D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because I have no interest in such semantic quagmire.


Right. So in Story Now game the GM can direct the game in their desired direction but doing so is no force? Fine by me, I don't care to debate definition of force, as long as such lenient interpretation is consistently applied.

In a Story Now game it is THE essential principle of the game that the 'desired direction' is established by the players, at least to the extent that it relates to the story of THEIR characters. Different SN games have different conceptions of the degree to which the milieu itself, or setting, are responsive to player input. Regardless, the focus of play will be on things that are signaled by the players. A GM can frame a scene, but if that scene is simply present because it was something said GM 'wanted to be in the game', or simply because 'that is the plot I created', then that's not Story Now! At least not how I conceive of it.

So, for instance, in Dungeon World, the GM asks questions. This is not an optional part of the game, it is stated plainly as a part of the function of the GM within the structure of play of DW. FROM THAT the GM frames scenes. These scenes can, and will, incorporate elements generated by the GM explicitly, dooms, other elements of fronts, npcs, etc. However they will serve specific purposes and a GM who starts out running a DW game and insists that the game is all about defending a castle from the undead is probably not doing it 'right'. If you read the rules, the game starts out BEFORE that sort of thing is established. The first part of the game is establishing the characters, their basic relationships (starting bonds), where they are located, and what is happening to them NOW. This happens in a session 0 in which the GM questions the players about what the world is like, what their characters are doing, who they are, etc.

You can see how this is entirely unlike 'traditional' RP such as what is offered by a game like 5e. While GM Force is certainly possible in a DW game, it is definitely not part of the 'correct' playing process. GM force in 5e OTOH is simply built into the game. It is expected, though largely unstated, that the GM will "write an adventure" and the PCs will run through it, and a campaign will consist of a bunch of these adventures, or perhaps a looser 'sandbox', which is similar but with less expectations of a linear structure. In either case the GM faces the question of how to shape the overall narrative to fit with the material at hand. It is certainly possible for them to choose to ask questions and take a Story Now type of approach. That isn't the default assumed process. In fact traditional play has a problem at its core, which is the whole reason threads like this exist, the RULES say "Roll Dice and Find Out What Happens." but the overall structure of "adventure module play" that is assumed requires that the "what happens" is "and then they go to the next location (or one of the next possible locations)."

Story Now resolves that paradox of traditional play. It can also be resolved by going down into the direction of 'Gygaxian Play' where the whole point is to just write up an all-encompassing description of the environment and test the player's ability to guide characters through it. In that style 'progressing through an adventure' is technically not relevant. Of course, once the GM prepares a bunch of material, then not using it is a waste, and even Gygax clearly OFTEN 'fudged' things (IE used force) to insure that the outcome involved exploration of a substantial fraction of the prepared material. B2 is of course a perfect example of this paradigm as a published module. I would call out the A series of 1e modules as an exemplar of the more modern 'story line' type of overall linear adventures. Both kinds can lead to GM force, though B2 certainly is less likely to evoke it, in general (you can always just make up new PCs and keep going, it is rather expected).

 

[Campbell]

And if the end result and player experience is identical, why does this matter?

The integrity of the play experience when it comes to character centered play (Nordic LARP type stuff), challenge focused play, or Story Now is far more important to me than the resulting narrative experience. It's everything to me. Especially for character centered stuff if the GM or another player isn't there with me in the moment I just can't do it. Same for challenge centered play. If I don't believe in the integrity of the challenge or other players are disinterested I can't put the effort into it for it to be fun. Same for story centered stuff as well. If somebody is trying to play their personal strategic game while as the GM I'm trying to work with them to tell a story it just doesn't work for me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The integrity of the play experience when it comes to character centered play (Nordic LARP type stuff), challenge focused play, or Story Now is far more important to me than the resulting narrative experience. It's everything to me. Especially for character centered stuff if the GM or another player isn't there with me in the moment I just can't do it. Same for challenge centered play. If I don't believe in the integrity of the challenge or other players are disinterested I can't put the effort into it for it to be fun. Same for story centered stuff as well. If somebody is trying to play their personal strategic game while as the GM I'm trying to work with them to tell a story it just doesn't work for me.

