D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

That’s easy. You just talk about types of force. Which actually would make for a pretty good and interesting discussion by comparing the types of force various styles of play employ and talking about how they support that style of play and the risks associated with those types of force.

What risk do you think Is associated with authorship?

 

[Manbearcat]

The OSR alternative to the adventure-path playstyle is to have a world that is as neutral and dispassionate as possible when it comes to the PCs, so that the GMs role is largely reactive, as there is not set “story” to pursue. This is the worlds without number approach. Terms like “story” or “story-before” or “backstory” are a bit unclear for me because I feel they don’t distinguish very much between the build a world and then react approach, on the one hand, and the here’s the plot that will be followed approach on the other. This is the tomb of horrors/dragon lance split that you reference above. Anyway, when running an OSR game I find my use of force is very meta: I think the players are getting bored so I present a challenge or skip to the next interesting scene, or we are in rl running out of time and I want the players to finish whatever they were working on. But its interesting because in that context at least, force will appear exactly as hard scene framing. I’m almost inclined to say scene framing beyond “you wake up and its raining today, what do you do” would be perceived as infringing on agency.

I like the term “story absent,” but again, there is a world to be built, so it’s unclear if that applies

I'm not convinced you're using Force here in your OSR play. You'd have to demonstrate further what you're talking about because it looks like you're conflating actual Force with hard scene framing, cut to the action where the gamestate is again in the balance (because the preceding gamestate has been won by the PCs through resource deployment so we're eliding it), etc. Neither of those are deployments of Force unless they subordinate the system's say or a player's thematic, tactical, or strategic input in favor of GM preferred outcome.

If I'm running an RC Hexcrawl in the vein that I think you're depicting, Force violations of "the system's say" might be any of the following:

* ignoring a Wandering Monsters result.

* Not enforcing Encumbrance rules on a wilderness trek or in a dungeon (this is particularly bad if players have sunk assets into Porters as this is subordinating player strategic input as well as system's say).

* Changing Monster Reaction result to something more or less punishing than what came up.

Examples of Force subordinating player input (which you can exempt thematic, because the only thing that matters in such games would be tactical and strategic) would be:

* Improvising having a wave of monsters "spawn" and attack from an alternate position because the Fighter sorting out a great battlefield strategy and then taking advantage of a choke point to render an encounter moot. This subordinates the Fighter player's strategic planning and their tactical deployment of positioning and related melee control rules to my alternative outcome.

* Improvising an Antimagic Field or Anti-Divination block when a Wizard deploys a powerful Divination spell that will give them hugely advantageous recon for a coming conflict or immediate Hexploration. This subordinates the Wizard player's strategic input.

* Ruthlessly attacking the PC porters in order to make Encumbrance relevant after they decided to spend a lot of their earned Coin strategically (muting the impact of Encumbrance rules). This subordinates the players' strategic input.



If there is no way a Hex can threaten PCs because they've deployed contingency spells or resources to make it so, then cutting to the action of the next day when they arrive at the next Hex or ignoring the next x # of Exploration Turns (and attendant Wandering Monster clock ticks) and cutting to (say) Exploration Turn 12 (when the spell/resource is done) isn't Force. Its just eliding the non-game (because the PCs have already won that segment of play) and getting on with the game!

 

[Lanefan]

Huh?

The module is not setting out a command structure. The "second string" are not part of the fiction unless the GM introduces them because they are needed to take the place of the principal antagonist in the event that the latter is killed "too early".

I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific module or if so, what it is, so I'll have to go with hypotheticals here.

But let's suppose there's an adventure module where the intent is that the PCs are up against some sort of thief gang and are (for whatever reason) invading said gang's guild house or hideout. The module details and maps the hideout, stats out three dozen or so occupants, and suggests where these people may be found at different times of the day unless the alert has been raised. Further, it gives suggestions as to what happens if-when the alert does get raised.

Seems pretty basic so far, right?

In the module the guild boss is called Fred. There's a couple of sub-bosses listed, let's call them Jed and Ned; a few non-combatant servants; and about 30 ordinary thieves.

So. There's two versions of this module. One version clearly outlines what happens should Fred get killed early: on learning of Fred's demise (which will occur within 1d8 hours unless the PCs take great care to hide the body, cover their tracks, etc.) Jed immediately takes over leadership of the guild in a planned succession; with Ned next in line.

The other version says nothing about what happens if Fred gets killed early; and just leaves the DM on her own. So, not knowing what else to do on Fred's demise she pulls in a ringer named Ted to take his place, leaving Jed and Ned in their original sub-commander roles.

Clearly you would have a problem with the second option; I think I would too.

But to me the first option - a planned succession that's detailed in the written module and which doesn't bring in anyone new - is just fine; and good module-writing to boot as it calls out a fairly obvious what-if situation and says what to do next if it occurs. Do you agree?

 

[Lanefan]

Let me throw this idea out there.

I'm about to start playing in a 5e campaign. I've made a flowchart of what'll be going on with my character every session. There may be some small differences by the time we get to any given session, but it's a solid outline. I showed my DM and stressed how by session 6 I expect to be 3rd level so I can pick my subclass and since I'm gonna go with Hunter, I'll have a magic bow by that point. Which will come in really handy in session 8 when I rescue my brother from the cult that he's mixed up with.

