D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Thomas Shey]

When @Campbell talks about RPGing that is not adventuring, he's talking about RPGing which focuses on the everyday lives of the protagonists in their homes, interacting with the friends and family and neighbours and rivals. He's not talking about free roleplay in between the action. The non-adventuring stuff is the action.

The fact that it's not adventuring doesn't necessarily mean that it's not exciting.

There can also be play that does not involve the PCs in their homes, but is not adventuring. In my jointly GMed BW game, our PCs didn't adventure. Our PCs tried (and largely failed) to establish a basic footing for themselves in Hardby.

Then I'm still not clear why my statement was irrelevant; that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my "room to breath" comment, things that are still interesting but not part of any main thrust of the adventuring portion of a campaign.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay. Let's look at the 5e version of this. The exact same action is declared by the player. The GM considers, and decides that there is a forge and replies in the exact same way as the 10+ in the example. Did the player author fiction outside their immediate character here? Forget constraints or moves or whatever. We have the player suggest something, and it turns out to be true. Did the player author it? Your answer, I'm sure, is no, the GM did because they used their authority to do so and were just being nice to the player. Okay, cool. We've established that the player suggesting something is not authoring it even if the GM decides to do so.

The GM in this 5e example also has open to the the 7-9 options -- the forge exists but there's a problem -- and the 6- options -- no forge, or serious problem, forge exists but it's broke. The range is available here, but at no point would you suggest that in 5e that the player authored the forge even if they suggest it. We're clear here.

So, then, what's the difference in DW? Same-same in all ways except that on a success (10+) the GM has their ability to author constrained -- they can't deploy any of the equivalent options in 5e that map to 9-. So, the GM is limited to what they can provide here to a narrower range. However, we've already established that this range is NOT the player authoring the existence of the Forge, and here, the player is still not doing so. The system has a say and limits the options to the GM, yes, but the same thing is happening in 5e as in DW within that range. So, if you're going to argue that Spout Lore is the player authoring things into the fiction, well, we also have a bunch of 5e play that is the same.

This is not really that difficult. In 5e player cannot compel the forge into being, in DW (given a decent roll) they can. Call it what you want, doesn't change what's happening.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have often hard time following @Campbell as they use certain words in far more limited and specific manner than I would understand them. I think that is the case with 'adventuring'.

Whereas usually I can get where he's coming from without any problem which is why I'm trying to get clarification here. Its also possible what I'm talking about in response is coming across as far more limited than what I'm intending.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, the one where I point out the phraseology you're using has meaning beyond the denotative and you either deny it or indicate you don't care.

You mean when you complain that railroading carries a negative connotation? Like that? Yes, it does, but I didn't assign that connotation nor did I conceptualize what railroading means. I have been a champion of the term "Force" and I have clearly defined it (as have other in similar ways) because it describes what happens in a moment of play and how various authorities and mechanics interact. Any connotation you have here is up to you -- I'm not assigning any. Then there's, what, passive? I'm using that exactly according to it's denotation in the context I've described -- in terms of driving play, waiting on the GM to tell you things is passive compared to asserting things and testing their truth. So, no, not there, either. I'm struggling to find where you have a problem with a term I'm using, especially when I go to lengths to point out positive uses for the ideas -- like how building APs as railroads actually creates a positive social effect in the hobby because of the shared play experiences. It certainly also aids the GM if their goal is to tell an entertaining story! This is a fine goal, long established and long venerated in the hobby. I have some pleasant (and some not pleasant) memories of such games!

In other words, this is an easy out via an ad hominin -- I'm just a bad person.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's one of those things that seem impossible to determine, honestly. I've absolutely gotten the impression APs are a much bigger thing now than their equivalents were 20 years ago, but I'm not sure there's any data to give you any idea of percentages.

There are surveys.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Can I ask how my suggestion that that can exist in parallel to "adventuring" as long as time for it is allowed for it? Is it that you find the adventuring at all a distraction? That you prefer for the entire game to be about character personal stakes? IF so that wasn't clear to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then I'm still not clear why my statement was irrelevant; that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my "room to breath" comment, things that are still interesting but not part of any main thrust of the adventuring portion of a campaign.

Um, @Campbell is talking about this stuff being the main thrust of the game, not sidelines in between the adventuring.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You mean when

I'm not playing this game with you Ovinomancer. You're clearly interested in denying you've done this in the past, and if you consider it an ad hominem then you're too oblivious to your behavior in this area to be usefully engaged on that. If you want to get outraged about it, get outraged; by all means feel free to report me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is not really that difficult. In 5e player cannot compel the forge into being, in DW (given a decent roll) they can. Call it what you want, doesn't change what's happening.

The DW player cannot compel either. Let's look -- where does it say that DW player tells the GM what to do? Nowhere. Even on a 10+ the constraint is that the answer must be useful -- that you have to answer the question is obvious but seems like it needs to be said. This isn't the player's authority, it's the system's say. The system requires these things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Um, @Campbell is talking about this stuff being the main thrust of the game, not sidelines in between the adventuring.

There's a lot of space between "sidelines" and "main thrust of the game". As I noted, I've seen that material take up as much temporal space as the theoretical primary thrust of the game before, which is why I'm trying to find out if it needs to be more than that.