D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but most RPGs I'm familiar with are about a lot more than just elements of the characters' life and similar stuff, and I refuse to accept the idea that any game that doesn't always focus on such personal things is actually a railroad.

Yeah I am not directly addressing the dispute about terms. I think this is one where each position has some points going for it. Nor do I think that @pemerton 's position is quite that extreme! Stonetop has predefined areas of concern and associated setting elements, but I doubt it will be a railroad to pemerton.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Railroad is the opposite of agency. Luck =/= railroad.

Agency isn't random is the point. An outcome that happens by pure luck isn't one that involves agency.

Where it begins to look like a railroad is going to be very subjective. For @pemerton it seems that a railroad begins at a very high percentage, because he excludes traditional play and traditional play has a lot of agency. That's why his "interpretation" is getting so much flak. For me something begins to look like a railroad at probably 5% or lower and doesn't become a railroad until 0%(the definitional point that something is a railroad).

Right, so let's talk about that. I may not go quite as far as @pemerton but I expect I may be closer to his take than that of many others. This is why your take of "See? A shred of agency... this is now the same as pemerton's game!" isn't very useful.

I think his interpretation is getting so much flak because it's easier to get upset about it than it is to actually weigh its merits. To actually look at play and see if what he's described suits a game, and if so, what that means. Examining our own games in that way can be tough. Certainly much tougher than arguing about terminology.

But I think that's what's needed for the discussion to actually progress.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Faolyn , I'm not the folks you're interacting with, but I'm going to throw a few (lol?) words at the conversation you're having. I'm also going to use the term "say" here (meaning "player's say" or "system's say" rather than "GM's say") in the stead of Railroad. Here are some examples that are either significant input into/over the trajectory of play via "say" or significant reduction of the same via lack of "say."

* Do the players have say over what this game is about? Does play chase what the players are interested, which they've signaled either directly via words or indirectly via system components (like relationships and dramatic needs) within character build? This one transcends serious. Its pretty profound in its impact. If this is not true, that is a an extremely substantial reduction in player (or system) say.

An example of this would be this week's two Stonetop sessions where the Spring Bursts Forth move ushered in a Threat and an Opportunity for the Stonetoppers, the thematic content of which was authored either directly (corrupted, massive, Xenomorph-ey insects are haunting the forest on the doorstep of Stonetop) or indirectly via player's words or things like a relationship on their PC sheet (their parents advancing age and needing relief in the way of more goatherders in Stonetop). And then you have the play engaging with their instincts of Curiosity, Honor, Balance, Charity.

* Can the players consult the accumulated wisdom of their played character via (a) putting something provisional out there about the shared imagined space that could end up being interesting and useful to their situation, (b) staking the prospect of their memories/education (etc) being erroneous and the actual truth of things complicating their lives (via GM getting to say what is actually true), and (c) putting that to the test via action resolution mechanics (of one form or another). Do players have the say to attempt to stipulate consequential things their characters know and have that impact the gamestate/trajectory of play? If this is not true, that is a reduction in player (or system) say.

An example of this would be the Seeker (sort of an Antiquarian/Loremaster/Warlock character) pouring through her tomes to try to assist with useful information an expeditionary force of Stonetoppers who are going out into the wilds of The Flats, sending their midwife and a section of soldiers, to deliver a child of a group of Hillfolk goatherders who have recently lost their midwife. When this move turned badly, I turned their move back on them and took the hopefully interesting and helpful information and made it hazardous to the point that they had to devote more assets to the field to lure a group of Hillfolk raiders away to ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall the primary expeditionary force. Well...both the move for the main expeditionary force went poorly as did the move for the daredevil cobbler who was convinced (by that same Seeker) to run interference against the group of Hillfolk raiders.

Things went very south as a knock-on effect of this move. Them's the breaks. But that is how "say" goes. Significant trajectory of play is put into effect, good or bad. This same Seeker had multiple such knowledge moves go right for them in their expedition/adventure to save the deadfall-gathering children who were captured by these aberrant swarms of insects and that led to positive gamestate/trajectory of play and the player fleshing out the world through their character's inventorying of their substantial knowledge.

