D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat I don't feel that what you say actually answers the question I'm trying to ask, but at this point I just give up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Though I'm really not referring to 'exploring secret backstory,' more about just playing Story Now in an established setting, lore of which everyone might not remember from top of their head. So probably more about being oblivious to obscure backstory... So what I'm really asking, is the OK for GM in such game to say something like: "That's not really how the Salic law works, and your character would know that, so the action declaration wouldn't make sense. This is how it actually works, (explains) do you want to do something else?" And if this a problem, why?

This also is not completely theoretical. I just downloaded Necromunda hack for Blades in the Dark. Unlikely that I would actually run it, but I've been contemplating doing some RPG in 40K universe, and this would be an option to combine that with trying out a Story Now game. So assuming I'd run this for people far less knowledgeable than me about 40K universe, these would be pertinent questions.

40K is a fairly dense lore set, and it's often conflicting, and there's lots out there that isn't exactly cannon, but, yeah, if you've put it out there clearly then that's introduced into the fiction. Action declarations are very clearly constrained by the fiction.

I'd be careful about dialing in particulars in dark corners of lore. The important bits (to me) of a setting are it's feel, not necessarily all the details. In an obscure case of something like Salic law, I'd be much more likely to ignore the setting if the situation was working just fine. Blocking good play because it conflicts with small setting details would be something I'd avoid.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat I don't feel that what you say actually answers the question I'm trying to ask, but at this point I just give up.

I don't understand how you feel that way. Can you maybe ask a specific question about what I just wrote?

Do you not get the juxtaposition of unrevealed backstory being an input (or THE input) into action resolution vs unrevealed backstory not being an input into action resolution?

Do you know the game Pictionary? Do you know the game Telephone? Do you understand how they're different? Setting here is the prescriptive thing on the card that is THE input into a round of Pictionary.

If you get all of that stuff then I don't see how you can say "I didn't answer your question."

What would help you (if these things don't)? An excerpt (you've said you don't like those)?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

40K is a fairly dense lore set, and it's often conflicting, and there's lots out there that isn't exactly cannon, but, yeah, if you've put it out there clearly then that's introduced into the fiction. Action declarations are very clearly constrained by the fiction.

I'd be careful about dialing in particulars in dark corners of lore. The important bits (to me) of a setting are it's feel, not necessarily all the details. In an obscure case of something like Salic law, I'd be much more likely to ignore the setting if the situation was working just fine. Blocking good play because it conflicts with small setting details would be something I'd avoid.

Sure. And like in other media, it is a matter of taste to what degree of historical accuracy/emulation of source material one strives for.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Manbearcat I don't feel that what you say actually answers the question I'm trying to ask, but at this point I just give up.

It does, actually. What it says is "backstory is fine, but be careful it's not a) secret and b) so dense it might as well be secret. This damages Story Now play because it leads to GM directed play."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure. And like in other media, it is a matter of taste to what degree of historical accuracy/emulation of source material one strives for.

I would say that the more emulation you're going for, the less room for play exists. This play becomes more NeoTrad and less Story Now, because protagonism is being shifted from the PCs towards the setting. The setting becomes, in effect, the protagonist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't understand how you feel that way. Can you maybe ask a specific question about what I just wrote?

Do you not get the juxtaposition of unrevealed backstory being an input (or THE input) into action resolution vs unrevealed backstory not being an input into action resolution?

Do you know the game Pictionary? Do you know the game Telephone? Do you understand how they're different? Setting here is the prescriptive thing on the card that is THE input into a round of Pictionary.

If you get all of that stuff then I don't see how you can say "I didn't answer your question."

What would help you (if these things don't)? An excerpt (you've said you don't like those)?

I know the games you speak of and I understand what you say just fine. It just seems to be rather removed from the actual thing I'm talking about. I am not really talking about 'secret backstory' in a sense that it is something the play endeavours to uncover, I'm merely talking about basic information about the setting. Can the GM say: "No, that action declaration makes no sense, as laws pertaining inheritance of noble titles doesn't work like that in this country"?

 

[Maxperson]

Look at Story Before play as a game of Pictionary. You've got a card with a prescribed thing and the GM is drawing a picture and the players are trying to decode the GM's drawings to get at the prescribed thing.

It's not one sided like that, though. The players are also drawing things that force the DM to adjust his drawing, so it's a shared drawing experience.

Example. DM draws an ogre, thinking that there will be a fight. Players see the ogre drawing and the party illusionist casts a spell drawing himself as an ogress and begins to speak to the ogre. Now the DM and player jointly draw an ogre interaction instead of a fight.

That's how Story Before goes. It's a joint art project, even though the DM has backstory. Unless the DM forces the backstory(or parts of the back story) to happen no matter what the players try and do, there is no force or railroading going on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would say that the more emulation you're going for, the less room for play exists. This play becomes more NeoTrad and less Story Now, because protagonism is being shifted from the PCs towards the setting. The setting becomes, in effect, the protagonist.

But certainly what matters there what the focus of the game is? Like sure, if the focus was actually on exploring the setting then it would be rather limiting to have a preauthored setting, but if the focus is on something else then it matters less.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know the games you speak of and I understand what you say just fine. It just seems to be rather removed from the actual thing I'm talking about. I am not really talking about 'secret backstory' in a sense that it is something the play endeavours to uncover, I'm merely talking about basic information about the setting. Can the GM say: "No, that action declaration makes no sense, as laws pertaining inheritance of noble titles doesn't work like that in this country"?

Are those laws openly known to the whole table and the player forgot them? Sure. Are they not known to the player? No, you have a conflict. Is the setting so dense that it's easy to not know these kinds of details? You, again, have a conflict.