Crimson Longinus
Legend
I often find that in these discussion when someone says "I think technique X is fine," some others read it as "I use technique X all the time, for everything," which usually isn't even remotely the case.
Last edited:
-
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!
D&D General Why defend railroading?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Ok, maybe it would help if we looked at an example that many of us would have direct knowledge of. The old X1 module, Isle of Dread. Great sandbox, right? It's generally held up as a fantastic example of a sandbox.
Now, here's the DM's map:
And here's the Player's Map:
Now, as we all know, the players start at the southeast end of the island and work their way north. Sight is limited to a couple of hexes all the way around. Now, there are some keyed locations there. The Pirate's Cove, the Rakasta village, various others. The players have no real way of finding any of these locations other than randomly stumbling across them.
So, would it be railroading to shift the location of any of those encounters? Is it railroading that some of those encounters are simply, "There's a honking big monster in this area" like several of the dinosaur encounters.
Discuss.
Now, here's the DM's map:
And here's the Player's Map:
Now, as we all know, the players start at the southeast end of the island and work their way north. Sight is limited to a couple of hexes all the way around. Now, there are some keyed locations there. The Pirate's Cove, the Rakasta village, various others. The players have no real way of finding any of these locations other than randomly stumbling across them.
So, would it be railroading to shift the location of any of those encounters? Is it railroading that some of those encounters are simply, "There's a honking big monster in this area" like several of the dinosaur encounters.
Discuss.
Attachments
Norton
Explorer
If I can chime in on the tail end, I do think effective railroading is a matter of degrees and maintaining the illusion of agency given the circumstances. For example, with VTTs, I spend lots of time prepping maps so my games can only afford so many options. There's not always the ability to use one map for a number of scenarios, either. The encounters become far too specific.
If we're role playing and running about a town, it's far more open with tabs of generators and lists of goods/services at my disposal. If I give enough of this kind of open game, they kind of get a craving for something more laid out. The pendulum swings. The choice of two directions in a crawl is usually plenty of agency once they've spent an hour climbing roofs and pickpocketing half-orcs at the pub.
Another example is how all of my groups get the chance to go anywhere they want in the Realms, so that gives them broad agency. When they get where they're going, things tighten up. They barely notice. So railroading (or realroading if I'm trying to be clever), can feel natural. Also, there are best routes to travel to places, and a good map they've found by asking around makes them happy to have a clear path because they found it through their agency. So these things work together.
And I don't know if anyone else has noticed (perhaps there's a thread here) but avid video gamers sometimes play D&D a little differently. They want exact enemy placements and power gaming tactics discussed ad nauseum. It's tedious for my tastes, but it's how they know games to be and they don't get re-spawns. It matters less and less if they're on a track because if they're not, they're kinda lost and vulnerable. For these types of players, games are more like rides you take rather than paths you make. I'm even introducing an element of "fast travel" by combining 3.5e's Shadow Walk, but it comes at the price of two random tables.
So combining lots of broader agency with tightly planned tracks is working for me, especially with VTTs. I get to have more control over a story I want to tell, and they get to level up, kill stuff, and get rich. So far, everyone seems happy.
If we're role playing and running about a town, it's far more open with tabs of generators and lists of goods/services at my disposal. If I give enough of this kind of open game, they kind of get a craving for something more laid out. The pendulum swings. The choice of two directions in a crawl is usually plenty of agency once they've spent an hour climbing roofs and pickpocketing half-orcs at the pub.
Another example is how all of my groups get the chance to go anywhere they want in the Realms, so that gives them broad agency. When they get where they're going, things tighten up. They barely notice. So railroading (or realroading if I'm trying to be clever), can feel natural. Also, there are best routes to travel to places, and a good map they've found by asking around makes them happy to have a clear path because they found it through their agency. So these things work together.
And I don't know if anyone else has noticed (perhaps there's a thread here) but avid video gamers sometimes play D&D a little differently. They want exact enemy placements and power gaming tactics discussed ad nauseum. It's tedious for my tastes, but it's how they know games to be and they don't get re-spawns. It matters less and less if they're on a track because if they're not, they're kinda lost and vulnerable. For these types of players, games are more like rides you take rather than paths you make. I'm even introducing an element of "fast travel" by combining 3.5e's Shadow Walk, but it comes at the price of two random tables.
So combining lots of broader agency with tightly planned tracks is working for me, especially with VTTs. I get to have more control over a story I want to tell, and they get to level up, kill stuff, and get rich. So far, everyone seems happy.
I wonder is it related to the strong negative reactions to lore and other changes like alignment. Something along the lines of if "x" becomes normalised and I not not like X and do not allow X in my games ,whether "X" is GM Force, alignment, "Orcs are evil" or what ever, that their particular practise will become shunned by the general gaming population.
Where as the facts are that those people have been prosecuting their games in the fashion they like for years or even decades and over the same time periods others have been doing the things they condemn just as successfully at their tables.
And that is not likley to change.
I'm familiar with a few different ways of describing the authoring of fiction in a RPG. I'm going to say a bit about them; this will be quite a long post as a result.
Here's one analytic taxonomy, from Ron Edwards:
Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom
Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters
Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player
Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize . . .
Do they have causal relationships among one another? Of course. The easiest version is top-down reductionist: because content is consulted, a plot authority decision is made, and then a situational authority decision/presentation must be made, and finally narrational authority must be exercised. I assume that for you, this is the most easy and familiar construction, and you're used to conducting them (or at least constructing them, idealistically speaking) as a single causal sequence in this order, with one person in charge - it's a "thing," perhaps the thing you call GMing.
So let's think about an example of Edwards' "easiest version": the GM consults content - eg a timeline, a description of a NPC, or whatever; and therefore decides that now is the time for a certain moment in the plot (eg now is when the evil cult ritual takes place); and then exercises situational authority (eg As you are sitting in the tavern thinking you've solved all the problems, you see a dark cloud gathering above the temple of . . .). I would call this GM-driven play. I personally tend to find it rather railroad-y, because as a player my main experience in the RPGing process is to reason backwards to the GM's notes. (In this example, the timeline.)
Let's think about a variant of the above, which I think is fairly typical in RPGing and have described as "railroading": following the module, the GM decides that now is when a plot moment is going to take place (eg the evil cult ritual); and so the GM exercises content authority (eg manipulating the backstory - even though the players thought their PCs had defeated the cultists, the GM makes up a second-string of cult leadership to create an in-fiction explanation for why the ritual still takes place); and then the GM exercises situational authority similarly to the previous paragraph, to present the plot moment to the players via their PCs.
Now lets think about the haunted house (or quantum ogre): there is no plot authority being exercised here, because the PCs stumbling upon a haunted house isn't itself a plot event (ie it's not a "crux-point in our knowledge base at the table). It's the exercise of situational authority.
