D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[FrogReaver]

I’m guessing it would count as Force if after a successful climb check the angry bird showed up anyway.

Sure, but that gets into not honoring mechanics/fudging. I think story now with player facing mechanics does a great job of preventing that kind of force. Though, I don't think that kind of force is that prevalent in D&D either.

But couldn’t the gm just frame the next scene as angry bird attack, but with the PCs on top of the successfully-climbed cliff? In dnd the climb check and the wandering angry bird would be completely separate checks, since the two are not related logically (maybe the bird gets advantage on perception or something).

Yep. Or save the bird complication till the next cliff or for when they have to climb back down the cliff. Etc. There's nothing stopping the DM from thinking of a cool complication and saving it for a later time. Except such edges even closer toward scrodingers bird (story now style).

In this way, I’ve never understood why you can’t speak the name of your move. I don’t think it harms the fiction for the gm to say that this is the result of an unsuccessful roll; if anything it helps make clear what the point of rolling is. The blades advice about keeping the meta channel open and talking about what you are doing and why makes more sense to me for that kind of game

I think the goal was to preserve verisimilitude for players who don't like mechanics constantly referenced in the telling of the fiction. I can see the pros and cons there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

I mean...yes? But those were both the results of rolls. The former was a (highly elided, the actual scene was much more detailed) 6- on a Discern Realities check, which I run as the party learns a truth they wish wasn't (so there's no lying or distrust, instead a threat often escalates).

Trying for brevity: They had been fighting some evil druids, but felt they'd done enough to deal with that threat and moved on. They went looking for new challenges. After some rolls (Spout Lore, Supply, and Carouse, IIRC, the Supply because someone wanted to buy a magic shield but got a 6-) they heard rumors about weapon caravans disappearing on the trade roads. They decided that this clearly needed investigating, so through merchant contacts of theirs, they set up a meeting with a prominent weapons merchant. She verified the rumors, saying it was bad for her business and jacking up prices, and they asked her if they could help. Together, they hatched a plan to male a fake caravan so they could find and eliminate the raiders. Plan went well, and the raiders (the aforementioned cultists) took the bait. The party secretly tracked them back to a secret, Forty Thieves-style sanctuary hideout. PCs opted to infiltrate, stealth their way through, and ambush the cultists. A pitched battle followed, but the party defeated their opponents and managed to salvage one of their shadowy magic weapons. They then gained much from the hideout's library (another Spout Lore, just driven by the available books rather than personal knowledge, plus Discern Realities), both other locations of interest for the cult, and doctrinal info about why this cult does murders and where they come from (e.g. the already-hinted but previously unexplained connection between this cult and the proper, non-murderous Safiqi priesthood; the cult is a heresy of the Safiqi, not just random murderers). In searching for the things stolen from their fake caravan, the party Wizard got a 6- on Discern Realities, so they learned that there had been a very large stockpile of weapons here...but it had relatively recently been moved elsewhere (an unwelcome truth). This implied that the cultists had begun mobilizing and were thus a bigger threat than merely disrupting commerce the party had interest in. They then decided that they needed more time to make sure their intel gathered here wouldn't expire too soon: if the cultists knew this info had gotten out, they'd just abandon the identified sites. So they concocted a great deception, making it look like nomads had stumbled onto the place and ransacked it, with the cultists themselves seeming to have destroyed the library to prevent it falling into the wrong hands. Using the Battlemaster's knowledge of Nomad military tactics, the Wizard's fire magic, the Druid's ability to mimic weapon damage via claws, and the Bard's eye for detail and storytelling to catch any loose ends, they collaborated to make the deception near-perfect, meaning the cultists would never suspect a thing and giving the party all the time they could want for investigating the sites they'd found in the records. (Unfortunately there was no legend for the map they found, so they couldn't say for sure what the various sites were, just that they exist and probably serve different functions.)

I planned exactly four things in all of this, one of which had already been strongly hinted, i.e. that the cultists have a historical connection to the Safiqi. The second thing was the existence and overall layout of the hideout (the stolen weapons had to go somewhere after all!), third was a single point of doctrine (the cultists believe they see enlightenment in the moment of another's unexpected death), and fourth was the cultists' statblocks. (I am far too slow at inventing combats "on the spot" so if a fight is even a little likely I try to prep it in advance. That way, my players aren't sitting there, waiting, as the tension bleeds away.) The reason why the cultists are amassing weapons? Where did the weapons go after moving out? No idea! We'll learn all that later, if it remains relevant. I have not planned any of the sites they learned of either, in part because "draw maps, leave blanks," in part because this feels to me like a perfectly valid place for pure improvisation. The party actually has yet to visit more than one or two of them, IIRC, as they've had other priorities in the meantime. But it's only been a couple months in-game, so it's not too weird that that could happen.

