After many thoughts and corrections, I re-wrtoe the entire thing:
---
After many thoughts and corrections, I re-wrote the entire thing. I changed the OP too. thanks for all the answers; I'd love feedback about the corrections too.
---
I tried to make this point a while ago. Will not link it here because I am not sure I was clear enough, so I'll try again from a different angle.
Here is the idea: sometimes, improvisation (i.e., coming up with things on the fly) leads to railroading (or quantum ogres and similar things), and sticking to pre-written material (settings, mechanics, etc.) is a good defense against this.
Let's define some terms before we begin. This is the best/oldest definitions I could find, and they seem decent enough:
Improvisation: the art or act of improvising, or of composing, uttering, executing, or arranging anything without previous preparation (source).
Railroading: Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome (source).
Illusionism: A term for styles where the GM has control over the storyline, by a variety of means, and the players do not recognize this control (adapted from this source).
It is easy to see how closely related railroading and illusionism are.
One of the main problems of railroading and illusionism is removing agency from players. Not only do their choices cease to matter, but also they are tricked into believing that they do. To use someone else's analogy, is like letting your little brother play Street Fighter with you, but giving him a joystick that is not connected to the game.
I decided to write this after watching a video from a popular creator (whom I like) with these kinds of advice:
1. "If the players mention they suspect an innocent person, maybe you can decide that now HE is the culprit!"
2. "Fudge your die rolls or HP if the encounter proves too difficult".
3. "If a player rolls very well when searching for something that isn't there, maybe it is!"
4. "If the players are talking too much, throw an encounter at them".
Also, to sum it up, something to the effect of "never let the players see behind the curtain" - which sounds related to illusionism.
Now, if that is what rocks your boat, fine. I just want to add that this is not the only style of play and is, in fact, anathema to another style which sees illusionism and railroading as things to avoid.
Let's analyze the advice above.
Advice 1 is the classic example of "improv". But it completely devalues any mystery, any clues you throw at the PCs. You may argue that this is not railroading because the GM hadn't conceived an outcome beforehand - the DM thought the culprit was A, but when the PCs accused B he changed. However, in this case, the outcome enforced by the GM is the PCs find the right culprit; he is negating the player's choice of accusing the wrong person!
Number 2 will make the players believe they can win any encounter, or worse, they can win any encounter if you let them. It removes player agency. Again, the outcome the GM is forcing is "the PCs win the next battle".
Numbers 3 and 4, again, make the setting feel artificial - as if responding to what players, not PCs, do. Notice that number 3 is a thing that could happen in Dungeon World, for example (IIRC), but DW at least assign consequences for failing your search roll - otherwise, everyone would be searching for treasure everywhere.
Number 4 deserves a caveat: IF the PCs are in a dungeon where you roll for random encounters every 30 minutes, and the players talk for 30 minutes in-character, you should obviously ROLL for random encounters. Likewise, if someone would hear them, etc.
It is not illusionism if the players knowIt is not illusionism if there is no illusion. If your players know that fudging dice and HP is the DM's prerogative in this campaign, or that you'll decide whodunnit is as you go, or that a good dice roll will let you find treasure where anywhere, this is not illusionism, it is a style of play.
This is a very important distinction because, as we'll see, DMs must make things up as they go in both styles.
Some different advice
Let me try some alternative advice to the "man behind the curtain" method described above.
- The GM must present an internally coherent setting for the PCs to interact and explore.
- The GM must believe in the authenticity of the setting as much as the players.
- The GM should not alter the realities of the setting (at least not DURING PLAY) to accommodate, entertain, defy, reward or punish players, but only because of things that happen WITHIN the setting. In other words, the setting is defined by PCs and NPCs and not about GM and players.
Another tips I mentioned before that might be related:
- Let the dice push you out of your comfort zone. Your PCs all failed their saving throws - now what? Your important NPC was killed before he could start his plan - what happens now?
- Expect the unexpected from your players. Do not expect them to follow a predictable path, or always find the right culprit, or only pick fights they can win, etc.
How to AVOID illusionism?
Let's say you and I prefer the same style of play - how to avoid illusionism, railroading, etc.?
Well, one idea is use a published adventure, or write your own.
If you follow it to the letter, without improvising, you cannot execute any of the four advices mentioned above.
(BTW, having a plot telling you what happens if the PCs fail or do nothing will help you tremendously. It will relieve you of the temptation of enforcing the preconceived notion that the must win).
Of course, if your PCs stray from the course, you must improvise. However, do NOT improvise a reason to force than back into the adventure. That is exactly what railroading is. Just think of the logical consequences of their choices.
And what if they enter a random town, far from the original adventure site? Well, then you improvise, but it is ALSO okay to say "I hadn't prepared this, let's take a small break". Remember, it is NOT illusionism when they know you're making things up on the fly.
When to improvise, then?
You often need to improvise to find out how the NPCs reacts to the PCs. How the events unfold. You NEED some improv to run RPGs.
