Quote from: RedFoxNot at all.  Railroading is obstructing player choice.  Illusionism is presenting the illusion of choice.

What's that old saying? "In the land of the blind, the guy with sight that had Blindness cast on him by an illusionist still can't see shit."

Or something like that.

QuoteBut then you get "why is my character here?" and "what's my motivation for the scene?"

GM: "You tell me."

or perhaps alternately...

GM: "As you gaze off into the clouds, you stumble and land roughly in a murky puddle in the road.  The other guards laugh cruelly at you.  Lose 1 hp." :deviousgrin:

Quote from: RedFox...mm'wah?  Dungeons are a backdrop.  You can run them using an illusionism style (probably map-less) or no.

Whoa, okay, in that case I'll copy & paste

Quote from: meEssentially, dungeons are adventures with walls as constraints. They can contain false choices, like any other adventure, but they don't have to.

"Storytelling" modules/GMing as taught by Nephew are adventures whose structure is defined by false choices.

In other words, sure, dungeons don't confer freedom in themselves, but unlike the methods espoused by the "winging it" essay, they give a beginning group a way to prepare and run a manageable adventure that doesn't rely on nullifying and subverting the importance of player-character actions.

What I was wondering about your clock-monkeys scenario is...what's illusionistic about it? But looking back, I think I misread; for the most part you're saying that the elements can be brought in illusionistically, not that they have to be.

E.g., if the hook is the monkey stealing the plant, but beyond that all you really have is the fact that there's a villain and an evil genius whose monkey army protects his hideout under the Eiffel Tower, I think those elements stand a good chance of entering play naturally either as the players investigate or as the bad guys come after them.

Quote from: RedFoxRailroading is obstructing player choice.  

Possibly, but it is also definitely about removing player choice as a factor.

Illusionism: the Secret Railroad

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhoa, okay, in that case I'll copy & paste

What I was wondering about your clock-monkeys scenario is...what's illusionistic about it? But looking back, I think I misread; for the most part you're saying that the elements can be brought in illusionistically, not that they have to be.

Certainly.  The point is that you, as a GM, may have X cool thing prepped.  If the PCs are going in an unexpected direction, then it's perfectly cool to shuffle props around to throw X in their path even if your notes say another thing.

Railroading involves eliminating player options until only X remains.

In the classic scenario, the players are confronted with a dungeon entrance and decide to head out across the plains instead.  Railroading would summon the t-rex on the plains, blocking the choice.  Illusionism would allow them the choice, and then transplant the dungeon to the plains, perhaps as a farming community overrun by monsters.  It means being flexible with the material you have and the choices the PCs make instead of abandoning one or the other in its entirety.

Whether you call it Illusionism or Railroading, it's what the thread's original topic is all about.  The advice to steer your player's "back on track" somehow.  Moving the pieces, or trying to force the players to move is really the same thing.

Illusionism also involves eliminating player options until only X remains.  It doesn't matter what they choose... they're getting X.

Railroading:  One door to encounter X.
Secret railroading:  Two doors... whichever is opened first goes to encounter X.

Quote from: StuartWhether you call it Illusionism or Railroading, it's what the thread's original topic is all about.  The advice to steer your player's "back on track" somehow.  Moving the pieces, or trying to force the players to move is really the same thing.

Illusionism also involves eliminating player options until only X remains.  It doesn't matter what they choose... they're getting X.

Railroading:  One door to encounter X.
Secret railroading:  Two doors... whichever is opened first goes to encounter X.

No, that's an oversimplification.  It also disingenuously paints illusionism with the railroading brush.  I think the last thing this thread needs is more muddied, conflated terminology.

QuoteNo, that's an oversimplification. It also disingenuously paints illusionism with the railroading brush. I think the last thing this thread needs is more muddied, conflated terminology.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.  I really mean that Illusionism is "The Secret Railroad".  It's exactly the same thing as "Railroading", except you're trying to keep the players from realizing you're doing it.

