D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

the idea of "Create a character who is willing to undergo adventure" is now such bog standard advice for building D&D characters that won't disrupt the table, I'm legitimately surprised to find someone put it on the far side of that line.

As I posted upthread, I think the real advice is either "create a character who is willing to undergo whatever adventure the GM offers up", or perhaps "create a character who is willing to undergo <this adventure>".

The former I think speaks for itself. As far as the latter is concerned, my question would be: who is deciding what is at stake in <this adventure>, and what are they having regard to in making that decision?

When I started my 4e D&D game, I had a particular scenario that I wanted to use (the homestead assault in module B10 Night's Dark Terror). So I asked each player to come up with a reason why their PC would be ready to fight Goblins, as well as one loyalty for their PC. In most cases, those two things were tightly intertwined.

I integrated those loyalties into the situation I established, so as to make the stakes of the situation ones that spoke to those elements the players had established for their PCs. And continued to do so throughout the campaign, as the characters and the shared fiction developed. (This is what 4e D&D calls "player designed quests".)

This is why the game took the shape that it did. It was not a game in which I, as GM, established all the stakes and hence all the consequences.

Granted, this is partly just due to the fact that we're considering a character being built for a very different system with different goals being asked to undergo an old D&D adventure. In the context of BW, I'm guessing it might be unreasonable for the GM to say that. Transplanting them into a different context is inherently going to make questions like this much trickier.

The notion of "the adventure" is not really salient for Burning Wheel play. There are scenes, and situations.

At least in my experience, the play focuses on the characters with a degree of intimacy and care that is not common in D&D play as I have experienced it and heard it reported on.

 

[Aldarc]

I saw this last night, but really only had time to address this now.

this ideally should not be something that is happening though, my post was not advocating for this, it does suck when you are actively trying to follow up on a hook to no avail, but that's my point: something you are actively trying to follow up on, it is not the same situation when you are doing nothing to follow up on it.

I mostly agree to an extent. I would say, however, that I have personally found it easier for me to roleplay characters that are pursuing their own agendas or desires in a lot of "story games." I think that is precisely because "story games" are more interested in the emerging story of the dramatic characters rather than the emerging story of a simulated setting.

Also, where I would differ slightly would be in games like Fate. Players in Fate take Trouble aspects that amount to begging the GM to complicate their lives with those troubles. So there is some expectation that the GM should engage a PC with the trouble "Restless About My Brother's Unsolved Murder" with story complications that are pertinent to that aspect. However, much as you say, Fate presumes that "characters are proactive, capable people living dramatic lives." So players should also be doing things towards their own ends as much as the GM is.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is it the GM who "interprets as best they can the world to the players"?

Because that's literally the entire point of having a GM. Otherwise, you'd be playing a GMless game. Those do exist.

Why can the players not interpret Middle Earth, or the Marvel Universe, or the World of Greyhawk, or whatever other setting is being used?

Because not everyone is going to have a perfect knowledge of those universes, and because people are going to have different knowledge of those universes. Like, for Middle Earth, are you going for the book version or the movie version, or a blend of both? For Marvel, are you going for the comics--in which case, which comics universe?--the MCU, or a blend of both? Ditto for Greyhawk.

That's why the GM is the one to describe the world, so there is a shared experience.

Now, the GM can, and probably should, do this with player input, either as everyone working together to create the entire world or as everyone making suggestions as to what they want in the world. But due to the way that nearly every single game works, the GM is the one who makes the final call.

I repeat: if the only person who gets to decide the content of the shared fiction is the GM, how can you be shocked that someone might regard that as a railroad, that is to say, an entirely GM-determined exercise?

Because it's not.

Railroad gaming does have a distinct definition: that there is one track you can be on. You can't do anything that's not on that track. You want to deal with your character's issues? Want to not kill the BBEG but instead find another way to deal with the problem? Want to ignore the problem entirely and skip town? Nope, too bad, you can't. Nothing else works.

That is the definition of railroad gaming that basically everyone uses.

I mentioned in another post here about not doing a heist, but instead hiring a lawyer to talk to the soul of a dead guy to get permission to use the artifact. If it had been a railroad, the party's non-violent attempt wouldn't have worked. Now, you can say that even having an artifact be needed is too railroady--I didn't read the AP so I don't know if the adventure was "winnable" without the artifact... but honestly, that's like saying it's too railroady to need silver to kill a werewolf, or saying it's too railroady to say that your medieval fantasy player can't buy a laser blaster. Sometimes, the fiction demands certain things, and those things are needed to prevent the game from becoming Calvinball.

