D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[AbdulAlhazred]

This seems like a decently interesting character dynamic, but I really don't see why you need specific system for this. The things that make this interesting are not any specific rules, it is their personal beliefs and attitudes.

Well, I think I haven't presented a compelling example of play in which you would NEED to be using principles like those DW is built on. The fact is, sure, you can have, as a sort of sidelight to the actual game play, this sort of personality dynamic in any game. However, in DW, even in the example situations I outlined, there would be actual mechanical consequences. That is, a PC can get bonuses to checks and certainly XP points, for playing either to or against their bonds. Beyond that, much more routine, how did the goblins come to be? Probably because of something like a Discern Realities, an answer to a question, etc. It would rarely be the case that it was straight up a GM pick.

Remember, a game like DW is not intended to produce NOVEL OUTCOMES, it is intended to have novel DRIVERS in play. In fact the outcome of playing a DW session SHOULD read like you COULD have, but never ever would, play that scenario in say B/X. That is, the in-game narrative should extremely similar, but the character motivations and direction of play are unique to DW.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Still nope. We can easily imagine premises in between these in specificity. "The land is ruled by a horrible Vampire tyrant, what you're gonna do about it?" Or "Play adventurers in a land ruled by a tyrannical Vampire." Those are still the overall concept of Curse of Strahd, though probably more somewhat broader in scope that the AP, if slavishly followed, permits. But now they're far closer to how you described the Blades. It's a spectrum, not a binary.

None of those are the premise of CoS, though. You're trying to substitute in a softer premise but that's just you making things up. The premise of CoS is defeating Strahd -- the entire adventure is built towards this goal. You cannot reason with him, you cannot befriend him, he will always try to destroy you. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

That said, the first of your attempts his is a muddled mess. It's an attempt to rhetorically reduce a premise to something unclear to make your rhetorical point, but it's still clearly "defeat the Vampire tyrant" as a premise because the expectation is that the PCs will be doing something about this Vampire tyrant. Goal, not genre. The second attempt is actually decent, as it's a genre tag that doesn't expect what will happen, just established tropes that will be in play. That game can be pretty open, again because it's a genre tag and not a goal.

There is a difference in kind between a goal and a genre -- this should not be controversial. So, it follows that there is a difference in kind between a premise that establishes a goal and a premise that established a genre.

 

[Malmuria]

Not really, it's what the rulebook throws out as nice soundbite. Is there any advice on how to do this? Tools to use? Structures that aid? No. It's just some pretty words that you're left to figure out on your own while the rest of the book keeps beating the drum about how it's the GM's game, and how to prep (and gives tools for this) things that aren't character focused, and how all of the play examples that are published very much do not do any of this, or even have spaces and options included for areas it might happen. And none of that changes the fact that most play is about solving the GM's plot, which rarely has anything at all to do with the players.

Well that's a criticism of the 5e DMG specifically (which I agree is not always very helpfully written). But still, if we treat DW's GM's principles as rules, we should also be treating 5e's principles as rules, not just "pretty words." Or we could take both games advice as just advice and see that individual games might deviate. This is what I was getting at in our exchange several pages ago

Well, the game tells you how to play it, and that would be ignoring how it tells you to play it. I really don't see how this is a point of confusion.

Here's the very first GM goal of play:

Emphasis in original.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, there seem to be two possibilities.

(1) The game is over - the PCs no longer have dramatic needs. (Or to put it another way: the players are no longer interested in establishing and exploring dramatic needs for these characters.)

(2) The game takes on a change of focus - Farming and Crafting checks start to loom larger than Riding and Arms checks! My thinking here is influenced both by a certain sort of western (in which farmers are often protagonists) and the late scenes with Lancelot among the peasantry in the film Excalibur.

But would this actually ever happen? Or would the players in reality restrict their action declarations in those which they imagine being within the assumed premise of the game? I think that the premise of the game, at least implicitly, always in effect limits what things the characters can do. I don't think this should be particularly controversial.

I don't know what you mean here:. Are you saying that there is no difference between the GM writing in their dungeon notes that the Ogre has 20 hp, and the GM deciding to manipulate the hp total of the Ogre on the fly so as to keep it alive despite the damage dealt by the players being sufficient to drop it to zero hp?

