D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I don't agree it would be obvious at all. If the GM has an end result in mind, they could 9/10 get there organically.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Well, I guess in your game it's perfectly okay for the GM to just declare actions for the PCs when they want something to happen. Like, the PCs enter a dungeon room and you describe to them how they pull levers and spring a trap. That's totally something that can happen and is easy to do in your games, right?

No, of course not. What you're suggesting here is just as badly offbase.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't agree it would be obvious at all. If the GM has an end result in mind, they could 9/10 get there organically.

Gm has to hope the players choose to do a thing that involves a dungeon, so he can use his prep.

GM then has to hope the players fail checks in the right places so he can properly introduce a situation that allows teleporting them as a consequence.

GM then has to hope the players fail another check so that he can engage the teleporting.

NOW the GM gets to implement his prep and... wait, this still isn't Force because the GM is allowed to do all of these things according to the system's say. The GM isn't overriding anything, and isn't selecting a preferred outcome over the ones otherwise indicated. He's just exercising his authority in the game!

 

[FrozenNorth]

Here is the Spout Lore move and some commentary on it (pp 21, 66 of my DW pdf):

Some moves . . . Give you a chance to say something about your character and their history. When you spout lore you may get asked how you know the information that the GM reveals. Take that opportunity to contribute to the game and show who your character really is. Just keep in mind the established facts and don’t contradict anything that’s already been described.​

​

. . .​

​

Spout Lore​

When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.​

​

You spout lore any time you want to search your memory for knowledge or facts about something. . . .​

​

On a miss the GM’s move will often involve the time you take thinking. Maybe you miss that goblin moving around behind you, or the tripwire across the hallway. It’s also a great chance to reveal an unwelcome truth.​

​

Just in case it isn’t clear: the answers are always true, even if the GM had to make them up on the spot. Always say what honesty demands.​

I am confused (though I admit that I haven’t read every post in this long chain), because the Spout Lore move as quoted, seems somewhat at odds with how it’s been described.

The Wizard uses the Spout Lore Move. “Hmm, I want to repair my friend the paladin’s armor. Mountains are dwarf country. Any chance there is a dwarven settlement near here where we could get armor repaired?”

On a roll 10+: The GM will tell you something useful and interesting about the situation.
“Yes, dwarves live in these mountains. The have to hide their presence from orcs and stone giants that also live in the mountains, which they do using a secret language that looks to outsiders like piled rocks. Fortunately, you know how to interpret these signs and can guide the party to a settlement”

On a 7-9: the GM will tell you something interesting, it’s up to you go make it useful.
“There is a forge nearby, but the hidden trail of rocks reveals a message to you: the forge was abandoned when overrun by stone giants, proceed at your risk.”

On a miss: the GM’s move will often involve the time you spent thinking.
“You decipher a message leading to a hidden dwarven settlement, but in doing so, an orc raiding party gets the drop on your party”

I’m not to clear how these examples are not GM force, even if the GM was not expecting the wizard to Spout Knowledge.

One definition of GM Force I’ve seen in this thread requires redirecting the players back to the GM’s predetermined notes, but to me, these are two separate axes: one that goes from heavily planned to more improvisational play, and a second that goes from the GM forcing the narrative to the GM being flexible and an active listener and following the PCs where their actions lead them (which perhaps a third axis goes from games that are setting-driven to those that are character-driven).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I guess in your game it's perfectly okay for the GM to just declare actions for the PCs when they want something to happen. Like, the PCs enter a dungeon room and you describe to them how they pull levers and spring a trap. That's totally something that can happen and is easy to do in your games, right?

No, of course not. What you're suggesting here is just as badly offbase.

You just sprinkle in enough things that could potentially and plausibly trigger the desired result. The PCs will do something, and sooner or later a situation to have the desired result happen occurs. This is like illusionism 101 and would work in Story Now just fine, and in fact would be in certain ways easier to make to organic due the great latitude the GM has with deploying consequences.