You also need to improvise to find out things about the setting you hadn't established before. But when you do so, answer your own questions using the setting's internal logic, not the necessities of the players or the "plot".
For example, the player asks, "can I full plate armor in this town?".
Ask yourself "how big is this town?", not "how bad does the PC need this for the next adventure".
You do not change inanimate things and past events because the PCs had an idea, desire, or particular die roll (unless, again, the PC could change the world in such way with his or her actions).
You also improvise anything that players expect you to improvise, of course - what is the blacksmith's name? But you do not improvise when the answer should be found in the setting - "is there a blacksmith in this town"? When the players ask you that, they do not expect you to be creative, but to give your honest assessment of what you be expected in the setting.
You can also improvise (or, at least, create) anything when your players expect you to do so. For example, between sessions. Or when you ask for a 5 minute break. Or when they break into a random house. Etc.
Oracles and random tables
These are not improvisation. They require previous preparation. If you have a table for random encounters, and you get a dragon encounter, throwing a dragon against your players from nowhere is not improvisation.
But what if these tables are more like oracles? "17 - an ally is revealed as a traitor". Still not improvisation while you roll, but you'll have to interpret the result to the best of your ability - which does require some improvisation. Again, just let the players know that this is the kind of game you're playing - an ally can betray them at random. If there is a transparent mechanic for that (e.g., morale rules), it is not improvisation.
But I LIKE fudging HP!
Again, if that's your preference, that's fine. I'd advice you be transparent about this - let your players know that fudging dice and HP is your prerogative, or that you'll decide whodunnit is as you go. If everyone is on the same page, that's okay (just not my preferred style).
I'd argue, however, that it is useful to let people know both styles exist - at least so people can try both ways and see what they prefer.
---
Original text:
I tried to make this point a while ago in my blog. Will not link it here because I am not sure I was clear enough (probably not, got a lot of flak on reddit), so I'll try again from a different angle.
This time, I'd like to discuss this before publishing. I'm very one to adverse opinions on this
Here is the idea: sometimes, improvisation (of places, NPCs, events, etc.) leads to railroading (or quantum ogres and similar things), and sticking to a published (or pre-written) material is a great defense against this.
Why?
Let's start with three propositions.
- The GM must present an internally coherent setting for the PCs to interact and explore.
- The GM must believe in the authenticity of the setting as much as the players.
- The GM should not alter the realities of the setting (at least not DURING PLAY) to accommodate, entertain, defy, reward or punish players, but only because of things that happen WITHIN the setting. In other words, the setting is defined by PCs and NPCs and not about GM and players.
I have just watched a video from a popular creator (whom I like) with these kinds of advice:
1. "If the players mention they suspect an innocent person, maybe you can decide that now HE is the culprit!"
2. "Fudge your die rolls or HP if the encounter proves too difficult".
3. "If a player rolls very well when searching for something that isn't there, maybe it is!"
4. "If the players are talking too much, throw an encounter at them".
Now, I can see this might be cool for some styles of play, but it shouldn't be "general D&D advice" IMO.
Number 1 is the classic example of "improv". But it completely devalues any mystery, any clues you throw at the PCs.
Number 2 will make the players believe they can win any encounter, or worse, they can win any encounter if you let them. It removes player agency.
Numbers 3 and 4, again, make the setting feel artificial - as if responding to what players, not PCs, do. Notice that number 3 is a thing that could happen in Dungeon World, for example (IIRC), but DW at least assign consequences for failing your search roll - otherwise, everyone would be searching for treasure everywhere.
Number 4 deserves a caveat: IF the PCs are in a dungeon where you roll for random encounters every 30 minutes, and the players talk for 30 minutes in-character, you should obviously ROLL for random encounters. Likewise, if someone would hear them, etc.
How to AVOID all these things? Use a published adventure, or write your own.
If you follow it to the letter, without improvising, you cannot execute any of the four advices mentioned above.
(BTW, having a plot telling you what happens if the PCs do nothing will help you tremendously)
When to improvise, then?
You often need to improvise to find out how the NPCs reacts to the PCs.
You also need to improvise to find out things about the setting you hadn't established before. But when you do so, answer your own questions using the setting's internal logic, not the necessities of the players or the "plot".
For example, the player asks, "can I full plate armor in this town?".
Ask yourself "how big is this town?", not "how bad does the PC need this for the next adventure".
You do not change inanimate things and past events because the PCs had an idea, desire, or particular die roll (unless, again, the PC could change the world in such way with his or her actions).
This is not the ONLY way to play RPGs, mind you; if you like to see the DM as some kind of entertainer, for example, adding stuff on the fly can be great (I'd still be honest about it with my players when the campaign starts).
I'd argue, however, that the way I'm defending above is the traditional way of playing RPGs (DM as referee), and that it is useful to make this distinction if you are advocating the contrary - at least so people can try both ways and see what they prefer.