D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[AbdulAlhazred]

Quick question: In these other games, why is the GM there? They could easily consult the tables and just tell a story based off their fiction. In fact, why even call that player (the GM) a GM? They are not gamemastering? They are listening and then creating impromptu fiction that hopefully matches the players.
Why does the separation exist?

Why does any particular feature of RPG's exist? It is just a way of structuring a game. There is a function, deciding the fiction content of the next scene, which is going to be accomplished in SOME way. One way is to have a designated 'scene content generating person'. There are obvious implications to that, as there would be to say rotating that position on some sort of basis (say after each scene ends). One issue with players taking the role usually assigned to a GM is the Czege Principle. That is, its hard to make a scene that has any tension in it where the author of the scene is also directly involved as one of the participants resolving whatever conflict it represents. Reserving that position for a specially designated participant, and having that participant forego playing a PC, obviates that issue. It brings a different perspective to the table. This is not to say that collective story telling games cannot work, and they could be Story Now (probably would tend to be). That is just clearly a bit different category of game, and one that, so far, has not proven to be popular with game designers, though I guess there have been a few experiments here and there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All very valid questions! And all questions that are being thoroughly hashed out in 5e-centric spaces among people who both object to the blatant use of GM force and railroading and also genuinely want to play the 5e adventure paths. Or people who have been genuinely influenced by games like Dungeon World and want to bring some of those principles to bear even when running 5e adventure paths. Or people who watch critical role and are "using" dnd as the base to create more open experiences. Or, OSR spaces where people are rethinking the role of what you call backstory and how it is developed. (Or people in those spaces going further and mixing their experiences with games like blades in the dark and rules-lite OSR.)

One reaction to your questions is to give up on "trad" games and play story-now games. But there's lots of interesting cross-pollination and experimentation going on that I think is worth paying attention to, personally.

OK, but why does any of that make @pemerton's terminology or perspective one that should be dismissed? I mean, we, both he and I in this thread IIRC, have asserted that it is quite possible to apply Story Now concepts of play to a game using 5e's rule set. You would still want to distinguish between styles of play, and what distinguishes them. It feels like you are simply uncomfortable with the outcome of certain analyses and your 'terminological objections' are more about avoiding the conclusions come to. That brings us to the final paragraph of Pemerton's post which you quoted. I've seen the same pattern in the past, though perhaps it is getting less extreme with time, where EVERY suggestion of certain kinds of formulation of analysis are rotely discarded as having some sort of derogatory implication, or at least uselessness. The common factor seems to be where they come from. If its OK for people who express a desire to play 5e to say certain things, why are you objecting to these statements from people who don't share that taste, or at least have some other preferences?

I mean, at the very least, one must suggest some terminology which does the work Pemerton is asking for, right? He's got legitimate questions and uses for those terms, why are they wrong? Do your putative persons with some alternative 'hashing out' have acceptable terminology to contribute? Bring it in! If it is just a rehash of what we heard up thread, then we're back where we started, it wasn't necessarily objectionable, but it didn't do all the required work!

 

[Malmuria]

OK, but why does any of that make @pemerton's terminology or perspective one that should be dismissed? I mean, we, both he and I in this thread IIRC, have asserted that it is quite possible to apply Story Now concepts of play to a game using 5e's rule set. You would still want to distinguish between styles of play, and what distinguishes them. It feels like you are simply uncomfortable with the outcome of certain analyses and your 'terminological objections' are more about avoiding the conclusions come to. That brings us to the final paragraph of Pemerton's post which you quoted. I've seen the same pattern in the past, though perhaps it is getting less extreme with time, where EVERY suggestion of certain kinds of formulation of analysis are rotely discarded as having some sort of derogatory implication, or at least uselessness. The common factor seems to be where they come from. If its OK for people who express a desire to play 5e to say certain things, why are you objecting to these statements from people who don't share that taste, or at least have some other preferences?

I mean, at the very least, one must suggest some terminology which does the work Pemerton is asking for, right? He's got legitimate questions and uses for those terms, why are they wrong? Do your putative persons with some alternative 'hashing out' have acceptable terminology to contribute? Bring it in! If it is just a rehash of what we heard up thread, then we're back where we started, it wasn't necessarily objectionable, but it didn't do all the required work!

So, when I said that the terms being used are very useful in identifying and distinguishing story-now play, I meant it! It is not terminology or a perspective to be dismissed. Likewise, I agree that terms like "sandbox," "linear," and "railroad" don't describe all the different types of gaming available, and thus have blind spots. My only contention is that the language that is helpful in distinguishing story-now from not-story-now possibly has its own blind spots, or at least points of de-emphasis.

