D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

Had our weekly 5e game last night. Let me run this new one by you; it irked me, but I’m curious if others will agree with my reason.

We were heading to the fort to rally the troops against a threat we’d uncovered, only to fond the fort had been taken over by hostile fey creatures. We infiltrated the fort and took out some of the fey, and we freed a couple of the officers. They told us where to find the leader of the occupying fey. They described her as a pale skinned woman with dark hair who could beguile a man simply by looking at him.

We head to the part ofthe fort where this leader’s believed to be, and we run into some of the elite fey and we manage to defeat them. We press on through a door and into a courtyard, and there she is: the dark haired woman. There are dozens of ravens perched in the trees. She looks over at us as we enter and smiles.

The GM calls for Wisdom saves from the entire group. Three of us fail, me and one other player make the save. I’m about to declare an action, but the GM says that the ravens all start crowing and the fey woman changes shape, becoming a raven. The other ravens all take iff and she joins them, flying away from the courtyard and the fort.

that was how the session ended. I honestly didn't mind the introduction and departure of the fey woman for the most part. It’s a little “cut-scene” for my taste, but I get it: here’s the villain, but she’s for another day.

What drives me a little crazy is the call for a saving throw to be beguiled by her or not. What for? The ones who made the save could do nothing more than those who failed. All it accomplished was it made me think I’d have a chance to do something…and then no, can’t do anything. Nobody can. I found that frustrating in what I woukd have otherwise accepted as a use of Force.

It seems to fit the pattern. Setting up a cool scene. And that's fine by me. The PCs now know of the villain and can properly plan how to fight her. And yes, the roll seems superfluous, but then again, it might be just following procedure. For example if the effect is something that triggers on seeing her, then if you follow the rules you have to roll even if it wouldn't actually matter in that instance.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the GM doesn't have a story to tell, why are they using force vis-a-vis giant birds, the AP villain, or anything else?

Did I advocate either of these? I specifically used the bird example as something that to me would seem railroady. I was not exactly endorsing doing so.

 

[Campbell]

By "properly resolved" I was trying to say "whatever resolution system is in use in whatever system is being played at the time" without having to type all those words, but now I've ended up typing them anyway.

Question still stands: in a story-now game, once the bird has flown off with its PC captive* who gets to say where it goes?

* - and before you or anyone else says "wait, how did the bird get to grab the PC in the first place without x, y, and z resolution methods being used?" I'm asking this in context of all those resolutions having already been done and, due no doubt to some bad luck, come out in the bird's favour.

It's the GM, but they likely do not have the unconstrained authority to just have it take the PC wherever they want. They will be expected to frame a new scene that speaks to the dramatic needs of the character.

 

[Numidius]

This "bird" situation reminds of Vance's Cugel the clever:
(from Wikipedia)
Cugel is easily persuaded by the merchant Fianosther to attempt the burglary of the manse of Iucounu the Laughing Magician. Trapped and caught, he agrees that in exchange for his freedom he will undertake the recovery of a small hemisphere of violet glass, an Eye of the Overworld, to match one already in the wizard's possession. A small sentient alien entity of barbs and hooks, named Firx, is attached to his liver to encourage his "unremitting loyalty, zeal and singleness of purpose,"
and Iucounu uses a spell to transport Cugel via flying demon to the remote Land of Cutz.

Like, if it was an rpg, the most blatant use of force, railroad, Illusionism, and also bait-and-switch.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Alright. Took a bit of a break from the thread for various reasons, nothing big just had a pseudo-session last night (meant it to be one, but key player rolled 6- on Maintain Schedule, so we had to delay) and wasn't feeling well this morning, but doing better now.

The game is littered with this sort of principled, structured, procedural generation of thematic content. If a GM or a group doesn't like this approach, you're going to have to do some significant drifting in order to get to a play paradigm that is more palatable for you.

I mean, I don't mind principled, structured, procedural generation of thematic content. I readily respond to Spout Lore and, as noted, I've taken to having "reveal an unwelcome truth" as my standard response to -6 on Discern Realities rolls. I'm just not comfortable having something like "the true murderer" come in this way--I don't know that I feel that it can be sufficiently "principled [and] structured" to work.

I don't think I feel the force of the contrast you're drawing between a killing and a possession as events which might be attended by mystery. But I assume you regard the cult's weapons as more closely resembling the latter than the former.

