Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7122633" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I can't speak to how anyone else is using the notion of "secret backstory", but I'm the one who introduced the phrase into the thread, and I've made it clear what I mean by it: the GM resolving player action declarations for their PCs by reference to fictional positioning that the players aren't aware of. (Eg you look for a secret door and fail, because the GM's notes already spell out all the architecture of the building.)</p><p></p><p>There are some approaches to RPGing - eg classic dungeoncrawling - where the use of secret backstory in this fashion is essential. And the point of play, from the player side of things, includes as a significant component <em>learning what is in the GM's notes</em> - mapping the dungeon, learning the rumours, identifying where the treasures are, etc.</p><p></p><p>"Secret backstory", in this sense, is inherently not mutable. (It may be authored on-the-fly - via random tables, or exercises of judgement - but it's not mutable.) It's non-mutability is essential to it being something that the players can learn.</p><p></p><p>Luke Crane has made <a href="https://plus.google.com/+lukecrane/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5" target="_blank">the following criticism</a> of Cook/Marsh Expert as opposed to Moldvay Basic D&D:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he beautiful economy of Moldvay's basic rules are rapidly undermined by the poorly implemented ideas of the Expert set. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">This game . . . is built to explore dungeons. As soon it moves away from puzzle-solving and exploration, the experience starts to fray. There are precious few levers for the players to pull once their out of their element. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he involution rapidly begins as they try to make D&D do more and more. Expert sense strains credibility. Companion, Master and Immortal are a series of poorly implemented ideas. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[W]hile the original designers may have wanted an inclusive and expansive design, their best rules focused on underground exploration and stealing treasure. Moldvay brushes away the caked up sand like an archeologist and shows the true beauty of the artifact. Or, more accurately, Moldvay does a fine job editing the rules down to their core game and evoking the brilliance of the original design.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The Basic D&D line is a product line. As you know, each successive product attempted to reintegrate into the game the features you note present in the earliest editions. My assertion is that none of those rules were as well-designed or well-supported as those for the core activity of dungeon crawling. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I understand that the designers may have thought their game could do anything. I understand they may have wanted to bend it to a variety of circumstances, but in truth their design had narrow application. It does most things poorly, and a few things exceedingly well</p><p></p><p>In the context of "secret backstory" - once the imagined world of play becomes a <em>world</em> rather than a (contrived) dungeon, the capacity for the players to learn the backstory, and to exploit via meaningful choices, reduces rapidly; while at the same time the need for the GM to make it up on the fly increases, and ability of the GM to remember it all and factor it into resolution reduces. So instead of the puzzle-game of Moldvay Basic the game turns into "setting/story tourism", where the players - via action declarations for their PCs - get to learn what the GM's unfolding vision of the fictional world is.</p><p></p><p>Well if they're defining and driving the current action, they don't seem secret, and hence are not secret backstory.</p><p></p><p>If they are chosen by the GM by reference to his/her concerns and vision for things, then I would call it a GM-driven game. If they are chosen by the GM by reference to the players' evinced concerns and visions for things (in the ways, upthread, I've quoted Eero Tuovinen and Luke Crane explaining), then I would call it player-driven.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by (B).</p><p></p><p>A 3E D&D GM can, at least in principle, respond to the declaration "I cast a spell" with "As you try and cast, a great wind whips up - make a casting check." That's a judgement call; so, presumably, is its absence.</p><p></p><p>A GM running a scene-framed-style game doesn't have quite the same freedom of declaration for the fiction: introducing new elements of the fiction <em>subsequent to framing and declaration but prior to resolution</em> is contrary to the spirit of those games. <em>If the check to cast fails</em>, then the GM can narrate the failure as resulting from a wind gust if s/he wants. (A corollary - a scene-framed, "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game needs all action declarations to require checks, so that there is the in-principle possibility of failure.)</p><p></p><p>These comments seem to be presented as disagreements, but who is the disagreement with?</p><p></p><p>As to the first: that arbiter can be GM (gets to establish the framing), player (gets to establish elements of PC backstory), or one-or-the other as the dice dictate (on a success thinks play out as the player intended for his/her PC; on failure the GM gets to narrate the consequences). For some genre-level stuff (is it permissible to look for secret doors in trees on the grounds that faeries might make them, or is that too silly for our game?) group consensus is a further means.