D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lanefan]

Good. I wrote it with you in mind.

This is the second time today I've found myself wishing for a "facepalm" emoji under the like button...

 

[soviet]

And that (bolded) is a key thing: some of us simply don't and won't accept this as a premise for how to run/play an RPG and-or build a setting, because it puts the setting on a foundation of sand when what's desired instead is a sense of permanence, consistency and continuity.

Do you mean you don't accept it as valid or possible, or simply that you wouldn't like to play that way yourself?

 

[Umbran]

should have been enough to clue you anyone

Mod Note:
I will take it that somewhere, you got the idea that snarky strikethrough wouldn't look like taking a personal dig. Go back to that place, and get a refund, because that's a lousy idea.

How about you just speak to/about folks respectfully, hm? Thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

Mod Note:
I will take it that somewhere, you got the idea that snarky strikethrough wouldn't look like taking a personal dig. Go back to that place, and get a refund, because that's a lousy idea.

How about you just speak to/about folks respectfully, hm? Thanks.

My intent wasn’t to be snarky, disrespectful or personal. Apologies if it came across that way.

 

[pemerton]

Can't speak for anyone else here but in my game both those things are eminently possible as explanations for a caster fumbling a spell and a thief failing to climb a wall, respectively.

Canonically, D&D has no spell fumbles. I was talking about D&D.

As far as a bee sting causing a thief to fall from a wall: do you take it that the thief caused the bee to sting them? If not, why would you take a Spout Lore check to mean that the PC caused the remembered thing to exist?

If it's recollection of a setting element (e.g. the location of a Dwarven forge) that's more controversial due to different systems putting control of setting elements in the hands of the GM, the players, or nobody in particular; because if successful this adds something to the setting that wasn't there (or wasn't known of) before.

I'm aware that there's controversy. I am pointing out that one particular argument being advanced - that Spout Lore means the PC is "quantum collapsing" a setting element into existence, and hence is a "silly" thing - is a bad argument.

There's also the question of whether the player is trying to gain an advantage of some sort.

In @Manbearcat's example, the player is trying to gain an advantage, namely, of having a Dwarven forge nearby.

Similarly, when a player declares that their PCs tries to scratch an Orc with their sword, they are typically trying to gain an advantage - eg of driving off the Orc that is trying to kill them.

 

[Cadence]

It's not a thing that happens. The move Spout Lore is entirely about what the character recalls about a thing, and obliges the GM on a hit to provide a useful recollection about that thing. If you feel this is authoring fiction outside the character, then you should also have a problem if a 5e character asks the same question and the GM willingly decides to agree and makes up the same fiction. Or with a character making an attack roll and causing an orc to be struck and killed by a sword. So, really, it's not about the fiction created or some imagined barrier, but rather if the GM is being obliged to create fiction in ways you're not already used to.

The more I think about it, it (something like Sprout Lore) might be something I'd be fine trying as a DM.

I'm having trouble feeling positive about when I imagine myself playing in a game that has it as a player though.

(I still vociferously disagree with the part I italicized, but it's abundantly clear at this point we're not going to make progress on that ;-) ).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not a thing that happens.

Yes it is.

The move Spout Lore is entirely about what the character recalls about a thing, and obliges the GM on a hit to provide a useful recollection about that thing.

You omit here the crucial part that the player unilaterally makes up the thing of which information is being recalled, thus compelling it into existence.

If you feel this is authoring fiction outside the character, then you should also have a problem if a 5e character asks the same question and the GM willingly decides to agree and makes up the same fiction.

No, because the player is not compelling anything. Whether or not the thing they ask about exists is not within their power in any way. The GM can just say "no, there is no such forge, and in fact, this setting doesn't even have dwarves."

Or with a character making an attack roll and causing an orc to be struck and killed by a sword.

No. That is completely different thing. It is within the causal power of the fictional character being played to do this, unlike ex nihilo forge creation.

So, really, it's not about the fiction created or some imagined barrier, but rather if the GM is being obliged to create fiction in ways you're not already used to.

I'm used to it just fine. This is how all GMless freeform RPGs basically work. Players just make stuff up, so it is true. I still understand where the difference lies.

 

[pemerton]

And why does anything except the bolded bit matter?

The play at the table is the point of the exercise, isn't it?

Part of the difference between the films Star Wars and Casablanca is not just differences of characterisation but differences of plot and theme. And this despite both films having protagonists who are reluctant members of the resistance.

Is it odd that someone might think that the fiction of RPGing can vary in more than just characterisation?

 

[pemerton]

Storm King’s Thunder is all about the upending of the traditional order due to the disappearance of the Storm King. Lots of potential resonance for a character built around the ideal of feudalism.

So, will the events unfold differently if my PC is a Folk Hero Rogue, rather than a Noble Paladin with the Oath of the Crown?

EDIT: @Aldarc has tackled this issue with far more sophistication in post 1859 upthread.

It also responds to @Lanefan, who asked why anyone would care about anything other than characterisation at the table.

A RPG session might involve differences of characterisation even if no dice were rolled, and the GM just dictated every outcome: eg instead of rolling to hit, the GM just dictates whether or not the Orc dodges the attack - different players would respond differently to that, portraying their PCs' fears or frustrations in different ways.

So do you @FrozenNorth, @Lanefan, @Malmuria and others therefore assert that it is, or should be, irrelevant to RPG play whether or not dice are ever rolled to determine any outcomes, as opposed to the GM just deciding and narrating? I mean, I guess that's a position someone could hold - but I'm trying to work out if you are such people.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

While I don't think that's really true, I follow what you're saying as it relates to the discussion. I think the important thing for everyone is who gets to declare certain elements of the game, and when, and how.

You don't say! The complaint about "player authored edits" is about player making edits, and not about edits in general! Who could have guessed!

That's a bit snarky for someone who a few pages ago wasn't sure what "adventure" meant. The conversation is all over the place, and different posters are making different distinctions to one another.

I don't think you've interpreted @pemerton correctly at all, but I shouldn't have bothered to step in. I'll let him clarify if he cares to do so.