D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Aldarc]

These are not universal truths. They fit great in how many play a game like D&D. In a PbtA game, where everyone (including the GM) "plays to find out", defining that much ahead of time is counter to some of the concepts of the game.

Looking at the Gamemastering Principles of DW, the very first one is: "Draw Maps, Leave Blanks". Here's what the SRD says:

Gamemastering – Dungeon World SRD

In that type of game, what you are describing is against how it is supposed to be run. The Principles are much stronger than DMing advice from the DMG, they are basically rules for GMs where breaking them is akin to cheating just as much as a player fudging their dice in D&D is.

None of this a critique of D&D. Just exposure to the fact that other styles of games explicitly do not follow some of the assumptions D&D does.

Also, the advice also doesn’t say to ignore or retcon prior established geography.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't know what you mean by "scene editing". How is the scene being edited?

I mean, if I think about a film or a play, having an event where one character strikes another with a sword is no different - from the perspective of authorship or editing or whatever - from having an event where a character recalls something about a Dwarven forge. We decide to "edit" the fighting scene - the make-up people bring more tomato sauce. We decide to "edit" the recollection scene - the props department go out and dig up an anvil.

So you are using "scene editing" in some non-standard way.

I'm using it substatially the way it has been since the term first appeared in Adventure; inserting something into a scene by a player when it previously did not exist.

Again, if you do not see the difference here, that's fine. If you want to keep banging your head against the fact others do, that's your choice but its bluntly, extremely counterproductive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It does exist in the fiction. See my post just above.

I mean, in D&D ALL THE TIME GMs add new content to their worlds which, in in-fiction time, occurred or was built prior to the "present" date at which play is taking place.

And as I said, people you're talking to don't consider the GM and the players the same here. I realize your point is there's no necessity for that to be the case, but trying to convince people where there's a naturalistic separation there that there's no difference isn't arguing conclusion but premise, and arguing it like its a conclusion is both a waste of time and comes across as obtuse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Disruptive of what? Preconceptions? Whose? We can only be talking about the GM's - because the players are learning stuff "on the fly" all the time in a typical D&D setting.

The key word is "Learning". They're not, effectively, making them, and many players don't want to be. I'm getting the distinct feeling that's not something you can understand.

Which brings us right back to questions about who has what sort of authority over backstory, to be exercised in accordance with what principles? Until that is set out, there is no basis for the deployment of notions like disruption or rearrangement.

But of course both sides of this already are, and to act like its only the other side comes across as non-self-aware.

 

[Campbell]

I'm using it substatially the way it has been since the term first appeared in Adventure; inserting something into a scene by a player when it previously did not exist.

Again, if you do not see the difference here, that's fine. If you want to keep banging your head against the fact others do, that's your choice but its bluntly, extremely counterproductive.

From my perspective there is a pretty wide difference between players being granted a small measure of authority over their own character's backstory and the sort of scene editing you see in FATE or Adventure!. Like oceans apart.

I can certainly understand not wanting to give players that sort of backstory authority or preferring not to have it as a player. Comparing it to an override of already established fiction is not helpful though. Precision about these things matter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm using it substatially the way it has been since the term first appeared in Adventure; inserting something into a scene by a player when it previously did not exist.

Again, if you do not see the difference here, that's fine. If you want to keep banging your head against the fact others do, that's your choice but its bluntly, extremely counterproductive.

Are you as averse to the GM adding a new element to a scene that previously did not exist?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are you as averse to the GM adding a new element to a scene that previously did not exist?

To be clear, I'm not averse to a player doing so. As I've noted, I have a leg on both sides of this; it wasn't all that long ago I ran Cortex Prime after all. As I've noted, that doesn't mean I don't see a difference; I just think the difference is not something I find bothersome.

But I think trying to convince people on the other side there's no difference is not only a waste of time, its counterproductive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

From my perspective there is a pretty wide difference between players being granted a small measure of authority over their own character's backstory and the sort of scene editing you see in FATE or Adventure!. Like oceans apart.

I can certainly understand not wanting to give players that sort of backstory authority or preferring not to have it as a player. Comparing it to an override of already established fiction is not helpful though. Precision about these things matter.

Fair. As I said, using retroactive was an error on my part. A fumble of word choice as it were.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be clear, I'm not averse to a player doing so. As I've noted, I have a leg on both sides of this; it wasn't all that long ago I ran Cortex Prime after all. As I've noted, that doesn't mean I don't see a difference; I just think the difference is not something I find bothersome.

But I think trying to convince people on the other side there's no difference is not only a waste of time, its counterproductive.

I’m kind of mixed on that. I get how entrenched these discussions can get and how that can lead to the opposite of people actually considering any view they feel may be opposed to theirs.

But as someone whose views have actually changed due to online discussion, it’s not something I can say is counterproductive in and of itself.

My question to you was not so much an attempt to say there is no difference but to pinpoint the actual difference. Which appears not to be about establishing something previously unestablished in the fiction, but about who gets to do so.

 

[Campbell]

Who gets backstory authority, when they get to exercise, and what they get to exercise it over are not trivial differences by the way. The division of backstory authority is one of the biggest differences from game to game. It's an incredibly meaningful distinction.