D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Maxperson]

10-12 Legend is accurate, forge is accessible.
7-9 Legend is accurate.
2-6 Legend is accurate, but there's a problem.

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

So again, that's not what I got out of it. What I got out of it was that on a 10-12 the legend is accurate and it came with a clue to finding the exact spot. So with a 7-9, you know about where it is. It's under section B of the glacier. If you get a 10+, when you get to section B you look for some melt water on top of the glacier and the forge is under that spot. The thing is, glaciers are really thick and that meltwater might be from a narrow chute of melted water that won't fit the PCs. Or maybe it will and now the PCs have to swim down in ice water half a mile. It still might not be accessible to them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So here’s a thought, and it’s not fully formed so I expect there will be holes in it and/or criticisms of it, and that’s fine.

Story Now is the inversion of the classic play loop.

The classic play loop is:

• GM presents the scene
• Players declare actions for their characters
• GM narrates outcome

There’s more going on than just the above…the GM typically makes a ruling or calls for a roll or otherwise engages the mechanics that will help him in narrating the outcome, but that’s a summary.

Inverted, it would look like this:

• Players present the scene
• GM declares actions
• Players narrate outcomes

So that’s definitely not an accurate description of Story Now. But bear with me. It’s actually close in some ways.

I mean, in Story Now, a likely first step is that the GM will present the scene or frame a situation. However, this should be based on things that the players have offered through their characters. These games have the players choose aspects of their characters that are meant to be central to play.

So the GM needs to respond to that. He has to take (one or more of) those things and frame the opening situation with those in mind. So in that sense, the first step in the loop is a prompt from players to GM.

The GM then sets the scene, challenging the characters in some way. The players respond by declaring actions for their characters. The resolution of these actions then constrain the GM in some way when he declares the outcome. I think this is true of most RPGs, but is more about the fiction. So if my action in a traditional game is to attack the orc, the outcome is I either hit or miss the orc. With Story Now games, the GM is bound by both the fiction and the rules. In some cases (I’m thinking of some PbtA games here) the results give the player the ability to declare the outcome, and the GM must honor that.

So perhaps it’s best to expand the play loop a bit:

• Players provide character traits/goals/beliefs that they want to be relevant to play
• GM then sets a scene with one or more of those traits in mind
• Players declare actions
• Action resolution mechanics help determine how outcomes are determined
• GM narrates results accordingly

There’s more constraint on the GM in how they establish an opening scene and in how they narrate the results of player declared actions. There’s a lot more player——> GM prompting, rather than the GM constantly prompting the players and having them react.

This idea isn’t a fully cooked theory or anything, just a thought that occurred to me while reading the thread, and trying to grasp some of the resistance to the Story Now process, and recalling my own resistance of it. The comparison is imperfect to be sure, but I think it at least touches on elements that, in my opinion, tend to put gamers who have a more traditional approach off of games that work differently.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@hawkeyefan interesting breakdown. And you might be onto something. But I'm not quite buy that in Story Now the GM is more restrained in action resolution. In certain ways they are, but in other ways they have more freedom to do stuff than in a traditional game.

In Dungeon World Guide this is offered as consequence for partially failed climbing roll:

Or we could do something even sneakier. You could separate them;
have a flying enemy attack while some of the party is still on the
ground. Now, you wouldn't tell them that the enemy attacks because
the player missed a roll, that would be weird, right? Instead,
you can say something like, "Well, you're an awful slow climber, but
you're making progress. The rest of the party is waiting for you, but
you see something off in the distance, approaching fast... looks like a
huge bird of prey! It sees you, exposed on the rock face, and is swooping
in for the kill!" This is misdirection; it’s what they mean when
they say “never speak the name of your move.” Fictionally, that bird
is attacking because the character was too slow climbing the rock,
he's exposed. Behind your GM notes, though, that bird is attacking
as a consequence of that roll.

