D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

Another related idea, that comes through in @Lanefan's posts, to an extent in @CreamCloud0's, and maybe also in yours and @Xamnam's, is this:

If the GM imagines to themself, without sharing it with the player, that the reason for such-and-such event that has been described at the table is such-and-such other event that no one is imagining except the GM, then that is part of the "scope" of the setting.

For instance: if the GM describes to the players that they see some beggars by the city gates, and the GM thinks to themself but doesn't say to the players, "The reason for those beggars is that they've been driven off their farmland by the evil overlord", then part of the setting includes that the evil overlord has driven people of their farmland, turning them into beggars.


I think of the GM's private imaginings as possible tools, and prep, for saying things that become part of the shared fiction. But it seems to me tautological that, being private, they are not shared, and hence are not elements of play per se.

But, just to illustrate that narrative play is not all players inventing stuff, at all, this could be a part of a GM authored front in Dungeon World for example. If the players ignore it, maybe the evil warlord's men show up at the town and start seizing property, etc. At least in DW/AW the world is not JUST the PCs, though it exists so that they can have adventures.

 

[Enrahim2]

Another related idea, that comes through in @Lanefan's posts, to an extent in @CreamCloud0's, and maybe also in yours and @Xamnam's, is this:

If the GM imagines to themself, without sharing it with the player, that the reason for such-and-such event that has been described at the table is such-and-such other event that no one is imagining except the GM, then that is part of the "scope" of the setting.

For instance: if the GM describes to the players that they see some beggars by the city gates, and the GM thinks to themself but doesn't say to the players, "The reason for those beggars is that they've been driven off their farmland by the evil overlord", then part of the setting includes that the evil overlord has driven people of their farmland, turning them into beggars.


I think of the GM's private imaginings as possible tools, and prep, for saying things that become part of the shared fiction. But it seems to me tautological that, being private, they are not shared, and hence are not elements of play per se.

I assume we can add that this "prep" is in a narrative game not "set in stone"? That is, if the DM hasn't shared the idea that these beggars are from the farmland a player might for instance go "Hey, those beggars is the crew of the circus in the city I grew up! I wonder what bad things happened to put them in this place?"

If this is the case, how do you handle the situation that you have previously dropped hints (trough narrating things with this prep in mind) that the beggars are farmers, that hasn't been understood, but is hard to explain if they are not farmers? If it is not the case, how is the GM supposed to overrule the player?

I am curious as this is exactly the kind of thing that makes me struggle to see how these games work to maintain internal coherence in the presence of several authors.

 

[Faolyn]

I think that it's less a matter of "should" and more a matter of "could." Milk is not something that logically exists in my fridge. Milk is something that could logically exist in my fridge. Moreover, just because it could logically exist in my fridge doesn't mean that I have any milk in my fridge. That reminds me. I should check to see if I have milk in my fridge in case I need to go out and buy more for tomorrow morning.

While I agree with this, the idea that the GM even saying that something could or should logically exist is too much is not, in itself, is logical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, I was just pointing out different approaches.

Your approach is in the traditional camp. The PC can FIND OUT if there are orcs in the hills; Through skill rolls, divination, actual investigation - whatever. But the PLAYER has no actual say as to whether the orcs are there or not.

That's generally the way it's done in D&D - certainly 5e.

Nope, they sure don't. Because that information has nothing to do with the PC.

 

[Faolyn]

It’s not necessarily too much to say that there are spell books in the wizard’s tower.

According to pemerton, though, it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not @pemerton but I think the point is:

The PLAYERS have a say in establishing the fiction (whether there are spellbooks in the tower the PCs are walking into) the PCs do not. That is the divide.

That works out to be the same thing to me. I don't want special powers in a game beyond what my PC can do.

 

[Maxperson]

Then it's not binary. Binary consists of two states, yes or no. Not degrees of each. That's what makes it binary.

There are no degrees of each. There is agency and no agency. The "degrees" are what each person prefers out of their agency, so in that very subjective sense there can be said to be degrees of agency. But there aren't degrees of no agency. You just plain don't have it and are being railroaded.

Preferences will vary, absolutely. But I don't think agency really does. It's more that your preference doesn't require as much agency as someone like @pemerton .

