D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

In reality, aren’t most things a matter of degrees rather than being cut and dried?

It's not really a matter of degree that a certain decision was made. Either it was or it wasn't. Maybe there will be some edge cases - no one actually decides and the group just coalesces on a certain fiction - but most cases won't be edge cases, will they?

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

IMO, it would be because player input was never asked for to begin with.

 

[pemerton]

Can a player voluntarily give up their agency and if so wasn't the act of voluntarily giving up their agency an act of agency itself?

This is the "paradox of Participationism" that I mentioned multiple times upthread.

As I said then, it does not seem worth much angst.

The actual method is what is significant: what authority do the players have in respect of their action declarations? What principles govern the GM's exercise of authority in respect of framing, consequence narration and the like?

 

[pemerton]

IMO, it would be because player input was never asked for to begin with.

If the player had declared an action, and that action fails, and a hard move is narrated in response, the player's input has been incorporated.

Are you really telling us that a D&D GM who says "The dragon breathes on you - roll a save!" or "The Orc hits you - take 8 hp of damage!" is using Force?

 

[FrogReaver]

If the player had declared an action, and that action fails, and a hard move is narrated in response, the player's input has been incorporated.

Are you really telling us that a D&D GM who says "The dragon breathes on you - roll a save!" or "The Orc hits you - take 8 hp of damage!" is using Force?

It depends on which definition you go with. All I'm asking for is consistency in applying that definition.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think you're pretty tolerant. Of course there's no need to act in an undignified fashion! But what you described sounded pretty frustrating.

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.

I think this shows a real failure to take seriously that there are different approaches to RPGing.

When I'm RPGing I am not turning up to be told a story by the GM. And I will use the resources the game provides me - which are, primarily, the range of actions I can declare for my PC - to establish the sort of fiction that I am interested in.

If the GM disregards my declared actions, I will - and have - leave the game.

If the GM responds to my declared actions in the way the game we're playing mandates that they should, then let's go!

Why is the GM going to have to use Force? I mean, they could also empty the bottle of soft drink all over the PC sheets, but how would that help play?

 

[pemerton]

It depends on which definition you go with. All I'm asking for is consistency in applying that definition.

Well, I've stated what I mean, and pointed out how it is basically the same as what @Ovinomancer, @Manbearcate and @bert1001 fka bert1000 are using. And the idea that administering the combat or saving throw mechanics is Force is in my view bizarre.

What definition are you using? What point are you trying to make? Are you asserting that there is no meaningful difference eg between Gygax-style ToH play and DL/"storyteller" play? If you're not, what term would you use to describe that difference? It's not a difference of published mechanics, given both are set out for AD&D play.

Forget the definitions. Primarily what I am interested is differentiating between:

• A GM using their authority to determine what happens based on extrapolation from shared fiction without regard for what the outcome will be.
• A GM using their authority to determine what happens based on extrapolation from secret backstory without regard for the outcome will be.
• A GM framing situations that place the player characters into conflicts without regard to the outcome
• A GM framing challenges for the players to overcome
• The aforementioned nidging, fudging, social pressuring, spotlight balancing, etc.

Any given combination of the above is both reasonable to want and not want. They also are fundamentally different in character from each other. Treating them as fundamentally the same does a disservice to us all.

This. There are differences of approach to RPGing. Why can we not use words to describe those differences?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When I'm RPGing I am not turning up to be told a story by the GM.

And no one has been advocating such and repeatedly labelling perspectives differing from yours as such is both dishonest and disrespectful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

I would expect so, yes. I mean, they're in several of the official 5e products with which I'm familiar. The DMG spends a significant amount of time on them, and provides several examples of tables based on terrain type.

So I feel your disregard of a system other than "GM decides" seems pretty telling. Yes, I would agree with your assessment that the more the GM has the ability to just decide things without any kind of system restraining him, the more railroady it may start to get.

Now, imagine there was a system that helped determine when and how and what happened, removing some of the GM deciding and replacing it with system deciding, and including a random element such as a die roll on a table, or perhaps an action roll indicating a complication. Then the system is having a big say in what happens, and the GM is working with the system.

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

I wasn't making any comparison other than saying if everyone's on board with whatever play processes are being used, then all is good.

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.

I've separated this bit because this is the relevant part. What if there was a resolution system that made it clear to all involved that the decisions made mattered and are not being undermined or subverted in some unknown way?

This way, there is no "if it was later revealed...." because nothing needs to be revealed; it's all open as part of play.

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.

Again, there are games designed to cut to the action, too. D&D can do it, yes, but when they openly did so, the fanbase had a collective aneurysm. 5e Can do it, although the encounter budget and related elements will likely need to be jettisoned, too.

I think we're in agreement on this point.....I want the game to move at a proper pace. It may fluctuate based on what's going on, but I want things to move along. I don't want those moments that drag.

 

[Malmuria]

When I'm RPGing I am not turning up to be told a story by the GM.

I don't think this is best practice in a trad game either, even with a module. When you play CoC, do you experience the game as being told a story by the GM?