D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lanefan]

That's seems... I dunno. Odd? It doesn't make a difference at any moment of play if you're trying to restore the Ordning or if you need to defeat Strahd or if you need to end the death curse? This statement is very strange.

If what you remember later when telling war stories is that Danegald and Bezekta once got into a heated rivalry that eventually ended in a duel, does it matter during which adventure this occurred?

If what you remember later when telling war stories is that Carantha and Jerelle fell in love and, later, got married, does it matter during which adventure(s) this occurred?

If what you remember later when telling war stories is the legendary Battle of Three Tents* during which the party - attacked by a patrol while camped at night - destroyed all three of their own tents, one MU killed two orcs entirely with her dagger, and the other MU's only contribution was to drop a telekinesed boulder on to another PC by mistake; does it matter during which adventure this occurred?

In all three cases the answer is no. And 9 times out of 10 those are the sort of war stories that get told, at least among our crew.

* - an actual combat - in which my namesake here (Lanefan) was the PC who ate the dropped boulder - that happened in 1984 and that we still laugh about today. The DM probably remembers offhand which adventure we were in at the time, but I doubt any of the players do; I know I have to look it up in the game log every time. But we sure remember that battle!

Nope, hard disagree. This goes next to the printer.

If I'm going to play 1e, it's in spite of things like this, not because of them.

Why, might I ask?

I know for my part it doesn't matter if every member of a class uses the same underlying mechanics, because what matters more is the personality and characterization you layer on top of said mechanics. And why do those matter? Because P+C are what makes a character entertaining to the others at the table. Mechanics don't.

 

[Campbell]

(Apologies if this is off-topic as I'm only skimmed the past 30 or so pages of this thread)

The person who makes the Runehammer youtube channel has been doing recaps of their Old School Essentials game every week for a while now and also put out a pdf of his OSE house rules. I can't find the house rules pdf now, but he did make it publicly available, so I thought I would copy and paste a potentially relevant part below. His basic "prep" process is very minimal (one page of handwritten notes) and the rest is improvised via basically coin flips. It's basically procedural dungeon/wilderness creation but without a lot of tables. But it's also not dependent on characters' skills or larger dramatic needs; indeed the purpose to build a world that is neutral to those needs. That being said, from what I gather from his play reports, the players are heavily invested in their characters (thus not "pawn stance").

I am not sure I follow. My post was about how different sorts of play processes might be better for realizing different sorts of fictional situations. That sort of play process is fine for exploration focused play, but I am not sure how it relates to playing a game where your character is deeply embedded into the setting or has substantial knowledge about it.

Not trying to be difficult. I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If what you remember later when telling war stories is that Danegald and Bezekta once got into a heated rivalry that eventually ended in a duel, does it matter during which adventure this occurred?

If what you remember later when telling war stories is that Carantha and Jerelle fell in love and, later, got married, does it matter during which adventure(s) this occurred?

If what you remember later when telling war stories is the legendary Battle of Three Tents* during which the party - attacked by a patrol while camped at night - destroyed all three of their own tents, one MU killed two orcs entirely with her dagger, and the other MU's only contribution was to drop a telekinesed boulder on to another PC by mistake; does it matter during which adventure this occurred?

In all three cases the answer is no. And 9 times out of 10 those are the sort of war stories that get told, at least among our crew.

* - an actual combat - in which my namesake here (Lanefan) was the PC who ate the dropped boulder - that happened in 1984 and that we still laugh about today. The DM probably remembers offhand which adventure we were in at the time, but I doubt any of the players do; I know I have to look it up in the game log every time. But we sure remember that battle!

I'm curious, then, why you even have adventures? Why not just find a good storygame and tell stories together? Honest question.

Why, might I ask?

I know for my part it doesn't matter if every member of a class uses the same underlying mechanics, because what matters more is the personality and characterization you layer on top of said mechanics. And why do those matter? Because P+C are what makes a character entertaining to the others at the table. Mechanics don't.

Because there's more available than just tacking on extras. I mean, I could eat mealworms for every meal. It's enough (maybe with a good multivitamin). But I don't have to.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Published scenarios for Prince Valiant - Episodes is the technical term - are generally a single situation: the PCs encounter a knight who won't let them cross a bridge without jousting, or meet a strange traveller who turns out to be the ghost of a merchant killed and robbed by bandits, or similar.

In the Episode Book, which was part of the reprint Kickstarter a few years ago and has an all-star cast of contributors, there are some episodes that are more railroady. (I've posted about this before, so won't repeat myself unless you or anyone else is interested.)

I think the key thing about most of the scenarios is that they permit multiple pathways out. In our game the PCs did avenge the murdered merchant. They defeated the demon possessing the Crimson Bull by calling on the holy power of St Sigobert, thus sparing the bull from sacrifice and also converting the Wise Woman in the process. They helped the Crowmaster's apprentice elope with his beloved and set him up with the lord of Castle Hill as a new Crowmaster. At Fort Seahawk they were unable to prove the perfidy of the lord's brother, and so subsequently heard that the lord had met an untimely death, obliging his brother to take over as the local ruler. And in our version of the (de-railroaded) Mark Rein-Hagen scenario, the PCs ended up taking control of the disputed castle and Duchy by way of the marriage of one of their number to the daughter of the deceased Duke.

Any other Prince Valiant game seems likely to involve the same sorts of events - jousts, sieges, marriages both romantic and political, etc - and naturally, if using these Episodes, the same NPCs and antagonists. But I'd expect the actual resolutions, and the overall shape of the campaign, to be pretty different. To draw an (imperfect) comparison to D&D, I'd say it's more like open-ended play in B2's Keep, than working systematically through the Caves of Chaos.