Personally, I like games with varying degrees of player agency involved. I don't feel the need to try and claim they all have the same level of agency... the same freedom for players to influence what the game is about.

We will have to agree to disagree about agency degrees being objective. I have an incredible amount of agency in the traditional games I engage in, and my players have it in my games as well.

Sure, I think the more specific we get about this stuff, the better it is. @uzirath posted some examples from his trad game which were interesting. There have been some others. But most of the examples given are hypotheticals, and often incomplete or vague (like the two doors).

I think I saw those, but I don't recall them at this point.

Acceptable in that they know what they're getting into and aren't objecting, yeah. Based on how it sounds, I don't know if all of them will be happy with the results.

If they aren't happy(and it sounded to me like they weren't), they shouldn't return to that game. If you can't trust your DM, you really have no business playing in that game. If they do return knowing what they are getting into, they are accepting the railroad and can't really complain if they are on tracks.

A railroad that the group accepts is not a bad one in my opinion. It's the ONLY railroad that I find to be okay.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, how about a Dungeon World player who wants to dungeon crawl? Your motivation is loot and power, mostly. You answer questions about where you are going and what you are doing with 'heading to the dungeon' etc. I bet you get a pretty much stock dungeon crawl experience, especially if the other players are also up for that. Granted the GM might ask you a fairly open ended question here and there. I bet you can answer them in a way that doesn't usually involve adding some big things to the fiction. Even in trad games you probably expect some questions about your character etc.

I don't really have a solid answer for you here. I'd have to try it out before I know if it would be something I would like or not.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The first clause you quoted directly followed the sentence "The PCs enter the tower" from ( @Faolyn ?) thus seemd to be in response to that, hence my call-out.

Had it been in response to the other piece where the PCs have a conversation then less...but still no...problem; as while the PCs having a conversation obviously requires the players to speak, one can still say they are speaking in character and thus simply mirroring what the PCs are doing/saying in the fiction.

I think we're getting a little crossed up, but I think I'm following you now. My mention of the conversation was at the idea of the PCs literally describing the tower. It's reminiscent of the sequence in Wonder Boys where James is so drunk, he's narrating. "They were going to the bathroom, but would they make it in time?" I don't know. It's been a long day.

 

[pemerton]

in DnD, you roll to see how well your character attacks the enemy, the dice represent your skill in taking an action

Do they? What represents the skill and luck of the Orc? Whether the Orc trips on a patch of mud, or gets distracted by one of its comrades standing next to it being killed?

My assumption - influenced heavily by what Gygax wrote in his DMG (and I do regard Gygax as having some insight into D&D) - is that the to hit roll answers the question Did my PC hurt and/or otherwise set back this opponent they are fighting? The precise details of how the set back occurs - again, as per Gygax's DMG - are mostly just colour.

you, as a player, control thurgon, everything thurgon does is because you declare it, functionally You. Are. Thurgon. every time you quibble over 'well actually me and my character are separate entities' is sidestepping answering the question you were actually asked

This is bizarre.

Thurgon is imaginary. I am not. Thurgon worships the Lord of Battle. Without disclosing my own spiritual biography in full, I can report that I do not. Etc, etc.

The assertion that, because I as a player in the game have creative authority over a certain part of the fiction - ie the character Thurgon - I am therefore identical to Thurgon such that statements I utter about Thurgon are really about me is just bizarre. That would make the Sherlock Holmes stories works of autobiography by Conan Doyle, which is an equally bizarre claim.

in DnD the act of looking for spellbooks is an entirely separate matter from if the spellbooks are actually in that location, because the world exists as more than raw grey potential

Yes, that's one way to play D&D - it's not the only one, but it's quite common.

But you misdescribe it. The world - which is purely imaginary - doesn't exist so as to answer the question about spellbooks. Rather: the GM has written some bits of fiction (eg about spellbooks) and the GM uses that private imagining as part of a process of then answering the question about whether or not Thurgon's finding of spellbooks will be part of the shared fiction.

Describing this process of play as if the imaginary world itself plays some causal role in telling the people at the table how they should imagine it is a bizarre misdescription of what actually happens.