So what we have is players exercise narrational authority (ie "We head north . . .") and then the GM exercises situational authority (ie "You see a foreboding house by the road up ahead . . .") and at that point the GM might also exercise content authority (ie invents some backstory to help explain the haunted house - eg maybe the GM makes a note The house is haunted because its occupants were cruel landlords whose spirits linger on until all the peasants' rent is collected). In this situation, a key plot moment will be the players (and probably their PCs) realising why the house is haunted. Another key plot moment will probably be what ever it is the PCs do about the peasants and their rents (eg leave the peasants alone and leave the house haunted; drive out the spirits to allow the peasant to safely approach the house; collect the peasants' rents to appease the spirits; pay the debts with their own money; etc). I don't see any reason why this would have to be a railroad; though of course in different systems it would probably play out differently.
In general, if we're talking about non-railroaded play, then the GM cannot have compete plot authority - some of those plot moments have to be the result of player action declarations for their PCs.
Here's another bundle of terminology, that I often used influenced by Edwards (from his various essays and posts) and by Luke Crane in his Burning Wheel rulebooks:
Backstory is roughly what Edwards, above, calls content. It can be introduced by the GM - You're in Hardby, a city south of Greyhawk and at the north of the Wild Coast. Think a classic S&S city, ruled by a magic-wielding Gynarch. It can also be introduced by players - I think this world we're starting on must be a gas giant moon. A big part of the rationale, in PbtA games, of asking questions and building on the answers it to establish this sort of backstory.
Sometimes backstory is potentially contentious - eg it would be handy for the player, and the player's PC, if Evard's Tower was around here, because the PC wants to find spell books and Evard's Tower is likely to be bursting with them! But are we just going to hand over such a juicy bit of backstory on a platter? In DW, the answer is no - the player says "I'm remembering what I learned about Evard's Tower while studying as a novice wizard", and the GM says "Well it sounds like you're spouting lore, then!" and calls for the check. If it succeeds, the GM tells the player something about the subject, interesting and perhaps useful as the degree of success dictates. (Eg interesting - "Yes, Evard's tower is not far away on the other side of the river; useful - "And cross the river, on the other bank, you can see the twin willow trees that mark the beginning of the notorious Weeping shadow way that leads straight to the tower".) In Burning Wheel, the answer is also no - the player makes a Wise check (eg, as per actual play, on Great Masters-wise), and if it succeeds then the hoped-for information is true.
What about if the check fails? This is where we find another way of establishing backstory - as the narration of a consequence by the GM. In DW this is "as hard and direct a move as you like" (I think that's the AW language, but the idea in DW will be much the same). In Burning Wheel, this is something adverse to the PC's purpose that also hooks onto the PC's Beliefs, Instincts and/or Traits. A hard move might be You recall that Evard's Tower has burned down - if it any spellbooks survived, they won't be in the shell of the tower! This would also be a reasonable failure narration in BW. A softer move might be to provide the interesting, even useful, information about Evard's Tower but to narrate that, across the river, the PC can see Orcs heading down the Weeping shadow way.
That last example takes us into Framing or Scene-framing. This is similar to Edwards's situational authority: ie establishing a context in which a PC is present (or more than one PC) and in which action is called for. In PbtA terminology, framing would normally be some sort of soft move: most often, probably, an unwelcome truth that will crystalise into something undesirable if the PC(s) doesn't act (like the Orcs heading to Evard's Tower). An alternative, fairly typical, sort of framing is presenting the PC(s) with an opportunity to gain something. This is what is happening in my example of interesting and relevant for Spout Lore - the GM frames the PC(s) into a scene in which they can head directly to Evard's Tower.
In some systems, the players can sometimes control framing: eg in classic dungeon play, when the players exercise narrational authority (eg we take the left corridor) then the GM consults the content that s/he has established (in advance of play) be exercising content authority and drawing a map and writing a key; and this content will then dictate what the situation is, ie what scene the GM has to frame. Or, in Burning Wheel, a player can declare a Circles check hoping to meet a NPC, and if the check succeeds then the GM has to narrate the encounter as taking place. Notice that in the classic dungeoncrawling play content authority has already been exercised, in advance of play, and dictates the situation; whereas in the BW example the scene framing flows straight from a successful check by the player, and the content that then explains it in the fiction (eg why was this NPC hanging around at this time) has to be established. This could be done by the GM, or by GM and player together in an "ask questions and build on the answers" style.
In the quote above, you say "some of the ways you've described it sounded...well, really railroady, "you'll do this because I'm the one telling you this story" level control". I don't think so. Exercising situational authority to frame a scene is to call the players to action, via their PCs. In games in which the GM exercises control over framing, a very important GM skill is to frame interesting and engaging scenes. As Edwards puts it, giving advice in the same thread I linked to above:
If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well . . . It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared[] I[maginary] S[pace] [ie the shared fiction] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.
Going back to the Evard's Tower example, for instance: if I as GM am going to use the resolution of the successful Spout Lore/Wises check to frame the PCs into the situation the players want, and I'm not sure what that is (eg in DW terms, I'm not sure what would be not only interesting but useful), then I can ask the player who made the check!
If a group want to play a game in which we kind-of pretend that no one is making these framing decisions, and so we never talk about them overtly, then the main risk is the one that Edwards has identified: boring play. Eg the GM narrates a haunted house, but the players aren't interested. In railroading threads it's common to see posters saying The players should be free to reject the "hook", but that rests on a premise that the GM is essentially framing scenes blind. And the typically proffered solution, which is to not frame the PCs into a situation where they see a foreboding house down the road, but rather to feed them rumours (or "breadcrumbs") about a haunted house, doesn't deal with the problem of boring play: it just defers the action by hiding it behind a whole lot of players-declare-actions-to-trigger-more-revelation-of-content-by-the-GM until eventually they know enough to declare actions that will have them arrive at some place or other that takes their fancy - "hunting for the GM's plot". At least from my point of view, this is both tedious and railroad-y. And games like PbtA-ish ones, Burning Wheel, and the like have multiple devices - in PC building, in "asking questions and building on answers" - to make sure this doesn't happen. The GM can just cut to the chase and frame a scene that will engage the players.
What they do - ie what actions the players declare for their PCs in response to the GM's framing - is of course up to them.
Besides backstory and framing, I often talk about consequences - ie the fiction that results from adjudicating action declarations. This often involves narrational authority, in the straightforward sense that the outcome of the action declaration requires saying what happens (eg "You skewer the Orc with your spear"). But not always - as per the above, sometimes it might be content authority (if the action was a Wises-check) or situational authority (if the action was a Circles-check). If the check fails, then generally it is the GM who is going to narrate the ensuing consequence, and often this will feed back into the next round of framing (eg as per seeing the Orcs making their way towards the Tower); if the check succeeds, then in BW it is always the player who establishes the consequence, but in other systems it might be the GM who actually decides the consequence but always having regard to the fact that the player succeeded on a check.