* If Inventory/Gear decisions are supposed to be compelling and important for the trajectory of play, does the situation framing and the resolution mechanics allow the players to have such a say over game-layer-engaging, situation-impactful Inventory/Gear decisions? If not, that is a reduction in player (or system) say.

An example of this would be the Lightbearer character in the Stonetop game (who is an Itinerant Mystic with Gandalf qualities whereby they can show up with important information or have an esoteric bit of kit). The Lightbearer had a rare collection of mashed material components to load out in a smoker which allowed them to potentially Keep Them At Bay (the aberrant wasp swarms), spending the precious fuel of this apparatus while forming a sort of pike hedge as they dealt with the swarms via a concerted volley of spears by the Marshal's Crew, the Ranger peppering arrows, and the Seeker throwing burning pinecones.

* Are the framed situations/obstacles put before the players engaging, impactful, trajectory-of-play-dictating such that players have substantial say over the game's fiction and game's state when engaging with and resolving them? Are their decisions meaty, consequential, thematically compelling, tactically/strategically engaging (decisions to chart this course vs that course or to deal with this potential suite of complication vs that potential suite of complications or to choose this complication over that complication when things go awry...or to skillfully choose and put into effect this particularly impactful line of play vs these other impacful lines of play)? If there is a reduction in any of these things above, or an arbitrariness, or a signposting/signaling of consequential decision-points that are actually just feigned/falsely signaled?

The reality is GM's can be better or worse at building out a vital decision-space of game layer intensity. GM's can be better or worse at engaging (and that could be at the conceptual or "build" level or the communication level) the players with a meaningfully and consequentially different decision-tree to navigate and resolve. GM's can be better or worse at "employing the rules and letting things fall where they may" once player : situation : system collide. Well, as GMs are worse at any of these things above (rather than better), that yields a reduction in player (or system) say.

---

So, reduction in say (player or system or both) isn't any one thing. And certain types of reduction in say are more impactful than others (and some of that will be game-contextual). But a thousand raindrops make a puddle, as the saying goes, and as that drip, drip, drip accrues, the reduction in say can drown out the player's consequential impact into the content of and trajectory of play...and there is absolutely a point of muted player input where you're effectively a bystander.


EDIT - I need to include this because it is an example that isn't GM-related. The same is true if a player doesn't know the full rules of a game or how all the rules come together. Player's can absolutely reduce their own say (and they might be totally fine with that...but that doesn't mean that their gamestate-&-fiction-impacting footprint isn't reduced) in this way.

 

[bloodtide]

But this is a complete parody of how actual narrativist games work. Its nothing like that in terms of GAME, for example. So, yes, in BitD a character could come to a locked door in the middle of an adventure and spend stress and loadout to describe a flashback in which they played out an attempt to get a key for this door which they have anticipated (an informant told them, their locksmith friend gave them inside info, etc.).

Glad you agree.

They will also have to pay, as in Acquire an Asset, for the key itself, locksmiths don't work for free. These resources must be balanced against other possible uses, which may well mean that it is a better idea to just try to pick the danged lock! Also, even if you try to get a key, you might fail, or the key might not work, etc. There's no 'freebie' here, the player cannot simply walk around manipulating the fiction to be whatever they want, that's bulls**t.

Except is a super soft "cost". The character only has ten Alter Reality points a day? And amazingly EACH day lasts exactly how long it takes the character to use all ten. Amazing! As soon as the character uses the last point, the (Buddy) DM and the players...all on the same page and wave length..say "oh, gosh the game day is over. The character stops to rest....and reload the points.

Or the "drawback' is like a -1 to a roll the character gets a +15 to....or it's a roll they don't use often anyway.

