D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Manbearcat So, I guess I don't have a whole lot of position to defend except I have found that various versions of Story Now play pretty much sidestep the entire question of 'Railroading' or 'Participationism'. The players should be laying the track in a Story Now game, for the most part! Certainly in DW that would be true. Other Story Now or similar type games may be so constrained that the GAME ITSELF creates a bit of a railroad, but I think arguing about that is kind of pointless in that such games are about the CHARACTERS primarily, so MotW might be pretty constrained, you will engage in a pretty narrow field of play there, and the primary goal may be foreordained, but the players are still generating a lot of input into the fiction, not just action declarations, IIUC.

I'm not that keen on discussions of the OP's topics in a wider sense, such as in D&D, because I just don't care that much, lol. I think its just table politics, basically. IME there are two types of super successful GMs. One are the prodigies who are simply so full of creative energy and drive that the game is ALWAYS going to be mostly about them, and people enjoy that. The other are highly collaborative. For the later case, I think something that formalizes the collaboration should be a positive thing, however familiarity and whatnot doesn't necessarily make that true in any specific case.

Probably the people that are most likely to run INTO these considerations will never read a thread on EnWorld. That is, its probably casual GMs that are running something like APs in 5e or PF1e that could profitably absorb some new techniques, but those are people who don't spend time reading forums.

 

[pemerton]

I'm pondering, and I think it feels weird to me to have a player rolling/declaring where a person IRL doesn't have impact on it. So a roll for determining how positive a social interaction seems ok to me because I'd like to think what a person does has an impact on social interactions. A roll to see if a character is able to solve an engineering problem seems ok to me because I'd like to think the effort and training a person has would have an impact on that. A roll to find a forge that exists seems ok to me because I'd like to think peoples effort and luck determine whether they can locate things.

It is possible to introduce the following principle into your RPGing: a player can only author X as a result of action declaration if X is, in the fiction, caused by the efforts of the PC in undertaking the action.

There is nothing about the nature of authorship that mandates such a principle. Whatever there is to be said in favour of such a principle will need to be based on something else. The most obvious thing to base it on is that it conforms nicely to the standard "player role" in a RPG, of occupying a particular person within the imagined fiction and declaring actions for that person.

A principle like that will also - and pretty quickly - hit edge cases, for reasons that I posted about here. One thing a PC can cause, through their efforts, is that an Orc who fails to dodge gets scratched. But which participant decides whether or not the Orc fails to dodge? Another thing a PC can cause, through their efforts, is that they recall something they once were told by another. But which participant decides what another once taught the PC? (It's not coincidence that these edge cases overlap with the sorts of things that philosophers of action talk about, because the principle I suggested depends for its application upon some canonical way of individuating actions by reference to who causes them.)

One standard way of giving effect to the principle is to narrow it - all the player can author is that their PC tries to do something. That obviously reduces the scope of player authorship in a RPG, handing more over to the GM.

Another way is to try and parse the components of an action more and more finely - RuneQuest does this in a way that D&D obviously doesn't, by separating the scratching part of the attack-an-Orc action (this is the players attack roll) from the failing to dodge part (this is the GM's Dodge or Parry roll for the Orc).

Another way is what DW does - the player can state actions for their PC, like I try and recall all I know about Dwarven forges in this region, and gets a roll which - if successful - obliges the GM to introduce facts about what someone once told the PC about Dwarven forges in this region.

Another way is what BW does - the player can state actions for their PC, like Don't I recall that such-and-such is the case?, and gets a check which - if successful - renders the recollection correct in the fiction.

None of these is a more "pure" way than any other of giving effect to the principle. They are different ways of dealing with the edge cases, and have difference implications for who gets to author what when,

It feels different to me to have the DM (as an oracle checking procedure; perhaps using dice perhaps not) consult a (maybe not yet fully rendered) mental-map to see if a forge exists, than it does for me as the PC to have the forge come into existence because I want it to.

The PC doesn't have the forge come into existence. It's a Dwarven forge whose existence is independent of the PC.

No one supposes that, when an Orc fails to dodge, that is because the PC somehow took control of the Orc like a marionette on strings. The Orc was responsible for its own being - but we infer from the player's successful attack roll that the Orc's being does not include successfully dodging this attack.

To drive this point home: some people prefer D&D to RQ, and others prefer RQ to D&D. But I don't think you would take very seriously a RQ player objecting to D&D that it makes the PC able to telepathically control whether or not an Orc can dodge or parry. Yet you are making the exact parallel criticism of BW.

In BW the PC does not make a Dwarven forge come into existence. The PC makes their recollection of the Forge occur, and we infer from the successful check that it's a true recollection (which then entails that someone, somewhere built a forge): just as the successful attack roll entails that the Orc, responsible for its own actions, did not dodge or parry.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What's the difference between making it true that the fiction includes an Orc and making it true that the fiction contains an Orc with a scratch? It's all just authorship - introducing new fiction.

I think the quantum collapse power with equivalent effects than 'sprout lore' that @Cadence posted illustrated the difference perfectly.

 

[pemerton]

I think the quantum collapse power with equivalent effects than 'sprout lore' that @Cadence posted illustrated the difference perfectly.

You and @Cadence are running an argument that entails you should be playing RQ: because obviously D&D attacks are "quantum collapse" powers that determine whether or not an Orc is able to dodge!