Anyway, from all the above I hope you can see that I don't personally think of either the GM or the players as having distinctively direct nor distinctively mediated control over the fiction. It all depends on how the system being played allocates various sorts of powers to establish various sorts of fiction. If someone told me that, in their game, the GM is always free to establish fiction without regard to mediation via mechanics, and/or without considering what the players have signalled they are interested in, I'd anticipate a pretty railroad-y game.
To me, this sounds like you are exercising content authority as per Edwards's "easiest version": you are deciding content/backstory independently of play, mostly in advance of play, and then you are revealing that backstory/content as part of the narration of consequences that flow from particular action declarations by the players for their PCs.
This is a pretty typical way of playing D&D, perhaps the most typical.
I'm not 100% sure how you are using it in DW, because I'm not sure how you're handling 6-down results - eg if the players knock on the wall to Discern Realities and you've already decided there is a hidden space behind it, then probably they should notice that there's a hollow rapping with no need for a check (shouldn't they?). I think DW, which is based on AW, was at least conceived as working on similar lines to the latter - ie the GM establishes the content following the making of the check, always having an eye on the situation that will flow from what s/he tells the player (as per the "interesting", "useful" and "as hard and direct move as you like" constraints on what content exactly the GM is allowed to establish).
Another thing that can flow from authoring content in advance of play is that this is often then used to establish the consequences of declared actions: the classic example is that consulting the pre-drawn map will often tell us, without any further uncertainty, that a PC cannot find a secret door in this particular wall. To use Edward's terminology, the prior exercise of content authority dictates that a certain plot moment (discovering a secret door in the wall) cannot occur, and hence that a certain situation ("Woah, I just discovered a secret door in the wall - what will I do now?") can't occur. Your reference to the players having a "fighting chance" suggests that this might be how you are approaching DW. This is not how I would normally think of DW being played - again, I would assume that the sequence is first narrational authority (ie the player declares something that his/her PC does that constitutes an attempt to Discern Realities) and then the roll is made and then the GM exercises content authority in response, having regard to the appropriate constraints, and also with a keen eye on the situation that will be framed as a result of what s/he says in response to the player's move.
In this way - ie the way I would see as more typical of DW play - the notion of a "fighting chance" doesn't really have any work to do, as there is no unrevealed backstory, established by prior exercise of content authority, that is constraining what the players can hope to have their PCs do.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Alright. I write long posts and this is a long post, so prepare to be crit by wall of text for over 9000.
Going back to the haunted house: the fact that the players can exercise other types of authority (narrational, content, whatever) after me-as-DM doing this (what I see as) "situation-that-mandates-content" authority does not absolve me of "fault" for exercising content authority under the guise of exercising situation authority.
And my answer to those "hows" is, more or less, "show my work." I'm not allowed to just frame any scene I want however I want. My players, on the other hand, very nearly are; I give them absolutely as much latitude as I possibly can. In contrast, I must be incredibly scrupulous with what I do. Because I'm the only thing standing between me and abusing my authority, even by accident. That's why I put such strenuous requirements on what I allow myself to do, what I expect of the fiction I insert. I'm absolutely allowed to be devious, to present situations that look different from what they really are (there's even a Discern Realities question about that!), to put down pieces now that won't make a move for six months or more. But if I make a move, the players must, at least in principle, have some way of learning about it.
The second group, which has lasted far longer, has developed all of these ideas and added further ones; to this group, I brought some antagonist factions (the Raven-Shadow assassin cult, Shadow Druids, Cult of the Burning Eye, and black dragon's gang), and each player advanced further ideas about the world--e.g. the (former) Barbarian player brought into the world an entire culture of nomadic horse-archers living in the steppe beyond the eastern mountains, the Bard player brought a Robin Hood-y culture of noble community-building underworld types, the Druid brought in (well, we cooperated on this one) a now-defunct tradition of Sun and Moon Druids with special alternate abilities. Other than the main antagonist forces, almost everything about this world has derived from some player's contribution--some of it just came from players in the previous group.
But when I gave those examples, I wasn't talking about "the player did a thing" stuff. I was talking about me doing a thing. Framing, as it were, where there isn't yet a reason for the player to think they SHOULD do something. That's what is important here--the player ABSOLUTELY IS free to insert things when they want, and unless it's really REALLY jarring or illogical, I'm almost surely on board for it, because I love nothing more than supporting player enthusiasm. But if I insert things, especially things that the players can't know about unless they ask, then it's my responsibility to give then a chance to ask. If I don't, I feel like I'm cheating them, like I'm writing a mystery where it isn't even possible for the reader to figure it out no matter how eagle-eyed they are (like how Asimov was told that it wasn't possible to write a sci-fi mystery, because the author could always invent a BS fictional tech reason for things to happen--which spawned the Lije Bailey mysteries).
I don't plan things like "there CAN'T be a secret door here." I plan things at the level of cosmology and factions, world-elements that don't really make sense for players to be "in the driver seat" for, but which players can (and have) absolutely contribute to, sometimes in truly beautiful and inspiring ways. I have invented entire dungeons (well, their premise and such) purely because a player was curious about how they might do something--and then never done anything further with them, because that player's priorities shifted to something else. Players have repeatedly caught me off-guard by noting that a feature should logically work in a way I didn't think of, and I have consistently respected their superior cleverness even if it meant (for example) short-circuiting a fight I worked super hard to make or turning an intended enemy into a staunch ally (both of which have actually happened in-game).
While I do have events I have considered in advance (not strictly "planned" since the players can prevent them from happening), I also always make room for player contributions. There have been multiple adventures I didn't plan at all. I am giving some drive to the group's efforts, e.g. they'll get a message from someone or find out an event has occurred in their absence, but I regularly consult them (usually out-of-game) about what they're enjoying, what they would like to see, what goals they have, etc. so that I can support that as much as possible. As noted, the stuff with the Ranger's clan, the Battlemaster's research into "high military philosophy," and the Bard's expertise in the field of esoteric zoology are all things where I expressly accept player input and follow the player's lead unless there's an important reason not to.
This would not be acceptable to me. I would call this an illegitimate invocation of content authority, inventing a group that the PCs both could have reasonably learned about, and would have a great interest in doing so if they could have. In order for this to be a legitimate exercise of content authority, I would demand of myself that the PCs have some kind of opportunity to learn and do something about this second group before they succeed--but that opportunity could be ignored (player choices didn't make use of it) or botched in some way (bad rolls, they take the opportunity but don't "get" it, etc.)
