D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[prabe]

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.

Yeah, but that wasn't what I was talking about. The characters don't matter to Strahd, because his existence and goals and personality and suchlike are entirely independent (the same for any set of characters).

The reason characters don't matter to the AP is because defeating Strahd is the only way to successfully complete the adventure, and because there's really only one path to defeating him. In principle, one could have a different set of characters figure out either an entirely different way to complete the AP or an entirely different path to defeating (or, perhaps, otherwise confounding) Strahd, and in such a case the characters might matter to the adventure but not to Strahd.

That might not make sense, or you might not agree with it.

 

[pemerton]

This, right here. I can teach high schoolers who have never read the PHB D&D. They could never have seen the game before, and within ten minutes have an understanding of how the game is played. In an hour, they will know and understand how the game is run, in almost all aspects. They may not have the rules and powers and mechanics memorized, but they understand the process of the game.

It seems to me, that some of this discussion should try to be more in line with that type of concision.

Well, the only people I know of who need dozens of pages of explanation to understand how Spout Lore works, or how Wises work in BW, or how a skill challenge works in 4e D&D, are ENworld posters.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @hawkeyefan!

 

[Cadence]

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.

I think I'm good with a forge (or at least something that could work like one). being important.

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.

Ok, this is where I got off. I originally brought up an invisibility ring because the character really, really, really wanted to be able to become invisible and set out looking for it. In another post I put in two different ways the player could have thought about it - (i) one was specifying a particular ring with a splash of back story and the other (ii) was just wanting an invisibility granting magic item. Your the made me think particularly of (i). Your statement about a forge above seems more like (ii).

How often in your games is the level of detail in what's being sprouted more like (i) with the detail than (ii) with the generality?

 

[pemerton]

The only thing you can conclude from my second post is that we have very different interpretations of Folk Heroes (and that’s OK!). I disagree that the difference is merely tactical. The folk hero fairy tales involving Jack the Giant Killer are very different tonally from the feudal stories I described for the paladin.

Where does the Folk Hero Rogue overthrow the feudal order? Lead a peasant revolt?

Does the Noble Paladin who has sworn the Oath of the Crown get to solve the problems of the module by arranging a marriage?

I perhaps can imagine someone projecting the tone of Jack the Giant Killer vs the tone of (some version or other) of King Arthur onto an AP - I say "perhaps" because I'm not 100% confident I know what that would look like. Especially if the two PCs - the rogue and the paladin - were in the same party.

This is wildly different from the sort of responsiveness-of-theme-and-play-to-player-priorities that I think of when I think about "story now" RPGing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, but that wasn't what I was talking about. The characters don't matter to Strahd, because his existence and goals and personality and suchlike are entirely independent (the same for any set of characters).

The reason characters don't matter to the AP is because defeating Strahd is the only way to successfully complete the adventure, and because there's really only one path to defeating him. In principle, one could have a different set of characters figure out either an entirely different way to complete the AP or an entirely different path to defeating (or, perhaps, otherwise confounding) Strahd, and in such a case the characters might matter to the adventure but not to Strahd.

That might not make sense, or you might not agree with it.

Strahd would still be a major focus and threat in the AP, and a different solution doesn't seem to be keyed to be different if different characters are present. This seems more like "We have option A, defeat Strahd; and option B, negotiate with the Dark Powers; and option C, something else." None of these seems to be particularly dependent on what character is present. I think the argument here is that the characters are taking actions so they must be important, and, sure, that's down the line in execution where the players are using the PCs to select and implement an option. How that happens can be different, but that it happens, or what the gist of the happening is, really doesn't care who the characters actually are. We're looking at "in instantiation 1142, with character array FF3, events a-g unfurled in this manner. In instantianion 1143, with character array FF3, events a-g unfurled in this manner. In...." It's like flipping a coin and seeing how many heads come up in a row over a 1000 trials. It doesn't really matter who the flipper is.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah, but that wasn't what I was talking about. The characters don't matter to Strahd, because his existence and goals and personality and suchlike are entirely independent (the same for any set of characters).

The reason characters don't matter to the AP is because defeating Strahd is the only way to successfully complete the adventure, and because there's really only one path to defeating him. In principle, one could have a different set of characters figure out either an entirely different way to complete the AP or an entirely different path to defeating (or, perhaps, otherwise confounding) Strahd, and in such a case the characters might matter to the adventure but not to Strahd.

That might not make sense, or you might not agree with it.

I think there is a difference between characters mattering and decisions mattering. For instance I pawn stance B/X I would never say who my character is matters, but my decisions damn well better. The opposite could also be true. In backstory weaved play my decisions would likely not have much impact. But my backstory probably would.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think I'm good with a forge (or at least something that could work like one). being important.


