D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

No. (Unless you consider mental states to be something beyond the player's PC.)

For instance, the player declares "I search for <such-and-such>". That's not beyond the PC.

Now, how do we resolve that action declaration? There are lots of ways. Your way includes the GM deciding (in advance, or perhaps on the spot) whether or not there is a <such-and-such> to be found.

But there are other ways. Perhaps the GM just says "OK, you find <such-and-such>" (ie says "yes"). Perhaps a check is called for. Perhaps the declared action triggers a player-side move, and the upshot of resolving the move is that the GM is required to provide an opportunity with a cost, and so the GM says "The <such-and-such> looks like it's been incorporated as a crucial component of the <whatever-it-is>. Do you want to remove it, or leave it in place?"

I get that you are not interested in play AW/DW, or Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer, or In A Wicked Age, or any of those other RPGs that were invented since the 1990s. But they exist, and it's not hard to learn the techniques they use which (i) avoid railroading as I characterised it, while (ii) not requiring the player to do anything in play but declare actions for their PC.

I don't characterize railroading the way you do (your definition honestly doesn’t even make sense to me in regards to a railroad), so I don't actually have this problem to solve. I am again glad you found a game that you like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"It depends."

I mean, PbtA has been around for 13 years, MotW for 10-11... Meanwhile, you seemed to like Level Up while it was still in production.

Well, Level Up is a better version of a game I already liked, as opposed to a totally new way to play a genre I was already playing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

W

D&D has rules for when GMs and players make a move. One of those rules is called "initiative order."

You don't really choose from a list. You don't pick up the paper and decide which one you want to do. Instead, the list is just a formal representation of things that you have almost certainly have always done as a GM anyway. The only difference is that PbtA games actually produce a list of things instead of assuming that a new GM will magically know what to do.

Here's the Keeper Moves list from MotW:



You do all of these things. But you probably figured them out after either watching someone else GM, reading lists of GM tips, or years of practice, and now it's simply second nature to you. PbtA games simply codify them so you're ready right away.

Well then I suppose I really don't like them codified. Makes me feel trapped as a GM.

 

[Oofta]

I'm thinking of a game which is very much like yours as best I can tell - the existence of the choices (be they doors, or something else), and the consequences that flow from opening them or not (be that traps, alarms, toad statutes, whatever) are all authored by the GM.

That's what I am calling a railroad. By my lights.

Opening a door, finding a trap, exploring a dungeon are, in many ways, the least important aspects of my game. Yes, some of the environments are pre-planned. What they do there, what they do when they can't open that locked door is up to them.

But what rumors they pursue, what type of campaign we run, that's largely (admittedly I do get a vote and veto power) up to them. What they do, their decisions and interactions with NPCs, all matter.

If the world existing outside of the PC not being under their direct control but can be dramatically changed by their decisions and action means that it's a railroad? You have very different definition than any I've ever heard before.

 

[pemerton]

what rumors they pursue, what type of campaign we run, that's largely (admittedly I do get a vote and veto power) up to them. What they do, their decisions and interactions with NPCs, all matter.

Who chooses what the rumours are, and what they point to? And what do they have regard to in making those choices? Who decides who the NPCs are, what they want, and how they respond?

I know that some people who build words and prepare adventures make all those choices, as GM, more-or-less independently of the players and their play of their PCs.

I regard that as railroading.

If the world existing outside of the PC not being under their direct control but can be dramatically changed by their decisions and action means that it's a railroad? You have very different definition than any I've ever heard before.

I haven't said anything about the powers of the PCs. Do you mean players?

Even focusing on players, and as I replied to @Micah Sweet upthread, avoiding railroading doesn't require the players doing more than declare actions for their PCs. The key is the method the GM uses to say what happens as a result.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who chooses what the rumours are, and what they point to? And what do they have regard to in making those choices? Who decides who the NPCs are, what they want, and how they respond?

I know that some people who build words and prepare adventures make all those choices, as GM, more-or-less independently of the players and their play of their PCs.