Those are different. But what if the GM didn't write it down, just thought it? And when did they think it? Before the session started, when the PCs learned of the ogre, when they saw it or when the first blow was struck? When improvising stuff, you sometimes need to come up with stats on the fly, so I don't think the difference here is always so clear cut.

This claim, which I strongly disagree with, reinforces my conjecture as to what you are saying in the previous paragraph.

You seem to be saying that there is no difference between the GM establishing an "arena" for the players to engage with via their PCs (the dungeon/sandbox model) and the GM making stuff up as they go along to conform to their sense of what would make for a good "story" (the DL model; the "guidance" and "manipulation" advocated in The Traveller Book that I quoted upthread). That claim - that there is no difference here - is not plausible. There's a whole conflict-of-schools ("Old School" vs Hickman-esque "New School") that is predicated on it, even before we consider approaches to RPGing that don't conform to either of those schools.

Again, there is a difference, but in practice it is not binary. And here the pure prepped arena end of the spectrum cannot truly even exist. Something, close to it can, but you can never plan literally everything, so the GM always has to improvise something. It might be tiny details that are mostly colour (but sometimes such become significant) or it might be bigger things.

EDIT:
The colours blue and red sit on the same spectrum. That's not a reason to deny that they're different.

Sure. And I don't think having terminology to describe these things is necessarily useless. It can certainly be helpful to communicate what kind of game you want to run play. It's just often in reality a lot of things are some shades of purple, so trying to neatly divide things into red and blue baskets might raise some eyebrows.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well that's a criticism of the 5e DMG specifically (which I agree is not always very helpfully written). But still, if we treat DW's GM's principles as rules, we should also be treating 5e's principles as rules, not just "pretty words." Or we could take both games advice as just advice and see that individual games might deviate. This is what I was getting at in our exchange several pages ago

I would not call DW's principles 'advice', read DW, you will see what I mean. You are firmly directed to incorporate certain practices into the game. It isn't really stated as optional. The only reason you might hesitate to call them 'rules' is that they aren't quite procedural in the same way that "pick up a d20 and roll to hit with it" is. You COULD fail to address the PCs, or ask questions, or make maps with holes in them, and you would still have a functional game, in at least the raw "we can progress from step to step of play process" sense. It would still be drastically not the same as a fully principled game of DW and it would be perfectly reasonable to point out that play was remiss in terms of adhering to good practice and process.

You would probably get a boot in the kiester if you called out a 5e DM for not following some of the advice in the 5e DMG. It isn't integral to play, and is in fact rather hard to square with other material and the actual play process at the table, which it doesn't have much impact on. At most you might find a player or two wondering why BIFTS and Inspiration are mostly ignored and not being referenced at the table, though that is somewhat of a different thing and might still be enacted in a completely traditional game in all other respects. I don't think the two games really compare at all in this way, having played both a reasonable amount.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

None of those are the premise of CoS, though. You're trying to substitute in a softer premise but that's just you making things up.

Yes, yes I am! As examples in an attempt to make you understand that rigidity and specificity of the campaign premise is a spectrum.

The premise of CoS is defeating Strahd -- the entire adventure is built towards this goal. You cannot reason with him, you cannot befriend him, he will always try to destroy you. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

Yes, I am sure it is the premise. And it is very limited one. This is not in question.

That said, the first of your attempts his is a muddled mess. It's an attempt to rhetorically reduce a premise to something unclear to make your rhetorical point, but it's still clearly "defeat the Vampire tyrant" as a premise because the expectation is that the PCs will be doing something about this Vampire tyrant. Goal, not genre.

Sure. It just merely expresses it in a way that might not require a specific resolution. And yes, it loosely implies certain disposition for characters. This is not unusual in a premise. Like if we play Star Wars game about the Rebels, it implies they might want to do something about the Empire. And of course the premise of the Blades heavily implies that the characters might want to do crime.

The second attempt is actually decent, as it's a genre tag that doesn't expect what will happen, just established tropes that will be in play. That game can be pretty open, again because it's a genre tag and not a goal.

