D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

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.

The character isn't determining whether or not the Forge exists. The character is wracking their memory. The die roll determines whether they remember something interesting and/or useful.

 

[pemerton]

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).

I think you are probably conflating Spout Lore and Discern Realities.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure. Let me ask, though, what changes are made to the adventure of, say, Storm King's Thunder, if you have a paladin in the party vice a barbarian? Does the plot change? Which scenes change? Does a motivation change for an NPC? Or are all of these the same?

A dozen things can change based on the type of barbarian or type of paladin. A dozen more can change based on their prior choices and actions. And even more can change based on their race, background, and gender. Are we playing the same game?

I've run Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil three times for three very different sets of players, much less their characters. Nothing in the adventure changed -- not a single Fane, not a single NPC. Same thing, from the book. Nothing changed. Didn't matter a whit which characters showed up, the adventure was the same. The details of what happened in play were the same. I mean, one group had a character that said "yeet!" to the naga in the water(?) fane and died a hilarious death that stuck with me. When that player brought in a completely different replacement character, nothing in the adventure book changed.

I would ask, and I mean no insult by this, but how much did you prep prior to each session? I have certainly run a few things and not prepped, and just let the book be the guide. It was fun. But it when I have run it again, this time with real prep time, it is completely different.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

To touch on a point in the back-and-forth that hasn’t been discussed, it is summarized by a single number that does not vary based on external circumstances. A 10+ is a success and a 7-9 is a success with consequences whether you are in dwarven country, a tundra or a forest. An Orc’s AC varies based on the armor he is wearing, whether he is prone, or bearing a shirld.

 

[pemerton]

But it still comes across as one being a result that has no relationship to the character at hand, and some people are just fussy about that, especially on the fly.

The relationship to the character is that they remember it.

The rest of this post is relevant also to @Cadence, @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver:

A player declares (as their PC) I try to remember everything I can about nearby Dwarven forges, as one of those would really help us fix the paladin's armour.

That action declaration now has to be resolved. One way to do that is to have the GM tell the player by making something up. Another way is to have the GM tell the player by consulting some notes. Another way is to gate one or the other of the first two methods behind a check. Another way is just to use a check. And there are probably further ways too that are possible.

We can do the same with fighting an Orc. The GM might make up that the Orc dodges. The GM might consult notes that tell us the Orc dodges. (That is how it works in the FFG-type book I mentioned just upthread, unless the reader/player chooses the right combo.) D&D instead just uses a check. RQ shows us another way that is possible. And there are further ways too that are possible.

There is nothing inherently distinctive about terrain, and geography, and architecture, in comparison to the dodginess of Orcs vis-a-vis particular sorts of attacks, that means that one method of establishing authorship and resolving actions is inherently apt to one and not the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So why are you, @Crimson Longinus and others denying this in relation to the Dwarven Forge example?

Why are you incapable of seeing one shows in-setting cause and effect and the other doesn't? The difference is pretty clear to me, and I suspect it is to plenty of others.

Look, I don't have a bit of an issue with what is, in practice, dramatic editing. I just don't see a reason to kid myself there's a difference between that and things that are direct, visible results of in-character action.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The character isn't determining whether or not the Forge exists. The character is wracking their memory. The die roll determines whether they remember something interesting and/or useful.

The difference is, the thing doesn't actually exist in the fiction in any way until they do so. Again, that doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.

 

[Cadence]

The character isn't determining whether or not the Forge exists. The character is wracking their memory. The die roll determines whether they remember something interesting and/or useful.

For some folks posting here who run these games, "interesting and/or useful" seems to mean just that - it could be the forge existed the way the player has the character remember it, or it could easily be something else interesting and/or useful to the player that the DM puts in. That seems not that different to me from the way I've seen some things happen in D&D games - albeit with a formal structure not present in D&D and with the conceit of the character remembering it.

For other folks posting here who run these games, it sounds like the words "interesting and/or useful" aren't as broad as they sound when read by an outsider, and almost certainly means the forge would exists the way the player has the character remember it. The equivalent in the D&D game could seemingly be a ring that had a fairly high chance of creating whatever the player had the characters want/remember.

It feels like these two different ways of running it would result in two very different games (and the disagreement between some of those posting on each side seems to back that up) and would give the players very different levels of authorial/narrative control.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The relationship to the character is that they remember it.

Not the same thing, and if you don't see why, don't know what further to tell you. Yes, GM's do it all the time. But to the people you're responding to players don't. At most they do some backstory fill in, but not unrelated things on the fly, and this is jarring to people who have that expectation.

As I said, one shows an immediate relationship to a matter at hand and already in evidence. The other is using the fiction of "remembering" it to do scene editing. They simply aren't the same thing to many people. I realize the whole premise is this is not the only way to do things, and as I said, I'm with a leg on both sides.

But it doesn't do the conversation any good to act like there's no difference, or to try and try to play socratic arguments attempting to convince others that's the case.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A dozen things can change based on the type of barbarian or type of paladin. A dozen more can change based on their prior choices and actions. And even more can change based on their race, background, and gender. Are we playing the same game?

Which things change. This shouldn't be hard, just look in the AP and see where it says "if paladin then A, if barbarian then B." You seem to be pointing out that the characters are different. I'm talking about the adventure. It doesn't care if a barbarian or a paladin shows up.

I would ask, and I mean no insult by this, but how much did you prep prior to each session? I have certainly run a few things and not prepped, and just let the book be the guide. It was fun. But it when I have run it again, this time with real prep time, it is completely different.

Varies. I don't have a fixed prep amount for a session of play. Sometimes it's very little -- a review of notes for a few minutes. Sometimes it's very long, like when I'm restructuring a section of the AP to pull out the blatant and clunky Force bits or if I'm building up some set-piece maps and encounters. I like running location based things that are linked with some light Trad in my homebrew stuff, so I tend to focus on making encounter areas more engaging and better structured from the APs (which, frankly, are extremely hit and miss about this stuff).

I don't know what value you'd take from this. I'd never run an AP straight with no prep, though, because I tend to find that I hit places where the AP's writers and I violently clash and it actually is seriously unfun for me. The opening to Descent is a great example of something that if I ran it straight I'd probably say, after a few moments of play, "you know what, guys, I ain't feeling this crap. Let's pull out a boardgame or something."