Illusionary rails

aka GNS post #4

This post is, directly, a response to John Kim's post in his blog about the role of rail-roading, and how throughout the history of RPG theory, it has been pressed into different roles and used for various political purposes.

I don't mean to belittle the political dimension, because I think it is there, and the fact that functional illusionist play is Simulationist in nature has been used to tar Simulationists with an unpleasant brush, which is really ironic for reasons that I'll get into in a second.

The Forge tends to use "Illusionism" rather than the more commonly used term "rail-roading" simply because rail-roading traditionally means any number of things, and is traditionally a very negative term, and using a new term helps free it of some of that baggage. But the definition is essentially the same.

From the Forge glossary (edited for typos)

A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features. (references cut) Term coined by Paul Elliott.

And, the definition of Force, from the same source.

The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike Holmes)

So, essentially, rail-roading aka Illusionism is a style of play where a single player (usually the GM) is effectively making all the important decisions about the direction of the game -- often in terms of story -- but also in terms of other things (I would consider the game where the GM's pet NPC meets all the challenges also a form of Illusionism.)

(There are also terms that distinguish the hidden form of this play -- Illusionism -- from more overt forms like Participationism. For the purposes of this essay, I'm talking about all covert and overt forms of this sort of play.)

Illusionism is almost entirely a dysfunctional form of play, meaning that the players of the game are generally unhappy and frustrated, often not even knowing why. To make matters worse, modern "adventure design," in the form of modules, metaplotting, and key characters, strongly encourages an Illusionist form of play. Man! It sucks!

And it is important to note that, as a form of dysfunctional play, it doesn't have a creative agenda at all. This sort of illusionism is breaking down, fundamentally, at the social contract level. Talking about what creative agenda it has is rather like talking about what sort of icing you're going to have on your cake, when there is in fact no cake at all, but rather some mashed potatoes. It is beyond meaningless.

But, I still hold that it makes sense to talk about Illusionism as a primarily Simulationist technique. Why?

Because there is another type of Illusionist play. There are, in fact, groups that report engaging in this sort of play willingly and having a good time with it. In other words, functional rail-roading where everyone has fun.

In this case (functional play) we ought to be able, as trained theorists, to identify a creative agenda no sweat. And, given that such games are usually devoted primarily to an exploration of the GM's pre-established situation (in the form of plot-line) and setting, that pegs them exactly as Simulationist.

So to recap: Rail-roading is bad, except when it is made good by the presence of functional Simulationist play.

Clear?