Hell, the moment you described the levers even being there, you're already guiding the players. It is highly likely they're gonna poke it. Just like the actual example in the earlier thread, where the GM described a suspicious looking painting that was highly likely to draw the players' attention.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gm has to hope the players choose to do a thing that involves a dungeon, so he can use his prep.

Dungeon-like interior can exist almost anywhere.

GM then has to hope the players fail checks in the right places so he can properly introduce a situation that allows teleporting them as a consequence.

GM then has to hope the players fail another check so that he can engage the teleporting.

They will fail checks eventually. That's just statistics.

NOW the GM gets to implement his prep and... wait, this still isn't Force because the GM is allowed to do all of these things according to the system's say. The GM isn't overriding anything, and isn't selecting a preferred outcome over the ones otherwise indicated. He's just exercising his authority in the game!

Right. "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." And fine enough. But by this definition GM force cannot exist in D&D at all, as by the rules of the game the GM has authority to do basically anything, including fudging dice.

 

[Thunderfoot]

The

Well, I guess in your game it's perfectly okay for the GM to just declare actions for the PCs when they want something to happen. Like, the PCs enter a dungeon room and you describe to them how they pull levers and spring a trap. That's totally something that can happen and is easy to do in your games, right?

No, of course not. What you're suggesting here is just as badly offbase.

I didn't get that at all from that comment. DM framing is just using good verbal skills to describe exact action from imprecise detail. Roll a spot check... after scanning the room a glint of light catches your eye as you spy an otherwise hidden object on a shelf. The character never searches the shelf, but said they were using a spot.

This is where old school and new school disconnect. Back in the day if you didn't say I check the shelf you missed the ring of invisibilty and virility. rolleyes But now you just say I search the room or do I spot anything, roll dice and move on, critical thinking replaced with mechanics. In much the same way DM creativity in using pre-made scenarios in non-linear ways is somehow being called DM fiat. shakes head Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You know D&D would be much more fun without all the players. (j/k - sarcasm) (Now waiting for Umbran to welcome me back with a oh no not you again. lol)

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I 100% agree with this, and I suspect that more generally, even in D&D, we will see a shift to more principles-based gaming rather than rules-based gaming.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You just sprinkle in enough things that could potentially and plausibly trigger the desired result. The PCs will do something, and sooner or later a situation to have the desired result happen occurs. This is like illusionism 101 and would work in Story Now just fine, and in fact would be in certain ways easier to make to organic due the great latitude the GM has with deploying consequences.

Hell, the moment you described the levers even being there, you're already guiding the players. It is highly likely they're gonna poke it. Just like the actual example in the earlier thread, where the GM described a suspicious looking painting that was highly likely to draw the players' attention.

Oh, so, you hope to use Force, maybe, at some point because.... reasons. That the play of the game in this case would mean it's not Force because you aren't overriding other outcomes for your preferred one, you aren't ignoring player inputs, or action declarations. And you're absolutely relying on the system's say to do it at all is totally beside the point. A GM can use prep (which is freely acknowledged in the game that prep is a thing and how you're supposed to use it) it pretty much your entire argument. An argument that says that your game is almost 100% Force because you likely use a lot of prep. Is this the actual argument you wish to make?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The

I didn't get that at all from that comment. DM framing is just using good verbal skills to describe exact action from imprecise detail. Roll a spot check... after scanning the room a glint of light catches your eye as you spy an otherwise hidden object on a shelf. The character never searches the shelf, but said they were using a spot.

This is where old school and new school disconnect. Back in the day if you didn't say I check the shelf you missed the ring of invisibilty and virility. rolleyes But now you just say I search the room or do I spot anything, roll dice and move on, critical thinking replaced with mechanics. In much the same way DM creativity in using pre-made scenarios in non-linear ways is somehow being called DM fiat. shakes head Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You know D&D would be much more fun without all the players. (j/k - sarcasm) (Now waiting for Umbran to welcome me back with a oh no not you again. lol)

That's not the scene framing being discussed, that's just description. Not the same thing.