D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Scott Christian]

That isn't what I'm getting out of this. From what I've been reading here, there is no chance that the forge doesn't exist. I have the same issue as you do here. The next thing is that there is better than 50/50 that there is no big bad evil dude guarding the forge. That's not the same thing as getting to it without meaningful obstruction.

They know that the forge is under the glacier X distance away. They don't know how to get down there and will have to make decisions that will spark other rolls that can cause bad stuff to happen. They aren't there, which means travel decisions that can spark bad stuff to happen. These future rolls can all cause other decisions with further rolls. And so on. That's what I'm getting from what @Manbearcat has been saying.

I'm going to be honest, and show my stupidity here. Perhaps some can explain to me how this is any different than a situation in D&D when the DM knows the group needs a forge. So they ask: "Is there a forge anywhere around here?" A lot of DMs I know would say yes, have them roll a history check, and then feed them information based on that check. The information might be wrong based on their roll. It could lead to a good way or bad way to get there. Maybe even a very deadly way. And then a wandering monster table might be used, or might not. Just like the player's roll on the other chart means there is something wrong.

The only difference I see here is the player gets to decide there is a forge, and then, based on a roll, there may or may not be a forge. And then, the players are creating the problem, which is exactly what an impromptu DM would do?

?

 

[pemerton]

...Because they felt like doing so? Like...I don't know how to answer this question. My players investigate things they find interesting, or follow what they just "know" their characters would do, or take risks to see what consequences fall out

<snip>

They do what they like because...they like it. I often ask them what they want to do at both micro and macro levels. E.g. "you now know the cultists are amassing weapons...what will you do?" Or "the hellcats are stalking you, and if they catch you guys, you'll be in for a fight. What do you do?" for micro level stuff

<snip>

The players engage with whatever they choose to engage with. I always leave that in their hands. If that means something gets ignored or diminished in importance, so be it.

As I posted upthread, this seems like "living sandbox" play.

My impression is that it is you, the GM, who are introducing the cultists and their amassing of weapons and the hellcats and their stalking of the PCs into play. Is that correct?

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to be honest, and show my stupidity here. Perhaps some can explain to me how this is any different than a situation in D&D when the DM knows the group needs a forge. So they ask: "Is there a forge anywhere around here?" A lot of DMs I know would say yes, have them roll a history check, and then feed them information based on that check. The information might be wrong based on their roll. It could lead to a good way or bad way to get there. Maybe even a very deadly way. And then a wandering monster table might be used, or might not.

The only difference I see here is the player gets to decide there is a forge, and then, based on a roll, there may or may not be a forge.

?

Read my post just upthread. It sets out the move, a little bit of commentary, and reflects on the example.

 

[prabe]

I guess I thought of that as being covered in the first bullet point, and/or by the use of "some" which doesn't necessarily mean "all and only"!

True.

For a moment, I thought there was a mistake in your appearing to say that using previous facts to establish a situation was backstory-first

Then I realized that to the extent any connections between the past and the present were immutable and/or pre-written by the GM and/or something the players would discover, that would mean it was backstory.

Then I realized that I think of situations without defined borders as incomplete.

Then I realized that I think you (and possibly some others) think that the borders of a situation aren't part of the situation--and I think they are.

Then I realized this is probably a pretty fundamental difference in how we define and understand situations, so there's a good chance neither of us could change the other's mind--and we might not even be able to bridge our different understandings.

Then I realized this is a discussion I know I've had before--though possibly not with you.

Then I realized I need to cook dinner for my wife and her mother, and I don't have time to have that discussion now.

(I hope in my relative flippancy above I haven't horribly misstated your position, other than maybe some slight exaggeration, which I'd be happy if we could put down to that fundamental difference in our understandings.)

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Why is there a separate word for this. There is already one available. It's called "playing." Do you see how you are, once again, connecting some slighter type of railroading, as if it is a negative. When a DM is running an adventure path and the players are in the adventure path, that is called "playing" D&D. No other word is needed.

 

[pemerton]

I think of situations without defined borders as incomplete.

I'm not sure what you mean by "defined borders".

You can tell me after dinner.

 

[pemerton]

Why is there a separate word for this. There is already one available. It's called "playing." Do you see how you are, once again, connecting some slighter type of railroading, as if it is a negative. When a DM is running an adventure path and the players are in the adventure path, that is called "playing" D&D. No other word is needed.

Well playing is more general, because it would also cover RPG play - D&D or some other RPG - in which there is no force used.

EDIT: Some people prefer ToH to the DL modules. For others it's the opposite. But everyone agrees they are different. Only DL assumes and encourages the use of GM force.

It can be helpful to have language to describe that difference. (Although the language itself was actually coined in a slightly different context - CoC was the quintessential "participationist" game, I think, for those who coined the term.)

 

[Scott Christian]

Read my post just upthread. It sets out the move, a little bit of commentary, and reflects on the example.

Yes. Thanks. I read it after posting this. It clarified it quite a bit. But it seems like a discussion that should be under RPG general, and not D&D. I get how it's connected to the terms in the OP's title, but to be truthful, it doesn't match the description or any play examples of any core rulebook for D&D.
But, I guess the bigger the net, the more fish one might catch. (As far as understanding the topic, not getting readers.)

 

[Scott Christian]

Well playing is more general, because it would also cover RPG play - D&D or some other RPG - in which there is no force used.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. You do not get to change the definition of "playing." People play D&D. This word connection (of which connects it to a term that is many times negative) is poor taste at best, and elitism at worst.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm going to be honest, and show my stupidity here. Perhaps some can explain to me how this is any different than a situation in D&D when the DM knows the group needs a forge. So they ask: "Is there a forge anywhere around here?" A lot of DMs I know would say yes, have them roll a history check, and then feed them information based on that check. The information might be wrong based on their roll. It could lead to a good way or bad way to get there. Maybe even a very deadly way. And then a wandering monster table might be used, or might not. Just like the player's roll on the other chart means there is something wrong.

The only difference I see here is the player gets to decide there is a forge, and then, based on a roll, there may or may not be a forge. And then, the players are creating the problem, which is exactly what an impromptu DM would do?

?

Yeah. I think it's just who is initiating it. In a typical D&D game, the DM would be making the determination and possibly asking for a roll.