As for the hellcats, that happened literally last session, and was the result of a 7-9 on a Perilous Journey roll. They didn't get the drop on the danger (which I invented very quickly because I had had zero prep time for this session and just used the first monster in the Dungeon World Codex that sounded interesting to me), but the danger didn't get the drop on them either--each saw the other in advance. Thus, the danger was stalking them, and they had one chance to try to avoid a fight from hungry semi-elemental beasts of shadow and fire. They succeeded with flying colors due to coordination between the Battlemaster and the Bard (who has learned how to take certain animal forms, taught by the Druid); essentially the party feinted and the Bard used shapeshift sexy no jutsu to sic the hellcats onto some male antelope in the area. This gave the cats what they wanted (food) without needing to fight. I'd never considered hellcats as a creature prior to that Perilous Journey; the desert is known to be full of monsters though so one appearing is not unusual in the least, especially if you travel off the well-worn trade routes where the monsters have already been cleared out.

Also...I have to be honest, I feel like I'm being squeezed a bit. If I'm speaking in abstractions or invented examples, well I'm not saying WHY the players are doing some given thing. If I give examples from what I actually do and have done, either there isn't enough detail, or the specific throughline is bogged down by details, could I maybe state a definition or other, you know, abstraction to make it more clear what I mean? Etc. I don't think anyone is being aggressive or whatever, but like...I feel like when I meet a request I'm always told I've fallen short in some other way that makes it impossible to say.

Also, it's extremely confusing (and somewhat frustrating) to me this notion that having ANYTHING AT ALL pre-planned is almost...infectious? That it basically beats into your players a passivity that will, always guaranteed definitely, spread to every other action they take until all they do is sit there silently until prompted and otherwise just passively glide from one totally ridigly pre-planned scene to another. That...doesn't match my players' behavior (well, other than one specific guy, but he's very new and is afraid of "playing wrong.") I don't understand why you can't have healthy, vibrant, sustained Story Now right alongside judicious, circumspect use of Story Before. Someone presented it as though Story Before is...like an invasive species, as though it were simply axiomatic that ANY amount of it no matter how small will eventually spread and take over the game and beat the players into passive, meek little followers of the DM's hard-coded narrative.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yea that's basically where I'm at with that example too. How is making a giant freaking bird appear that was hitherto non-existent in the fiction not GM force.

Because it only happens as the result of a die roll. It’s not the GM forcing the game to go in a specific direction or toward a specific outcome. The dice call for a GM move. Yes, the GM selects what move to make and what it entails, but that doesn’t mean it’s Force.

IMO. The GM principles in such a game essentially demands the GM use force in framing and establishing the consequences of player actions (at least using the more broad definition of force).

How so? If establishing a scene is Force, and if making a ruling when the dice call for one is Force, then there’s little that isn’t Force.

For example, if the GM is required via GM principles in the rules to frame exciting scenes, his only method of accomplishing that is via force. He desires to pick the exciting scene - frames it appropriately and has the full power in the rules to carry this out - even if the players at that moment might have wanted the scene framed differently or even a different scene framed altogether.

No, I don’t think that framing is the same as Force, nor do I think that the GM is free to frame anything he wants. Framing a scene is establishing some point of conflict. How it will play out is uncertain. Where it will lead is uncertain. What it involves will be at the very least influenced if not outright determined by the events of previous play.

If we’re talking about an opening scene, then the GM should be framing some kind of relevant scene. Relevant to what? Depends on the game, but typically to one or more character trait or belief or bond or goal.

If we’re talking about a subsequent scene, then it should flow in some way from those prior. So in the case of the scene with the cliff, one would imagine that after the complication of the bird is dealt with, we’d move on to the reason they climbed the cliff.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It appears the xp was for an agreement with Lanefan's (mis) appraisal of "the boots on the ground" reality of Spo

My like was because this is not far off from my aforementioned "there's been a murder but you have a quantum murderer until the party declares who the murderer was" issue. That is, I don't at all mind (nor consider it "easy mode") that the player can declare elements of the setting in general. But certain kinds of them break any semblance of groundedness or verisimilitude for me, and those things can't just be "player declares whatever makes sense."