Sure, different processes might lead to different play experiences. But in this case they don't. So as long as they don't, why does it matter?

 

[Lanefan]

And if the end result and player experience is identical, why does this matter?

Integrity, both at the time for the DM and after the fact if-when the DM explains what happened behind the scenes and why.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So lets take that giant bird example to D&D.

Let's say a party of 5e characters are traversing mountains, and the GM has giant bird to show up and drag one of them away. What factors could make this force and how should the decision to be made for it not to be so? Let's exclude the obvious and say no dice were fudged and grapple checks and such were handled appropriately.

You'd have to somehow override some kind of player input. So let's say that there's a ranger or similar PC and the player declares "I'd like to check for signs of dangerous predators in the area before we climb" and then rolls well and the GM indicates "No sign of dangerous predators in the area" and then waits till a PC is halfway up the cliff and introduces a large predator.

It can be explained away....oh, its lair is far off, or it happened to leave no signs in the area of the cliff, or whatever.

There would be other ways...hell, I'm sure we could come up with a bunch....but what would be needed is some kind of element...a rule, a PC ability, a dice roll....that the GM tossed aside so that he could introduce the predatory bird.

Sure, different processes might lead to different play experiences. But in this case they don't. So as long as they don't, why does it matter?

If the players prefer that, then it matters. Ask yourself "what would my players want me to do" and not "what will they notice me do".

If the players in a game don't care about this, then it's a non-issue. If they do, and you do it anyway, then I would ask why. Why would you knowingly do things different than how the players would prefer? What justification can you offer?

Another way to ask that is "why be sneaky if you don't need to be sneaky?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You'd have to somehow override some kind of player input. So let's say that there's a ranger or similar PC and the player declares "I'd like to check for signs of dangerous predators in the area before we climb" and then rolls well and the GM indicates "No sign of dangerous predators in the area" and then waits till a PC is halfway up the cliff and introduces a large predator.

It can be explained away....oh, its lair is far off, or it happened to leave no signs in the area of the cliff, or whatever.

There would be other ways...hell, I'm sure we could come up with a bunch....but what would be needed is some kind of element...a rule, a PC ability, a dice roll....that the GM tossed aside so that he could introduce the predatory bird.

Right. But I think even if direct player input was not overridden, I feel it still could come across as somewhat railroady. Basically by a GM fiat one PC is dragged away and now others need to rescue them.

If the players prefer that, then it matters. Ask yourself "what would my players want me to do" and not "what will they notice me do".

If the players in a game don't care about this, then it's a non-issue. If they do, and you do it anyway, then I would ask why. Why would you knowingly do things different than how the players would prefer? What justification can you offer?

Another way to ask that is "why be sneaky if you don't need to be sneaky?"

I mean sure, if players for some reason cared, it would be not cool to do things differently than was agreed upon. I just don't really get why players would care. But I guess that's the trend in this discussion. People are obsessing about procedural purity, and I don't really get why. As a player I care about the results. If I had a good experience, I don't really care how it was achieved,* and if I had bad experience that really isn't ameliorated by the knowledge that the GM was 'just following the process.'

(*Except maybe in a sense that I could try to duplicate it when I am a GM.)

 

[MichaelSomething]

Integrity, both at the time for the DM and after the fact if-when the DM explains what happened behind the scenes and why.

Integrity isn't free. It may come with a high asking price. Not everyone is willing to pay it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. But I think even if direct player input was not overridden, I feel it still could come across as somewhat railroady. Basically by a GM fiat one PC is dragged away and now others need to rescue them.

Well I wasn't addressing the actual mechanics of the attack and so on since you said let's assume all grapple checks etc. were observed.

If the creature is there because of a wandering monster roll, or because it's a keyed area of the map, or whatever other mechanical means is followed to determine that, and then the combat mechanics are followed for the attack and grab, then I think we're in the clear.

I mean sure, if players for some reason cared, it would be not cool to do things differently than was agreed upon. I just don't really get why players would care. But I guess that's the trend in this discussion. People are obsessing about procedural purity, and I don't really get why. As a player I care about the results. If I had a good experience, I don't really care how it was achieved,* and if I had bad experience that really isn't ameliorated by the knowledge that the GM was 'just following the process.'