I don't think this would be done in traditional approach. Introducing some element that is not actually causally connected to the action the PC is taking.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

But, in D&D, players often initiate things the DM has no idea about. For example:
The players meet a street thug named Sweetie Pie. Sweetie Pie has a rare coin they need. She stole it.
Player 1: Approaches cautiously. "Hi, we were told you are the person to talk to regarding a certain, collector's coin."
Sweetie Pie: Maybe. Who is asking?
Player 1: I am. My name is Doanot. And yours?
Sweetie Pie: Looks cautiously around. Sweetie Pie. Doanot and sweetie pie. Seems like quite a combination. Maybe we can go into business together.
Player 1: I agree.
The players get the coin. But now player 2 is only talking about getting a pie. After hearing all the talk about food, he asks the DM.
Player 2: Is there a pie store around?

Now the DM has no idea if there is a pie store around. (I would be impressed even more if they did, and had it written down. ) So, for the sake of roleplaying, he says sure. There is a pie store called the Peach& Pecan a few blocks away.

That is the players initiating. The DM might have Sweetie there as well, with her new found gold she got for the coin. But the point is, the players initiated, as far as I can tell. The DM could have had them roll a history check or streetwise or whatever they wanted to see if there was one. But, the initiation still came from the players.

(Not arguing with you. And thanks for taking the time to explain.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan interesting breakdown. And you might be onto something. But I'm not quite buy that in Story Now the GM is more restrained in action resolution. In certain ways they are, but in other ways they have more freedom to do stuff than in a traditional game.

In Dungeon World Guide this is offered as consequence for partially failed climbing roll:



I don't think this would be done in traditional approach. Introducing some element that is not actually causally connected to the action the PC is taking.

No, I don’t agree with that. The Story Now games with which I’m familiar place far more constraint on the GM.

I see why you might read the excerpt you shared as some indication that the GM moves allow for a lot of possibilities…and that’s true, they do! But all those possibilities also exist in D&D. In DW, the bird appears as the result of a roll calling for a GM move. In D&D the bird could appear for any reason the GM desires, whenever they desire.

It’s not so much about the what as it is about the when.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I don’t agree with that. The Story Now games with which I’m familiar place far more constraint on the GM.

I see why you might read the excerpt you shared as some indication that the GM moves allow for a lot of possibilities…and that’s true, they do! But all those possibilities also exist in D&D. In DW, the bird appears as the result of a roll calling for a GM move. In D&D the bird could appear for any reason the GM desires, whenever they desire.

It’s not so much about the what as it is about the when.

I am not disputing that in Story Now games the GM has less authority overall, but I was referring to action resolution in particular. I just feel that the player might have clearer grasp of sort of consequences their actions might have in a game where the consequences tend to be causally connected to the actions they took instead of being whatever the GM can come up!

But I think this still is one way in which GM can introduce elements they might want to 'force' in a Story Now game. Just wait for a situation where the desired element can be introduced as consequence. It will happen sooner or later. And sure, it indeed is true that in a trad game the GM can introduce new elements just because, but the claim was made earlier that in Story Now GM cannot force things they want to happen, and I think that is patently false. They can, it is just harder (and against the spirit of the game, which is the actual reason to not do it.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, in D&D, players often initiate things the DM has no idea about. For example:
The players meet a street thug named Sweetie Pie. Sweetie Pie has a rare coin they need. She stole it.
Player 1: Approaches cautiously. "Hi, we were told you are the person to talk to regarding a certain, collector's coin."
Sweetie Pie: Maybe. Who is asking?
Player 1: I am. My name is Doanot. And yours?
Sweetie Pie: Looks cautiously around. Sweetie Pie. Doanot and sweetie pie. Seems like quite a combination. Maybe we can go into business together.
Player 1: I agree.
The players get the coin. But now player 2 is only talking about getting a pie. After hearing all the talk about food, he asks the DM.
Player 2: Is there a pie store around?

Now the DM has no idea if there is a pie store around. (I would be impressed even more if they did, and had it written down. ) So, for the sake of roleplaying, he says sure. There is a pie store called the Peach& Pecan a few blocks away.

That is the players initiating. The DM might have Sweetie there as well, with her new found gold she got for the coin. But the point is, the players initiated, as far as I can tell. The DM could have had them roll a history check or streetwise or whatever they wanted to see if there was one. But, the initiation still came from the players.

(Not arguing with you. And thanks for taking the time to explain.)

