D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

In AW, and I think also in DW, there is no just framing.

So if PC enter new area there literally is nothing there? The GM doesn't describe anything?

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer, @bert1001 fka bert1000

GM Force is neutral, in the sense that it's a technique - namely, the use of certain authority (over mechanics and/or adjudication and/or the fiction) in order to achieve outcomes and/or frame scenes without regard to the players' declared actions and the goals at which those declared actions aim.

Because of that without regard clause (and the two of you have your own wordings, but I haven't seen anything huge at stake in that respect) it's perhaps a necessarily suspect tool or technique, because we might have a default assumption that it's best to have regard to what the other game participants are doing in their play of the game.

Illusionism inherits that feature, and in a way doubles down by introducing also the element of concealment - concealment isn't per se suspect (we hide the presents we've bought from our loved ones, until we give them to them), but it lives in the same neighbourhood as deceit which is closer to suspect per se.

I see railroading as a label that is primarily pejorative because, rhetorically, it embraces and reinforces the negative judgement.

I see participationism as a label that seeks to rescue Force and Illusionism from the suspicion they engender, by emphasising that the other game participants (i) are happy to be "deceived" (as in stage magic and at least some other theatre) and (ii) expect their contributions by way of declared actions and the aims of those actions to be manipulated behind the scenes to keep everything "on track".

There's at least a modest paradox in Participationism, because arguably the participationist players are ceding some of their authority to the GM, at which point the GM doing their thing is no longer Force because the players declared actions are not really game moves at all any more, but closer to colour that the GM weaves into the overall sequence of events. (CoC play has a lot of this, I think.) My impression is that at least some D&D players look at D&D through this lens.

I don't think the paradox of Partcipationism is worth much angst. Whatever the best label, and whether we call it Force or call it a reallocation of authority among participants, it's pretty clear what the actual techniques are - and in particular, it's clear that player action declarations and their "surface-level" outcomes don't have the same standing that they do in other, non-participationist and non-Force based, RPGing.

And @pemerton is a great example of someone with extremely low tolerance for Force and it's downstream cousins.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So if PC enter new area there literally is nothing there? The GM doesn't describe anything?

Yeah, this is exactly the bad take. PCs don't just enter a new area like they do in D&D, where you wander around the dungeon maze or around the hexmap. The GM is framing new situations because the PC actions demand a new scene or the system does (usually both).

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I will disagree with you here only by way of quibble (maybe I've been reading too many posts from @prabe!): I think that AD&D and Moldvay Basic/Cook-Marsh Expert are fairly clear in this respect. They explain for dungeon-based play, and mostly for hex-based wilderness play, how backstory is to be used in framing and resolution. (They are much weaker on urban/social-type play, tending to default it back to dungeon-style play as in (say) KotB.)

4e D&D tried this a bit but flounders somewhat. I assume that you had 5e forefront in your mind for your post, and it seems plausible for that edition. I don't think 3E really tackled this either, and 2nd ed AD&D actively encourages the GM to use force, including by manipulation of backstory, to achieve pre-conceived outcomes and support pre-conceived scene-framing.

No, you're right. I had modern D&D in mind, particularly 3e and 5e. The influence of early D&D I believe does set the stage for what many people think of as the default D&D world creation, even those that have never played earlier versions. At the least "not dramatic creation".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, this is exactly the bad take. PCs don't just enter a new area like they do in D&D, where you wander around the dungeon maze or around the hexmap. The GM is framing new situations because the PC actions demand a new scene or the system does (usually both).

So what? Of course everything follows from something. Doesn't change the fact that the GM has to describe things and not everything in the description can be a Chekhov's gun. Some thing are just described because they're the sort of things that kind of places have.

 

[Scott Christian]

Ok. Sorry. But I have another question: When a player writes a backstory, and there is mutual agreement the backstory is part of the campaign story, isn't this very similar (not exact) as saying a player knows a forge exists?

 

[Scott Christian]

But if playing D&D means (inter alia) experiencing the exercise of GM force, then how do I describe what is going on when I <verb> Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain?

And this is not just a theoretical question - there is a whole clash of schools over this difference.

What clash? If I walk into any convention, D&D club, adventure's league, hobby store, or home where there are 5 people with 5e books on the table and they are roleplaying and rolling d20, and I say: "What are you all playing?" There is no one that is going to say: "Uh, technically play is too broad of a term to describe what we are doing. We are running a participationism style game." No one.

There is no debate. Only the one debate that insists on attaching the way most play, via adventure path or campaign that is mostly run by DM choices, as something to wag a finger at or tsk-tsk.

It appears to be an attachment to a philosophy for rhetorical, and not explanatory, means.

 

[pemerton]

So if PC enter new area there literally is nothing there? The GM doesn't describe anything?

No. The GM makes a soft move.

not everything in the description can be a Chekhov's gun. Some thing are just described because they're the sort of things that kind of places have.

From the AW rulebook, pp 116-17:

Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [ie a GM move] and say it. . . .

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.​

Typically, You see high mountains, strewn with boulders is not going to count as a move (it doesn't threaten anything, announce any badness, separate anyone, generate an opportunity, etc). So saying that and only that would be bad GMing in AW/DW.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What clash? If I walk into any convention, D&D club, adventure's league, hobby store, or home where there are 5 people with 5e books on the table and they are roleplaying and rolling d20, and I say: "What are you all playing?" There is no one that is going to say: "Uh, technically play is too broad of a term to describe what we are doing. We are running a participationism style game." No one.

There is no debate. Only the one debate that insists on attaching the way most play, via adventure path or campaign that is mostly run by DM choices, as something to wag a finger at or tsk-tsk.

It appears to be an attachment to a philosophy for rhetorical, and not explanatory, means.

Would you expect a random table to engage in criticism of the game and analysis of how play occurs so as to improve their craft, or would they be advertising the game for players? Goal of conversation very much changes the nature of conversation. I'm not trying to interest you in the themes of my 5e game here. I'm trying to talk about how play occurs and improve my craft.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok. Sorry. But I have another question: When a player writes a backstory, and there is mutual agreement the backstory is part of the campaign story, isn't this very similar (not exact) as saying a player knows a forge exists?

This is getting very close to what I see as a very contentious but rather obvious bit of truth -- in fiction, almost all acts of authoring are pretty much the same thing. RPGs are really about the constraints on how that authoring takes place - what can be authored, who can author it, when can it be authored, and how do they author it?