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of "solve a mystery" where the "solution" is invented by the players. That rings as so obviously, inherently hollow that I literally cannot imagine enjoying an experience where that's how a mystery got resolved. How can you collect clues and draw valid inferences when not just the clues but the inferences themselves are causing the truth? It would be like if an absolutely omnipotent deity (that is, one not bound by the rules of logic) tried to do science. How can you perform an experiment and record the results in order to learn something when you, personally, are directly making the results happen, and you, personally, are creating the true state of affairs that the experiment is attempting to ascertain? Indeed, you personally are deciding what logic itself is permitted to relate? That's just...not solving a mystery. It's re-writing history so that whatever you believe to be true not only is true, but always was.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because it only happens as the result of a die roll. It’s not the GM forcing the game to go in a specific direction or toward a specific outcome. The dice call for a GM move. Yes, the GM selects what move to make and what it entails, but that doesn’t mean it’s Force.

Presumably the GM selected the move he wanted to see happen. Presumably the players have no input when he's picking his move. Presumably whatever move he makes is something the players have to respond to. From every definition I've seen I think that makes it force.

How so? If establishing a scene is Force, and if making a ruling when the dice call for one is Force, then there’s little that isn’t Force.

Precisely. I think the definition being used of force is far to broad. It's so broad that virtually everything is force. I guess it's easier to realize when this is pointed out in relation to your preferred playstyle.

No, I don’t think that framing is the same as Force, nor do I think that the GM is free to frame anything he wants. Framing a scene is establishing some point of conflict. How it will play out is uncertain. Where it will lead is uncertain. What it involves will be at the very least influenced if not outright determined by the events of previous play.

Then I submit that linear D&D adventures are not force either (and thus not railroading), because what you describe above is exactly how they work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then I submit that linear D&D adventures are not force either (and thus not railroading), because what you describe above is exactly how they work.

I am not sure how "where it will lead is uncertain" can be compatible with linearity. That is, in a linear adventure, you by definition are certain where it will lead, at every point, because you follow the line until it ends. I'm also not sure how you can meaningfully include the "influenced or outright determined by previous play" part, because by definition a linear adventure is determined by the prewritten line. There cannot be dramatic influence from play itself, because if play could redirect the outcome to something outside the line, it wouldn't be a line anymore, it would be a space.

Consider, for example, my possibility vs selection idea. A game with genuine selections cannot be totally linear. But it is very similar to a line, in the sense that both a line and the "choose your own adventure" tree-structure have a fixed, finite set of possible future events, up to some level of embellishment (since the flavor and emotional color are the only things really determined by play itself.) The linear adventure is thus a degenerate case of a selection-based adventure, where you have only one "selection" (the line) at all decision points: the set of possible future events has one element, the pre-figured line. Both a purely linear and a "fixed list of endings you can select from" game involve no real ability for play to determine the ending, since the endings have all been pre-figured; play merely locks in one particular pre-figured event sequence, which for a linear adventure is already locked in from the word go.

E.g. imagine that we have a very simple campaign with three major choice points, each of which has four options. This is equivalent to choosing one letter each from [A, B, C, D], [E, F, G, H], [I, J, K, L]. Since each choice is independent, you get 64 possible endings (from AEI to DHL). That's certainly not linear, and certainly allows for players to select the path taken. But they are not able to choose a 65th path that isn't on that list; only the 64 paths offered are valid. Like in a computer game, e.g. Dragon Age: Origins. The Grey Warden cannot choose to both work with the Dalish Elves and the Werewolves because that's not among the defined choices, no matter what they feel like doing--and no matter how they choose to gather allies, the Grey Warden (or one of their party at least) WILL fight the Archdemon.

In this sense, both linear and "selections" games are not--and, indeed, cannot be--determined by prior play. At least not in the way I believe was meant by the word "determined" (that is, "going from undefined to defined").

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not sure how "where it will lead is uncertain" can be compatible with linearity. That is, in a linear adventure, you by definition are certain where it will lead, at every point, because you follow the line until it ends.

The lines often branch and reconverge based on player choices.

I'm also not sure how you can meaningfully include the "influenced or outright determined by previous play" part, because by definition a linear adventure is determined by the prewritten line.

Or - a linear adventure is well written such that the author took great care to meaningfully map out the most likely outcomes all of which are built on the previous play of that branch.

