D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Show me what you mean.

What does "pushing toward a particular situation" look like when you're in the framing of scene A, stuff happens (decision-points > moves made > move resolution > rinse/repeat until the scene resolves), and that all of that stuff has happened, you're in the framing of scene B that is a manifestation of Force.

What is framing of scene A?

What is the framing of scene B that the GM wants to get to (the Force)?

How do they get there?

In order for you to feel so resolute that this is a thing, you must have some kind of strength of argument. You can't possibly just be asserting this without independent lines of evidence to support it or a well-developed thought model in mind that you can demonstrate to me?

So give me the independent lines of evidence or demonstrate the well-developed thought model on how this happens.
What's your technique/thought process for cutting to the action and providing obstacles in blades in the dark? I haven't asked my players this, but I wonder if they experience that aspect of play as me saying, "now this happens" (even with the engagement roll and obstacles being based in what's already happened in the fiction). Framings around PC priorities and connections might work, but at least initially those are rather thin (playbook, heritage, vice, etc). But even if you do that: introduce a PC contact or a rival faction or a ghost, I could see how that could feel like the GM saying "ok now this happens". Snowballing using consequences also works, but there too there's a fine line between a score turning out to be a major success or a Fiasco. Things like "keep the meta channel open," "hold on lightly," "PCs are never incompetent" are helpful but are somewhat high level, almost correctives for when the dice/mechanics produce a situation that feels inorganic.

None of that is a knock against the game, btw. I love the game. As I've run it more our group has established a really nice rhythm. I can't always tell if my players like it or are just humoring me, but I love the intense focus, and the gm advice is something that I will take with me into other games. Those are just places where what falls under the rubric of "framing" feels very similar to what in a different game might be considered gm introducing prepared content.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

All I'm looking for - and I'm not seeing there - is the "Legend is inaccurate" option.

What would be interesting about that option?

Honestly….what would that option offer to play?

Because it seems to me like this is a case of a player saying “hey, this would be cool” and you’re seeking a way to say “no…but THIS would be”. To favor GM authored details instead of player authored details.

Maybe there’s another reason? But that’s how it seems….an impulse based on years of one kind of play to push back against another.
 

So how does everyone run their first session?
I don't have a 5e example. Here's a 4e one:

The first half or more of the session was spent on PC building (despite my admonition to the players that they could only have 1 hour). With three players, we got 3 PCs: an eladrin bard with the virtue of cunning (with the Veiled Alliance theme); a mul battlemind gladiator (with the gladiator theme and wielding a battle axe); and a half-giant barbarian gladiator (with the wilder theme and wielding a glaive).

I came up with a list of background options - the standard stuff like a +2 bonus or a bonus language or adding a skill to the class list, plus some other stuff I took from somewhere or other (maybe some FR backgrounds from some book or article? I made this list a long time ago), plus some Dark Sun specific stuff like one wild power or the ability to cast Arcane magic as a preserver. (Otherwise, I had said that Arcane defiles by default.)

The bard's background choices were Preserver (I am treating bards as psionic - and avengers likewise - but he is a multi-class wizard with Beguiling Strands) and Sensing Eye as a wild power. The mul's background choices were Perception as a class skill and +2 to initiative. The barbarian chose Body Equilibrium, and a +2 bonus to saving throws vs Charm and Fear effects.

As the final part of PC building, and trying to channel a bit of indie spirit, I asked the players to come up with "kickers" for their PCs.

From The Forge, here is one person's definition of a kicker:

A Kicker is a term used in Sorcerer for the "event or realization that your character has experienced just before play begins."

For the player, the Kicker is what propels the character into the game, as well as the thing that hooks the player and makes him or her say, "Damn! I can't wait to play this character!"

It's also the thing that the player hopes to resolve at the end of the game. At the start of the next game with the same character, the resolution of the Kicker alters the character in some way, allowing the player to re-write the character to reflect changes.​

In my case, I was mostly focused on the first of those things: an event or realisation that the character has experienced just before play begins, which thereby propels the character into the game. The main constraint I imposed was: your kicker somehow has to locate you within Tyr in the context of the Sorcerer-King having been overthrown. The reason for this constraint was (i) I want to be able to use the 4e campaign books, and (ii) D&D relies pretty heavily on group play, and so I didn't want the PCs to be too separated spatially or temporally.

