D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Thomas Shey]

On what are you basing this assessment? Is there a way to satisfy your criteria of character's influencing the content of the game without the players having access to narrative level mechanics?

Now I'm going to take the other side of this: you don't have to have access to narrative level mechanics for the result of a game to come out differently; they just have to be allowed to come out differently. That's operating on a different level than what I've been talking about regarding the events-in-play, and its something APs are absolutely not going to do, and my interpretation is that Ovinomancer is talking about how things actually play out, not only in final result but in steps along the way; if those steps are going to be the same no matter what the PCs do, then in practice the individual adventure the GM is running might as well be an AP even if he's doing it entirely himself.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You moved the goalposts again. Influencing the content of the game can be trivial and would validate your statement. I'm not talking to the trivial matters of how characterization occurred or if a given challenge was overcome by force or guile. The point is that the same challenge exists the same regardless of the characters, and however it's overcome, the next one in line does as well. The challenges the game presents care nothing for what characters are present in the scene or what motivations those characters have. This only leaves that characterization -- the players have to work to put some kind of stamp on the play, because play isn't about the characters, but about the GM's challenges that exist largely unconcerned with whichever characters happen to be there.

I did not move goalposts, I was merely trying to clarify where you had placed them in the first place. And if I now understand you correctly, it seems my suspicion about their placement was roughly correct.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not going to argue that my experiences weren't degenerate, but I think they hit me so hard and so unpleasantly because I very specifically prefer for the narrative of the game to be about (and ideally center on) the PCs--and APs just don't feel to me as though they do. So, I'm not an ideal player for APs at their (or presumably my) best.

Well, to be fair, it isn't always what I'm wanting either. I just find it has some virtues in that it allows me to engage with the game effectively when I'm not always high-energy, something which isn't true if every choice is potentially critical.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Now I'm going to take the other side of this: you don't have to have access to narrative level mechanics for the result of a game to come out differently; they just have to be allowed to come out differently.

Yes, I certainly agree with this.

That's operating on a different level than what I've been talking about regarding the events-in-play, and its something APs are absolutely not going to do, and my interpretation is that Ovinomancer is talking about how things actually play out, not only in final result but in steps along the way; if those steps are going to be the same no matter what the PCs do, then in practice the individual adventure the GM is running might as well be an AP even if he's doing it entirely himself.

However, I'm not sure that this is what @Ovinomancer means. But that's what I tried to get clarified.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't care what it matters to the course of the adventure; I care what matters in play. Unless all those play elements are identical, the characters are not interchangeable.

This is an argument I once made as well. The difference between a game predicated on following the GM's ideas and one where the characters are centered makes it very obvious. If you don't have that experience, then you're looking at this from the point of view of the small differences in play. But, here's a challenge for you to reconcile. In CoS, the only way out is to face and defeat Strahd. If you do this, does it matter who the characters are that do it? No, it's the same challenge, the same reward. The differences are down in the weeds of what actions were declared, how many rounds it took, etc. Strahd exists to be defeated, and is the only way out, regardless of who the characters are. The story prepared is the same. Contrast this, if you can, with a game where the entire game is built upon what characters are present -- Strahd would only ever exist if a character has that as a dramatic need. The entire game is different. Change the character, you change the entire game, not just the details of how Strahd is overcome.

 

[Fenris-77]

Interchangeable characters are a feature of published D&D modules, always have been. It reflects the nature of the game, which is to say people each choose whatever character they want (pretty much) and then go do some stuff. The rules don't really try to manage class or lineage selection at all at the group level, so neither do the published APs. That said, the APs are like that so that any group can use them (and hence buy them) but that doesn't mean that that's how D&D is somehow supposed to be played or anything like that.

Personally, I don't run my games anything like that, but to each their own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

That’s fair. Everyone’s sense of what is cosmetic may vary.

But the point is that the game is about what’s in the book more than about the characters that are brought to the table.

I’d like to make it clear, though, that there’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve played in plenty of games that fit that bill, and I’ve run even more of them. I’m currently playing in one.

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.