I guess my problem with it is that this exercise of situational authority requires implicit content authority to a degree I can't accept on its own. That is, by invoking this situation, you've made (what I consider) some very strong claims about what the world overall is and contains. You've significantly changed the "backstory of the world," in a way that the players can and should have SOME opportunity, no matter how subtle/small, to anticipate/forestall. This is where "fairy grove" and "monster den" differ from the "Addams Family-style" haunted house, aka my understanding of what the term "haunted house" in general meant: as long as the world has fairies in it, you're exercising essentially zero content authority when you exercise the situational authority to say that the fairy grove is there; since almost no D&D-type game lacks for monsters of some kind, it's basically guaranteed that you can invoke essentially no-content, pure-situation authority to say there's a monster den.
Going back to the haunted house: the fact that the players can exercise other types of authority (narrational, content, whatever) after me-as-DM doing this (what I see as) "situation-that-mandates-content" authority does not absolve me of "fault" for exercising content authority under the guise of exercising situation authority.
And this is absolutely the case in my game. Whenever there is a major conflict, I prepare (as much as I'm able, I'm only human after all) for a spectrum of results between horrific utter failure and insane superlative success. If my players really wanted to, they could abandon everything they've seen thus far and go off exploring in the Sapphire Sea or some such--they'd eventually hear about bad things happening "back home," but they retain the freedom to leave. I am very thankful that they are enjoying the game content I've offered, and that they respect and trust me enough to stay engaged.
Overall, I try to avoid raising issues with player-proposed backstory unless it's a serious issue (like the aforementioned Session 0 conversation about necromancy in this setting). If a player wanted to be a member of the royal family, I'd let them, though that comes with complications of its own. But I wouldn't let a player declare that they're actually the currently-ruling sultan(a). Other than stuff like that, though--exploitative or extremely contrary to/problematic in the already-established backstory--I try to give players as much of a free hand as possible.
I do this a fair amount, yes. More in a bit.
See, this is where I start to get confused. I do not understand how "the GM frames the PC(s) into a scene in which they can head directly to Evard's tower" is not railroading. I'm not saying it IS railroading, mind. I just do not see how that isn't, well, precisely identical to "As you are sitting in the tavern thinking you've solved all the problems, you see a dark cloud gathering above the temple of..." That is, I don't get how "framing" avoids the fact that you have simultaneously exercised situation and content authority to not only plonk Evard's Tower in a specific place, but further told the PCs they're already on the road to get there. The next quote below doesn't help resolving the two as distinct things.
Okay...but that sounds exactly like the defense of railroading. A railroad is only a problem if the players want to go somewhere other than the tracks. If they never want anything that isn't on the tracks, then while I still think the DM is using poor practice, their players will be perfectly happy and they'll have a perfectly fine game. The problem is close kin to the one I mentioned earlier about illusionism: I find it absolutely, totally unbelievable that any DM can maintain such a perfectly pleasing set of rails that their players never, not even once desire to do something off of them, no matter how long the group plays. There's less danger than the illusion case, but it's still an ever-present problem and only takes one mistake for players to feel denied.
Which is something I sometimes do. Or, with Discern Realities, I may ply the player with a couple questions of my own before giving answers, to know what it is they care about, why they'd be looking, what's really significant.
I guess I don't understand what the difference is between "framing scenes blind" and proper framing. Are you saying you literally just...ask the players OOC what they want, and then...just IC recapitulate it to them? That sounds awful, so I can't imagine that's what you're saying, but I'm genuinely at a loss for what you could mean other than that.
The bolded sentence is what confuses the hell out of me. How do you do that? Like, this is literally reading equivalent to "just give right answers on your test" or "just cut the crap and play good-sounding improv music." It black-boxes the entire idea of HOW you engage players in the first place. The quote from Edwards is similar, albeit softer: "just be trustworthy with your power, and everything's fine!" That's not helpful. HOW do you do that? HOW do you earn and justify trust? HOW do you make sure your players believe what you'll do with the SIS is interesting?
And my answer to those "hows" is, more or less, "show my work." I'm not allowed to just frame any scene I want however I want. My players, on the other hand, very nearly are; I give them absolutely as much latitude as I possibly can. In contrast, I must be incredibly scrupulous with what I do. Because I'm the only thing standing between me and abusing my authority, even by accident. That's why I put such strenuous requirements on what I allow myself to do, what I expect of the fiction I insert. I'm absolutely allowed to be devious, to present situations that look different from what they really are (there's even a Discern Realities question about that!), to put down pieces now that won't make a move for six months or more. But if I make a move, the players must, at least in principle, have some way of learning about it.
Sounds more or less like how I handle things.
Alright. Well, when I said that, what I meant was...the players in general can't "see" the world unless I describe it to them. They can't in general declare the current situation DEFINITELY IS <x> thing. In general, I can do those things. I place strong limits on myself in order to avoid abusing that power, because the players don't have general ability to declare things. Does that make more sense? Yes, at times, the players are empowered to insert things into the content/backstory or situation/framing, and I at least strongly favor letting the players control the narrative (I try to provide an interesting backdrop, they're the ones filling it).
I mean, in principle this IS true of EVERY game. But that's literally what I'm saying: in principle this is true, thus I force myself to adhere to very strict rules about what I am allowed to establish, above and beyond even the limits required by the mechanics. That's why I do the things I do: so that the players can "signal me" within the fiction, rather than needing to signal me by talking to me-as-Ezekiel. (I also look for those signals OOG though. I follow up with at least one player after almost every session, in part because I am a whiny baby desperate for validation, in part because I genuinely fear my players simply show up because it's an obligation to a friend and not because they're having fun. Anxiety is fun like that!)
I have decided some things in advance, yes. Part of the problem here is that I "reused" a world. My original group, I brought only a handful of things: an Arabian Nights setting with a major mercantile-heavy city-state (and de facto regional capital), ruled by a Sultana; genies that were powerful and mysterious but no longer active in the mundane world; a monotheistic religion opposed to necromancy and divided on the subject of other faiths. Nearly everything else about the setting followed from the first group of PCs declaring things, which we wove together into an interesting setting premise. But since we didn't get super far, many of those ideas remained undeveloped. Sorcerers being "sha'ir" and descended from genies (which potentially allows mixed elements like "sandstorm" if descended from both earth and air genies) is one example, as is the Kahina (spirit-magic users) being divided into Shamans who use totems and speak for the "dead" spirits and Druids who transform and speak for the "living" spirits.
The second group, which has lasted far longer, has developed all of these ideas and added further ones; to this group, I brought some antagonist factions (the Raven-Shadow assassin cult, Shadow Druids, Cult of the Burning Eye, and black dragon's gang), and each player advanced further ideas about the world--e.g. the (former) Barbarian player brought into the world an entire culture of nomadic horse-archers living in the steppe beyond the eastern mountains, the Bard player brought a Robin Hood-y culture of noble community-building underworld types, the Druid brought in (well, we cooperated on this one) a now-defunct tradition of Sun and Moon Druids with special alternate abilities. Other than the main antagonist forces, almost everything about this world has derived from some player's contribution--some of it just came from players in the previous group.