I honestly don't know if I can speak too precisely about it, it's definitely a feeling and not a well-formed sentence thought.

Maybe it would be useful to look at a different side of it: I would not be comfortable with the mystery of who specifically possessed the brother to come from a roll of this nature. That the brother was possessed is established fiction via the character's backstory. But, at least from what you've said, the character doesn't actually know much about how it happened...nor which specific entity did it. I'm fine with "how it happened" details coming out in this way; that would be like specifying the exact way the victim was murdered when the body is discovered. There are lots of valid ways it could've happened. The question of who did it--be it a murder or a possessing or whatever else--has to have a clear and definite answer, and it feels wrong to generate the answer to that question through play. It doesn't feel wrong to generate the answer to "okay well what do we see about how this person died?" through play.

I don't quite follow this. Waking up from unconsciousness in a manor seems like it would fall within a pretty typical range of consequences for a failed check in a mystery/horror context.

Perhaps the problem is that the scene is doing more than just "you wake up"? You're making it so part and parcel of the waking up is revealing the guilt of one specific party as opposed to any other. That reads, at least to my uninitiated eyes, as "DM used framing to ensure that one specific result happened."

I don't really follow this either. Suppose many lines of inquiry and player suppositions suggest that X is the perpetrator. Couldn't one consequence of failure, at the resolution point, be that really it was Y all along?

Having the possibility of being quantum-bad is not really making the situation any better. It's the quantum-ness that is the problem. Sure, I shouldn't have assumed favorable results, but you're just reinforcing the idea that there is no "fact of the matter," and indeed that there cannot be any, which is exactly the problem.

Where is this coming from? A mystery scenario can resolve without the mystery being solved.

That sounds explicitly unresolved to me, but perhaps "resolve" means something different here?

For instance, in the first Cthulhu Dark scenario I GMed the scenario resolved - the PCs drove the merchant ship with a mysterious cargo in its hold onto the rocks - but they never learned what the cargo was. Nor do I think it was ever established who exactly committed arson on the houses of two of the PCs.

Especially in Cthulu-esque play, there can be resolution without answers.

That...explicitly doesn't resolve the mystery though. It resolves the problem, because the problem wasn't mysterious. But the mystery still exists, unresolved--and that could even become relevant in the future. ("Lovecraftian horror abides in a half-life state off the coast" is a perfectly cromulent source for all sorts of adventures and/or stories.)

I don't know, I have never played Mass Effect. My understanding is that it is some sort of alien dating simulator...

I believe what was meant was not "Mass Effect in its entirety," but rather "Mass Effect presented itself as full of choices, including explicitly saying that the ending would not be just a choice among 'A, B, C' endings, but ended up being...just a choice between Red, Blue, or (Obviously Best) Green endings."

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to give a brief example what a "Separate Them" move might look like in Dungeon World in the occasion where a giant avian predator takes off with a PC (this is from a DW game I ran long ago...I use the Perilous Wilds Journey move now). This is going to be mostly bereft of fluff to best suss this out. Alternative deployment of Spout Lore as a bonus:

* Perilous Journey from here to there.

* GM and Trailblazer (one of 3 PJ roles - basically the navigator/router) conversation:

GM: Take mountain pass and journey shortened by 2 days, but dangerous avian predators, rockslides, exposure (wind/cold), and fatal falls. The valley would take 2 more days instead + shelter and foraging available, but all the wildlife inherent to an alpine valley.

Trailblazer: Consult accumulated knowledge (Spout Lore) on people of the alpine valley; "I believe my mentor told me there is a Ranger lodge there he belonged to back when - like a trader's outpost where we can hire a guide or man-at-arms and re-provision." Rolls 6- and marks xp.

GM: Your mentor was right but you're not remembering the whole thing. There used to be. Recall that an alien plague from the Far Realm deranged them and turned them on each other. The few of your mentor's companions that survived fled into the forest and are no roaming, raving cannibals, attacking anyone who would dare trod the path of the valley <note, this is an opportunity for both a Bond between two PCs about showing sickness can be cured and a Ranger Alignment question about defeating an alien menace>.

We then put this place on our map.

Trailblazer: Crap. Tough call. <Ultimately goes Mountain Pass route after brief conversation with party because they were pressed for time/resources...they ultimately trekked back into the valley later to resolve this>

Scout: <decides to take a thin, elevated donkey trail to flank the group from an overwatch position as they make their journey through the pass> 6- and marks xp on Scout move.