In including some of those links, I tried to reference the variety of work being done to work through some of the same issues ("railroading" etc) identified in this thread from different perspectives, including perspectives that have been informed by story games and the osr. This work is not usually presented in a very technical language, and is more geared towards usability and readability. Moreover these approaches are hybrid from a traditional perspective (for example rules lite games that try to mash together "success with complication" mechanics and osr sensibilities). But I think they do, or at least are trying to do, some of the work of expanding the play styles available to "trad" games.

That's a good thing, right? That's why it would behoove people who currently only play 5e to try other games? So that they can let those experiences expand their horizon even when playing 5e?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can see why play would introduce new villains/concerns/goals or maybe take some concerns off the board. I'm having trouble picturing why it would or should change the main villain?

The Fellowship in LotR going to different places could change a lot of things and maybe even take some major pieces off the board -- but I don't picture it removing Sauron as the bad guy that needs to be dealt with. [Edit: Although I can see them making a choice that kicks part of the problem of him getting the ring down the road a long time and alters the story greatly.]

I think a few people have expressed basically the same sentiment. I would say this, if you were to build a Middle Earth Story Now game, I don't think you would center it on the War of the Ring, or at least on the Fellowship. I mean, first of all, JRRT pretty well said what was to be said about those characters, so that would be a difficult path to take, at best. Beyond that, as you say, the story is pretty well shaped by the circumstances that are fundamental to the milieu. Let us not forget, LotR and There and Back Again are the only substantive stories about the Third Age of Middle Earth. The entire setting is made explicitly to tell this story! In fact it is remarkably bereft of elements that would make other stories, the setting lacks much in the way of everyday details that would figure into most RP.

So, I think it is not really a good candidate for a PbtA game or such. You could certainly create a game that was set in 'Rohan' or whatever, but you'd pretty much be making up all the details of that specific local milieu beyond some general geography and politics. In that case, I would think Story Now would work pretty well, as well as any other technique. I've set DW games in the same world I have used for D&D for decades, and it is fine too. Yes, there are large scale maps, and many areas that are fairly detailed through prior play, but its always possible to carve out some new territory or simply agree to accept certain givens and if those don't cater to the player's needs, then there's always some new thing, or even a retcon, that can fix that. I think you can use ME that way. @pemerton has described many times using Greyhawk this way too, it is likewise filled with a lot of sketched in areas.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can you enlarge on what you mean by "interchangeable" here? Because that seems--off. Even if you end up at the same final destination, the trip is going to feel pretty different depending on the characters in play to me, and that doesn't seem to make them "interchangeable" in any sense other than "they can all fit in this game" which, frankly, describes a lot of game characters.

Sure. I mean that the Tomb of Annihilation is the story of a group if heroes making their way through Chult to find Acererak’s lair and somehow put an end to the death curse afflicting the land. That’s the premise of the game. If I’m playing Therrin the fighter who’s haunted by his past as a mercenary and looking for redemption, or l’m playing Zindel the elf sorcerer looking for the ultimate test of his ability, the premise remains unchanged. I can play one or the other, and the game will largely play out the same….the party will make their way through Chult, find the tomb, and descend through its layers to confront Acererak.

Will there be certain differences in play based on which character I assume? Yes, of course. But I’d say most would be cosmetic. I can cosplay the repentant fighter one way and the daring sorcerer another, and so certain things may go differently. Maybe Zindel would be less concerned about the safety of this fellow party members or other bystanders. Maybe Therrin would be more cautious and thoughtful in navigating both the jungle and the tomb. And so on. That’ll have an impact on instances of play.

Neither of them is central to the story. It happens with or without them.

A game that instead took a character premise may be very different. Let’s take Therrin…he’s got skeletons in his closet but wants to somehow do right. He was a mercenary, now he aspires to be a force for good. Perhaps he wanders about, trying to help where he can. Maybe at some point, the player considers Therrin’s ultimate goal to be the establishment of a new military company, one that fights for righteous causes rather than for the highest bidder. Perhaps the campaign becomes about Therrin making connections to enable this goal, and about achieving smaller goals that move him ever closer to that goal. That can be the thrust of an entire campaign.

If I take Therrin out of that and swap in Zindel, it makes no sense. The whole premise doesn’t align with the character because it’s inherently about Therrin and no one else.

That’s the difference I’m talking about.

Some games have the content focused very much on the specific characters involved rather than some external plot that the characters engage with. Neither is better. But depending on which you want, there are going to be either techniques or game systems that are a better fit in order to produce that.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. I mean that the Tomb of Annihilation is the story of a group if heroes making their way through Chult to find Acererak’s lair and somehow put an end to the death curse afflicting the land. That’s the premise of the game. If I’m playing Therrin the fighter who’s haunted by his past as a mercenary and looking for redemption, or l’m playing Zindel the elf sorcerer looking for the ultimate test of his ability, the premise remains unchanged. I can play one or the other, and the game will largely play out the same….the party will make their way through Chult, find the tomb, and descend through its layers to confront Acererak.

