D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[hawkeyefan]

And everything in a linear adventure is carefully crafted so that whatever happened previously in play forms the building blocks for what is going to happen next. That's extremely similar to what you said below.

Right. Whatever happened previously regardless of player input. Chapter 1 informs chapter 2 informs chapter 3….no matter what.

I think there’s a huge difference between honoring the fiction that’s written before play and honoring what happens in play.

I'm no stranger to half-baked theory and conjecture! But on this occasion I can't get fully on board with yours, sorry.

No need to apologize, I wasn’t even fully on board myself! I think you’re right that the principles being used are a key element that I wasn’t focusing on….but my post was more about trying to pinpoint the thing that causes so much pushback about this kind of stuff.

But - to maintain my back-and-forth with @Ovinomancer about drifting D&D towards "situation first" - you could change some of those principles for D&D, while keeping the basic resolution engine and play loop - and get something much more "story now". The principles are the key, in my view.

Yeah, I agree. It’s certainly how I have been GMing 5e whenever I have over the past couple of years. The question is probably how much “more” you can achieve given the nature of the game, and how much you may change things up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You've answered my question before I even got to asking it - well done!

That question was going to be, in this situation is the GM justified in having the bird grab a PC in its talons and fly off into the sunset with it?

Because if yes, assuming the rest of the party want to rescue their comrade, then the GM can use that to haul the party into a location and-or an adventure of her choosing (because that adventure site is where the bird takes its captive); and how is that not Force of the highest order?

Because we can assume that play would proceed with the GM still using the same mechanics and principles that led to this point of play.

Could a GM decide to use this opportunity to install the pre-made dungeon they’ve made that they’re dying to get to? Yeah, sure they could. But why would they do so? That’s not how Dungeon World works.

So you use a kind of homebrew version of D&D that functions in a very traditional way, right? If you were in the middle of a conflict like that of the large bird making off with a PC, would you decide halfway through that conflict to switch to a more Story Now system? Wouldn’t that be really weird to do?

The GM would call for moves from the players to deal with the giant bird situation. The players’ declared actions and roll results would then prompt moves by the GM. That’s how that would play out. Suggesting that the GM would just switch to a whole new paradigm for some ulterior motive seems bizarre.

 

[Campbell]

My view of honoring the shared fiction comes from an expectation that when a GM designs a scenario they should have a clear idea about the motivations and capabilities of all NPCs involved so that players can leverage the fictional positioning they have to influence the scenario. Changing those details after the fact is not honoring play because instead of following the natural logic of the fictional scenario you are trying to lead it.

There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you and the people you play with want, but the expectation that we are all following and not leading the fiction is a valid and reasonable playstyle. It's also fully compatible with traditional games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because we can assume that play would proceed with the GM still using the same mechanics and principles that led to this point of play.

Could a GM decide to use this opportunity to install the pre-made dungeon they’ve made that they’re dying to get to? Yeah, sure they could. But why would they do so? That’s not how Dungeon World works.

So you use a kind of homebrew version of D&D that functions in a very traditional way, right? If you were in the middle of a conflict like that of the large bird making off with a PC, would you decide halfway through that conflict to switch to a more Story Now system? Wouldn’t that be really weird to do?

The GM would call for moves from the players to deal with the giant bird situation. The players’ declared actions and roll results would then prompt moves by the GM. That’s how that would play out. Suggesting that the GM would just switch to a whole new paradigm for some ulterior motive seems bizarre.

The claim was made that this cannot be done. That is being refuted. I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that in a Story Now game this is not supposed to be done. But if people wouldn't make such far-fetched claims we wouldn't need to waste time debating them.

 

[Campbell]

You've answered my question before I even got to asking it - well done!

That question was going to be, in this situation is the GM justified in having the bird grab a PC in its talons and fly off into the sunset with it?

Because if yes, assuming the rest of the party want to rescue their comrade, then the GM can use that to haul the party into a location and-or an adventure of her choosing (because that adventure site is where the bird takes its captive); and how is that not Force of the highest order?