I had a long hard think about how to do Discern rolls, given the group I played with before, where failure on those rolls all too often had no sting to it (and a player exploited this for tons of free XP--not in a bad or game-breaking way, mind, but it was still exploiting a loophole.) The solution I came up with was that a player must still choose one question when they miss a Discern Realities roll, but they won't like the answer they get. It's technically a softer move than I'm probably permitted to take, but I tend to be a bit of a softie DM so that's not surprising. The idea being, a miss on Discern Realities doesn't mean you learn nothing, nor does it mean that what you learn is false. Instead, what you learn is totally true...and definitely not good. This avoids the temptation to metagame while ensuring failure still hurts.
When the player is doing something (like Discerning Realities), yes, I absolutely give them narrative authority and then exercise content authority afterward to ensure things make sense, as long as their narrative authority is reasonable for whatever fiction has already been established (e.g. they can't narrate that they're suddenly on the moon for no reason) and whatever mechanics and resources are at their disposal (e.g. the Battlemaster can't narrate having Bardic Lore, the party can't narrate having a thousand dinars if they don't actually have that much, etc.) I support them as much as I am capable of because volunteering information means they're enthusiastic and engaged, and I see it as my job above all else to nurture that enthusiasm.
But when I gave those examples, I wasn't talking about "the player did a thing" stuff. I was talking about me doing a thing. Framing, as it were, where there isn't yet a reason for the player to think they SHOULD do something. That's what is important here--the player ABSOLUTELY IS free to insert things when they want, and unless it's really REALLY jarring or illogical, I'm almost surely on board for it, because I love nothing more than supporting player enthusiasm. But if I insert things, especially things that the players can't know about unless they ask, then it's my responsibility to give then a chance to ask. If I don't, I feel like I'm cheating them, like I'm writing a mystery where it isn't even possible for the reader to figure it out no matter how eagle-eyed they are (like how Asimov was told that it wasn't possible to write a sci-fi mystery, because the author could always invent a BS fictional tech reason for things to happen--which spawned the Lije Bailey mysteries).
I don't plan things like "there CAN'T be a secret door here." I plan things at the level of cosmology and factions, world-elements that don't really make sense for players to be "in the driver seat" for, but which players can (and have) absolutely contribute to, sometimes in truly beautiful and inspiring ways. I have invented entire dungeons (well, their premise and such) purely because a player was curious about how they might do something--and then never done anything further with them, because that player's priorities shifted to something else. Players have repeatedly caught me off-guard by noting that a feature should logically work in a way I didn't think of, and I have consistently respected their superior cleverness even if it meant (for example) short-circuiting a fight I worked super hard to make or turning an intended enemy into a staunch ally (both of which have actually happened in-game).
I don't know why you say the players should have the opportunity to forestall the GM deciding that there is a haunted house up ahead. Why? (This also relates to the later parts of what I've quoted.) The question is not rhetorical. Here's a remark from Vincent Baker, made in 2003, under the heading "Doing Away with the GM":
You need to have a system by which scenes start and stop. The rawest solution is to do it by group consensus: anybody moved to can suggest a scene or suggest that a scene be over, and it's up to the group to act on the suggestion or not. You don't need a final authority beyond the players' collective will. . . .
You need to have orchestrated conflict, and there's the tricky bit. GMs are very good at orchestrating conflict, and it's hard to see a rawer solution. My game Before the Flood handles the first two needs ably but makes no provision at all for this third. What you get is listless, aimless, dull play with no sustained conflict and no meaning.
In our co-GMed Ars Magica game, each of us is responsible for orchestrating conflict for the others, which works but isn't radical wrt GM doage-away-with. . . . GM-swapping, in other words, isn't the same as GM-sharing.
Any solution to this is bound to be innovative. There's not much beaten path.
Are you suggesting that the players get to veto any scene that the GM proposes? OK, but that overlaps heavily with "taking suggestions", which you seem to reject. Are you suggesting that situations might be framed without exercising content authority? That's almost impossible - where are you imagining the elements for framing the scenes will come from?
In my post that you replied to, I discussed approaches to mechanically mediating the players' exercise of content-authority (eg BW-style Wises check; PbtA-style Discern Realities, Spout Lore, etc). Baker's remarks about framing conflict opposition are key to this. If the players are allowed unlimited content authority then it is hard to see why they wouldn't just say OK, we go and visit my uncle who lends us his Staff of World-Saving and then everything's resolved! You say "I wouldn't let a player declare that they're actually the currently-ruling sultan(a)" - OK, so you're saying that you in fact get to exercise content-authority at every point? Or that you never let the players exercise content authority when that would help them resolve a conflict or challenge? So eg if they want to climb an urban wall, they will never find (say) crates that they can stack to help with the climb? Or you sometimes let them but only if you think it's OK?
This is the whole point of those mechanics in those systems - to lift the burden of content-authority from the GM's shoulders while not just handing it to the players on a silver platter. (One of the things I find frustrating in ENworld discussions of player "narrative control" is that it almost never engages with these mechanics, which are actually some of the leading example of how to reconcile player content-authority with someone else having control over framing adversity.)
Re your question about Evard's Tower, if a player introduces the notion of Evard's Tower into play, and then expresses the hope that his/her PC correctly recalls its around about these parts, and then a mechanical process like the one's I've described is used, how are you seeing railroading? The actual sequence of authority in such a case is player narrational authority, followed by the appropriate check, which - if it succeeds - then underpins an exercise of player content authority ("Yep, I'm right in remembering that Evard's Tower is around here") and potentially a complementary GM exercise of situational authority ("You see, across the river, the two willows that frame the entrance onto the notorious Weeping shadows way"). If the check fails, then the GM exercises appropriate content and/or situational authority as suits the particular system and the context of the fiction (eg No, you remember that the tower burned to the ground years ago or Yes, and you see the Orcs already ahead of you, creeping down Weeping shadows way.) In DW, this is classic 6- revelation of unwelcome truths.
In this approach to play - which, at a suitable level of generalisation, is typical of DW or BW played in accordance with the rules and principles of those games - no one is exercising plot authority unmediated by mechanics. The players can achieve desired reveals, moments of triumph etc by succeeding on their checks; and the GM can author downfalls, unwelcome reveals, etc, when the players fail on their checks. Content-authority is distributed and exercised by different participants in different contexts - the GM authors some content in preparation for and as part of framing; authors some as part of consequence narration; the players suggest some content as part of their narration of some of their checks and this crystallises as agreed/accepted content if those checks succeed. The fact that you refer to it as the DM is using poor practice in response to my description of player-driven RPGing, makes me feel that you are not really seeing beyond Edward's "easiest version" and really considering what it means to adopt other sorts of approaches. For instance, I'm not sure that you're really taking seriously that RPG might work where the players' don't need the GM's permission, but only need to succeed on checks, to exercise content authority.