Yeah, that is pretty consistent with what I would expect and what I've seen with games like PACE. You can definitely construct SCENARIOS, but if you try to construct a PLOT, well then you're stepping on the whole 'play to see what happens' sort of ethic of that type of game. DW can slide by with fronts, and you can definitely make limited 'dungeon areas' that operate in a mostly passive mode as sites. Dark Heart of Mithrendain didn't really work, at least as a Story Game scenario, because it relied on enough plot that it started to require certain outcomes. These things can work, to a degree, mostly by really knowing who you are playing with and all having a strong consensus on the shape of the adventure going in (I play a lot with the same people, many of us have played together for 30 years, so its like there's a lot of shared conception of how to make things work). But if I run a Story Now kind of game for people I don't know, I never prep anything, except NPCs to a degree.

 

[pemerton]

the gaming and process require zero explanation. It is me DMing a one shot that is pure themepark.

<snip>

Everyone knows what a typical session of D&D and PF looks like.

In my experience videos of play generally don't show you much about play because they don't show the details of the thought processes that go into play. How you decide what to say is just as important a part of the process as what's said.

A Blades game will appear very similar to a D&D game in ways that are pretty superficial. It will not show the differences very well.

Scott Christian, I looked through your part 10 and part 14 videos. Unless I got confused, what I saw mostly seemed to be a GM telling the players what their PCs can see and what actions they might declare.

To me that doesn't seem typical.

 

[niklinna]

Our Blades game probably bears absolutely zero resemblance to something like Matt Mercer and Critical Role in the watching (I assume that is your take home @Blue and @niklinna ?) or your standard 5e home table.

I haven't watched Critical Role, but your Blades game was definitely not like a typical 5e (or similar) game. The stakes for the characters were clear, as were the options available, the consequences of succeeding or failing (or partially succeeding) at a given action, and what resisting a consequence would get the characters—often negotiated with offers and counter-offers, even suggestions by the players for good/bad/sideways outcomes and the like. I've been in more typical games where the GM picks up on player comments/jokes and inserts them into the fiction, but Blades (and you) actively solicit that as a core part of the loop.

I am a player in a Blades game with my own group. We spend a bit more time faffing around; the newer players are still absorbing how much input they have, or fishing for actions they can do, and our GM isn't always clear about our options & their consequences, but we're heading quickly to where your group is.

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat is running DW and/or BitD for half of ENworld it seems!

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat is running DW and/or BitD for half of ENworld it seems!

17.25 % so a hair south of half of ENWorld!

And The Between now (which is only a few sessions in but excellent - does Threat prep and handling like Dogs’ Towns/conflicts and has a lot to say about how Story Now can do mysteries)!

@Scott Christian , take a look at what I wrote about the watching of a proficiently run/played Blades game and contrast that with your expectations of a proficiently run/played 5e AP game. Then look at @niklinna ‘s actual appraisal of watching said Blades game. Do you think that description (mine) and his appraisal matches how you would depict a normative, proficiently run/played 5e AP game.

I’ve watched Mercer et al and I’ve seen proficient tables run 5e AP games. Neither of those bear much in the way of resemblance to the Blades' type/pace/structure of conversation, clarity and aggression around situation framing > move-space for players (including potential inputs into action resolution) and the attendant downstream consequence-space, and signaling and uptake of thematic interests right NOW.

Not to mention, except for on the very rare occasion, there is little performative theatre happening in either Blades game I run (not true for The Between game though). Characterization is 93.35 % conveyed/mapped onto play via “what you/they do” (both your actions and inactions and how both of those intersect with provocative framing) rather than via down-throttled interludes or lengthy verbal exchanges/musings without immediate mechanical teeth (whether that’s situation framing or input into action declarations or consequences).

As someone who has run and still does run a huge amount of Pawn Stance D&D, what I’m depicting above is not remotely close to it (if it reads like that). Protagonism takes no shape in Pawn Stance play because there is neither signaling nor siting thematic interest or dramatic need. Blades is the absolute inverse (all signaling and all siting).

 

[Scott Christian]

@Scott Christian. I'm confused. Do you think that analysis and discussion of games should be the same thing as playing the game? If so, do you also believe that talking about or pitching a video game is all that is needed to look into the code and make modifications to a video game -- that no additional information or terminology is needed other than that used to talk about playing it?

I believe the analysis and discussion of games should be reflected in gameplay. This way if you are going to make up some theory about good DMs or bad DMs or preferences, one should definitely be able to see the results at the table. If you can't, then the analysis is not what the analyzer thinks it is.
As far as video games, it's the same thing - the code is reflected in the game. That said, it is not a good analogy. Here is why: players in RPGs interact far more with the mechanics than they do in a video game. The mechanics are also much more on the whim of the DM or player. So the comparison is really a loose knot.

 

[Scott Christian]

Scott Christian, I looked through your part 10 and part 14 videos. Unless I got confused, what I saw mostly seemed to be a GM telling the players what their PCs can see and what actions they might declare.

To me that doesn't seem typical.

It is not typical, especially for a D&D game. But the fact that you noticed proves the point - the play is reflective of the rules. If we were to analyze it, you would see it is different from a typical D&D game.

For the record, it was. I mean, we are playing outside of a movie theater for god's sake. I eventually pull out a Jenga block and make them pull out their piece to see if the giant cliff they are standing on collapses. It was a stunt, and it worked. As was me telling them their four moves (or, in this case it turned to five because one of the players suggested something else).

The premise is, if you are going to come to a midnight movie and play D&D, don't expect open world or sandbox play. Expect to be warmed up for a terrible movie.