Sure, but the steps along the way are predetermined. Will one group of players head to the Peaks of Flame while another group skips them? Sure. There’s room for moving about and for the steps to be rearranged. Chult is a hexcrawl, so the specific path one group takes will differ from another.

But they’re all going to reach Omu. They’re all going to have to deal with Raz Nsi. They’re all going to have to collect the different totems to gain entry to the tomb. They’re all going to deal with the trickster gods. They’re all going to have to find the skeleton keys to progress through the dungeon. They’ll all face off with Acererak and the Soulmonger.

And again, that’s not bad by any means. There are decision points and spots for player input. And that kind of shared experience is pretty foundational to the hobby. Most (but not all) of us have some kind of fond memory of making it through White Plume Mountain or clearing the Caves of Chaos or what have you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is an argument I once made as well. The difference between a game predicated on following the GM's ideas and one where the characters are centered makes it very obvious. If you don't have that experience, then you're looking at this from the point of view of the small differences in play.

More I'm arguing that the differences aren't small in play. That is to say for the majority of the play experience, they're more pronounced than whatever the final result is. So, essentially, I'm disagreeing with part of your premise.

But, here's a challenge for you to reconcile. In CoS, the only way out is to face and defeat Strahd. If you do this, does it matter who the characters are that do it? No, it's the same challenge, the same reward. The differences are down in the weeds of what actions were declared, how many rounds it took, etc. Strahd exists to be defeated, and is the only way out, regardless of who the characters are. The story prepared is the same. Contrast this, if you can, with a game where the entire game is built upon what characters are present -- Strahd would only ever exist if a character has that as a dramatic need. The entire game is different. Change the character, you change the entire game, not just the details of how Strahd is overcome.

And?

You're missing my point that how important that is turns on what part of the game is more interesting to you. Its not a given that the latter actually provides a more interesting game than the former; that depends on where the focus of the player is. If what a player cares about is individual tactical decisions and interactions with other PCs mostly, the difference between whether the opposition is customized toward them or generalized toward a random D&D party is, effectively, trivial.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Interchangeable characters are a feature of published D&D modules, always have been. It reflects the nature of the game, which is to say people each choose whatever character they want (pretty much) and then go do some stuff. The rules don't really try to manage class or lineage selection at all at the group level, so neither do the published APs. That said, the APs are like that so that any group can use them (and hence buy them) but that doesn't mean that that's how D&D is somehow supposed to be played or anything like that.

Personally, I don't run my games anything like that, but to each their own.

Sure, I agree. My point is specifically about the AP style games. Which is most of modern D&D.

But yeah, a GM and players could have a campaign that’s entirely of their own making that is much more character driven than an AP will be.

My point, prompted by @prabe ’s comment is more about the format than the game itself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Interchangeable characters are a feature of published D&D modules, always have been. It reflects the nature of the game, which is to say people each choose whatever character they want (pretty much) and then go do some stuff. The rules don't really try to manage class or lineage selection at all at the group level, so neither do the published APs. That said, the APs are like that so that any group can use them (and hence buy them) but that doesn't mean that that's how D&D is somehow supposed to be played or anything like that.

Personally, I don't run my games anything like that, but to each their own.

I think there's quite a lot of recommendations in the DMG that follow along here, so you have example and suggestion that this is the predominant mode of play -- the GM crafts and runs a story. That's not going to care about who the characters are, either. Unless you're doing something very, very odd with the 5e engine (and your claims it can be run Story Now, which I vigorously disagree with -- if you are you're actually running some kind of heavy hack of 5e or you have really, really uneven gameplay), the majority of the suggestions are character neutral. I mean, find a rule in the game that even bothers to engage with different characters (outside class descriptions) or different motivations outside of the BIFTs, which really then don't care they just grant the anodyne resource of Inspiration. So, what you have is a set of examples of what play is supposed to look like, recommendations for play that aligns, absolutely no mechanics that engage character, no principles of play to center character... the game just doesn't really care much what characters are present.

You as a GM can make a concerted effort, but, even then, the results are going to be flatter than a game that enables characters mattering to play at a fundamental level.