That takes me to me next bundle of quotes from your post:
How do you earn trust? By demonstrating an ability to run interesting games! And how do you do that? By finding out what your players think is interesting! And how do you do that? By asking them and listening to their answers!
Some examples:
When I started my 4e campaign, in addition to the stated rules for PC building, I gave two additional instruction: you have to identify at least one loyalty for your PC, and you have to have a reason to be ready to fight Goblins. Armed with this information, I was able to frame scenes which spoke to those loyalties and which engaged with those reasons.
When I started my Prince Valiant campaign, the players wrote up their three knights. The build choices were made without collusion, but two of the PCs were very similar in build but about 20 years apart in age, leading the players to agree that they were father and son. The third PC had encountered them on the trail. Why were they riding together, I asked? Because they were on their way to a tournament. Fair enough, I thought, and then looked through the list of "episodes" (scenes, really, except in a small number of cases) and chose one - an encounter with an inexperienced knight in a forest clearing looking for some opponents to joust against. So the players had their PCs joust!
As part of BW PC build, a player may purchase relationships, and has to author three Beliefs and three Instincts. When I started my first BW campaign (this link is to an actual play report, by me posting as thurgon on RPG.net), one of the players had purchased, for his sorcerer PC, an inimical relationship with his Balrog-possessed brother. One of that PC's Beliefs was (to the effect of) I will find the magical items I need to free my brother from possession. And one of his Instincts was Always cast Falconskin when I fall. I started the session, and the campaign, with the PCs at a bazaar in Hardby where a peddler was selling exotic wares, including a (purported) angel feather. The player had his PC haggle with the peddler (which also created an opening into the action for a second PC, who was broke but had Haggling skill, and hence was able to help with the haggling in exchange for an offer from the sorcerer PC to buy her lunch). And a failed Aura-Reading check to determine the magical properties of the feather gave me the opportunity to narrate that it was indeed an angel feather, and hence carried the trait of fire resistance, but it was also cursed! The player and I collaborated in establishing the great and ancient battle over the Bright Desert, between angels and daemons, that had led to this feather falling there and hence later being collected and offered up for sale. (In pure mechanical terms, this was part of the player establishing that his PC's skill in Ancient History, could serve as an augment for the Aura-Reading check.)
Now, in purely structural terms, the feather here is no different from the haunted house: GM exercise of situational authority and concomitant content authority. And in purely structural terms, the fact that the feather is indeed an angel feather, but cursed, is no different from the GM responding to a 6- Spout Lore or a failed Wise check by agreeing with the player that the PC does indeed recall that Evard's Tower is around about here, and narrating the Orcs already making their way towards it. (In the feather example, it is the curse rather than the Orcs with their head start that is the "unwelcome truth".) As per my last full paragraph above this current bundle of quotes, content authority is being shared by player and GM in accordance with the system's processes and resolution rules. No one is exercising unbridled plot authority - the only plot moment is the revelation of the curse, and that is a narration of a consequence of the failed check: so the sequence goes something like GM content and situational authority (to establish the PCs' presence in the bazaar with the feather for sale) => player narrational authority (to establish that his PC is haggling with the peddler aided by the other PC, to establish that he is Aura-Reading while recollecting Ancient History about the angelic battle) => shared player and GM content authority (as part of the resolution of the check, to confirm that it is an angel feather dating back to the ancient battle, with a useful ability - fire resistance - for combatting Balrogs) => GM content authority which also establishes a plot moment (but the feather is cursed!).
There is no railroading here. No one - not me, not the player - knew what would happen going into that scene. Let alone that the upshot would be a cursed angel feather in the hands of the PC. Central to that process is the framing of an engaging situation, achieved by using the information provided via PC build; and the appropriate deployment of content authority during the course of play in accordance with the dictates of the system
In DW a scene like this would have to play out a bit differently, because DW doesn't have anything identical to Wises, Aura Reading and similar abilities that allow player content authority via successful checks. But the use of Discern Realities together with an appropriate asking of questions and building on the answers might produce a similar trajectory and outcome.
What's the difference between this and framing a scene blind? Framing a scene blind is just telling the players what they meet, and hoping it will be found interesting. If it is done on the basis of prior exercises of content authority - ie you as GM only frame scenes that can be extrapolated from your prior prep of backstory - then the need for hope becomes doubled, because not only to you have to hope that the scene will be interesting, but you have to hope that your prior prep will permit the extrapolation of something interesting!
And if you hide all your scenes behind "breadcrumbs", so that the players can't get to the bit that you've pinned double hopes on until they first declare a whole lot of low-stakes actions that will trigger your to gradually reveal what further actions they'll have to declare to actually get you to frame the scene (eg first they have to ask around for rumours, and then sort the wheat from the chaff, before they can learn there's a haunted house to the north with such-and-such a backstory associated with it, and they they have to actually have their PCs ride north and go through so-and-so many random encounters before eventually you say "By the road ahead of you, you see a foreboding house") well now your need for hope has been quadrupled, because (i) you've also got to hope that all that breadcrumb-following is interesting rather than tedious, and (ii) you've got to hope that the players declare the right actions that will trigger you as GM to reveal what further actions they'll have to declare to actually get you to frame the scene. I've personally played in games - not for a couple of decades, thankfully - where whole sessions have been spent just hunting for the GM's plot in this fashion.
Now you say that taking suggestions on scene-framing seems horrible, but I frankly don't see why. In my 4e game several of the players build Raven Queen devotees. This is, among other things, a suggestion that they want scenes involving conflict with undead and with Orcus. Plenty of such scenes were framed. When the PCs had defeated Orcus cultists in a town, and then one of the PCs went out into the wilds around the town looking for more signs of cultists, I had no hesitation in declaring that they found them. In terms of technique, this is the same general process as the PbtA technique of asking questions and building on the answers.
Which comes back to the quote above from Vincent Baker: the key role of the GM is to provide antagonism, through framing and where the process of resolution of declared actions calls for it (which in games like BW and DW is when the consequences of failed checks are narrated). The players can say, or signal, we want to confront undead and Orcus but they can't actually apply that opposition to themselves; they can say we are off to a tournament but someone has to actually frame the opposing jousters and decide how that opposition manifests and what follows if the opposition is victorious in the clash of arms; the player can say, or signal, I'm looking for stuff like angel feathers but it is the GM who presents the feather in the hands of a sharp peddler, and who establishes that what was unhappy about the Aura-Reading wasn't that it failed, but that it revealed a curse!