(*Except maybe in a sense that I could try to duplicate it when I am a GM.)

That's fine. If everyone is happy with how stuff happens at the table, then you're good. Hell, there could be a table out there where whenever a player rolls a 1 the DM slaps them in the face. If they love it, I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong.

So the issue is that many people here have said they care about this stuff in their games. That's pretty much what the whole discussion has been about. Many people have explained why they have these preferences. Even if you don't quite get why they feel that way, despite their attempts to explain it, I would expect that you'd accept they feel that way.

You say they're obsessing, and that seems unnecessarily judgmental. It's a preference. What makes them "obsessive"? That they've talked about it at length?

I've shared some instances of a 5e game in which I'm a player, and I thought Force was used and I didn't appreciate it. I didn't flip the table and ragequit or anything. It was just something I didn't like in an otherwise enjoyable game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well I wasn't addressing the actual mechanics of the attack and so on since you said let's assume all grapple checks etc. were observed.

If the creature is there because of a wandering monster roll, or because it's a keyed area of the map, or whatever other mechanical means is followed to determine that, and then the combat mechanics are followed for the attack and grab, then I think we're in the clear.

Right, but does anyone actually still use random encounter tables? What if the GM just decides the bird arrives, and lets even make it two or three birds to stack the odds in favour of at least one grapple succeeding, and then the birds drag the poor character(s) into predestined location. I still don't see that any direct player input has been overridden, assuming they specifically didn't take precaution against, bird attacks, but it is kinda railroady, isn't it?

That's fine. If everyone is happy with how stuff happens at the table, then you're good. Hell, there could be a table out there where whenever a player rolls a 1 the DM slaps them in the face. If they love it, I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong.

So the issue is that many people here have said they care about this stuff in their games. That's pretty much what the whole discussion has been about. Many people have explained why they have these preferences. Even if you don't quite get why they feel that way, despite their attempts to explain it, I would expect that you'd accept they feel that way.

You say they're obsessing, and that seems unnecessarily judgmental. It's a preference. What makes them "obsessive"? That they've talked about it at length?

Whereas comparing not caring about processes that much liking to be slapped in the face is perfectly neutral!

I've shared some instances of a 5e game in which I'm a player, and I thought Force was used and I didn't appreciate it. I didn't flip the table and ragequit or anything. It was just something I didn't like in an otherwise enjoyable game.

You had a negative experience because it felt the decisions you made didn't matter. Even if it would be later revealed that all that happened had perfectly logical reason based on GM's prep, you still would have had that negative experience. Avoiding such negative experiences is of course worthwhile. However, slavishly following procedures can lead to negative experiences too. Like I've said before, I've have had frustrating experiences as a player by the game stalling because the GM was too closely sticking to their prep and we didn't manage to pixelhunt the right thing to proceed. What I want is a GM who understands how the things come across and feel to the players, reads the room and adjusts things accordingly.

 

[pemerton]

According to @Ovinomancer's definition of force, whereby a preferred outcome is enacted regardless of player input. The blurred line comes from the GM having a hard move planned (dragon flies away with person) and essentially waiting for an opportunity to use it. It may be justified fictionally, it may be sanctioned by the rules, but according to that definition, it's a method of force.

I'm missing something.

If a player declares an action for their PC, and fails (6 or less), and the GM makes a hard move, and that hard move follows from the fiction, how is the player input being disregarded? What am I missing?

It is, hmm, argumentatively unfair to insist that the scenario playing out in a PbtA game vs. a D&D game is different because of the rules prescriptions in PbtA games. If the GM opts for a dragon flying off with the player in a D&D game, it does not become more forceful than if he does so in a PbtA game, other considerations remaining roughly equivalent.

I don't follow this either.

In D&D, generally an attempt by a dragon to fly of with a PC should be resolved using the grab/grapple mechanics: opposed STR/Athletics checks, etc.

In PbtA, it's a hard move (Capture Someone, Separate Them, Put Someone in a Spot, etc), which generally requires a miss to be narrated (in the absence of a "golden opportunity").

In either system, declaring such a thing "arbitrarily" ie without regard to the resolution mechanics, would seem to be Force- ie suspending the action resolution framework.