The player of the barbarian came up with something first. Paraphrasing slightly, it went like this:

I was about to cut his head of in the arena, to the adulation of the crowd, when the announcement came that the Sorcerer-King was dead, and they all looked away.​

So that answered the question that another player had asked, namely, how long since the Sorcerer-King's overthrow: it's just happened.

The other gladiator - whose name is "Twenty-nine", that being his number on the inventory of slaves owned by his master - had been mulling over (no pun intended) something about his master having been killed, and so we settled on the following:

I came back from the slave's privies, ready to receive my master's admonition to do a good job before I went out into the arena. But when I got back to the pen my master was dead. So I took the purse with 14 gp from his belt.​

(The 14 gp was the character's change after spending his starting money on gear.)

Discussion of PC backgrounds and the like had already established that the eladrin was an envoy from The Lands Within The Wind, aiming to link up with the Veiled Alliance and thereby to take steps to save his homeland from the consequences of defiling. So his kicker was

My veiled alliance contact is killed in front of me as we are about to meet.​

(A lot of death accompanying the revolution!)

With all that in place, we started the session proper. I started with the barbarian, describing him standing over his defeated foe in the arena as the cry comes through the crowd "The tyrant is dead!" - taking all attention away from his victory and the pending kill.

I then cut to the mul slave in the pens. I told him he could hear someone moving off in the corridors and cells under the stadium; and also that the sound of the crowd sounded more worked up than normal. He decided that, with his master's unexplained death in front of him, he would head to the arena gate rather than back into the warrens. The gatekeeper recognised him, and at first told him that his time hadn't yet come to enter the arena. Twenty-nine tried to talk him around - and succeeded on a Diplomacy check - and I narrated a blast of psionic energy coming from somewhere above in the stands and exploding near the gate. The gatekeeper released that the insurrection was on in a serious way, and left his post - so Twenty-nine was able to open the gate himself and enter the arena, where he could see the wild barbarian (whom he knew by reputation if not as a personal friend) standing over his defeated enemy.

The barbarian, meanwhile, followed through on his exultation in victory and killed his defeated enemy despite the lack of crowd attention. (No roll was required for this.) Members of the crowd objected, however, calling out "No more murder!" - and some jumped over the low wall down into the arena, to try and remonstrate with the gladiator. I rolled some dice and decided on 10 people. Either another roll or an arbitrary decision - I can't remember which - told me that two fell into hidden pits in the sand before they could close, but that still left the gladiator facing 8 angry people (mechanically 2nd level Human Goon minions from the MV).

Twenty-nine saw this and ran across the arena to close the 17 squares. (And at this point I think got a slight speed boost, as we hadn't yet remembered to factor in the speed penalty for scaled armour.) He used the flat of his bone axe to knock down one of the commoners (ie non-lethal reduction to zero hit points); when the barbarian then got a hit in, after taking a bit of damage himself from the NPCs, I asked him if he was using the flat of his obsidian-tipped glaive, to which the reply was "It has a flat?" One dead NPC.

Up in the stands, meanwhile, the eladrin envoy - a student of the ancient tactics of the eladrin, and visiting the arena (i) to see how the people of this land fight, and (ii) to meet up with the Veiled Alliance - saw his contact approach, giving the secret signal of recognition that the eladrin had been told to expect. Then the contact feel down dead. The eladrin used his Sensing Eye to try to inspect the body and identify an assailant, but even with a +2 bonus (for clairvoyance) the Perception check failed, and so instead he attracted the attention of a Templar who noticed his psionic sensor. He succeeded in persuading the Templar that he didn't know the dead Veiled Alliance member, but not that his interest in the matter was innocent (there was a successful check in there somewhere - Diplomacy, I think, which is +4 CHA +5 training +5 Words of Friendship and so hard for him to fail - but also a failure, maybe on another Perception attempt). So when the Templar insisted that he come with him he teleported down into the arena itself, just as the events described above were unfolding.

The Templar (I was using a MM 4th level human wizard re-specced as a 2nd level elite) unleashed a psionic area attack that took down 4 of the NPCs (no good killing them when they make useful slaves later!) and dazed all of the PCs. The two warriors charged across the arena and scaled the wall - Twenty-nine making it only with the help of some people in the stands (which was my narration of his failure - ending up prone with no movement left at the top of the climb). As they took the fight to the Templar two of his bodyguards (MM 3rd level human guards reduced to 1st level) were approaching from higher up in the stands.

