D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

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?

It's trivial to do so. DW and AW, for instance, if played in accordance with the principles and agenda that are espoused in their rulebooks, will satisfy @Ovinomancer's criterion. And neither has "narrative level" mechanics except in a few distinct playbook moves which typically (given the variety of playbooks, and of moves-per-playbook) won't be in play.

The reason it doesn't need "narrative level" mechanics on the player side is because, in a typical RPG authority structure such as is found in D&D, Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller, AW, DW, etc the GM has the requisite "narrative level" power. That it to say, the GM can frame scenes that speak to player-authored PC dramatic needs, can narrate consequences in the same fashion, etc.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

And are we allowed to talk about what sorts of GM techniques, etc might suit different sorts of groups - including those who are interested more in the "plot" than in the tactical decisions and interactions with other PCs that don't affect that plot?

 

[pemerton]

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.

4e D&D advocates player-authored quests. Could this be done in 5e?

 

[Aldarc]

The things I dislike about the Story Now approach:

1. Limited tactical and strategic considerations on the fiction level. In a traditional RPG your tactical choices can make an encounter much easier or harder. In a Story Now RPG your success or failure is decided without respect to your specific in fiction tactical choices. (at least as I understand the games).
2. The ability to author fiction outside my immediate character (possibly not present in all story now games, but certainly in many).

That's probably not an exhaustive list but it seems like a good springboard.

Thank you for your post. I do not necessarily want to jump to disagreeing with you about these points without first sussing out more about what you mean here, particularly in Point 1. (I think that Point 2 is a common enough aesthetic or approach to roleplaying that I certainly understand well enough.) Would you mind expanding your thoughts in Point 1, please?

I will add, however, that sometimes I have found that the creative, tactical choices that I make in a traditional RPG that "can make an encounter easier or harder" may very well rely mostly on GM fiat and approval of the tactic employed. I still think that this can be fun and rewarding in the moment, but this also sometimes requires purposefully not thinking on how the sausage is made.

 

[pemerton]

From my perspective a big part of this is that adventuring is not conducive to having who the characters are really matter. A substantial amount of what makes a character who they are is their personal context. You need goals, responsibilities, relationships, personal reputations. It's hard to have that alongside epic quests, big bads, and world shaking stakes.

I see what you are saying here.

You probably won't be surprised that one way of tackling this, in my view, is the 4e way - make the PCs' goals, responsibilities and relationships the same thing as the "big bads" with their world-shaking stakes. Agon also uses a version of this, with its relationships between the PC heroes and the gods - though I don't think it supports as much character-relative individualisation as 4e does; to an extent it overlays character-relative "interpretations" and approaches (eg by invoking some gods and not others), which now I think about it is a little bit like MHRP and its milestones.

The flipside, of course, is to not do D&D-style "adventuring". Burning Wheel is my personally preferred game for this. I posted about it a while ago now:

I thought I would post about the session I played today, because it seems relevant to some of what has been discussed in this thread.

Thurgon and Aramina travelled north-west along the Ulek side of the Jewel River. The GM wanted to cut through a few days, but I insisted on playing out the first evening - Thurgon and Aramina debated what their destination should be (Aramina - being learned in Great Masters-wise, believes that the abandoned tower of Evard the Black lay somewhere in the forest on the north side of the river, and wants to check it out). Thurgon persuaded her that they could not do such a thing unless (i) she fixed his breastplate, and (ii) they found some information in the abandoned fortresses of his order which would indicate that the tower was, at least, superficially safe to seek out (eg not an orc fortress a la Angmar/Dol Guldur).

We then narrated through a few day's travel until we came to a ruined fortress of Thurgon's order. We boldly entered (Thurgon demonstrating his devotion to the Lord of Battle). The chapel showed signs of fire damage - a failed Fire-wise test, by Aramina aided by Thurgon, suggested that the fire came from a being able to melt granite (so a great dragon, or balrog, or archmage, or similar source of magical fire) - not the news one wants to get, and if/when we encounter this being Thurgon - conscious that it could melt his armour with ease - will also have a penalty to his Steel (= morale) check (a further consequence of the failed check).

Had the check succeeded, I don't know what more benign fact we might have discovered.

In the chapel we also noticed a trapdoor under the altar, which had been moved slightly. Thurgon looked around and attempted - via a History check - to recollect what he could of this fortress, but the check failed, and as he was looking about and wondering a bit of damaged masonry fell on him. The armour check failed, and he took a hard blow that broke ribs and inflicted a penalty that will probably last a couple of months unless he can find a good healer.

Despite the cracked ribs he was able to move the altar and lift up the trapdoor. He and Aramina went down, to find that beneath the chapel was a crypt, where a knight of the order - now reduced to a skeleton, but kept "alive" by his oath - had gone mad, and was insisting that Thurgon must stay with him to protect the dead from desecration. The GM was trying to goad me into attacking this mad skeleton, but Thurgon could not turn on one of his order, even one twisted in this fashion, and so we entered a Duel of Wits - the knight seeking Thurgon's compliance, Thurgon seeking information from the knight about what had happened in the chapel. Unfortunately for Thurgon the skeleton won the duel, with only a minor compromise required (to share knowledge with Thurgon after a year and a day) - and Thurgon's own last ditch effort to win the duel by calling for a Minor Miracle failed, leaving Thurgon swooing as visions of all the dead knights in the crypt impressed themselves upon his mind.

