D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

I don’t see the difference between 4e and 5e in this respect?

Well, my question was "Can 5e do player-authored quests like 4e does?"

I take it that your answer is "yes".

I assumed that @Crimson Longinus answer would be "no". But the like for your post has me unsure.

A GM authoring setting, treasure, encounters etc to give effect to a player-authored quest is no different (in process) from the process that @Manbearcat described for DW Spout Lore, which Crimson Longinus described as a "narrative level" mechanic, contrasting it - I think - with anything found in 5e D&D.

 

[prabe]

Well, I don't know if it's bad GMing. Obviously it's different from my own approach; but I've read plenty of posts on these boards where GMs have said that they wouldn't necessarily make player-established goals for their PCs a focus of play, nor ensure that the fiction makes it possible for such goals to be achieved.

It's pretty clearly different from my approach, as well--and my preferences as a player. It occurs to me this is probably why I dislike published adventures so.

Now, I can't and won't promise like every player at a five or six player table that every goal they have for their character will emerge in play, but I'll make an effort to get them in.

 

[pemerton]

If the GM cannot refuse, it is not just a suggestion!

As @Ovinomancer has explained, that's what the dice are for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The question was about who has authority to author the fiction. The player does not have the authority to do this. You can see this because on a miss the GM can very easily say that there was no forge, or the forge exists elsewhere in a distant, but similar, location, or that the forge was there but is destroyed (which was in the example) or any number of things. The player, in asking the question, does not cause the forge to be in existence. Rather, the move is about how constrained the GM is in answering this question. On a hit (10+), very constrained, in that they cannot block the question by denying it. Nor can they deny it on a 7-9. They can deny it on a 6-. If the GM can deny the Forge, then the player does not have this authority.

On a hit, because the GM is constrained from blocking, it appears that the player forces the Forge into existence, but this is, again, a take based on an understanding of the game fiction that's very Trad -- things that aren't detailed by the GM do not exist. The thing is that in these games it's trivial if the GM does decide to add things -- like in a D&D game if the GM offers a Forge there's no issues at all! So, then, it's not the creation of the Forge, but why it's created that's the issue. We've already solved the problem of Forges being created from whole cloth because the fabric of the fiction is infinitely weaveable prior to introduction to play. Rather, you're having an issue of constraining the GM in the weaving of that fabric, but not that Forges can be made to suddenly exist.

You're literally describing a game mechanic that allows players to add forges in the narrative! That that it involves a die roll doesn't change this fact.

 

[pemerton]

I think he means play that's associated with the "adventure," ie, going out into the wilds to find a ruin or dungeon and doing that thing, or going on an adventure to get the macguffin, or the like. Play that's focused on social interactions, manipulation, gang war, doing crime, etc, is all not like "adventures" but also not focused on home life. It's the "I'm a character doing my thing in this world, whatever that happens be." It could be hunting human cattle as a vampire, or dealing with the curse of being a werewolf, or being a thug collecting for the mob, or any number of things that don't qualify as "adventures" because you aren't going there for a purpose.

Obviously @Campbell can and perhaps will clarify.

I focused on home because of the relationships and reputations that were mentioned. I think vampires would be a good example of this: at least typically they're not heading out into the wilds looking for new sources of blood, but politicking in their various territories and among their various clans to manage their "herds", pursue their politics, etc.

In D&D I think an all-thieves or at least thief-focused game is the most natural pathway to this sort of play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, what do you imagine when you think of going on an adventure? I think that @Campbell is quite correctly using this word naturally -- ie, as natural language -- and not in the game specific manner of D&D that play is about the adventure, so any play is an adventure by proxy. That's the use of the word in the more specific manner.

I don't mean any specific D&D meaning either. I'd just call basically any sequence of events where interesting and unexpected things happen to the characters and they take actions to deal with them is 'an adventure.' In any case, it is pretty pointless for use to discuss what @Campbell meant, they can clarify if they want.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're literally describing a game mechanic that allows players to add forges in the narrative! That that it involves a die roll doesn't change this fact.

