D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

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.

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).

And so if the single roll for Spout Lore or a Wises check were replaced by two rolls, would the whole argument go away? Given @Cadence's remark upthread about the GM making a check, I assume the answer is yes.

So what's the big deal? D&D combines the Orc's parry and the PC's attack into one roll (contra RQ). BW and DW combine the GM's roll on a random table and the player's roll for their PC's recollection into one roll (contra D&D).

Which brings us back to the real issue: Gygax invented a game in which the GM has strong authorship over towers and forges but in which authorship over dodging Orcs is subjected to a roll. There is nothing particularly sacrosanct about structuring those particular authorship decisions behind those different processes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

And you're not deciding whether he dodged, either. The die decided that. But there's still a direct cause-and-effect from what you did to the result.

 

[Cadence]

Which brings us back to the real issue: Gygax invented a game in which the GM has strong authorship over towers and forges but in which authorship over dodging Orcs is subjected to a roll. There is nothing particularly sacrosanct about structuring those particular authorship decisions behind those different processes.

There isn't anything sacrosanct about structuring the authorship. But a lot of people apparently think there's a big difference between swinging a sword vs. a secret door or forge appearing on a map. If a lot of people see a difference between things... it kind of feels like there might be one. Even if it's one you don't care about.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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).

I hope I won't come across as disingenuous when I say that doesn't actually tell me anything, at least anything I'd have any idea how to engage with as a GM? I'd guess there's some unpacking that goes with those that you're not easily able to summarize here.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The existence of the Forge is summarised by a single number instead of a randomly generated one: the target number for the check.

 

[Cadence]

The existence of the Forge is summarised by a single number instead of a randomly generated one: the target number for the check.

I brought up the die rolling in regards to your "Every D&D character has this power: they use it to determine whether or not Orcs dodge or parry; "

My point was that the character isn't determining whether the orc dodges or parries. The character is swinging. The players die roll determines whether they exceed the orcs dodging as represented by a fixed number.

 

[Manbearcat]

I hope I won't come across as disingenuous when I say that doesn't actually tell me anything, at least anything I'd have any idea how to engage with as a GM? I'd guess there's some unpacking that goes with those that you're not easily able to summarize here.

I’ll unpack in a bigger post when my head clears.

Things like “Danger” and “Discovery” and “Tropes” seem generic when you’re not well familiar with the rule book, the End of Session move, and the playbooks.

I’ll bridge that gap with a post tomorrow or Sunday when I’m feeling better.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Absolutely.

And when you’re talking legends/myth/accumulated knowledge, “forge” can have multiple meanings (to forge ahead, to forge bonds, etc).

If the GM can pull a metaphor out that marries “forge” with “useful”, “interesting”, and EoS questions, playbook tropes, and/or the setting material that has emerged through play?

Something like that might be the “Nut Draw” to steal a Poker term.

 

[pemerton]

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.

What is being rearranged? What prior arrangement is being disturbed?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, when you invoke Discern Realities a check is made, and you pick from the following list of questions:

• 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?

The GM is free to supply any answer, as long as it is accurate. On a 10+ you get 3 questions, on a 7-9 one. Either way you get +1 Forward when acting on the answers. So there's no scenario where the player can state that a secret door exists. Now, a player could try to invoke Spout Lore instead, in which case they are allowed to dictate the TOPIC of the lore. So a player could say "I try to recall if I know of any secret doors in this location" but I would note that this is A) stretching the definition of Spout Lore, as lore IMHO is more general than this, and B) It is still technically up to the GM to decide when a move is triggered, so they might actually quash this by simply answering the question, thus circumventing any check. I would say that both the asking a very very specific question about a location AND the quashing the move are both a bit dubious, so I'd be cautious about concluding what that says about DW play.

In any case, while the GM may well deploy a secret door here, there's no obligation to do so.

This was helpful. It's not at all how particular examples of it come across (which is one downside to focusing too much on examples I guess).