D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Thomas Shey]

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 AA 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) just fine. 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.

This can be a problem that can crop up with, honestly, a lot of systemic differences, some of them far less distinct than trad games in contrast to PbtA and their kin. Just going from D&D or its close kin to something in the BRP family can throw people off to no end, and that's just an issue of getting use to things like armor being a damage reducer as compared to a hit reducer (it makes a significant difference in how you assess combat with various monsters when your armor is a very strong factor in survivability against some and very weak against others).

People can have a terrible time getting their mindset reconnected at first, and some really never do it, over and above the question of whether they like the differences.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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)

I'll be interested (no pun intended) to how you assess "Interesting"; it actually strikes me as the easiest one to fail out because nothing obvious comes to mind (Useful strikes me as the easiest, though the easiest for the GM and players to have a disagreement about).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting of course is a good thing to aim for, but it frankly sounds kinda questionable as a rules mandated thing. It is completely subjective.

 

[pemerton]

But instead of asking "what here is of use to me?" couldn't the player ask "is there a secret door here?" Because that would seem more similar to the forge example we've been debating.

Discern Realities obliges the Gm to answer either 1 or 3 questions (depending on degree of success), chosen from a list that does not include "is there a secret door here?".

As per p 68 of the rulebook, the questions are:

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who's really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

here is what a GM is obliged to do on a 10+ Spout Lore where the goal is to turn the site of play from whatever it is presently to a conflict where we’re trying to repair a Paladin’s armor:

* Useful in that it must honor the goal of the Spout Lore move in the first place (the GM doesn’t get to suddenly divert the goal and then sub in a new brand of useful that maps to this GM diversion…eg the GM doesn’t get to turn this into an unrelated side quest). Useful means immediately actionable as it pertains to player goal.

- Interesting in that it provokes the creativity/imagination of the participants at the table by scaffolding new, dangerous and exciting stuff around/upon the existing shared imagined space and accreted fiction to date. It’s best practices that this scaffolding intersects with player Bonds and/or Alignment.

A 10 + requires both of those things. And it also needs to hew to the rest of thd game’s Agenda and Principles (eg you’re playing to find out so this useful and interesting stuff being generated is new to you, the GM, too!).

I think this is why, typically, the response you suggested (about the forge being under the glaciers) will be more apt than my alternative about the magic-eater.

I mean, the easiest way to be useful and relevant, in the context of someone asking is their an X about that will let me achieve Y is to say yes there is!

But as I posted, I think it's possible to imagine contexts where the mix of player priorities (alignment, bonds, etc) makes the non-obvious nevertheless a sensible or even optimal possibility.

Well, as it seems extremely unlikely that you could anticipate this question and prep it, prep is pointless. Prep cannot be a reason to block in DW. Nor is "no" allowed because that's blocking. You cannot block on a 10+ or even a 7-9. This is what the system says. This is exactly the kind of constraint that makes it easier to run these games -- you follow from play and the system say.

<snip>

The thing is, and @Manbearcat touches on this, you're still to fill the world with wonder and danger, so it's not a simple yes, but a yes that leads into more play, preferably with danger and wonder.

<snip>

"No" is commonly used in games where the players are trying to figure out what the GM has thought of, because you either find that or don't (I guess you can partially find that). So, when exploring that, no is still a useful answer. "Is there a secret door here?" "No." Cool, you learned something about the GM's conception of the fiction. That's useful. This structure is missing in DW, though, so there's no GM's conception to learn about until after you've done something and the GM responds.

I like all this. What you say about "no" is absolutely right: that's an important tool for guiding someone in a game that involves guessing/learning hidden information, be that 20 questions or Pictionary or Mastermind or Moldvay Basic or the Burgomaster (? or something like that) in Curse of Strahd.

In a game where there is no hidden information to be learned, its utility declines.

It's also interesting to contrast how BW and DW differe in terms of leading into more play. In DW that is more likely to happen at the point where the GM explains/elabortes on the Spouted Lore. In BW this is more likely to happen at the point the scene is framed, or consequences are narrated, in the context of engaging the newly-established fictional element.

 

[pemerton]

Does Dungeon World allow a player, or obligate them, to 'author content outside their character'? I don't think it does. Possibly the handling of session 0 is an exception, as the initial establishing process that ends with the PCs being framed into 'Scene 0' includes things like establishing backstory, and clearly nobody is in character yet.

I'm sure I've read D&D advice that suggest things like the player describing the sword they purchase with their PC's starting funds as a family heirloom, handed down. Does anyone think that this means the PC caused their ancester to have a sword?

The DW process is no different from this in structure - though in content it probably is often richer.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'll be interested (no pun intended) to how you assess "Interesting"; it actually strikes me as the easiest one to fail out because nothing obvious comes to mind (Useful strikes me as the easiest, though the easiest for the GM and players to have a disagreement about).

Intreresting is the zoomed out one that intersects with the premise of play:

* Danger and discovery (these are two keywords the game turns on).

* The tropes inherent to the playbooks selected.

* The fiction established to this point of play (backstory, locations, relationships, conflicts, themes).

 

[pemerton]

An attack dictates that a fictional event took place, involving objects within the fiction. A Spout Lore result is more abstract, the game system is constraining the GM's fiction, but its a tenuous distinction, you could always come right back and say that Spout Lore is a simulation of the PC's memory, and thus actually part of the fiction!

The rulebook comes right back and says that: the trigger for Spout Lore is When you consult your accumulated knowledge abut something. And p 66 goes on to gloss that as "any time your want to search your memory for knowledge or facts about something."

 

[pemerton]

Well, on its easiest level, one is within the allowed fictional ability of the character you're playing and the other isn't.

Scratching an Orc is only within my character's fictional ability if the Orc doesn't dodge. Which depends on the Orc, not my character.

 

[Cadence]

Scratching an Orc is only within my character's fictional ability if the Orc doesn't dodge. Which depends on the Orc, not my character.

The orcs ability to dodge is summarized by a single number instead of randomly generated one. Just like your character's is when the orc tries to hit you. Attempting to scratch the orc would be within the characters fictional ability. Whether it happens is within you as a players die rolling hands.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm sure I've read D&D advice that suggest things like the player describing the sword they purchase with their PC's starting funds as a family heirloom, handed down. Does anyone think that this means the PC caused their ancester to have a sword?

Eh. I think a lot of people are far better at allowing that sort of trivial inclusion in backstory than something that, say, rearranges the terrain retroactively.