GM: Donkey trail dead ends and scout has to reroute. In the brief moment they're panning for options, a Griffin looking for prey for its younglings swoops down, grabs the Scout, now they're aloft some 60 feet off the ground. Soon they're banking and heading up to the nest.

Scout (who is a Dex/Wis Fighter playbook with Cleric moves): Can I spend my 1 Hold from Divine Intervention as this is happening for a gust of wind to either buffet the creature before it grabs me or force it to the ground?

GM: Sure, either is fine. Do you want to be on the ground near your allies in the clutches of the griffin or do you want to be up on that terminating donkey trail but the griffin has been buffeted away from you and will have to bank back around for another pass?

Scout: My deity brings forth a powerful downdraft and forces the creature to the ground near my allies. The Ranger should be able to talk to this thing!

---

The Ranger did end up talking to it. She parleyed to ride its back and take out some prey at range via arrows so it wouldn't have to put itself at risk. The Ranger only asked for a bit of the carcass (1 out of the 4 Rations available from the kill) in return. Deal. Ranger and Griffin did their thing. Conflict resolved.

This could have gone a myriad of ways.

* Could have fought off the beast with a move. If they manage to get free and didn't have any way to stop their fall, they fall the distance w/ a Defy Danger Con; 6- = death, 7-9 = Debility (probably ankle injury so Dex or Str), 10 + and they're miraculously ok. If it was a Wizard with Feather Fall they could have Cast a Spell (Feather Fall) to arrest their fall if they got free.

* Could have teleported if they had a move.

* Could have used Defend and elected to hold on until they got into the nest and tried to slay the beast in the nest.

* Ranger could have Volleyed from the ground and possibly slain the Griffin (see Defy Danger above for the Scout's fall).

* Plenty more (I'm done writing).

 

[FrozenNorth]

A serious question: Outside of something with a keyed map of some sort (like a dungeon or a hexcrawl) how could one use unrevealed backstory in a way that wasn't force? I guess using it to frame a situation wouldn't be force (leaving aside any debate/s about situation-first or backstory-first). I think I've seen it said that using unrevealed backstory to adjudicate action resolution is force--is this only true if the GM is using that unrevealed backstory to point the narrative of the game in a specific direction, or toward a specific outcome?

Last session, the bulk of the session was the characters interacting with an NPC. Everything about the NPC: why they were there, what they were willing to reveal, their berserk button were due to unrevealed backstory.

Due to the players’ actions, some of that backstory was revealed. Which is part of the point I guess: the purpose of unrevealed backstory is for the characters to reveal the parts that they feel are relevant through their actions.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Did I mention that you're a tolerant person?

EDIT: @Crimson Longinus, @Malmuria, @FrogReaver. Read hawkeyefan's account of play. Then tell me how it is unreasonable to describe that as "GM storytelling".

It seems to me that @hawkeyefan ’s description is analogous to the DW example of a hawk appearing out of nowhere due to a failed roll and carrying a character to a dungeon. @Ovinomancer called that a degenerate form of play for DW, and I suspect many here would refer to ignoring player rolls in D&D the same way.

 

[Manbearcat]

It seems to me that @hawkeyefan ’s description is analogous to the DW example of a hawk appearing it of nowhere due to a failed roll and carrying a character to a dungeon. @Ovinomancer called that a degenerate form of play for DW, and I suspect many here would refer to ignoring player rolls in D&D the same way.

This is why actual play excerpts of how all of this stuff works helps.

See my post above. That is what it actually looks like in a DW game. There is a soft move/hard move relationship the people without experience are missing (I’m not talking about 7-9 soft move…I’m talking about the framing of situations, show signs of a threat, or the conversation of play which includes “tell them the consequences and ask…”).

You’re on a glacier? False floors and crevasses are a thing. 6- move and you might be tumbling down into the cold dark with your friends 60 feet above you (separate them). What do you do?

 

[FrozenNorth]

How does an adventure path work if the players are really allowed to declare whatever actions they like for their PCs?

It can work in several ways:

• I already gave one example: the players want to go to the Rainbow Rocks rather than the Dark Clouds. They go, accomplish want they want, and find something that makes going to Dark Clouds more pressing;
• The Adventure Path gives compelling reasons to go from A to B to C, and the players feel that is what their characters would do;
• The Adventure Path is designed in a generally open-ended manner, flexibly and with few chokepoints.