There cannot be dramatic influence from play itself, because if play could redirect the outcome to something outside the line, it wouldn't be a line anymore, it would be a space.

Then I propose that a linear adventure is actually a space, albeit a fairly small/narrow one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Presumably the GM selected the move he wanted to see happen. Presumably the players have no input when he's picking his move. Presumably whatever move he makes is something the players have to respond to. From every definition I've seen I think that makes it force.

Precisely. I think the definition being used of force is far to broad. It's so broad that virtually everything is force. I guess it's easier to realize when this is pointed out in relation to your preferred playstyle.

I don’t have a preferred playstyle.

Force is about the outcome. It’s about steering things toward an outcome regardless of what the players do.

It seems to me that your definition of Force is the one that’s far too broad. You’ve basically included everything a GM does as part of running a game. But I don’t think that’s how most others are using it.

Then I submit that linear D&D adventures are not force either (and thus not railroading), because what you describe above is exactly how they work.

Not necessarily. They may at times. But look at the published adventures. How do you think those work? GM Force. Players participating in “the story”. They’re buying in….okay, we’re playing Princes of the Apocalypse, so we’ll keep looking for the elemental cults. Oh we’re playing Curse of Strahd….we’ll make sure to hunt down the objects of power and then confront him. I mean, maybe we’d leave except OOPS THE MAGIC FOG MAKES US STAY.

Things are going to largely go the same way for everyone who plays these games. Will there always be subtle differences? Yes. Will there be some severe exceptions? Sure, of course. Are some of the published adventures worse (in this regard) than others? Yes.

Does any of that mean that the D&D adventures are bad? Hell no. Some are quite good. I’ve run several and played in a couple. They’re perfectly good at what they do…which is to deliver a story that’s largely already been written, with some decision points or areas of input left to the players.

Now, you can play 5e D&D without the published adventures, but generally what that means is doing what the published adventures do….coming up with a story and then creating maps and NPCs and bad guys and all that. Preparing ahead of time. Now, I’d say playing in this way probably required less Force because a GM may only prepare one session in advance. So when one session comes to an end, he has an actual idea of where things will go next session. So things are being prepped along the way instead of entirely ahead of time.

But there are plenty of people who prep way more than one session ahead of time. Look at the flowchart that was posted that basically summarized an entire campaign,
beginning to end.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The lines often branch and reconverge based on player choices.

That's, by definition, not a linear adventure anymore. It is either what I have called a selection-based one, or it is not a pre-figured adventure at all.

Or - a linear adventure is well written such that the author took great care to meaningfully map out the most likely outcomes all of which are built on the previous play of that branch.

Again, if it can branch, it is not a line. People use the words "line" and "linear" for a reason here. A line does not fork, though (depending on definition) it may have twists and curves. A truly linear adventure does not, cannot branch. If it branches, it's a graph or a tree, mathematically, not a line.

Then I propose that a linear adventure is actually a space, albeit a fairly small/narrow one.

Why would it be valuable to change the definition of "linear" adventure so that it is no longer a single line, but rather a space? We would be giving up the only merit the analogy had, meaning "linear" is now just a label, indeed a misleading one since lines are not spaces. We would also need to come up with a new name for "adventure where there is only one fixed path and choices in play do not meaningfully deflect away from this path nor cause it to branch between valid alternatives."

 

[FrogReaver]

That's, by definition, not a linear adventure anymore. It is either what I have called a selection-based one, or it is not a pre-figured adventure at all.


Again, if it can branch, it is not a line. People use the words "line" and "linear" for a reason here. A line does not fork, though (depending on definition) it may have twists and curves. A truly linear adventure does not, cannot branch. If it branches, it's a graph or a tree, mathematically, not a line.


Why would it be valuable to change the definition of "linear" adventure so that it is no longer a single line, but rather a space? We would be giving up the only merit the analogy had, meaning "linear" is now just a label, indeed a misleading one since lines are not spaces. We would also need to come up with a new name for "adventure where there is only one fixed path and choices in play do not meaningfully deflect away from this path nor cause it to branch between valid alternatives."

I'm only describing using your definitions what others mean by 'linear adventure'. I think @Scott Christian nailed it with his story board picture he posted a few pages back.

I'd suggest that linear adventures don't actually exist (as in no one plays one) with your very narrow definition here. I'm not sure why you've defining 'linear adventure' so narrowly that no one can be said to actually play one.