This is how the most straightforward approach to player-driven, non-railroading and non-railroad-y RPGing works.
I don't see anything here that suggests, let alone guarantees, that the situations that are framed will be interesting. You seem to be positing that you can frame anything you want provided it follows from your earlier exercises of content authority: ie the only constraint you are positing on your present authorship is your past authorship including your pre-play prep. When you say the players have latitude to frame scenes, I assume you mean that they are allowed to declare actions like we go north or we open the door or we climb to the crest of the hill or whatever, and then you tell them what they see and encounter. (I'm inferring this from your earlier remark about sailing the Sapphire Sea. I assume you're not saying that the players can just open a scene in which, say, they have successfully sailed across the Sapphire Sea and are now meeting with the Grand Vizier in his audience chamber.)
What you are describing here - especially if my inferences are correct - seems to me to be utterly traditional refereeing, going back to classic D&D and exemplifying Ron Edwards' "easiest version" of the relationship between the various sorts of authorial power: the GM draws a map, writes up a key that includes salient content and backstory, and then frames scenes that are triggered by the location of the PCs on the map and that follow from that prior authorship. The PCs' location on the map is determined initially by a starting location (by tradition, an inn or tavern in a small-ish settlement), and subsequently by keeping track of the consequences of their action declarations like we ride north till we get to the woods or we go downstairs or we cast teleport to go the the City of Greyhawk.
As per your reference to a "mystery" or the players having to ask you in order to know things, in this approach to RPGing a huge focus of the actual activity of play becomes the players declaring actions that will prompt the GM to reveal elements of his/her prep. In classic D&D this is moving through the dungeon, triggering descriptions from the GM, and recording them on the player map. In more contemporary versions of this approach, this is often the players having their PCs speak with NPCs to trigger them to reveal rumours or secret knowledge or whatever - the "breadcrumbs" which, as per what I said earlier in this post, will let the players know what further actions they have to declare in order to eventually trigger the framing of the scenes that will actually deliver the interesting content (like eg finding a haunted house, or an angel feather, or a temple of Orcus, or whatever).
My own view, based on a combination of reflection and experience, is that once the scope of the map-and-key extends beyond the artificially austere dungeon to anything like a verisimilitudinous world, then the GM has overwhelming control over what (if anything) of interest is happening or may happen; very heavily determines the players' experience, by way of the parcelling out of "breadcrumbs" that - if the players declare the right actions for their PCs in response - may lead to them learning about those interesting events or possible events; and in general is in the driving seat. As I stated in my earlier post to which you replied, I regard this sort of play as quite railroad-y.
This makes sense, insofar as (to repeat myself) it looks like a version of Edwards' "easiest version": content-authority is used, then plot-authority is exercised (eg the players are told that their PCs hear about bad things happening "back home"), then situational authority is exercised (the players tell you they're heading to the Sapphire Sea and you, or the group collectively, goes about describing scenes at the wharves, on the ocean, etc; and then narrational authority comes last (as the players tell you which direction they are sailing in, and you narrate the breezes and bright sunlight).
What it adds is that, as well as a map and key, you author, in advance of play, a host of content and a host of possible plot moments ("a spectrum of results"; "intended enemies"). To me, this just reinforces the sense of GM-driven play. In saying that you can, in general, introduce whatever content you want, you seem to be excluding the possibility - found in RPGs like DW (as I understand its rules and principles) and BW, and illustrated by my actual play accounts earlier in this post - that content authority is in fact shared between players and GM, mediated via principle of play and mechanical processes of resolution.
Given all this I am at a bit of a loss - given the preponderance of control over content you are exercising as GM - to understand your objection to narrating a haunted house on the road up ahead of the PCs as an objection to railroading. As opposed to, say, an objection to departing from your prep.
No it's not. It's not true of BW. It's not true of Apocalypse World. I don't think it's true of DW played per the principles and rules. It's not true of 4e played in accordance with a clear application of the skill challenge, treasure parcel, and player-authored quest rules.
Your assumption that it is true reinforces my confidence in my interpretations, stated above, of how you are approaching GMing.
This puzzles me. It's a clear exercise of content-authority: it's establishing a bit of backstory (ie that there is a fairy grove here in the woods).
This puzzles me too. You seem to be presenting unrequited prep as a positive thing! Whereas to me it seems like an illustration of one of the downsides of the traditional approach to refereeing - a map-and-key are prepared, but the players don't follow the "breadcrumbs" and hence the prep is never used.
I'm finishing this post with a response to this particular paragraph because in some ways it stood out the most for me. I've bolded the bit that I particularly have in mind.
In DW or AW, played in accordance with its principles, the MC/GM is not only expected but obliged to "metagame". When a player rolls a 6, you make a move that will conform to your principles and drive your agenda. This includes being a fan of the characters and filling their lives with adventure. So if a player Spouts Lore about (say) Evard's Tower, because s/he is hoping to find the spellbooks therein, and rolls a 6 or less, than the GM has to think what move, as hard as I like, will fill the lives of these characters, of whom I'm fans, with adventure? That's a metagame agenda! - it's not just extrapolation from the fiction so far. So you tell them, Yes, Evard's tower was here once, but it burned down years ago! Any books it once held will no longer be found in its ruined shell. Maybe they will go to the shell of the burned-down tower and try and find a secret entrance to its under-libraries. Or collect the ashes so that their Spell of Undoing Time's Wrath can restore the ashes into spellbooks. Or maybe they will try and learn if Evard, or someone else, saved the books before the tower was burned down. Maybe they will even give up on the hunt for books, although that seems like the least interesting outcome and probably not one you would be hoping for as GM.
Or you tell them, Yes, Evard's Tower is near here. And as you gaze across the river you can see Orcs on foot, framed by the two willows that you realise must mark the start of the Weeping shadows way that leads right to the tower. They appear to have beaten you to it! And now maybe the players will have their PCs try and shoot the Orcs, or will try and stop them in some more subtle way, or will try and outrace them, or will steal themselves for an assault upon a wizard's tower newly-garrisoned by Orcs.
This is all metagaming - leaning into both the fiction, and the themes and trajectory of play, to try and think up consequences - unwelcome truths - that will push play onward.
Discern Realities seems even more straightforward: Player's Q: What here is not what it seems? <roll 6-down> GM's A: The floor beneath your feet! Roll d6 for the damage you take as it falls away and you land on your rump in the pit beneath! Or Q: What happened here recently? <roll 6-down> A: You can see signs of burglary. Someone got here before you, and the scroll you were looking for is gone!
I don't see any difference here from any other player move, and don't see why you would either (i) have players earning "free XP" or (ii) need a special rule to govern narration of consequences for failed checks.