Will there be certain differences in play based on which character I assume? Yes, of course. But I’d say most would be cosmetic. I can cosplay the repentant fighter one way and the daring sorcerer another, and so certain things may go differently. Maybe Zindel would be less concerned about the safety of this fellow party members or other bystanders. Maybe Therrin would be more cautious and thoughtful in navigating both the jungle and the tomb. And so on. That’ll have an impact on instances of play.

Neither of them is central to the story. It happens with or without them.

A game that instead took a character premise may be very different. Let’s take Therrin…he’s got skeletons in his closet but wants to somehow do right. He was a mercenary, now he aspires to be a force for good. Perhaps he wanders about, trying to help where he can. Maybe at some point, the player considers Therrin’s ultimate goal to be the establishment of a new military company, one that fights for righteous causes rather than for the highest bidder. Perhaps the campaign becomes about Therrin making connections to enable this goal, and about achieving smaller goals that move him ever closer to that goal. That can be the thrust of an entire campaign.

If I take Therrin out of that and swap in Zindel, it makes no sense. The whole premise doesn’t align with the character because it’s inherently about Therrin and no one else.

That’s the difference I’m talking about.

Some games have the content focused very much on the specific characters involved rather than some external plot that the characters engage with. Neither is better. But depending on which you want, there are going to be either techniques or game systems that are a better fit in order to produce that.

This also seems to line-up with how @Lanefan often talks about how the campaign/setting is bigger than the characters and that it will go on with or without the characters and their stories.

 

[prabe]

This also seems to line-up with how @Lanefan often talks about how the campaign/setting is bigger than the characters and that it will go on with or without the characters and their stories.

I think in some ways it's different, though. I mean, in the setting I'm DMing in, there are doubtless stories happening other than the various PCs', but ... we aren't playing those stories. Barring some gratuitously large error on the part of some party or another, the world will continue after any given PC's story. I do suspect a given party might be more important on my world than how @Lanefan runs, but he and I have different preferences and of course run different games.

 

[Aldarc]

I think in some ways it's different, though. I mean, in the setting I'm DMing in, there are doubtless stories happening other than the various PCs', but ... we aren't playing those stories. Barring some gratuitously large error on the part of some party or another, the world will continue after any given PC's story. I do suspect a given party might be more important on my world than how @Lanefan runs, but he and I have different preferences and of course run different games.

You’re right. Other stories are happening, and we are playing the Tomb of Annihilation story. And watching videos like Puffin Forest, it creates a real impression that a lot of characters in these adventures can be dropped in, removed, or replaced without the overall story changing at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps, but I feel what matters most is if the GM and players are on the same page on what the campaign is about. Either empire building is within the scope of the campaign premise or it isn’t.

I think 'scope' may be a bit of a red herring. Every game has some sort of boundaries of what is and is not in scope in some way. However, I would say that scope is an agreed on thing. I mean, if the game we all decided to play was 'Zombie Apocalypse Survival Horror' set in 1950's rural Midwest USA, then I would not expect to incorporate out of genre elements, nor that my character's main goal is to become a wizard, etc. Within that 'box' however, there can exist a Story Now game, or a game that is GM-Directed based on pre-established setting elements (backstory first as @pemerton has labeled it). So, yes, we agree, and I think it is non-controversial and core to RPGs, that its not 'force' when a genre/setting constraint is invoked on an agreed-upon basis. I even think that these adjudications can be partially made during play, so that the constraints are refined, although I think making that the sole realm of the GM could prove to be a problematic design element in a game.

I mean, you can define things down as much as you want, but at a certain point it gets to be more than some people want. I'm not wanting to play in an AP where I have no input to do things that are otherwise genre appropriate and seem 'in the box', simply because the game is only going to focus on specific locations and goals. At least, I am surely going to want that to be negotiated up front, explicitly. In that case, actions that derail the AP are 'out of the box' and there's no need for a GM to be coy about that. Since presumably the story is not revealed beforehand, they will then be in a position where they may make such statements and it isn't really negotiable, because it relates to unrevealed backstory. OK, that's fine too, its an agreed type of play, but note how there is a lot there! I think it makes sense to have a term for that kind of play...

 

[prabe]

You’re right. Other stories are happening, and we are playing the Tomb of Annihilation story. And watching videos like Puffin Forest, it creates a real impression that a lot of characters in these adventures can be dropped in, removed, or replaced without the overall story changing at all.

Are you saying that the existence of other stories in the world contributes to making the characters feel interchangeable in the way @hawkeyefan mentioned? While I can see how it could contribute to that, I don't think I agree that "other stories happening in the world" leads to "these characters don't matter to this story." Maybe it depends on whether these characters are pursuing a story inherent to them (if that description makes sense).