D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Cadence]

Okay, let's compare to something in 5e -- an attack declaration. The player declares an attempt to hit an orc with their sword. Is the player authoring into the fiction that the orc was struck by their sword if they get a success on the attack roll? Compare to Spout Lore.

It feels like this is going to be a difference in kind vs. difference in degree discussion that 1/3 or so of the thread participants will be unhappy with at any given time...

If a person is driving down a road, what power does that person IRL have over whether there is a car ahead of of them? Do they have some control over how they pass a car that is ahead of them? It feels like kind to me IRL. Whether that should apply in a game seems a matter of taste.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In the sort of RPGing @Campbell is talking about, there isn't a "main thrust of the adventuring portion of a campaign".

 

[prabe]

Okay, let's compare to something in 5e -- an attack declaration. The player declares an attempt to hit an orc with their sword. Is the player authoring into the fiction that the orc was struck by their sword if they get a success on the attack roll? Compare to Spout Lore.

No, because combat in D&D operates more like a contest than a simple ability check. It doesn't compare directly to a Spout Lore move.

 

[pemerton]

There was a previous thread for a game that I think was the player searching for a secret door instead of remembering a forge that used a similar mechanic. Does that sound familiar?

Maybe you're thinking of Burning Wheel? It uses different techniques from AW and DW, particularly around Wises checks, some Perception checks, and Circles checks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It feels like this is going to be a difference in kind vs. difference in degree discussion that 1/3 or so of the thread participants will be unhappy with at any given time...

If a person is driving down a road, what power does that person IRL have over whether there is a car ahead of of them? Do they have some control over how they pass a car that is ahead of them? It feels like kind to me IRL. Whether that should apply in a game seems a matter of taste.

Sure. Really it's about what work the system does and how different systems do different work. In 5e, it's no controversial at all that the orc is hit and that this bit of fiction is the system's say, suggested by the player and described by the GM. This is normal. When it's applied outside of normal, like outside of combat, it's weird because 5e doesn't have the system have a say here. But, in reality, the difference is not one of kind -- the player suggests an outcome, the system says who gets the say, and the GM describes the outcome accordingly. Constraints are different, but the function of the game, the actual play, is the same.

 

[pemerton]

This is not really that difficult. In 5e player cannot compel the forge into being, in DW (given a decent roll) they can.

No they can't. They can oblige the GM to introduce some fiction, about what the PC recalls, which pertains to the forge and is relevantly useful.

I think, if I understand how the mechanic in PbtA works in this regard is the sticking point is that the GM is required to do some sort of answer that is "useful" (which given the general dynamic, probably means that it actually moves the story in some fashion rather than leaving its state fundamentally the same as before the question was asked). So the question turns on "is there an answer that is useful that does not, in practice, create a forge in the area?" I suspect there's a variety of responses that could be made to that, but often the easiest one is just to put in a damned forge somewhere.

I already posted an example upthread, of what a 10+ result that doesn't involve a forge existing might look like.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree. When I look at successful scenarios deliberately intended for "story now" play - I'm thinking of some for Prince Valiant, especially but not only Greg Stafford's, and also some Robin Laws ones for HeroWars - they present a single situation. Everything else is part of framing. The framing may be extended - for instance, it may involve action declarations which affect how certain NPCs engage with the PCs at the climax - but it is framing, not a thematically determinative climax.

This is not trivial to pull off, as a design specification. As I've posted before, in the Prince Valiant Episode Book Jerry Grayson pulls it off (in The Crimson Bull) whereas Mark Rein-Hagen's contribution to the same volume is a railroad as written.

There is always the risk that something happens in the framing parts of the situation that trigger a "premature" climax. That's just a risk that has to be taken, I think.

Highly episodic and fairly stereotyped kinds of material are most amenable. This, IMHO, is why Supers and Arthurian Romance are two of the most successfully implemented genre in terms of actually writing material for Story Now play. I mean, with Supers you can kind of just basically present the characters and the milieu and then the GM and players can scene frame themselves through what reads a heck of a lot like your average comic book. Dr Doom does doomy stuff and his relationship with the PCs, what he threatens, etc. along with the specific details of various scenarios, can produce the dramatic tension and release of a story.

I think if you wanted to do something like that for DW, you could present a book full of fronts that could be adopted into a game, for example. You could probably (partially) map out some locations that would match up well to each one, etc. What you can't really do, in any of these games, is describe a fixed plot. I ran an Arthurian Romance game a few years back using PACE and that was definitely true. Each scene was impossible to predict ahead of time. I did use the time between sessions to concoct some, but then, often, the players would hare off in another direction, or else some action resolution would launch a whole different trajectory. It worked, but preparing material seemed marginally useful. Then again, if I'd stuck closer to the formula of that genre it could have been easier, but I got a bit too creative with it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, because combat in D&D operates more like a contest than a simple ability check. It doesn't compare directly to a Spout Lore move.

No, because Spout Lore doesn't end any contests. It's an intermediate move, like the attack, in a larger context. The spout lore moves solves nothing conclusively -- it opens a new door perhaps, but the challenge still exists. In combat, if the attack fells the orc, then a new door to new opportunities is also opened -- you can maneuver more freely, or select a different target, or imbibe a potion. This distinction is false.

 

[prabe]

No, because Spout Lore doesn't end any contests. It's an intermediate move, like the attack, in a larger context. The spout lore moves solves nothing conclusively -- it opens a new door perhaps, but the challenge still exists. In combat, if the attack fells the orc, then a new door to new opportunities is also opened -- you can maneuver more freely, or select a different target, or imbibe a potion. This distinction is false.

Combat is resolved like a contest, with multiple tests/actions to get to an outcome (who wins). Spout Lore is a single move to get to an outcome (what the character knows). This distinction is not false.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

In the past 5 years, the biggest change to the hobby has been the influx of players inspired by D&D podcasts, notably Critical Role.

While these players definitely seem interested in an epic and more narrative style of play, it seems to me that they are also looking for the opportunity to make meaningful decisions about their characters, and that the adventures they participate in meaningfully engage their characters.

WotC definitely publishes more APs than short form adventures, but to me, we need to temper this conclusion with two others. 1- Compared to previous editions, publishing APs seems to be replacing short adventures, not homebrew campaigns. 2- WotC supports DMs Guild, as a replacement for the short form adventures it (mostly) no longer publishes.