D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Cadence]

Take @Cadence's arguments about the invisibility ring. I read that and I see someone thinking that the game state is like one found in D&D where the player is imagining something about an invisibility ring and pushing it into play -- totally disconnected from whatever else is in play like a D&D game where mechanics aren't tied directly to the fiction or the play. So, he's not entirely wrong that a DW player could do this thing, where he is wrong is in thinking about what's going on in play when the player does so. If the player was doing this, it's because that ring is already a critical focus of play -- it's important, it's needed, it's a PC dramatic need. In that case, it's entirely relevant, and that spout lore isn't going to solve anything, just provide a new route for play. Because, if the PC does this, it's going to be part of play, not something that just sits or is there for whenever the player wants to pick it up and play with it. DW does not go in for the same kinds of play D&D does. The tools and mechanics are suited for the play it does do.

I thought I was finally understanding, but I'm not sure what you mean by "that ring is already a critical focus of play" when the lore spouting is happening.

Thank you for any help.

 

[Campbell]

What I specifically mean when I say something like "I don't feel like who my character is matters" is more along the lines that there is no relevant situation attached to the character that changes the overall scope of play. Stuff like ambitions that go beyond the current adventure, responsibilities, relationships. Basically what changes if Brave Sir Robin dies? How would the setting change? Who would miss them? Would there be a power vacuum? Who would take care of X in their stead?

 

[prabe]

If characters mattered, whether or not Strahd was even a thing in the game would have to depend on a character being introduced to play that had something to do with Strahd as a character goal. The existence, place, power, and goals of Strahd are completely independent of the characters playing.

I'm not completely sure the independent existence/nature of Strahd means characters don't matter. The fact that there's only really one way to successfully complete the adventure--defeat Strahd--and the fact there is, as I understand it, basically one path to defeating Strahd: Those do seem to indicate characters don't matter much.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why do you care about how they are marketed and how is it relevant?

I missed this earlier. This stuns me. I was told that the APs are just outlines. I disagreed. You mocked me for my disagreement. I'm pointing out that the APs do not call themselves outlines, nor do they act like them. Now you're asking me why I'm even bringing that up?

You seem to have lost the train of discussion.

There is a subset of the player base that will run it with very few changes, and they, and their players, will be happy with that.

There is also a subset of the player base that will tinker with the AP and will change it in small and large ways, and their players will be happy with that.

Your point about the first subset “being the way the game is marketed” is both wrong (as most GM-facing material emphasises that the GM can change whatever they want) and erases an entire subset of GMs from reality. Why do that?

There's a huge difference between "outline" and "hey, GM, even though you don't need it, you have our permission to change things. Anyway, he's a complete adventure you don't have to change."

 

[Cadence]

RE: APs

I would much rather have a bunch of separate dungeons and set-pieces I could put in my own world where they could be made to fit nicely without much work (kind of like Yawning Portal or some old modules like B2) instead of a huge chain adventure (like the 1e GDQ combined book or some of the modern APs). The Goodman Borderland book has B1 and B2, but is set to let you run them separately with places explicitly to plug in things in the map or modify things you don't want. And the world doesn't end if the party doesn't decide to clean out the caves.

 

[pemerton]

So is hitting an orc with a sword more similar to which of these? How would different mechanics of handling that affect which it is?

In a backstory-first approach, we would adjudicate the attempt to hit an Orc with a sword by reference to the established traits of the Orc. I don't know of a RPG that works like this for interpersonal combat in a systematic fashion, but I posted upthread an example from a FFG-like series, called Assassin.

An ad hoc example, in AD&D, would be a note in a module that says something like X is always on the lookout for attempts to get the drop on them, and so cannot be surprised or backstabbed. The resolution process has to yield to the integrity of the stipulated backstory.