Nor does every narrativist game work this way, AT ALL, BitD is a particular game in which you can, by constructing plausible fiction and spending resources, potentially do that. In PbtA games there is NOTHING LIKE THIS AT ALL. I mean, I could maybe go up to a door and say "I'm trying to get through this locked door", but if I have no move which that triggers, its purely up to the GM, she can simply say "well, its locked, you cannot go through" and that's it! Or they might say "Ok, someone left the door unlocked" or "Earlier you noticed one of Jed's men drop a key, it fits this door." A lot of things COULD happen. Maybe in DW you are the thief and have a move for picking locks.

Now, wait, if such a GM just says "you can't go through the locked door" is that not Railroading and taking away Player Agency? I though these games could not do that?

Looking past your hyperbole, even classic games sometimes have mechanics to allow for this sort of thing. GURPS, for example, has an advantage called Serendipity which allows a PC to have one "fortuitous-but-plausible coincidence" per game session (and you can buy additional levels to allow for additional lucky breaks). Admittedly, the "GM has the final say," but knowing "a guy that makes keys" seems well within the intended scope of the advantage.

I'm not saying anything is wrong. I'm saying there are two types of games:

1.Players have no power and can only play the game as a powerless character.
2.Players can Alter Game Reality and have Power.

Sure you can add all sorts of limits, though I'd say most are very soft limits. But nothing stops the "15 minute day" trick from being used. Or games that just ignore the numbers: like many games ignore Hit Points as the character can never die in game play.

You know, I felt so clever when, after watching Leverage, I added a mechanic to WoE where you can spend an action point to have a mundane item or piece of information via flashback, only for Oxventure to do an actual play of BitD a week later.

This is why I call my game a Hard game.

I dislike the idea the players can just sit there, goof off, not pay attention and wander around.....but then when they face a challenge in the game they "know a guy" or "do a flashback" or whatever to Alter Game Reality. Player: "Oh while I was watching You Tube and utterly ignoring the game...my super smart player had a special key made! So now he has the key to open the door!"

I want players that are active, engaged and paying attention throughout the whole game. And players that are smart and clever enough TO get the special key made for real, in real time.....and then have it when their character needs it.

And you seem to want to insist that any game that isn't played to your standards is a railroad, which you  know a lot of people here have a real issue with.

Even me, and I'm a Pro-Railroad Railway Baron.

 

[Faolyn]

The context here clearly separated the GM from the players. They may be all players technically,, but they have very different jobs. I don't believe the only way to be a good GM is to aim your entire campaign towards finding interesting ways to fulfill the player's dramatic needs.

Personally, I don't see what else the GM's purpose would be. I get most of my fun watching the players do awesome things. Or incredibly stupid things. Sometimes they're the same thing. Merely showing off my world doesn't let the players do those things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Glad you agree.

Except is a super soft "cost". The character only has ten Alter Reality points a day? And amazingly EACH day lasts exactly how long it takes the character to use all ten. Amazing! As soon as the character uses the last point, the (Buddy) DM and the players...all on the same page and wave length..say "oh, gosh the game day is over. The character stops to rest....and reload the points.

Or the "drawback' is like a -1 to a roll the character gets a +15 to....or it's a roll they don't use often anyway.



Now, wait, if such a GM just says "you can't go through the locked door" is that not Railroading and taking away Player Agency? I though these games could not do that?


I'm not saying anything is wrong. I'm saying there are two types of games:

1.Players have no power and can only play the game as a powerless character.
2.Players can Alter Game Reality and have Power.

Sure you can add all sorts of limits, though I'd say most are very soft limits. But nothing stops the "15 minute day" trick from being used. Or games that just ignore the numbers: like many games ignore Hit Points as the character can never die in game play.


This is why I call my game a Hard game.

I dislike the idea the players can just sit there, goof off, not pay attention and wander around.....but then when they face a challenge in the game they "know a guy" or "do a flashback" or whatever to Alter Game Reality. Player: "Oh while I was watching You Tube and utterly ignoring the game...my super smart player had a special key made! So now he has the key to open the door!"