Sure it would be. It would also be bloody obvious. It's obvious because in Dungeon World almost everything that constrains the GM is out in the open : the revealed fictional situation, the mechanics, their principles, etc. In more traditional play the things that constrain the GM are not in the open : backstory, GM facing mechanics, etc. If a GM makes a specific sort of move in Dungeon World I know they are doing it because they want to, not because their hand has been forced by unknown factors.

I think there's a lot to recommend having constraining backstory, NPC stats, and GM facing mechanics, but they do make it a lot more difficult to see when tracks have been laid down compared to more transparent games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure it would be. It would also be bloody obvious. It's obvious because in Dungeon World almost everything that constrains the GM is out in the open : the revealed fictional situation, the mechanics, their principles, etc. In more traditional play the things that constrain the GM are not in the open : backstory, GM facing mechanics, etc. If a GM makes a specific sort of move in Dungeon World I know they are doing it because they want to, not because their hand has been forced by unknown factors.

I think there's a lot to recommend having constraining backstory, NPC stats, and GM facing mechanics. They do make it a lot more difficult to see when tracks have been laid down compared to more transparent games.

Why would it be obvious?

Separate Them
There are few things worse than being in the middle of a raging battle with blood-thirsty owlbears on all sides—one of those things is being in the middle of that battle with no one at your back.
Separating the characters can mean anything from being pushed apart in the heat of battle to being teleported to the far end of the dungeon. Whatever way it occurs, it’s bound to cause problems.

Being whisked into another location seems to be within the scope of Separate Them move, and certainly in such situation it often is the GM who has to frame that location. I don't see how it would be at all obvious that such location was preplanned.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The claim was made that this cannot be done. That is being refuted. I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that in a Story Now game this is not supposed to be done. But if people wouldn't make such far-fetched claims we wouldn't need to waste time debating them.

Again, if the argument is that you can ignore rules and engage in degenerate play, then sure, you can do that. The better approach is to talk to how the game actually plays. What you suggest is against the rules of the game and how it is intended to be played. It is impossible to engage in Force AND adhere to the play the game requires. It's not impossible that people ignore rules. I mean, this is like saying you can murder people anytime you want and still be a productive member of society -- you have to choose between being a criminal and being an upstanding citizen and it's impossible to be an upstanding citizen and just commit murder whenever you want.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why would it be obvious?



Being whisked into another location seems to be within the scope of Separate Them move, and certainly in such situation it often is the GM who has to frame that location. I don't see how it would be at all obvious that such location was preplanned.

You can only teleport a character if it makes sense within the fiction -- it's not an always available option. If the current situation has elements that suggest or outright engage the concepts of teleportation, then this is a valid move. If not, not. You're again relying on a long causal chain to surmise that, at the very tail of the possibility distribution, a GM might have planned to engage Force.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can only teleport a character if it makes sense within the fiction -- it's not an always available option. If the current situation has elements that suggest or outright engage the concepts of teleportation, then this is a valid move. If not, not. You're again relying on a long causal chain to surmise that, at the very tail of the possibility distribution, a GM might have planned to engage Force.

You can make it to make sense. GM frames the scene. Not hard. Furthermore, if the goal is to just get the PCs into certain preplanned location that can be illusionised to be basically everywhere and the exact method of getting there doesn't matter, it is even easier.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The claim was made that this cannot be done. That is being refuted. I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that in a Story Now game this is not supposed to be done. But if people wouldn't make such far-fetched claims we wouldn't need to waste time debating them.

As I said earlier, if you’re looking for a “well, technically it’s not impossible” then sure. You win. Yay.

But if you want to look at the game as it’s designed and intended to be run, then it would be super bizarre for this to happen, and likely immediately obvious to the participants.

It would be like if a GM running 5e suddenly decided to resolve actions by flipping a coin. “You want to attack the orc? Okay…heads or tails?”

It’s not impossible, right? It’s just absurd. It’s like the person who would suggest that as a possibility doesn’t really know how D&D works and they’re just making claims in an attempt to try and make a claim that has some purchase.