D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

I am not quite sure what I'm supposed to do with this ground-breaking observation that a writer of an adventure path who has never met me or even heard of me, who wrote the module years before I made my character, might not have perfectly incorporated the unique backstory of my character into the adventure...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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...

Why can't you just call it an adventure path? Because that's what you're talking about. A lot of the awkward limits are simply due it being a prewritten product with limited amount of material.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But again, this is working process backwards. You don't come up with the result completely in a vacuum and then fit your villain into it; you either come up with the villain then look at the result you can see coming from their aims, abilities and limitations, or work them both out as a gestalt. Either of those mostly avoids just finding an excuse to get to X even though everything you know about the villain, his abilities and personal limitations tells you he can't get to there from here.

I'm not going to tell you everyone does this, but to exclude it as a legitimate approach using unrevealed backstory is, at best, super cynical.

What I'm saying is, in all cases the GM is MOSTLY and OVERWHELMINGLY subject to forces that come from constraints of what material they have available and how they envisage things, not from constraints imposed by the backstory. So, the primary driver in most traditional play (and I've run enough of it to know) is "Hmmm, it would be cool if X happened!" and then X happens. Or "hmmm, I wrote up 33 rooms of dungeon the other day, what chain of events can I invoke that will lead to the PCs going to the dungeon?" etc. None of those are inherently bad, and none of them needs to fail to respect backstory, but they aren't very constrained by it, typically.

Which leads back to my observation a few pages ago, all games are story, all the time. Every time something is introduced into the game, the primary forces leading to its introduction had to do with something the GM wanted to say, for whatever reason. The contrast being games like DW, where a large part of the forces acting on the plot are actually what the players brought to the table. In DW that rises to the extent that every move the GM makes is going to be in reference to something some PC did, or is, or maybe has. The FORM of it is up to the GM in large part, but the salience is based on "That bears on the bond between the Barbarian and the Paladin" or something along those lines. Orcs don't just appear in the corridor because it is cool from the GM's perspective, they appear because they can threaten the Barbarian with death and make the Paladin choose what to do about it. They are Orcs because the GM's front says so, perhaps, but Bugbears would have served equally well if that was what he'd written down (or pulled out of his hat).

 

[Aldarc]

I am not quite sure what I'm supposed to do with this ground-breaking observation that a writer of an adventure path who has never met me or even heard of me, who wrote the module years before I made my character, might not have perfectly incorporated the unique backstory of my character into the adventure...

Whatever you do with this observation, I would at least suggest that you try to be respectful towards others on this forum and maybe less of a Rude Gus, as that would engender fruitful good faith conversations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I'm saying is, in all cases the GM is MOSTLY and OVERWHELMINGLY subject to forces that come from constraints of what material they have available and how they envisage things, not from constraints imposed by the backstory. So, the primary driver in most traditional play (and I've run enough of it to know) is "Hmmm, it would be cool if X happened!" and then X happens. Or "hmmm, I wrote up 33 rooms of dungeon the other day, what chain of events can I invoke that will lead to the PCs going to the dungeon?" etc. None of those are inherently bad, and none of them needs to fail to respect backstory, but they aren't very constrained by it, typically.

Yep. And that's fine.

Which leads back to my observation a few pages ago, all games are story, all the time. Every time something is introduced into the game, the primary forces leading to its introduction had to do with something the GM wanted to say, for whatever reason. The contrast being games like DW, where a large part of the forces acting on the plot are actually what the players brought to the table. In DW that rises to the extent that every move the GM makes is going to be in reference to something some PC did, or is, or maybe has. The FORM of it is up to the GM in large part, but the salience is based on "That bears on the bond between the Barbarian and the Paladin" or something along those lines. Orcs don't just appear in the corridor because it is cool from the GM's perspective, they appear because they can threaten the Barbarian with death and make the Paladin choose what to do about it. They are Orcs because the GM's front says so, perhaps, but Bugbears would have served equally well if that was what he'd written down (or pulled out of his hat).

This I find a tad funny. Because it is story now game orcs beating a barbarian is suddenly some deep character moment. Like I'm sure a bird snatching a person was too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whatever you do with this observation, I would at least suggest that you try to be respectful towards others on this forum and maybe less of a Rude Gus, as that would engender fruitful good faith conversations.

It was humorous way to express my puzzlement with people writing lengthy explanations about how adventure paths work. I'm sure they're trying to make a point, but I didn't quite get what it was. If you had insight on that you could have offered it, instead of tone policing me. That could lead to fruitful conversations too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What I'm saying is, in all cases the GM is MOSTLY and OVERWHELMINGLY subject to forces that come from constraints of what material they have available and how they envisage things, not from constraints imposed by the backstory. So, the primary driver in most traditional play (and I've run enough of it to know) is "Hmmm, it would be cool if X happened!" and then X happens. Or "hmmm, I wrote up 33 rooms of dungeon the other day, what chain of events can I invoke that will lead to the PCs going to the dungeon?" etc. None of those are inherently bad, and none of them needs to fail to respect backstory, but they aren't very constrained by it, typically.

Bluntly, I think you're extrapolating beyond your available data.

 

[Aldarc]

It was humorous way to express my puzzlement with people writing lengthy explanations about how adventure paths work. I'm sure they're trying to make a point, but I didn't quite get what it was. If you had insight on that you could have offered it, instead of tone policing me. That could lead to fruitful conversations too.

I could have had you asked me or asked for additional insight at all. I may get around to it when I have more time and depending on how you choose to further engage.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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 guess I don't consider this cosmetic. To me, its a good part of what play is all about; the results are fine and good, but how we get there is just as (in some cases more) important to me.

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.

But again, this assumes the story is just about the results, not how the steps along the way play out. As you can see, I don't think I can agree with that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Sure, I don't object to anyone else's terminology or analysis. Honestly I have not followed a lot of discussion about 5e, except some here at EnWorld. While I've heard some discussion of Alexandrian's posts, and read a few older ones, I'm no expert on his techniques either. They seemed rather far from the direction I've been going myself in my gaming, so they didn't seem super relevant to me. OTOH I don't doubt that some of the same needs exist in most GM's gaming. I have simply found @pemerton/@Campbell/@Manbearcat/@Aldarc etc. to have all suggested ways of looking at things which have shaped my primary gaming activity, which right now is playing around with my own game design and trying it out (I should mention @Garthanos too since I am naming people, and there are many others, lol). Anyway, there are various ways to slice things, I think it is worth assuming they all say useful things, for at least some part of the community.