Last edited:
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
So, I'm going to try for a fuller response later @pemerton but...honestly I am really, deeply, completely baffled by a bunch of the things you've said.
Like, I feel like I've described some really straightforward stuff where my players are EXPLICITLY in the driver's seat, literally telling me what's in the world. And then you repeatedly insist that I must be utterly absolutely dictating EVERYTHING to the players, and never ever giving them even a single moment of control. I'm just...I'm so utterly confused, I literally do not know how to respond, and that's...incredibly frustrating.
I just...I feel like I've told you the car is actually really truly red, in seven different ways, and every time, I'm told, "So why did you paint it blue?"
Like, I feel like I've described some really straightforward stuff where my players are EXPLICITLY in the driver's seat, literally telling me what's in the world. And then you repeatedly insist that I must be utterly absolutely dictating EVERYTHING to the players, and never ever giving them even a single moment of control. I'm just...I'm so utterly confused, I literally do not know how to respond, and that's...incredibly frustrating.
I just...I feel like I've told you the car is actually really truly red, in seven different ways, and every time, I'm told, "So why did you paint it blue?"
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Well then, I guess in the spirit of @TheSword 's technically empty post...
When I hear you say "just frame a good scene" @pemerton , I get very confused. I don't know what that means. You've described it as...basically just saying a scene happens. Absolute fiat declaration, no holds barred. I don't like that idea. That idea sounds like literally just telling the players, "You're doing this now, capisce?" That's why I see it as railroading; you are doing whatever you like, and the players can put up or shut up.
When I pushed on that, you followed up with, more or less, "ask them what they want to do, then have that happen." This confuses me further, because I have explicitly and repeatedly said that I talk to my players frequently about what they want. Between sessions, I ask explicitly. During a session, I prefer not to ask explicitly, in part because I feel that interrupts the flow of play too much, and in part because Dungeon World explicitly tells me never to refer to the player, only the character. (Principle: "Address the characters, not the players") Instead, I go off what they've said before, patterns in the character's behavior, and how the player describes the character's current status/behavior/emotions, and if those things aren't obvious, I ask the player, "How is <X>? Are you scared, determined, unflappable? What are you looking for?" When necessary, I will resort to more out-of-character conversation, if hacking a new move or the like is required, but I try to keep that to a minimum so we stay focused on the fiction.
Further, you have asserted that it is not true that the DM can do whatever they like. I had thought this was well-understood to be a literally universal maxim for any game that has a GM-like role, known as Rule Zero. A lot of people use it (and I would argue, often badly, but that's just me). Every DM can always override any rule in any rulebook, any idea from a previous situation, even their own previous precedent if they wish to. I emphatically do not believe they should, but I do not see how it is possible for you to argue that a DM, even in 4e or BW or whatever system you wish to suggest, is not (at least in theory) free to say, "Nope, that's not how it works this time." If you have an argument that Rule Zero doesn't exist for 4e (or BW, or whatever else), I'm all ears.
As for the "metagame" thing, I mean a WHOLE different ballgame from "shape the fiction as you wish it to go," which I guess you can call "metagame" if you like, but I personally wouldn't. What I'm talking about is: "okay, we know we rolled badly on that, so whatever he said, he was lying, that means we should act as though whatever he said is false even though there's literally no justification for us to do so, other than that we, as players, know that the dice were bad instead of good." To the best of my knowledge, this is an explicitly Bad Thing in Dungeon World terms, because it means thinking mechanics first rather than fiction first. It means thinking as a player, rather than as a character. And I'm absolutely not alone in having this problem; this was a big discussion on the old Google+ site for Dungeon World, and it's come up repeatedly on the Dungeon World subreddit.
Sooo...yeah. I explicitly, repeatedly consult my players. I constantly seek feedback and advice. I don't understand what it is I'm not doing that I'm supposed to be. And I don't understand how "<x event> just happens, deal with it" is somehow magically NOT railroading, just because you did a temperature check with the players--nor how that isn't "GM-directed" play, which you seem to dislike to a very severe degree.
When I hear you say "just frame a good scene" @pemerton , I get very confused. I don't know what that means. You've described it as...basically just saying a scene happens. Absolute fiat declaration, no holds barred. I don't like that idea. That idea sounds like literally just telling the players, "You're doing this now, capisce?" That's why I see it as railroading; you are doing whatever you like, and the players can put up or shut up.
When I pushed on that, you followed up with, more or less, "ask them what they want to do, then have that happen." This confuses me further, because I have explicitly and repeatedly said that I talk to my players frequently about what they want. Between sessions, I ask explicitly. During a session, I prefer not to ask explicitly, in part because I feel that interrupts the flow of play too much, and in part because Dungeon World explicitly tells me never to refer to the player, only the character. (Principle: "Address the characters, not the players") Instead, I go off what they've said before, patterns in the character's behavior, and how the player describes the character's current status/behavior/emotions, and if those things aren't obvious, I ask the player, "How is <X>? Are you scared, determined, unflappable? What are you looking for?" When necessary, I will resort to more out-of-character conversation, if hacking a new move or the like is required, but I try to keep that to a minimum so we stay focused on the fiction.
Further, you have asserted that it is not true that the DM can do whatever they like. I had thought this was well-understood to be a literally universal maxim for any game that has a GM-like role, known as Rule Zero. A lot of people use it (and I would argue, often badly, but that's just me). Every DM can always override any rule in any rulebook, any idea from a previous situation, even their own previous precedent if they wish to. I emphatically do not believe they should, but I do not see how it is possible for you to argue that a DM, even in 4e or BW or whatever system you wish to suggest, is not (at least in theory) free to say, "Nope, that's not how it works this time." If you have an argument that Rule Zero doesn't exist for 4e (or BW, or whatever else), I'm all ears.
As for the "metagame" thing, I mean a WHOLE different ballgame from "shape the fiction as you wish it to go," which I guess you can call "metagame" if you like, but I personally wouldn't. What I'm talking about is: "okay, we know we rolled badly on that, so whatever he said, he was lying, that means we should act as though whatever he said is false even though there's literally no justification for us to do so, other than that we, as players, know that the dice were bad instead of good." To the best of my knowledge, this is an explicitly Bad Thing in Dungeon World terms, because it means thinking mechanics first rather than fiction first. It means thinking as a player, rather than as a character. And I'm absolutely not alone in having this problem; this was a big discussion on the old Google+ site for Dungeon World, and it's come up repeatedly on the Dungeon World subreddit.
Sooo...yeah. I explicitly, repeatedly consult my players. I constantly seek feedback and advice. I don't understand what it is I'm not doing that I'm supposed to be. And I don't understand how "<x event> just happens, deal with it" is somehow magically NOT railroading, just because you did a temperature check with the players--nor how that isn't "GM-directed" play, which you seem to dislike to a very severe degree.