Ok, this is where I got off. I originally brought up an invisibility ring because the character really, really, really wanted to be able to become invisible and set out looking for it. In another post I put in two different ways the player could have thought about it - (i) one was specifying a particular ring with a splash of back story and the other (ii) was just wanting an invisibility granting magic item. Your the made me think particularly of (i). Your statement about a forge above seems more like (ii).

How often in your games is the level of detail in what's being sprouted more like (i) with the detail than (ii) with the generality?

These categories seem inapt to describe what's happening in DW play. Let's say that the character has a dramatic need to get the ring -- it's really important to them. In this case, there'd never be a Sprout Lore move like you're talking because the game would already be about this ring and play would be about what the PC is doing to overcome the challenges to get this ring. If it's not a dramatic need of this PC, then we'd similarly not see the move because play wouldn't be about it.

Let's say, instead, that the player needs to do a thing and thinks that having an invisibility ring would be helpful, so they Spout Lore about tales they've heard of invisible rings. We could get here okay with this. But, now, that move is tested, and if they hit, the GM may provide exactly what you've suggested -- the existence of the ring. But, since this is DW, you aren't going to walk over and just get the ring. The information must be useful, that doesn't mean the information removes any challenges between here and getting the ring. You've taken a step towards getting a tool to help you achieve the thing you really need to do. Any other framing of this either is failing the principles of play or just wouldn't happen. For the move you suggest, this ring needs to be something the PC is looking for because it will provide the fictional positioning necessary to do the thing they really need/want to do.

 

[pemerton]

These books were Maraqli's store of "weapons," since she had few martial skills, something to fall back on when her spells were used up, insufficient, or non-existent (curiously, I never chose fireball, nor did I choose any other offensive spells initially). Spout Lore, then, became part of her arsenal of actions (that is, a way for her to access her vast amount of knowledge without simply saying "I'm Maraqli: I know [this] stuff!), as much as Sir Alastor the Paladin's weapons, pieties, prayers, and presence were his.

This reminds me quite a bit of a player and PC in my long-running 4e game. The character started out as a human wizard-multi-class-invoker, but then after dying and being returned from the dead as a Deva invoker-multi-class-wizard. His Paragon Path was Divine Philosopher and his Epic Destiny Sage of Ages. So knowing things was a big part of this PC's schtick!

The player would very often begin action declarations with a recitation of how some particular magical phenomenon worked, or how certain cosmological phenomena were interrelated, and then explain how his intervention here-and-now would work given that background context. And then would make an Arcana check to affect a magical phenomenon, or a Religion check to invoke some god to help with something or other, or whatever else it might be.

Mechanically - as I'm sure you know - this doesn't play the same as Spout Lore. But in its underlying ethos and orientation it seems very similar to what you describe: the PC's store of knowledge, including - as a Deva - his knowledge of 1,000 lifetimes - is a crucial part of his capacity to achieve his goals.

The play experience would have been terrible if the player, instead of sharing all those ideas with us, had at every moment of action declaration basically asked me as GM to declare an action for him, based on my view of how magic worked in the setting and hence my view of what was possible in any given situation.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with almost all of the arguments here are that they're looking at a DW mechanic from within a structure that is otherwise D&D.

This is exactly what I'm getting at in my most recent reply to @Thomas Shey. It is also relevant to @FrogReaver and @Crimson Longinus.

If you accept, as a premise, that the GM has largely unfettered authority over backstory, then there is a clear difference between action declarations whose resolution might implicate setting, and those which won't (or won't in any interesting way - most people don't care about the personal histories of the swede farmers).

But the difference doesn't flow from the action declarations themselves. It's all loaded into that premise.

Drop the premise, and the "difference" disappears. DW, BW, Cortex+ Heroic, Classic Traveller in its 1977 version - all of them drop the premise.

 

[Cadence]

Thank you again for continuing to help me try and figure this out!

These categories seem inapt to describe what's happening in DW play. Let's say that the character has a dramatic need to get the ring -- it's really important to them. In this case, there'd never be a Sprout Lore move like you're talking because the game would already be about this ring and play would be about what the PC is doing to overcome the challenges to get this ring. If it's not a dramatic need of this PC, then we'd similarly not see the move because play wouldn't be about it.

Ok, I think I'm good with that. What is an example of something in DW that would introduce a legendary ring into play?

Let's say, instead, that the player needs to do a thing and thinks that having an invisibility ring would be helpful, so they Spout Lore about tales they've heard of invisible rings.

So, in a rule-book like example, what are an example or two of the sentence a player could actually say at this point when they want the Spout Lore to happen about an invisibility ring they need.