 

[pemerton]

Really Strong Bayesian Prior (aka Collapse Major Quantum Uncertainty):
The user may focus on any portion of the world that hasn't been explored in play or their background (the size of a shop or smaller), and by visualizing what they want/know/expect/remember/imagine to be there, attempt to cause it to come into being. As long as it doesn't contradict anything they or another party member has direct experience of or has in their background, it is successful on a roll of 10+. On a roll of 7-9 they are partially successful.

Every D&D character has this power: they use it to determine whether or not Orcs dodge or parry; whether or not they sneeze or trip while casting their spells; whether or not flies and mosquitoes sting them while they are climbing walls, etc.

EDIT, for clarity: or alternatively, no one supposes the fact that no D&D caster ever sneezes while casting a spell, and hence fails entails that in the world of D&D sneezing is voluntary, and the no one supposes that the fact that no thief ever fell from a wall because, in spite of all their skills, a bee stung them just as they were reaching for a vital handhold entails that thieves have magical control over bees.

So why would anyone suppose that I recall that X coupled with a process for determining that that recollection is accurate entails that the character was causally responsible for X?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You and @Cadence are running an argument that entails you should be playing RQ: because obviously D&D attacks are "quantum collapse" powers that determine whether or not an Orc is able to dodge!

Well, no. What a bizarre thing to say!

Is this ludicrousness somehow based on the quirk of D&D system that defences (except saves) aren't rolled? Who actually rolls the dice is completely immaterial to the topic.

 

[Cadence]

Every D&D character has this power: they use it to determine whether or not Orcs dodge or parry; whether or not they sneeze or trip while casting their spells; whether or not flies and mosquitoes sting them while they are climbing walls, etc.

In D&D some things revolve around two die rolls (stealth vs. active perception), some are one die roll going one direction (combat vs. ac, stealth vs. passive perception), and some are one die roll going the other direction (spell vs. saving throw). Who rolls depends in the one-die case depends on who is doing the action that has that has that privilege, and not on whether they are player controlled or DM controlled.

In the one die roll I wonder if any players would have a problem at all if it was explained that the pc/npc who doesn't get to roll is essentially assigned a fixed value to make the game quicker to run.

If attacker declares attack, does the math change at all if you have A roll against B's fixed defense, or if A's fixed attack is dodged/parried using B's roll?

If the game had both attackers and defenders make contested rolls, something I imagine most D&D players would find odd at first but could be convinced it doesn't really change that much except for slowing things down, does your entire argument goes away? (I'm guessing almost no D&D players who went to a game with active defense rolls would think that any significant changes in authorship had occurred, no matter the arguments put forth).

 

[Cadence]

@Cadence A question, as you seem to currently be the most curious. Do you see the approach being argued for Story Now as something that does work, plays well, and generates what it suggests on the tin, or are you still struggling to grasp the play? If the latter, what's the largest impediment that you see at the moment?

Obligatory boilerplate -- I see many approaches to playing 5e as valid. I even use them.

I think the various posts on here have helped me figure out what I wasn't getting - thank you for taking the time to respond!!

My brain seems to be doing ok now getting from (B) how @AbdulAlhazred and @prabe explained the mechanics/idea of lore spouting and how necessary/likely it is that it results in the forge, over to (C) how many D&D games I've been in would take to the player suggesting a forge might be in the area. And I think I'm fine getting from how you have lore spouting work (call that A) over to (B). And similarly from (C) over to how many of the other things I'm used to in D&D work (call it D).

But trying to go from (A) to (D) was like things at the opposite end of a ring species trying to mate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In D&D some things revolve around two die rolls (stealth vs. active perception), some are one die roll going one direction (combat vs. ac, stealth vs. passive perception), and some are one die roll going the other direction (spell vs. saving throw). Who rolls depends in the one-die case depends on who is doing the action that has that has that privilege, and not on whether they are player controlled or DM controlled.

In the one die roll I wonder if any players would have a problem at all if it was explained that the pc/npc who doesn't get to roll is essentially assigned a fixed value to make the game quicker to run.

If attacker declares attack, does the math change at all if you have A roll against B's fixed defense, or if A's fixed attack is dodged/parried using B's roll?

If the game had both attackers and defenders make contested rolls, something I imagine most D&D players would find odd at first but could be convinced it doesn't really change that much except for slowing things down, does your entire argument goes away? (I'm guessing almost no D&D players who went to a game with active defense rolls would think that any significant changes in authorship had occurred, no matter the arguments put forth).

This is a side comment that doesn't relate directly to your point (to make it clear I'm not arguing yea or nay there), but this is an area where a game system with an active and frequently used metacurrency often makes a striking difference unless the metacurrency can modify enemy die rolls too; its one of the notable mechanical quirks in more than one game using such currencies.

 

[Manbearcat]

When my brain doesn’t feel like it’s 20 k leagues under the sea, I’m going to do an MS Paint of a Venn Diagram that captures the possible constellations of GM responses on a 10+ Spout Lore.

The 3 circles will be:

* Interesting

* Useful (again, meaning actionable now toward goal of move)

* Thematically Relevant (meaning the answer intersects with one or more PC Bonds/Alignments)

That should visually illustrate the following:

* The best answer is in the bullseye of all 3.

* An answer that isn’t at least captured by the Interesting and Useful circles is a violation.


After that (assuming that helps), I’ll do the same thing for 6- but with different principal led constraints guiding the other two circles.

To that end, for the record, I see very little reason in ever rejecting the player’s Spout Lore premise on a 6- result. Instead, repurpose it (turn it back on them or reveal an unwelcome truth).