There is a difference in kind between a goal and a genre -- this should not be controversial. So, it follows that there is a difference in kind between a premise that establishes a goal and a premise that established a genre.

These are not unconnected. If we play Victorian criminals that implies a goal of doing crime, if we play gothic vampire hunters that implies a goal of hunting vampires, if the play Rebels in SW that implies a goal of fighting the Empire.

 

[Malmuria]

I would not call DW's principles 'advice', read DW, you will see what I mean. You are firmly directed to incorporate certain practices into the game. It isn't really stated as optional. The only reason you might hesitate to call them 'rules' is that they aren't quite procedural in the same way that "pick up a d20 and roll to hit with it" is. You COULD fail to address the PCs, or ask questions, or make maps with holes in them, and you would still have a functional game, in at least the raw "we can progress from step to step of play process" sense. It would still be drastically not the same as a fully principled game of DW and it would be perfectly reasonable to point out that play was remiss in terms of adhering to good practice and process.

You would probably get a boot in the kiester if you called out a 5e DM for not following some of the advice in the 5e DMG. It isn't integral to play, and is in fact rather hard to square with other material and the actual play process at the table, which it doesn't have much impact on. At most you might find a player or two wondering why BIFTS and Inspiration are mostly ignored and not being referenced at the table, though that is somewhat of a different thing and might still be enacted in a completely traditional game in all other respects. I don't think the two games really compare at all in this way, having played both a reasonable amount.

That's a fair point. DW and BitD are more focused and more opinionated games, and there are mechanics that work well in conjunction with the play advice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well that's a criticism of the 5e DMG specifically (which I agree is not always very helpfully written). But still, if we treat DW's GM's principles as rules, we should also be treating 5e's principles as rules, not just "pretty words." Or we could take both games advice as just advice and see that individual games might deviate. This is what I was getting at in our exchange several pages ago

Hmm. So the argument here is that the official products break their own rules? Well, I've argued that before in other takes, but it's something I'm willing to listen to. Make the case for how CoS breaks the rules of 5e.

 

[pemerton]

Why do we need a word for the types of games pemerton likes? I like watching mysteries, political dramas and the occasional comedy. I don’t need a word for the types of movies I like (and I don’t think such a word would see widespread use anyway)

You're implying my preference are an arbitrary grab-bag. As opposed to reflecting different approaches to play that have been widely reflected in the RPGing hobby since pretty early one (eg since 1976 according to John Peterson as quoted by @Doug McCrae in a recent post in the other Illusionism thread).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't understand why the idea that there are limits imposed by genre and convention on PC's actions in RPGs bears much at all on the question of the difference between say 5e and DW. Its largely irrelevant! In both cases the players will probably choose to do genre-appropriate things. However, in 5e those things will relate to the adventures prepared by the GM, and then possibly, secondarily, to 'side issues' like some personal interactions between PCs, etc. Maybe, in some cases, possibly, a 5e game might diverge into a looser 'riff on the interests of the players' mode. Meanwhile ALL DW games are centered on the interests of the players, usually as expressed through their creation of dramatic needs for their characters via bonds, alignment, and possibly their powers.

I'd note that DW play sheets (classes) are heavily centered on the characterization provided too. For example the Paladin starts with these moves:
1. Quest - this allows him to declare a quest at any time and gain 'up to 2 boons' (a list is provided) and also restricts him to following a vow as long as the quest is active (this is selected by the GM from another list).
2. I Am The Law - This lets him attempt to establish authority over an NPC and command them.
3. Armored - Makes it easier to wear heavy armor.
4. Lay On Hands - Heals wounds, but its risky, they could transfer to you instead! Nice way to easily take a risk for another, which is a pretty common theme here.

There's a bunch of moves you can get as you go up in levels, these are of the same ilk, giving you added bonuses while questing, spell casting ability, the ability to trade damage for 'debilities', and some fairly generic bonuses you can get in common situations like charging or defending.

As you can see, the emphasis in character development is heavily centered on building the PC as an embodiment of a dramatic concept. This is very different from the 'builds' of a game like 5e where the concepts are basically mechanical, with flavor as a secondary consideration. Remember, DW is FICTION FIRST, you cannot resolve anything except by reference to your fictional actions, so these things have a lot of weight!