D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[FrogReaver]

Those who GM AW and DW can comment in more detail on that system - the default I would envisage for success in this case would be talking +1 forward.

In my BW game, a PC who was fighting zombies, and wasn't really skilled or strong enough to just hack through them, performed Assess actions to spot weak spots and thereby get an advantage to attack them (I can't remember now if it was +1D to attack, or +1 on the damage scale). This is an expected part of the game.

Okay, but there's a difference to me in the move you describe here and the one i asked about. A Spout Lore like move involves providing a player interesting and useful information regarding the thing they asked about. The move you described here doesn't meet those criteria IMO. It's also quite a bit more constrained by limiting the GM to only narrating fiction that would make sense for a +1 bonus, whereas Spout Lore is much more flexible in the kind of benefits it can provide.

As an example of something akin to what I'm envisioning - could the GM on a success narrate 'you recall orcs will run if you hit them with a vial of acid and that you have such a vial in your pack.'

 

[FrogReaver]

Curious - Would this be an acceptable Spout Lore narration on a success for wanting to find a place to repair your armor. 'You recall that you are carrying a genie's magical lamp that contains a genie that you may could strike a bargain with to magically repair your armor.'

If not, why?

 

[pemerton]

Okay, but there's a difference to me in the move you describe here and the one i asked about. A Spout Lore like move involves providing a player interesting and useful information regarding the thing they asked about. The move you described here doesn't meet those criteria IMO. It's also quite a bit more constrained by limiting the GM to only narrating fiction that would make sense for a +1 bonus, whereas Spout Lore is much more flexible in the kind of benefits it can provide.

The information I had in mind was something like Orcs are tender in their shoulders - take +1 forward to Hack & Slash Orcs. Or even You can see this Orc is favouring one arm; maybe it's hurt there? - take +1 forward to Hack & Slash this Orc.

That's interesting and useful.

As an example of something akin to what I'm envisioning - could the GM on a success narrate 'you recall orcs will run if you hit them with a vial of acid and that you have such a vial in your pack.'

I don't see where the acid is coming from. By default, there are no "retcon your inventory" moves in AW and I don't think they're a big part of DW either. Vincent Baker discusses this in the AW rulebook (pp 276-77):

Here’s a pretty interesting custom peripheral move:

When you declare retroactively that you’ve already set something up, roll+sharp. On a 10+, it’s just as you say. On a 7–9, you set it up, yes, but here at the crucial moment the MC can introduce some hitch or delay. On a miss, you set it up, yes, but since then things you don’t know about have seriously changed.​

This is for times when the player springs things on you in the moment, like “say Rolfball, see that red dot on your chest? That’s the sniper I brought with me” or “oh, of course I gassed the beast up before we left Hatchet City.” This move lets you as MC go with it, but without always giving the player her way. Sometimes you have to say “wow, so you did! A sniper!” but other times you get to say “yeah, about that? You’ve been waiting for that dot to appear, but it hasn’t yet. What do you do?”

It’s not nuts to have a move follow what’s happening at the table in the real world, not what’s happening in the characters’ fictional world, like this one does. After all, a hardholder’s wealth move — “at the beginning of the session” — does the same, with no problems. I will note though that this move in particular changes the creative dynamic of the game. It’s small but fundamental. It means that the players have to be a little less careful what they launch their characters into, and you as MC have to be a little more willing to reimagine situations as you go. It’s not for everyone’s Apocalypse World. . . .

Custom moves can change the game’s creative dynamics in subtle ways. Be thoughtful.​

If it was already established that the character was carrying acid, then the knowledge that Orcs are especially vulnerable to it would be interesting and useful.

Curious - Would this be an acceptable Spout Lore narration on a success for wanting to find a place to repair your armor. 'You recall that you are carrying a genie's magical lamp that contains a genie that you may could strike a bargain with to magically repair your armor.'

If not, why?

It's retconning inventory in a way that clearly strains the established fiction. It also seems utterly indifferent to fictional positioning. It's also not really the outcome of consulting your accumulated knowledge about something - one's inventory is not normally an object of study.

 

[Campbell]

I'm personally not super enthused by Spout Lore actually. Mostly because useful here tends to lean into intent and task more than I like for a Powered by the Apocalypse game. I generally prefer stuff like Discern Realities, Gathering Information in Blades, or momentum spends in Infinity that allow players to ask direct questions and get those questions answered with reliable information. That way there are still constraints on the GM, but makes the setting feel more objective (not that it actually is). It also absolves me of trying to decide what is and is not useful since I usually do not always have (or want) a clear idea of what players are trying to have their characters accomplish.

 

[pemerton]

I'm personally not super enthused by Spout Lore actually. Mostly because useful here tends to lean into intent and task more than I like for a Powered by the Apocalypse game.

No shock here! As we've been discussing, it comes closer to a BW Wise (though I still think it's clearly different) than the other mechanics you mention.