Aramina attempted to telekineses the skeleton's axe from him to her - and if she'd got it would probably then have started a fight with it! - but the attempt failed, and the skeletal knight shut her in the crypt with Thurgon. She roused Thurgon from his swoon, and the two then looked about the crypt as the skeletal knight returned to his seat. We found some books - a standard missal-type book, and a diary kept by the skeleton. From the latter we learned that he was on one side of some sort of schism in Thurgon's order, and that he had been stuck in the crypt with no food or water - hence his skeletal form!

The GM was goading for combat again - ie escalating the social conflict into martial conflict - but Thurgon was still not prepared to do this. So instead he first performed a ritual to honour the dead and lay them to rest (using the missal to help him) and then said a prayer of Purification to drive out the insanity from the skeleton. This was a hard roll, but succeeded - and the skeleton's insanity was driven out, his flesh regrew, and then he died (only a Major Miracle can return the dead to life). But Thurgon was released from the obligation to stay in the crypt.

Aramina made notes of the information about the schism in the order, and then we lay down the body of the dead knight with his diary as a head-rest, took the missal with us and left the crypt - realising when we came out that the altar had, at some earlier time, been moved over the trapdoor to stop this poor knight coming out; and moving it back into that position to ensure that no one, now, would go down and disturb the dead knights.

This session shows how mysteries can be introduced into the game - mysteries about what caused the fire, and the details of the schism in the order - without answers being necessary at this stage. (I'm sure the GM has ideas, but that's to be expected.) I don't know what would have happened if we'd been trapped in the crypt with the knight - the successful prayer could easily have failed! - but again I'm sure the GM had something in mind. But it didn't come into play, because the relevant action declarations ended up being successful.

I'm finding that quite small things, of little consequence for the universe (actual or in-game) as a whole, can take on a high degree of importance for me as a player when they matter to my PC, and I know that my own choices are what is bringing them to the fore and shaping them (eg repairing the armour; laying the dead to rest; not fighting the mad skeleton knight of my order). I'm not going to say that it's Vermeer: the RPG, but the stakes don't have to be cosmologically high in order to be personally high - provided that they really are at stake.

For me, this is an illustration of goals, responsibilities and relationships (no reputations in the play I've described) establishing who a character is, and that informing both framing and resolution.

 

[pemerton]

As you can see, the emphasis in character development is heavily centered on building the PC as an embodiment of a dramatic concept.

Hmm . . . was there ever a version of D&D that was a bit like this?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Huh? I referred to RPGs where the players can choose to declare whatever actions they want for their PCs. Then you said that there are no such RPGs, and asked (perhaps rhetorically) what would happen if the players of Prince Valiant PCs chose to be cabbage farmers.

I answered, and your response to that answer is that such declarations would never be made. So if you think they never would be made, why ask me a question that takes as a premise that they are made? And if in fact the game can handle them being made - as I explained - then what is your basis for asserting that any limit here is imposed by the game as opposed to the preferences of the PCs?

I mean, the game includes Farming and Crafting as skills. And discusses playing a Peasant as a PC. It doesn't pretend that a Peasant would be a typical or straightforward example of a PC, but it is clearly within the scope of what the game contemplates.

the question I have to ask is "Is it necessary for for the actions of the PCs to really change the results of a campaign for someone to be able to stay in character while participating in it and not just treat it as an extended wargame?" And the answer I have to give in terms of watching a rather lot of people play in games over the years that did not have any longterm thrust at all is "No."

When @AbdulAlhazred, @Campbell and I (and maybe others) talk about a RPG being focused on the characters, and the character mattering, we are not talking about "staying in character" vs playing a wargame.

We are talking about dramatic needs and how these feed into the situation. James Bond, when played by Roger Moore, has plenty of characterisation. Arguably more than Jason Bourne as played by Matt Damon. That doesn't change my point upthread about which of these characters is interchangeable relative to the stories they make their way through.

 

[pemerton]

As an informal poll, which games have you all run or played in which you had PCs that you felt had the most depth and involvement in the story?

As a player, Burning Wheel. No doubt at all.

As a GM, Burning Wheel, Rolemaster, Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic. If I relax the depth element, and keep just involvement in the story, I'd add 4e D&D and Wuthering Heights.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's trivial to do so. DW and AW, for instance, if played in accordance with the principles and agenda that are espoused in their rulebooks, will satisfy @Ovinomancer's criterion. And neither has "narrative level" mechanics except in a few distinct playbook moves which typically (given the variety of playbooks, and of moves-per-playbook) won't be in play.

They do as I mean it.

The ability to author fiction outside my immediate character (possibly not present in all story now games, but certainly in many).

It's this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Huh? I referred to RPGs where the players can choose to declare whatever actions they want for their PCs. Then you said that there are no such RPGs, and asked (perhaps rhetorically) what would happen if the players of Prince Valiant PCs chose to be cabbage farmers.

I answered, and your response to that answer is that such declarations would never be made. So if you think they never would be made, why ask me a question that takes as a premise that they are made? And if in fact the game can handle them being made - as I explained - then what is your basis for asserting that any limit here is imposed by the game as opposed to the preferences of the PCs?

I mean, the game includes Farming and Crafting as skills. And discusses playing a Peasant as a PC. It doesn't pretend that a Peasant would be a typical or straightforward example of a PC, but it is clearly within the scope of what the game contemplates.

I didn't say it would never be made, I asked would it ever be made. And game is more than it's mechanics, it was really not about whether the mechanics of the game can handle specific action. And if you have issue with my Prince Valiant example, please consider the actual point I was trying to make: do you agree that games (also meaning campaigns, not necessarily just systems) have premises and those de facto limit what the characters can do?