Are there forges in the gameworld fiction at all? If yes, then the players aren't adding forges, they're recalling the location of such a forge. The forge is either always there or not, it's not "added." You're stuck, as I surmised, in the idea that there is no forge, then the player makes they're move, and then there is a forge. You're stuck in thinking that this area has been gone over by the GM and no forge added, and now that choice is being overridden by the player to make the GM add a forge. This is incorrect -- there are forges, and perhaps one is nearby. The check is made to see if the player recalls a nearby forge, and, lo and behold, there is one! The difference here is that you're totally fine if the player asks the GM for permission to know this fact, and the GM can refuse, but if they choose to engage, then everything is hunky dory! The GM can instantiate a forge however the GM wants! It's not that the player creates forges, here, but that they dare have a say on the GM's turf! But, even this is wrong. There is no turf here, there is not establish "no forge" history. When the player makes the move, we all find out if the forge was there and what the PC recalls about that forge. There's no making the forge exist. It was always there, it's just now relevant to the game. This is what no myth play is about, and it's the hang-up point for people that are steeped in the consideration that the world exists in the GM's head and so a player asking about a forge that their PC recalls is intruding and forcing the GM to add it. It's not, the PC recalls the forge, and we're checking to see what it is they recall about it.

 

[Cadence]

Are there forges in the gameworld fiction at all? If yes, then the players aren't adding forges, they're recalling the location of such a forge. The forge is either always there or not, it's not "added." You're stuck, as I surmised, in the idea that there is no forge, then the player makes they're move, and then there is a forge. You're stuck in thinking that this area has been gone over by the GM and no forge added, and now that choice is being overridden by the player to make the GM add a forge. This is incorrect -- there are forges, and perhaps one is nearby. The check is made to see if the player recalls a nearby forge, and, lo and behold, there is one! The difference here is that you're totally fine if the player asks the GM for permission to know this fact, and the GM can refuse, but if they choose to engage, then everything is hunky dory! The GM can instantiate a forge however the GM wants! It's not that the player creates forges, here, but that they dare have a say on the GM's turf! But, even this is wrong. There is no turf here, there is not establish "no forge" history. When the player makes the move, we all find out if the forge was there and what the PC recalls about that forge. There's no making the forge exist. It was always there, it's just now relevant to the game. This is what no myth play is about, and it's the hang-up point for people that are steeped in the consideration that the world exists in the GM's head and so a player asking about a forge that their PC recalls is intruding and forcing the GM to add it. It's not, the PC recalls the forge, and we're checking to see what it is they recall about it.

Is this correct?

That particular area had no forge related narration. The character recalls a forge is in the area. On a good enough roll the players memory is correct and a forge is there. On a mediocre roll the DM gives a mediocre result like there was a forge but not now or it's somewhere else or it's a silversmith, and on a failure the PC was confused?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are there forges in the gameworld fiction at all? If yes, then the players aren't adding forges, they're recalling the location of such a forge. The forge is either always there or not, it's not "added." You're stuck, as I surmised, in the idea that there is no forge, then the player makes they're move, and then there is a forge. You're stuck in thinking that this area has been gone over by the GM and no forge added, and now that choice is being overridden by the player to make the GM add a forge. This is incorrect -- there are forges, and perhaps one is nearby. The check is made to see if the player recalls a nearby forge, and, lo and behold, there is one! The difference here is that you're totally fine if the player asks the GM for permission to know this fact, and the GM can refuse, but if they choose to engage, then everything is hunky dory! The GM can instantiate a forge however the GM wants! It's not that the player creates forges, here, but that they dare have a say on the GM's turf! But, even this is wrong. There is no turf here, there is not establish "no forge" history. When the player makes the move, we all find out if the forge was there and what the PC recalls about that forge. There's no making the forge exist. It was always there, it's just now relevant to the game. This is what no myth play is about, and it's the hang-up point for people that are steeped in the consideration that the world exists in the GM's head and so a player asking about a forge that their PC recalls is intruding and forcing the GM to add it. It's not, the PC recalls the forge, and we're checking to see what it is they recall about it.

I am not confused about the process at all. But it is the player having "the ability to author fiction outside my immediate character."

I really don't understand why you or @pemerton are arguing against this, as from your other posts I have understood that you both like Story Now games having this feature...

 

[Campbell]

I'm using adventure in the sense of going off on an adventure, uprooting yourself, going to strange new places and often getting into violent struggles with strangers.

In order for play to fundamentally be about characters as I mean there need to be personal stakes. Things to gain, lose, and change that matter just to them without the diversions of vast conspiracies, sweeping plots, and villains to contend with. Those can be fun too, but like not what I am looking for.