I want players that are active, engaged and paying attention throughout the whole game. And players that are smart and clever enough TO get the special key made for real, in real time.....and then have it when their character needs it.


Even me, and I'm a Pro-Railroad Railway Baron.

Well, I suggest that your assessment of the game designer's ability and resulting quality of games like BitD is very limited! BitD actually has multiple layers of resource management, nor do things like stress just magically recover, there's a permanent opportunity cost to getting back stress, and the more you need to recover, the higher that cost is. The game is FAR more sophisticated than you seem to imagine.

It's not an easy game to play either! Myself and 3 other players, all with many years of experience played a crew. We survived and became powerful, though pretty much in a "burn bright, burn fast" sense. It required real skills to do that, like optimal play at several levels, all while RPing our characters like crazy. I'm guessing the vast majority of random collections of players would get their crew crushed under the weight of 10 different clocks.

Look at it this way, I long ago graduated from the sort of death maze puzzle play your shilling. Like 40+ years ago. No doubt it can present a good challenge of a certain sort, but we figured out how to run games that are equally challenging but in multiple ways, and incorporate other dimensions of challenge as well.

When you reach this level of play you will see!

 

[Irlo]

The context here clearly separated the GM from the players. They may be all players technically,, but they have very different jobs. I don't believe the only way to be a good GM is to aim your entire campaign towards finding interesting ways to fulfill the player's dramatic needs.

Agreed. I think a good DM can create and present an expansive world that doesn’t directly fulfill players’ dramatic needs, but which opens up possibilities for players to develop new dramatic needs or unexpectedly deepen existing ones. Some of that campaign detail might not pay off and might not engage the players, but if the details unrelated to characters aren’t there, opportunities for engagement are lost.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But I'm sure they found it interesting, and it was still done in service to the players.

The. Horror.

What mystifies me is who else would play ever be in service of? I mean taking the GM to be, in a loose sense, also a player, what other criteria could apply than that it was interesting, entertaining, and possibly challenging? Unless you are running an RPG podcast channel and aiming to entertain some larger audience, only the people at your table know or care, and I have to assume their opinions carry some weight! Speaking for myself I GM for more than only my own personal pleasure.

I think a big part of this... and it's interesting because trust always comes up in these discussions, but it's always about trusting the GM... but many folks don't seem to trust their players to be able to contribute in meaningful ways.

Now, my guess is that there's a chicken or egg type situation here... why would people expect players to contribute along these lines if the game doesn't really call for it, and the mechanics aren't always suited to it? Why would anyone approach trad play with this mindset? It's not expected, it's not something they're used to, it's not something the mechanics typically support... so it's not likely.

But I think if GMs trust their players, they'll be surprised that they have ideas that are just as interesting and compelling as any that GMs have. And that the combination of ideas... the collaboration of multiple folks... can be really exciting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think his interpretation is getting so much flak because it's easier to get upset about it than it is to actually weigh its merits. To actually look at play and see if what he's described suits a game, and if so, what that means. Examining our own games in that way can be tough. Certainly much tougher than arguing about terminology.

I think the reasons people are upset about his definition is because it defines very non-railroad methods of play as railroad and it is used in a way almost no one in the hobby uses the term.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is why I call my game a Hard game.

I dislike the idea the players can just sit there, goof off, not pay attention and wander around.....but then when they face a challenge in the game they "know a guy" or "do a flashback" or whatever to Alter Game Reality. Player: "Oh while I was watching You Tube and utterly ignoring the game...my super smart player had a special key made! So now he has the key to open the door!"

I want players that are active, engaged and paying attention throughout the whole game. And players that are smart and clever enough TO get the special key made for real, in real time.....and then have it when their character needs it.

No one here has described they're players as distracted and indifferent except you. Certainly not the folks who play games that, you know, actively involve the players more often.

I think you're laying the blame where it doesn't belong. If your players aren't interested in your game, the issue isn't with other games. It's either you or the players.