The last two commoners in the arena ran off rather than be embroiled in this, inviting the bard to come with them - but he declined.

The bard's player rolled poorly over the next few rounds, but the two warriors were able to take down the templar and then the two guards, the barbarian shining in the damage department but the mul showing off a defender's AC and hit points. At the end of the fight some quick maths showed that it was a Level 5 encounter for three PCs, so everyone earned an action point for the milestone, we spent some surges for a short rest, and ended the session there.

Two of three kickers are still unresolved, and eventually there will be two more PCs to integrate (one will be an eladrin artful dodger, who should fit in nicely into the eladrin contingent). But I felt that, for the opening of the campaign, it was suitably Dark Sun-ish: gladiators, slaves, templars, insurrection, and brutal death. The only thing missing was desert.
 

No immediate solution to the in-fiction problem of the Paladin's broken armour.
It isn't solving that, though. It's opening a pathway to a possible solution, but then, so was your suggestion that they have to go back to town to see the armorer. You clearly have no problems with you, as GM, introducing a possible solution, so I don't see the argument here -- it's the same kind of thing.

Whether or not the armor can get fixed or does get fixed is not determined, yet.
Something broke that armour and thus raised the problem, and whether that "something" was posed from inside or outside is in this case irrelevant.

If it was merely a possible solution I'd have far less problem with the idea. Here, this would mean there's a chance that the Wizard could be flat-out wrong in his memory of where the forge is or whether it even exists at all.
Why does it mean that Wizard is wrong about their recollection of a forge? Why is this the only possible way to fail this? Because this is what would happen if you checked your notes?
As written, that chance does not exist. The wizard believes there's a forge there and so now there's a forge there; with odds better than 50-50 (i.e. 7-12 on 2d6) that the PCs can get to it without meaningful obstruction.
You fail to appraise the situation. On a 10+, the forge is there and has magical fires that keep it burning - it's much more likely a solution now. On a 7-9, the forge is there, but no idea if it's useful or not. On a 6-, the forge is there and quenched. Not sounding like a great thing, yes?

To put it bluntly, you're approaching this as it's the GM's call to say if this exists or not and if it's useful or not. The idea that the player and the system have a say is the issue. Nothing in your proposed other ways to do it are really any different as far as fictional positioning goes -- it's only that you have the GM as the only one that can say it. You seem to think it's more challenging if Bob says what happens than if you let the player propose something and the system test it. It's not, it's just Bob's opinion on the matter.
 

Speculation: Could it be that a number of posters view anything that is not 'story now' as railroading?
Who do you have in mind?

I think it's consistent with the OP to suggest that railroading means force on the part of the GM that is not desired by the players, and/or is kept covert. When the force is welcomed, and known at least in principle if not in the moment of application (because that would be gauche) we have participationism.

Force, above, covers a few possibilities, some of which have been teased out over the past few pages:

* Manipulating the resolution process via mechanical fudging (eg of dice, of hp totals, etc);

* Manipulating the resolution process via manipulating the fiction, whether scene details or backstory details (eg introducing a new helpful NPC);

* Managing the fiction - backstory and scene-framing - in such a way that the outcomes of players' declared actions for the PCs don't change the pre-conceived trajectory of events (eg introducing new clues, or second-string NPCs to take up the baton if the BBEG is killed "early");

* Using social cues and context - eg requests, instructions, "puppy-dog eyes" - to get the players to declare particular actions for their PCs, so as to ensure that the pre-conceived bits of backstory are engaged with and/or the pre-conceived scenes are "activated".​

(That last one I personally might put in a different category, but that doesn't matter for present purposes.)

Can there be "backstory first" play that doesn't use these techniques?

I think the obvious answer is "yes": classic dungeon- or hex-crawling is the most straightforward example.

Can there be "backstory first" play that doesn't use these techniques, but in which the players nevertheless reliably get sent to "important" places by the GM's NPCs? That one I've got a little bit more doubt about.
 

