D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Ah, now I see what you mean. Eliding 'that and only that' part initially confused me. So flavour eagles and boulders can be established along with something that elicits more immediate reaction from the players?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Many people that I know that play will gladly discuss rules they like and don't like, homebrew rules, how they like to roleplay or rollplay, talk about powers they use and ones they disregard, classes that are best, races that have great skills or feats, etc. Every single DM I have ever played with will talk all the above and what's best for world building, good and poor players, plotting or meandering, styles of adventures they consider best, etc. Some will discuss if they are heavy handed or light handed or party-killers or extremely reserved with their power. And yet, despite all the differences - they all play the same exact way.

Hence, my original point.

 

[Scott Christian]

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?

So in this case the player is authoring, correct? So, if it is used in a linear adventure...

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's not DM "force," it's DM "empowerment!"

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Bad roll on the climb --> bird shows up
PCs declare they're going to try to drive the bird off.
Bad roll on driving the bird away --> bird grabs a PC in its talons
PCs (including the one grabbed!) declare they're going to try to save the grabbed PC
Bad roll on trying to save the PC --> bird flies off into the sunset with its new prize.

This all seems story-now enough, doesn't it?

But now what happens? Who gets to decide where the bird ultimately goes and-or what it does (and what becomes of the captured PC) when it gets there? All highly relevant, if the remaining PCs want to try and rescue their buddy, but also all offscreen (even more truly offscreen if the captive is an NPC).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Many people that I know that play will gladly discuss rules they like and don't like, homebrew rules, how they like to roleplay or rollplay, talk about powers they use and ones they disregard, classes that are best, races that have great skills or feats, etc. Every single DM I have ever played with will talk all the above and what's best for world building, good and poor players, plotting or meandering, styles of adventures they consider best, etc. Some will discuss if they are heavy handed or light handed or party-killers or extremely reserved with their power. And yet, despite all the differences - they all play the same exact way.

Hence, my original point.

Yes, D&D tends toward a hegemonic play approach. This is largely due to the received wisdom of D&D. What I've found is that players that haven't been steeped in D&D approach other games with ease, while those well steeped in D&D bounce off or have trouble adapting. The fact that the hobby has a primary mode of play that's widely shared through the single massive IP that dominates it is not at all surprising, nor is the immediately pushback by those that are inside that comforting blanket of social conformity towards anything that suggests it's not the pinnacle of play. It's why I have to spend so much time repeating that I play 5e, I like 5e, and that my games look like your games. It's to somewhat placate this effect and prevent some of that 'you just hate 5e' comments. Not all, mind, because the pushback is real and strong and overcomes what meager tactics I have to hold it off, so it's pretty much bound to come out. I appreciate that you've gone the "I've never seen anything different, so why are you bothering" route. It's nicer than the 'you must hate D&D' one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So in this case the player is authoring, correct? So, if it is used in a linear adventure...

The GM allowed it? I dunno what you're going for, here. Allowing players the ability to suggest things (that the GM must approve) and taking some of them doesn't offset other facets of play. It's not a zero-sum game where you can fight towards zero by offsetting Force and Railroading with a touch of letting players author some details here and there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, now I see what you mean. Eliding 'that and only that' part initially confused me. So flavour eagles and boulders can be established along with something that elicits more immediate reaction from the players?

If the eagles are not eliciting an immediate response, they shouldn't really be framed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the eagles are not eliciting an immediate response, they shouldn't really be framed.

I have to say, the more description of PbtA structure I hear, the more schematic it sounds to me.

 

[Lanefan]

See @Campbell's post:

Right. If the module is written so that there is a default bad guy, but in the event that the PCs defeat that bad guy "early" then a new bad guy written up in a sidebar is to be dropped in to replace the defeated on, how are the players supposed to change the course of the pre-scripted events?

The GM in this case is neither honouring prep - they're changing it, adding fictional elements to maintain the pre-planned sequence of events

Truth be told, here the GM is honouring prep; in that the prep (in this case, the module) already has that replacement bad guy built in via the sidebar.

- nor honouring the players' success in play - they're negating it by adding in a fictional element that renders the apparent change to the fiction (ie defeating the bad guy) ineffectual to change anything (a newly-minted second string just takes over and keeps everything on the same path).

Agree on this in principle, though in practice sometimes honouring prep (or setting) and honouring player success come into conflict. This is one such case: if replacing their dead leader with a new guy is what the gang would do in the fiction, IMO that needs to be honoured just as much as the PCs' success in killing off the first one. By the same token, if dispersing and running for the hills is what the gang would do on losing its leader then that too must be honoured.