No, the players suggested, the GM considered the suggestion, and then decided what the GM wanted to do with it. They could have easily said no, or turned it into a cake shop, or had ninjas attack. There's nothing binding here, and that's a big difference. There's only suggestion.

 

[Maxperson]

But, in D&D, players often initiate things the DM has no idea about. For example:
The players meet a street thug named Sweetie Pie. Sweetie Pie has a rare coin they need. She stole it.
Player 1: Approaches cautiously. "Hi, we were told you are the person to talk to regarding a certain, collector's coin."
Sweetie Pie: Maybe. Who is asking?
Player 1: I am. My name is Doanot. And yours?
Sweetie Pie: Looks cautiously around. Sweetie Pie. Doanot and sweetie pie. Seems like quite a combination. Maybe we can go into business together.
Player 1: I agree.
The players get the coin. But now player 2 is only talking about getting a pie. After hearing all the talk about food, he asks the DM.
Player 2: Is there a pie store around?

Now the DM has no idea if there is a pie store around. (I would be impressed even more if they did, and had it written down. ) So, for the sake of roleplaying, he says sure. There is a pie store called the Peach& Pecan a few blocks away.

That is the players initiating. The DM might have Sweetie there as well, with her new found gold she got for the coin. But the point is, the players initiated, as far as I can tell. The DM could have had them roll a history check or streetwise or whatever they wanted to see if there was one. But, the initiation still came from the players.

That's not the players initiating in the same manner. In the glacier/forge example, the player decided that he had heard that a forge was nearby, so there was automatically roll to see if that knowledge was accurate. In your example, the player is asking the DM if there is a store nearby. Now the DM needs to decide if it's yes, no or unknown and should be rolled for. There's a difference between those two situations.

(Not arguing with you. And thanks for taking the time to explain.)

Of course. Hopefully the above clarifies where I'm coming from.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not disputing that in Story Now games the GM has less authority overall, but I was referring to action resolution in particular. I just feel that the player might have clearer grasp of sort of consequences their actions might have in a game where the consequences tend to be causally connected to the actions they took instead of being whatever the GM can come up!

But I think this still is one way in which GM can introduce elements they might want to 'force' in a Story Now game. Just wait for a situation where the desired element can be introduced as consequence. It will happen sooner or later. And sure, it indeed is true that in a trad game the GM can introduce new elements just because, but the claim was made earlier that in Story Now GM cannot force things they want to happen, and I think that is patently false. They can, it is just harder (and against the spirit of the game, which is the actual reason to not do it.)

You misunderstand the example -- the introduction of an enemy while climbing follows -- it's a complication to climbing that makes it more dangerous than it was. And, there's nothing to stop a D&D GM from doing the same kind of thing -- a failed check, no progress, the guards show up, or a random encounter rolled. This isn't as drastic or free or unconnected as your arguing. The characters are trying to climb a wall, fail a check, and it gets more complicated.

You cannot Force in a Story Now game because the mechanisms of play are such that the GM does not have the authority to ignore player input, does not have the authority to ignore action declarations, and does not have the authority to ignore the system. Finally, most tellingly, the GM does not have the authority to narrate preferred outcomes even outside the above. If the players get a success, the GM can't override it or walk it back in a few minutes. If a GM does, they're breaking the rules of play.

This kind of thing is one of the main reasons I say you can't actually run 5e in Story Now -- there's no binding principles. You have to change the game to even start, and then it's going to be an uphill slog with the system fighting you all the way. This is a main point I disagree with @pemerton, and I think that the reason he insists is that he's actually altering the game in significant ways and ignoring parts of the system that exists (even in 1e) to do it and then it's still rough and requires finessing at the table. To me, this is tacit admission the game cannot do this, because the changes are such that it's not really the same game anymore and a normal player would not recognize it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You cannot Force in a Story Now game because the mechanisms of play are such that the GM does not have the authority to ignore player input, does not have the authority to ignore action declarations, and does not have the authority to ignore the system. Finally, most tellingly, the GM does not have the authority to narrate preferred outcomes even outside the above.

Mate. In the example GM just forced a freaking giant bird to appear.

If the players get a success, the GM can't override it or walk it back in a few minutes.

Yes. They just need to wait till the player fails at a roll (and they will sooner or later) and introduce it as a consequence.