What's your technique/thought process for cutting to the action and providing obstacles in blades in the dark? I haven't asked my players this, but I wonder if they experience that aspect of play as me saying, "now this happens" (even with the engagement roll and obstacles being based in what's already happened in the fiction). Framings around PC priorities and connections might work, but at least initially those are rather thin (playbook, heritage, vice, etc). But even if you do that: introduce a PC contact or a rival faction or a ghost, I could see how that could feel like the GM saying "ok now this happens". Snowballing using consequences also works, but there too there's a fine line between a score turning out to be a major success or a Fiasco. Things like "keep the meta channel open," "hold on lightly," "PCs are never incompetent" are helpful but are somewhat high level, almost correctives for when the dice/mechanics produce a situation that feels inorganic.

None of that is a knock against the game, btw. I love the game. As I've run it more our group has established a really nice rhythm. I can't always tell if my players like it or are just humoring me, but I love the intense focus, and the gm advice is something that I will take with me into other games. Those are just places where what falls under the rubric of "framing" feels very similar to what in a different game might be considered gm introducing prepared content.
To answer the question, yes, the GM is absolutely saying "now this happens, what do you do?" This is a critical part of scene framing. And also not at all what the question @Manbearcat was asking @FrogReaver. Frog's challenge was that it was possible to push a specific situation into the game, and MBC's response was to show how that works. I've run Blades, and I'm playing in a Blades game run by @Manbearcat, and this cannot happen without it being obvious. It's not at all the same as the GM aggressively framing a scene, but if the GM can frame a specific scene or situation. They can't. At least, they can't without it being obvious. And that's because the GM doesn't frame scenes at all until the players initiate an action that calls for a scene. In freeplay/info gathering, this is looking for the answer to a question and who you're going to ask and how. Once the player establishes this, the GM frames a scene. If the GM frames a scene they want, it's obvious. Same with Scores -- the PCs are the ones directing what the score is about, and that limits the scenes that can be framed. Once play starts, the GM is constrained on authoring scenes that have to follow on from what the system says.

Now, a GM can push a theme or concept in Blades. They could, for instance, really like ghosts and so, when the system allows, they can frame ghostly complications. So long as the play hasn't taken ghosts off the table (which can happen), this is largely okay. But, they really can't frame a specific kind of ghost scene because that gets obvious (and is against the principles of play).
 

Does D&D exist easily with Story Now?
4e D&D? Yes: see the example I just posted in reply to your question about first sessions.

As @Manbearcat said, I've GMed AD&D in a broadly story-now fashion. I think 5e could be used similarly - there are a few differences that might make it harder, and I don't think either is an ideal vehicle, but is not ideal does not entail is impossible.

The main thing is being prepared to follow through on failure as well as success, and following the players' cues as far as scene-framing is concerned.
 

Eh, you just plan situations that can easily framed into different contexts and triggered by events that are likely to happen eventually. And you can guide players actions by framing. Like that example in old thread about a room that had a painting that was described to immediately make players' attention to focus on it.

The person who controls framing and has power to introduce whatever complications on bad rolls has a massive power to direct the narrative.
 

Story now typically requires a mechanical process to determine fiction. D&D has none built for that purpose but either ability checks (probably wouldn't work well in 5e) or layering on such a system on top of the core D&D mechanics would seem to potentially get us there or close to it (doable because D&D is very customizable with home rules). Still not the best game for such a style but it might be able to emulate it well enough.
If you look at a 5e PC and you look at a Prince Valiant PC, what makes them different? Both have stats, and both have skills that dangle off the stats.

The action resolution processes are different, but not so radically that 5e can't be used with some version of "intent and task". And the GM would have to be fairly resolute about honouring success and failure.

What will make 5e harder to use for "story now" than Prince Valiant is all the non-check based stuff - Cunning Action, all the spells, etc - which seem like they should be some sort of "I try harder" currency but aren't easily treated in that sort of fashion. (AD&D doesn't have as much of this issue as 5e.)
 

It doesn't seem to me that there's any fundamental difference in forcing PC's into a challenge/test that pits 2 of their objectives against each other and then letting the dice/mechanics determine the outcome of that situation and and forcing PC's in a D&D game into a particular combat and then allowing the dice/combat mechanics to determine the outcome of that combat.
Maybe, maybe not.

In the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken Souls, there is explicit advice to the GM on how to introduce a "second string" NPC if the PCs kill the main adversary "early". That is not fudging any dice rolls, but it is not honouring the outcome of the combat. It's manipulating the fiction - in particular, the backstory with an eye on future scene-framing - to make sure that the pre-conceived events of the module can still be deployed.

I'm pretty sure that you are not going to find that sort of explicit advice in the BitD rulebook!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top