Seems reasonable for a player in D&D to do this, right?

On a slightly larger and longer scale isn't that exactly how most people played 3e, storyboarding out their characters' 1-20 build paths and item acquisitions?

More seriously, were a player to bring that to me I'd first ask how said player knows in advance how long each session will be and-or how much will get done there; as if this futurecasting really is a talent I'd like some advice on lottery numbers. Then I'd point out that the odds of being 3rd level by session 6 in this game are exactly zero and that session 60 is a more realistic time-frame for that (and that in this you're no different from anyone else); that while magic bows certainly exist and that your odds of at least having the opportunity to acquire one by that point are fairly good, nothing is guaranteed; and that I'll take the brother-and-cult idea under advisement. Somewhere in there I'd also mention that my game tends to be rather hard on its low-level characters and to have a replacement on standby as there tends to be a lot of turnover.

Oh, and I'd mention I'm not running 5e but a much older system instead.

Still wanna play?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But to me the first option - a planned succession that's detailed in the written module and which doesn't bring in anyone new - is just fine; and good module-writing to boot as it calls out a fairly obvious what-if situation and says what to do next if it occurs. Do you agree?

Considering that the players probably are not particularly familiar with either Ned, Jed or Ted and the outcome from their perspective is effectively identical, I don't think that these really are meaningful differences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The GM should be framing things that are relevant to the characters. If that allows for ghosts and such, or some element of play has introduced the idea of ghosts, then sure, have at it.

But if it's just that the GM has decided he'd like to include ghosts....that's less easy to say. It should flow from the fiction or from the characters, right? If there's nothing about this that contradicts what's been established, then it may be okay.

Everything is established at some point somehow. And some things are just there to keep things moving. Like I doubt that that giant bird in the example had deep connections to the character backstories either. Granted, with ghosts it might seem like a somewhat wasted opportunity to not have some personal connection to one of the characters.

I can't say without some sense of what you mean. Like I get what you're saying, but I don't really see how it happens in Dungeon World or similar games.

By describing things in manner that elicits certain responses by players, by introducing elements that take the narrative to the desired direction.

Okay. Do you think you need to know in session 3 what may be likely in session 10? Can you even accurately say? Should you accurately say?

To me, they don't seem like a "rough idea of where things may go" so much as a "Rough idea of where they will go". To me, that's the difference, and why I would suggest against it if anyone is looking to avoid Force in their play. Don't prep that far ahead. There is no need.

Sure, to me that level of foreplanning seems excessive. But then again, different people work differently. And if one wanted it to feel like some sort of epic story with dramatic arcs like Lord of the Rings or the good Star Wars films, then perhaps planning such overall structure might be warranted. I don't know, I have never made such far-reaching plans.

That's an interesting thought, and I think I agree. But what do you mean here? What does organically mean in this sense for 5e?

It just means that previous events generate further events. Once characters develop connections, get to know their surrounding, make, friends, enemies, start making plans things start to happen. You can sort of simulate this by backstories and exposition, but I don't feel it ever works as well as drawing on content actually encountered in the game.

I don't know. By invoking subtlety, you're hinting at illusionism being okay, which is something that may or may not fly at a given table. If the table is cool with it, then yeah, it's okay.

I personally don't much like that. But that's my preference.

I just mean gently nudging things towards planned things. Generating hints and plothooks, having NPCs mention relevant things etc. I'm sure everyone does this at some degree.

 

[soviet]

The purpose of all this is transparently to soften the definition of force so that the distinctions are blurred and the application of force is transformed from a decision to merely a matter of degree.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure if you're referring to a specific module or if so, what it is

The module I'm referring to is Bastion of Broken Souls. It's a D&D 3E module.

 

[pemerton]

The OSR alternative to the adventure-path playstyle is to have a world that is as neutral and dispassionate as possible when it comes to the PCs, so that the GMs role is largely reactive, as there is not set “story” to pursue. This is the worlds without number approach. Terms like “story” or “story-before” or “backstory” are a bit unclear for me because I feel they don’t distinguish very much between the build a world and then react approach, on the one hand, and the here’s the plot that will be followed approach on the other. This is the tomb of horrors/dragon lance split that you reference above.

I think the posters in this thread who have done the most to distinguish ToH-type play and DL-type play are me, @Manbearcat and @Campbell.

Neither I, nor Manbearcat, nor Campbell, nor @Ovinomancer as best I recall, has asserted that all backstory-first play is, or depends on, Force. @Scott Cristian has, and @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver seem to have at least implied that.

No one has asserted that backstory first and situation first are the only interesting distinctions in RPGing. The reason for drawing the contrast is when posts are made which assert or imply that backstory first is the only way to play RPGs in general, or D&D in particular.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Neither I, nor Manbearcat, nor Campbell, nor @Ovinomancer as best I recall, has asserted that all backstory-first play is, or depends on, Force. @Scott Cristian has, and @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver seem to have at least implied that.

Wait, what? No I haven't!