I regard that as railroading.

I haven't said anything about the powers of the PCs. Do you mean players?

Even focusing on players, and as I replied to @Micah Sweet upthread, avoiding railroading doesn't require the players doing more than declare actions for their PCs. The key is the method the GM uses to say what happens as a result.

So all D&D games are a railroad, regardless of the choices the players make? I really don't get it.

 

[bloodtide]

I don’t think you understand games beyond D&D. Then again, I don’t think you understand D&D so I guess it’s not surprising.

Well, I do only have the posts by people as to what anything in the beyond D&D games are like. And most of them posts are quite odd and confusing.

I regard that as railroading.

That is the oddest definition of railroading I have ever heard.

 

[pemerton]

This is absolutely the stumbling block. It's given such emphasis that these moves are the way the GM responds, so I want to do right by them, and therefore I am caught trying to make sure my honest/fiction-respecting reaction maps to one, while trying not to leave dead air in response to the players declarations as I feel each second ticking by. My instincts are probably better than I give them credit for, and I could retroactively find a way that my response does fulfill one of the GM moves.

However, there are times where a move is warranted by the rules, but there is no change that feels obviously warranted by the fiction, especially in response to a lack of action, and so I desperately scan the list for inspiration on how to respond, and it feels wildly artificial, and it takes even longer to come up with something, especially with the criticisms of failing the game ringing in my head. I do know that practice and just getting out and doing it would help build these muscles, but I also don't want to subject people to a poor experience, especially if it's one of their first.

As I write this, I think it might be that there's a bigger, or underlying, problem: I'm falling into that position in the first place by not crafting scenes that are full of appropriate danger/pressure which fundamentally demand a response and leave open opportunities for things like an unwelcome truth, approaching threat, etc.

<snip>

What I find counter-intuitive (and stressful) is the GM having to make the moves (that they are allowed to) with the frequency the book asks. As above, I probably overthink it.

Without knowing your experiences of PbtA beyond your posts, it seems to me that your thought (that I've reproduced just above the snip) is very plausible.

Compare the way two examples of play begin:

5e D&D (Basic PDF, p 2): DM - After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.

Player - I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.

Apocalypse World (original version, p 152): Marie the brainer goes looking for Isle, to visit grief upon her, and finds her eating canned peaches on the roof of the car shed with her brother Mill and her lover Plover (all NPCs).

“I read the situation,” her player says.

“You do? It’s charged?” I say.

“It is now.”

“Ahh,” I say. I understand perfectly: the three NPCs don’t realize it, but Marie’s arrival charges the situation. If it were a movie, the sound track would be picking up, getting sinister.​

If we focus just on the events of the fiction, both involve a character arriving somewhere and sizing things up.

But if we look at these through the lens of the dynamics of play, they could hardly be more different. In the D&D example, the GM is establishing the mood ("towers of stone keep a silent watch"), and the players follow the GM's lead (the GM mentions gargoyles, the player has their PC investigate further).

In the AW example, the player establishes the reason for and rationale of the scene (ie Marie's player has decided that Marie will find Isle and visit grief upon her; the GM provides an opportunity in response to this, by narrating Isle sitting on the roof of the car shed with her companions). It is Marie's player who establishes the mood of the scene, by declaring it to be charged.

These differences are further reflected in the divergent approaches the two systems take to resolution of the declared action.

Btw, @Micah Sweet and @Oofta, the difference between these two examples is highly relevant to my remarks about what I experience as railroaded RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

So all D&D games are a railroad, regardless of the choices the players make? I really don't get it.

Why would you say that?

I already posted upthread that I, personally, have GMed both AD&D and 4e D&D in a way that doesn't use the techniques that I regard as railroading.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would you say that?

I already posted upthread that I, personally, have GMed both AD&D and 4e D&D in a way that doesn't use the techniques that I regard as railroading.

Because I don't understand how the GM sets up a setting for the players to interact with counts as a railroad. What do the players and/or the GM have to do to not count as a railroad? I don't get it.