D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Right. So I'm a bit puzzled by several people arguing that distinction doesn't exist...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. So I'm a bit puzzled by several people arguing that distinction doesn't exist...

Who’s saying that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who’s saying that?

That's what Pemerton and Ovinomancer have been arguing for pages. (Assuming 'backstory' here means 'setting information outside of the character' or something like that.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's what Pemerton and Ovinomancer have been arguing for pages. (Assuming 'backstory' here means 'setting information outside of the character' or something like that.)

It's not. You seem to be confused when @pemerton said you said things, but it doesn't seem to have extended to your own attempts to do so. I've always been very clear that who gets to author what when and how is a key differentiator between games, even between very similar games. The argument you're smashing into this is that the act of authoring anything in fiction is largely the same, that the differences are who gets to author the things. The difference, as far as authoring fiction, between a orc being hit by a sword and a forge being under a nearby glacier doesn't exist -- in both you just imagine something and share it. The difference in RPGs is how this kind of exercise of imagination is constrained. Such differences in authority and constraint exist are the backbone of my arguments. You having a large mistake of understanding here reveals a good deal about how this conversation has progressed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I don't think discussion is useless. I just think this particular approach is. Its not necessary to convince people the two things at hand are the same to convince people they can both be valid.

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.

Sort of. Its actually an argument about play stance. If you're a player who plays from Author or Director stance, there's no intrinsic reason to object to doing this as player.

But not everyone is. And I think if you play from IC or Deep IC stance there absolutely can be.

Me, I tends to switch around among them, but I absolutely would not want to be engaging on that level when I'm in IC mode.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Who’s saying that?

If that's not what Pemerton is arguing, I'm not sure what he is arguing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's what Pemerton and Ovinomancer have been arguing for pages. (Assuming 'backstory' here means 'setting information outside of the character' or something like that.)

Do you think that they’ve been talking about there being no distinction in who gets to have such authority?

That’s not how I’ve read it.

There have been objections to “player authored edits” on the grounds that they establish elements of the game world that were not previously established.

But the GM does this all the time as a matter of course, and there are no such objections in those cases.

Therefore, people who are complaining about “player authored edits” are not actually complaining about the edits but who makes them.

That’s the only distinction.

And it’s perfectly fine to object to such player authority on the ground of preference. But it’d help if people made that clear what they’re objecting to, rather than the mutable nature of the game world.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If that's not what Pemerton is arguing, I'm not sure what he is arguing.

I took his comments to either be about how the GM makes edits all the time, as I explained in my prior post, or about the nature of declared actions and causality.

I had clashed with @pemerton in the past on this, but now I tend to agree with him. The act of remembering a world detail originates with the PC just as surely as an attack does.

If we accept that there is actually nothing in the fiction until it enters play, then there is no before and after in the causal sense. Causality is as much a fiction as the details of the game world.

I’m probably not explaining myself clearly, but that’s all I can manage at the moment.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you think that they’ve been talking about there being no distinction in who gets to have such authority?

That’s not how I’ve read it.

There have been objections to “player authored edits” on the grounds that they establish elements of the game world that were not previously established.

But the GM does this all the time as a matter of course, and there are no such objections in those cases.

Therefore, people who are complaining about “player authored edits” are not actually complaining about the edits but who makes them.

That’s the only distinction.

And it’s perfectly fine to object to such player authority on the ground of preference. But it’d help if people made that clear what they’re objecting to, rather than the mutable nature of the game world.

IMO one cannot say they have a preference for A over B without believing there’s an important distinguishing factor between A and B.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not. You seem to be confused when @pemerton said you said things, but it doesn't seem to have extended to your own attempts to do so. I've always been very clear that who gets to author what when and how is a key differentiator between games, even between very similar games. The argument you're smashing into this is that the act of authoring anything in fiction is largely the same, that the differences are who gets to author the things. The difference, as far as authoring fiction, between a orc being hit by a sword and a forge being under a nearby glacier doesn't exist -- in both you just imagine something and share it. The difference in RPGs is how this kind of exercise of imagination is constrained. Such differences in authority and constraint exist are the backbone of my arguments. You having a large mistake of understanding here reveals a good deal about how this conversation has progressed.

The ability to author fiction outside my immediate character (possibly not present in all story now games, but certainly in many).

This is what started this whole tangent. You and Pemerton disagreed with this. It was always about who authors what.