If you consider this "Illusionism":
"Two doors... whichever is opened first goes to encounter X."

Then that's the same as this:
"One door to encounter X."

Except that you're tricking the player into thinking they have an option, when they don't.  I think the fake choice is worse than no choice.

Not much to say really. Stuart is saying it all.

Quote from: StuartI'm not being disingenuous at all.  I really mean that Illusionism is "The Secret Railroad".  It's exactly the same thing as "Railroading", except you're trying to keep the players from realizing you're doing it.

Well, obviously we're at loggerheads on the issue.

Jesus.

Ok, firstly a premise is not a railroad.  If a GM pitches to me that he is running a game in which we are playing members of the French resistance during WW2, it is not a railroad if the game then is about that.  It's a premise.

Premises can be very narrow, if the game pitched to me is about fantasy characters going into a linear dungeon then I've still not been railroaded because I chose to play that game.

Railroading is the removal of choice.  Actual play example, I played in a con a supers game set during the 19th Century.  In play, only certain actions worked to advance the plot, others simply failed, the rationale was whether we were doing stuff that the GM had already written down or not, nothing more.  Our acts only mattered if they were what he wanted us to do, that was railroading.  I had not agreed to anything like that.  My choices were made irrelevant.

As for illusionism, and I hate these jargony phrases, of course it's railroading but that doesn't make it bad of necessity.  If the view from the rails is fun and we're all enjoying ourselves then there isn't a problem.  Another actual play example, same con, we played modern day sorcerors in Bilbao attempting to avoid a biblical apocalypse.  After play, the GM gave me his notes and everything we did was written down there, but in play it felt like we were free.  Classic illusionism, but I had a great time so I don't care and I played the two sequels to that game both of which were equally railroaded, both of which I knew would be and in neither of which could I tell while playing.

Now, in a con that works, at the tabletop it's too much work to be worth the bother to me, but railroading is essentially where the GM predetermines the outcomes and removes meaningful player choice, it is not where the GM pitches a narrow adventure concept and the players sign up to it.

Not if the term is to be useful anyway, and that's where James goes wrong, he makes the term so broad as no longer to be of any use.  Right or not, that's just unhelpful as we can't say anything by using it.  I am not being railroaded when the GM says I can't play a psychic ninja in his Ars Magica game, I'm just being a dick.

Quote from: StuartWhether you call it Illusionism or Railroading, it's what the thread's original topic is all about.  The advice to steer your player's "back on track" somehow.  Moving the pieces, or trying to force the players to move is really the same thing.

Illusionism also involves eliminating player options until only X remains.  It doesn't matter what they choose... they're getting X.

Railroading:  One door to encounter X.
Secret railroading:  Two doors... whichever is opened first goes to encounter X.

RedFox, as a matter of jargon Stuart is correct, illusionism is railroading with the illusion of choice, rather than just naked and obvious railroading.  That's kind of what the term means.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing, but he is right in how he's using these terms.

Quote from: BalbinusNot if the term is to be useful anyway, and that's where James goes wrong, he makes the term so broad as no longer to be of any use.  Right or not, that's just unhelpful as we can't say anything by using it.  I am not being railroaded when the GM says I can't play a psychic ninja in his Ars Magica game, I'm just being a dick.

Dude, we covered the terminology problems already. Catch up.

Other than that I'm with you. I personally am not the type of player that will enjoy a game where my choices are meaningless because I'm riding an illusionary railroad, but if the group playing is, then by all means do what's fun.

Quote from: James McMurrayDude, we covered the terminology problems already. Catch up.

Other than that I'm with you. I personally am not the type of player that will enjoy a game where my choices are meaningless because I'm riding an illusionary railroad, but if the group playing is, then by all means do what's fun.

It's a long thread.

I've enjoyed it at cons, I wouldn't want it in my normal gaming though, cons are a bit of a different beast because someone has to run a fun game for strangers in a short time and possibly demo a system while doing it.  Expecting them to freeform as well is just getting a bit demanding IMO.