh things out as you go, if needed.

As for what's bad for immersion, that's subjective. I could say that watching a DM act out a crying king is bad for my immersion because I just want to get to the game, not watch him act.

That is the game! Interacting with NPCs, roleplaying the reactions, decisions and speech of your character, immersing to their headspace, feeling their feelings, is why I play these games. Why you want to skip the actual good stuff?

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is the game! Interacting with NPCs, roleplaying the reactions, feelings and speech of your character, immersing to their headspace, feeling their feelings, is why I play these games. Why you want to skip the actual good stuff?

I'd suggest that its because in their view, either it isn't the biggest part of the game to them or it often isn't all that "good".

 

[hawkeyefan]

There can also be more to it than the quality of performance.

When watching a film or a theatrical performance, I don't have the opportunity to intervene and diffuse whatever tension might be rising. The performance may generate pathos, or may incline towards bathos, but either way I have to sit there and let it wash over me. Whereas, in a RPG, I am a participant, not just an audience member. I can intervene to defuse, or affect in some other way, a performance that is making me feel uncomfortable. That sort of intervention can take the form of declaring an action for my character, but it can also take the form of a direct interjection into the social (real world, OOC) situation at the table.

And even if a performance is not feeling me uncomfortable, as a participant I can make those sorts of interventions, and thus change the meaning of what is going on. Only in very GM-directed play am I, as a player, obliged to sit at the table like an audience member and accept the GM's performance on its own terms.

Yeah, absolutely. This is the kind of thing that folks tend to complain about a lot in threads on these topics… where “players aren’t engaging”, or they’re not “buying in” or “taking the hook”.

Why leave it up to doubt? If the plan is to explore the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, then let’s get to it. Most players will typically accept this premise and just build from there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, if the situation is that dire then the GM certainly needs all practice they can get and they should do more of such scenes!

No, I disagree. If a GM is a good enough actor to actually evoke emotion in players that regularly and strongly, then sure, they should continue to do it.

If they’re not… and my guess is that the vast majority are not… then they should not expand an area of the role they’re not strong at. They should focus on their strengths.

To give context to why we are even doing this at all! Action without reason seems narratively rather pointless to me.

Who said anything about action without reason?

The reason can be summed up in a sentence. It doesn’t need to be backed by a performance.

Not specific emotion. Some emotion. Perhaps the character ends up thinking that the king is a pathetic fool, and they need to rescue the princess from the dragon to make sure that that the leadership of the realm will be in better hands. Perhaps they pity the king and they wish to save his beloved daughter. And yeah, if it turn out that none of the characters care about the king or the princess, then we probably should not next play and adventure about rescuing said princess!

Right. So then, if this is what the DM has prepared… what does he do if the players somehow shoot the idea down?

You may say “anything else” and that might work for you or for me, but it’s not gonna work for everyone. Again, we were talking about a game with a prepared adventure that is the expected focus of play.

I mean it changes how they felt before the flashback occurred. Granted, if it is just after the first action sequence it is unlikely matter terribly much.

I don’t see how. Most likely that hasn’t actually been established already. If it has, you simply include that in the flashback.

This just seems like a way worse way of doing the same thing. Why not just actually play the bloody scene properly, and then the players will naturally come to know how their characters feel a bout it? Why are we creating this needless distance and hashing this out from some writers' room, instead of getting into the heads of the characters and letting them experience the thing?

What’s “properly” mean in this context? I’m offering my preference and explaining why I hold it, but Imm not presenting it as the “proper way” to do it.

That is the game! Interacting with NPCs, roleplaying the reactions, decisions and speech of your character, immersing to their headspace, feeling their feelings, is why I play these games. Why you want to skip the actual good stuff?

Because I expect performance is less of an important factor for me than it is for you. I don’t think the game is enhanced all that much by having a drawn out interaction just for us to wind up exactly where we would without it.

If my GM was Edward Norton or Daniel Day Lewis, I’d probably be more willing to let them put on a show. But when it’s my old buddy Joe? Set the scene and let’s go, buddy.

 

[Scott Christian]

Pulling out degenerate cases is a popular habit when attempting to attack some other approach or position, and its not surprising coming from that poster.

Full disclosure: I have not read the posts after mine. I have been very busy.

But the point of my post was not to attack the poster. His points afterwards I considered valid for his playstyle. The point was to say:

That type of railroading rarely exists. And when it does - it is an outlier.

 

[Scott Christian]

Does "thespian" play require...well, for lack of a better term, "theatrical" acting? Because I don't see these benefits as confined solely to folks I would consider engaging in "thespian" play. E.g. I can see pawn-stance groups still preferring this approach over the immediate "you are at the dungeon" start, because it's a lower-stakes environment, yet it encourages the kind of question-asking that the rest of the game will warrant, because the player can directly imagine a person they're asking questions of.

I don't think it requires acting, but it does require playing in character; acting as your character or describing your character and their participation in the event.

 

[Scott Christian]

The only meeting in an inn, in LotR, is Strider meeting the Hobbits. And that is not a "quest-giver" looking for doughty adventurers.

The Hobbits are already well-known to one another, and friends/relatives/staff. Gandalf is well-known to them. And they meet Gimli, Legolas and Boromir at the Council of Elrond.

Why would all inns that have a quest start have to be in the exact same context as LotR? There are hundreds of different variations - which is of course the road of fantasy and fiction; variations on the same road travelled.