It's interesting to compare Spout Lore with what I think it its closest AW analogue:

When you open your brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom, roll+weird. On a hit, the MC will tell you something new and interesting about the current situation, and might ask you a question or two; answer them. On a 10+, the MC will give you good detail. On a 7–9, the MC will give you an impression. If you already know all there is to know, the MC will tell you that.​

And here's some of the commentary (p 204):

The player will want to choose a topic, naturally. She’ll say “I open my brain about Tum Tum” or something. It’s fine to give her what she wants, much of the time - after all, you want everybody to be opening their brains, you don’t want to chase them away from it - but not all the time. Sometimes you should tell them about your favorite topic instead, and sometimes you should tell them what they need to know, if only they knew to ask. . .

As to the good details versus the impressions, look to your fronts to provide them. The “you already know all there is to know” clause is there, but I’ve never used it and I hope you never do too.​

There is still the interesting constraint there, but not relevantly useful - in fact, the commentary explicitly disavows that as a constraint, though recognises it as a frequent desideratum. I think the flagged use of fronts - which is not only there expressly in the second paragraph, but also implicitly in the first paragraph's reference to "what they need to know" - is interesting too. In DW fronts would be relevant on a failed Spout Lore check, but it's not clear how - if at all - they factor into a successful check.

@Campbell, where does Open Your Brain land for you, given your (at least modest) preference against "stakes"/"intent and task"?

 

[Campbell]

@pemerton

I'm mostly fine with opening your brain to the psychic maelstrom. I know some people will disagree with me, but I mostly think you should almost always strive to be interesting when running or playing a role playing game. If you have trouble being both interesting and playing a setting with integrity than that character, setting or scenario needs some work. I can do interesting. It's when I have to either directly ask for or guess at intent that I personally have some issues. I'm not crazy about what they need to know as like a thing. I think the what they want bit is specifically calling back to topic selection which is mostly groovy to me.

I pretty much love the pyschic maelstrom as a thing. Since it's like a setting thing it removes a lot of the credibility testing usually involved in something like spout lore. I also really adore that it opens up additional GM move space for hard moves that aren't unwelcome truths. Helps to add some risk to the proceedings.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you are okay with that but not the Spout Lore roll to remember the Forge, how do they differ mechanically for you? How they differ conceptually for you?

For myself:
A sapling is a small thing, its presence or absence having little effect other than making this one roll work this one time. I don't know if there is a mechanical difference, since (properly speaking) the "luck roll" is a generic mechanic and the Spout Lore is not. It's also diegetic, in the sense that your luck happened to not fail you this time--but it would have been Especially Bad if your luck had failed you.
Food, water, and shelter is more of a challenge, but not much. One example, you run into someone who happens to be out there (such things happen), perhaps a trapper or the like, who is of a favorable disposition and shares supplies with you. That seems diegetic to me, you literally lucked into finding help.
As I had understood it, it wasn't the DM authoring the Forge, because the whole point was player authorship. I had thought this whole conversation was very specifically about the problems of DM authorship, and avoiding the use of Force by giving players authorship of things. Is that not the case? Is the player not simply declaring that this Forge exists, but rather receiving a favorable result from DM authorship? And if that is the case, how is it not Force? Isn't the authorship still ultimately held completely by the DM, they're just prompted to use that authorship by the mechanics triggering rather than "because I felt like it" (which is, technically, a "mechanic," just an unreliable and often unspoken one)?

 

[pemerton]

I also really adore that it opens up additional GM move space for hard moves that aren't unwelcome truths.

What do you have in mind?

 

[pemerton]

Is the player not simply declaring that this Forge exists, but rather receiving a favorable result from DM authorship? And if that is the case, how is it not Force? Isn't the authorship still ultimately held completely by the DM, they're just prompted to use that authorship by the mechanics triggering rather than "because I felt like it"

All RPGing involves the participants authoring things. Otherwise there would be no shared fiction.

Force is generally used to refer to a particular approach by the GM to authorship: fudging/manipulating the mechanics to achieve a particular outcome; manipulating the backstory to achieve a particular outcome (eg a NPC ally suddenly turns up to take the blow intended for the BBEG); manipulating the backstory to allow the framing of a pre-planned/desired scene without regard to the outcomes of prior scenes (eg inventing a lieutenant to replace a killed BBEG; relocating missed clues to make sure the PCs and thus the players find them); and - maybe a bit more controversially as Force in the literal sense but definitely Force-adjacent - using social cues/pressure to get the players to exercise their authority over action declarations in such a way as to ensure they declare the actions the GM wants them to (eg to ensure that they don't declare actions that would expose the "big reveal" too early, or to make sure that they declare actions that will take their PCs to the "right" locations).

Narrating that an Orc dies when its hp drop to zero is not Force in this sense.

Narrating that a PC falls when (in 3E D&D) their player fails their climbing check by more than 5 (or is it 5 or more?) is not Force in this sense.

Narrating something interesting and relevantly useful that a PC recalls, when their player gets a 10+ result on Spout Lore, is not Force in this sense.

In all cases, this is the GM carrying out their authorial responsibilities in complete conformity with what the game rules tell them to do.

 

[pemerton]

if you choose to build a character as "lucky" you're accepting that your character's luck will cause things to happen outside your character's direct influence. That's not a choice someone who builds a character as knowledgeable is making (that your knowledge will cause things to happen outside your character's direct influence).

In what RPG does a PC's knowledge cause things to happen outside the character's direct influence?