</p><p></p><p>As to the second, GMs introduce elements into the fiction all the time because they think it will be fun: I've talked upthread about my predilection for demons and undead (known to my players), and about my BW GM's fondness for elves (which manifested in our first session). In an of itself that has nothing to do with railroading. To requote from the OP:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>That my PC meets an elf isn't an outcome. It's a starting point, a moment of framing. The outcome is that the elf declines my request that he and his soldiers accompany me to my ancestral estate. And (on this occasion of play) that outcome didn't result from the GM shaping things - it was the result of an application (at my request) of the social resolution mechanics to the situation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7122633, member: 42582"] I can't speak to how anyone else is using the notion of "secret backstory", but I'm the one who introduced the phrase into the thread, and I've made it clear what I mean by it: the GM resolving player action declarations for their PCs by reference to fictional positioning that the players aren't aware of. (Eg you look for a secret door and fail, because the GM's notes already spell out all the architecture of the building.) There are some approaches to RPGing - eg classic dungeoncrawling - where the use of secret backstory in this fashion is essential. And the point of play, from the player side of things, includes as a significant component [I]learning what is in the GM's notes[/I] - mapping the dungeon, learning the rumours, identifying where the treasures are, etc. "Secret backstory", in this sense, is inherently not mutable. (It may be authored on-the-fly - via random tables, or exercises of judgement - but it's not mutable.) It's non-mutability is essential to it being something that the players can learn. Luke Crane has made [url=https://plus.google.com/+lukecrane/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5]the following criticism[/url] of Cook/Marsh Expert as opposed to Moldvay Basic D&D: [indent][T]he beautiful economy of Moldvay's basic rules are rapidly undermined by the poorly implemented ideas of the Expert set. . . . This game . . . is built to explore dungeons. As soon it moves away from puzzle-solving and exploration, the experience starts to fray. There are precious few levers for the players to pull once their out of their element. . . . [T]he involution rapidly begins as they try to make D&D do more and more. Expert sense strains credibility. Companion, Master and Immortal are a series of poorly implemented ideas. . . . [W]hile the original designers may have wanted an inclusive and expansive design, their best rules focused on underground exploration and stealing treasure. Moldvay brushes away the caked up sand like an archeologist and shows the true beauty of the artifact. Or, more accurately, Moldvay does a fine job editing the rules down to their core game and evoking the brilliance of the original design. The Basic D&D line is a product line. As you know, each successive product attempted to reintegrate into the game the features you note present in the earliest editions. My assertion is that none of those rules were as well-designed or well-supported as those for the core activity of dungeon crawling. . . . I understand that the designers may have thought their game could do anything. I understand they may have wanted to bend it to a variety of circumstances, but in truth their design had narrow application. It does most things poorly, and a few things exceedingly well[/indent] In the context of "secret backstory" - once the imagined world of play becomes a [I]world[/I] rather than a (contrived) dungeon, the capacity for the players to learn the backstory, and to exploit via meaningful choices, reduces rapidly; while at the same time the need for the GM to make it up on the fly increases, and ability of the GM to remember it all and factor it into resolution reduces. So instead of the puzzle-game of Moldvay Basic the game turns into "setting/story tourism", where the players - via action declarations for their PCs - get to learn what the GM's unfolding vision of the fictional world is. Well if they're defining and driving the current action, they don't seem secret, and hence are not secret backstory. If they are chosen by the GM by reference to his/her concerns and vision for things, then I would call it a GM-driven game. If they are chosen by the GM by reference to the players' evinced concerns and visions for things (in the ways, upthread, I've quoted Eero Tuovinen and Luke Crane explaining), then I would call it player-driven. I'm not sure what you mean by (B). A 3E D&D GM can, at least in principle, respond to the declaration "I cast a spell" with "As you try and cast, a great wind whips up - make a casting check." That's a judgement call; so, presumably, is its absence. A GM running a scene-framed-style game doesn't have quite the same freedom of declaration for the fiction: introducing new elements of the fiction [I]subsequent to framing and declaration but prior to resolution[/I] is contrary to the spirit of those games. [I]If the check to cast fails[/I], then the GM can narrate the failure as resulting from a wind gust if s/he wants. (A corollary - a scene-framed, "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game needs all action declarations to require checks, so that there is the in-principle possibility of failure.) These comments seem to be presented as disagreements, but who is the disagreement with? As to the first: that arbiter can be GM (gets to establish the framing), player (gets to establish elements of PC backstory), or one-or-the other as the dice dictate (on a success thinks play out as the player intended for his/her PC; on failure the GM gets to narrate the consequences). For some genre-level stuff (is it permissible to look for secret doors in trees on the grounds that faeries might make them, or is that too silly for our game?) group consensus is a further means. As to the second, GMs introduce elements into the fiction all the time because they think it will be fun: I've talked upthread about my predilection for demons and undead (known to my players), and about my BW GM's fondness for elves (which manifested in our first session). In an of itself that has nothing to do with railroading. To requote from the OP: [indent][/indent] That my PC meets an elf isn't an outcome. It's a starting point, a moment of framing. The outcome is that the elf declines my request that he and his soldiers accompany me to my ancestral estate. And (on this occasion of play) that outcome didn't result from the GM shaping things - it was the result of an application (at my request) of the social resolution mechanics to the situation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top