In situation-first RPGing, the key focus would be can the PC stab the Orc?. We would have some process or other to resolve that. And then we would read whatever backstory is necessary off the outcome of the process - eg in D&D terms, if the player rolls a hit followed by maximum damage and despatches the Orc in a single blow, we might narrate that the Orc was not a very skill combatant and hence was not able to dodge the PC's blow.

 

[pemerton]

It indeed is subjective whether 'setting editing' mechanics affect one's immersion or not.

Yes. My immersion is badly hurt by "setting editing" mechanics which mean that the GM has unconstrained authority over the backstory, with the result that the only way for me playing my PC to have access to my PC's knowledge and memories is to ask the GM to tell me what I think and know and remember.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I thought I was finally understanding, but I'm not sure what you mean by "that ring is already a critical focus of play" when the lore spouting is happening.

Thank you for any help.

Look at the forge spout lore. Why were they looking for a forge? Then needed, as in dramatic need, to fix the paladins armor. This was a focus of play. No move to recall details about a forge would have been made if it were not directly related to such a dramatic need, present now in play. Players are not just thinking of nifty baubles elsewhere -- the PCs have pressing needs and urgent problems right now and those must be dealt with. So, unless the ring was one of these pressing needs, or a possible path to deal with one of those urgent problems standing in front of a pressing need, it wouldn't be in play. And once you realize things are focused this way in play, you see that such moves are not as wide open, willy nilly, imagine an invisible ring elsewhere because that doesn't deal with the right now issues and trying to do so will bring pain as the GM shrugs at the golden opportunity you handed them by doing something unrelated and makes one of those urgent problems a big damn right now problem.

PbtA is not like 5e. It's constant pressure on the PCs. It's a ticking bomb all the time. It's a game of plate spinning where you can't let too many fall. Blades is the same, in different ways, some slight, some not so slight. It's also deeply focused on the PCs -- everything happening is because it's what these characters care about. So, making a move about a ring must mean that it's either something very important to your character, in which case it makes good sense that it be a part of the game, or it's a way to solve a problem in the way of something very important to your character, in which is makes good sense the same way, or you've done something not directly related to your character's needs or current problems, in which case you've violated the principles of play and offered the GM a golden opportunity to smack you around with as hard a move as they'd like.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not completely sure the independent existence/nature of Strahd means characters don't matter. The fact that there's only really one way to successfully complete the adventure--defeat Strahd--and the fact there is, as I understand it, basically one path to defeating Strahd: Those do seem to indicate characters don't matter much.

If Strahd was dependent on the characters present, then a different set of characters would not have Strahd -- he's dependent on the first set. This goes even for his existence in the game. 5e is not very dependent on character because it lacks tools to make the game about the character. This is fine, because, again, this is actually a selling point for play -- share experience, good story moments, good pacing, etc., all of that is easier accomplished if characters are not the focal point of what play is about.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think its self-evident they "should" be treated differently, but I think they're different enough its entirely understandable that some people will want them to be. And frankly, the attempt to deny that difference seems to be an attempt to paint those in those camp as irrational. If that's not its purpose, its not clear what purpose its supposed to serve.

Once I see a post that articulates this difference without using language such as "editing" or "rearrangement" or "disrupting" - ie language that assumes that someone has already authored the setting such that that component of the shared fiction is now set - then I might be able to follow it a bit more clearly.

But what I'm reading at the moment is arguments that if a certain premise about how setting is authored is accepted, then certain action declarations are importantly different. I said much the same thing upthread:

If we add in an additional stipulation, like only the GM is allowed to decide whether or not the setting contains Dwarven forges and that the GM is to be under no constraints when doing so then one of our action resolution processes described above will have to change. But that's the causal direction: because of a view about authority over setting, a certain resolution process isn't viable. You can't go the other way, and argue for the necessity of the authority rule because of some inherent difficulty with the resolution process. Because the resolution process itself is a completely straightforward one.

Can anyone tell me what the difference is in a way that doesn't rest on that particular premise about backstory/setting authority?