I'm telling you that from my point of view, the GM defining the fiction to the exclusion of other participants is a flaw, and it is a flaw that has a well-known description: railroading. The fact that you don't find it to be a flaw, and don't find it to be railroading, doesn't affect my experience and preferences.

And here's the other disconnect. You are assuming that the only options are "the GM defines all of the fiction" and "the GM defines only a fraction of the fiction," but I'd wager a lot of groups are actually somewhere in the middle, and the GM defines the fiction based on the player's input and actions.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why is it the GM who "interprets as best they can the world to the players"?

because they are the GM, and being the GM comes with certain responsibilities but it also comes with certain perks, you have the responsibility of settling player disputes and building encounters but you also get the perk of being the one to shape and present the world to the players, that is the nature of the game system.

When I talk about railroading, I am not talking about what sort of character I am imagining. I am talking about what real people, playing a game together, are doing in the play of that game. No one thinks that Thurgon can roll dice and make spellbooks appear - he is not a magician. The thing I am talking about is how to make a decision, in the real world about what happens next when I, playing Thurgon, declare that Thurgon looks for spellbooks. In the example of play that I gave it was I, pemerton, a flesh-and-blood person, who rolled some dice. the outcome of that roll determined - in accordance with the rules of the game - what consequence followed from that declared action.

I repeat: if the only person who gets to decide the content of the shared fiction is the GM, how can you be shocked that someone might regard that as a railroad, that is to say, an entirely GM-determined exercise?

firstly, i never said that thurgon can roll dice and make book appear in the fiction, i was speaking about 'you' as the player, but the nature of the rolls in the DnD system aren't to determine if those books are there but how well your character searches the room, and because you still had the agency to declare that thurgon searched the shelves you still had agency regardless if they were there or not to find, regardless of if you rolled as well or as poorly as you could've, but DnD doesn't promise you anything except your player character and the control of their actions, not the results or consequences of them.
you could control the actions of your character, therefore you had agency, therefore you were not railroaded.

Well, when I play 4e D&D, or when years ago I played OA AD&D, D&D did do what I wanted it to do. Not everyone plays D&D the way that you do.

What do you mean when you say it's not a flaw?

I'm telling you that from my point of view, the GM defining the fiction to the exclusion of other participants is a flaw, and it is a flaw that has a well-known description: railroading. The fact that you don't find it to be a flaw, and don't find it to be railroading, doesn't affect my experience and preferences.

you are entitled to run the game in any way you wish, but the fact you consider it a flaw how the system works is your opinion, and no matter how many times you state that opinion it will never become an objective fact about the system that it is 'flawed' or that your preferred mechanics in play would be superior to any other method just as the same is true about my preferences, so therefore that trait of this game system remains a 'neutral feature' of it rather than a 'negative flaw' or even a 'positive boon'.

 

[Xamnam]

The notion of "the adventure" is not really salient for Burning Wheel play. There are scenes, and situations.

At least in my experience, the play focuses on the characters with a degree of intimacy and care that is not common in D&D play as I have experienced it and heard it reported on.

That's definitely what I was imagining, so I'm glad to know I wasn't off base. So, it makes sense that that character shouldn't be asked to specifically be ready to go to the Isle of Dread.

 

[pemerton]

the nature of the rolls in the DnD system aren't to determine if those books are there but how well your character searches the room

<snip>

DnD doesn't promise you anything except your player character and the control of their actions, not the results or consequences of them.

What you describe here is not canonical for 4e D&D. And as I've already posted, it is not how I was playing AD&D in the second half of the 1980s.

I keep being told this is a general D&D thread. But your post, and some others, make it seem more like a specific approach to D&D thread!

 

[pemerton]

That's definitely what I was imagining, so I'm glad to know I wasn't off base. So, it makes sense that that character shouldn't be asked to specifically be ready to go to the Isle of Dread.

Well, we could agree to play a game about pirates and treasure maps and stuff. Our PCs mightn't look much like Aedhros, though maybe there's a way of bringing a Dark Elf into that framing that I'm just not thinking of at the moment.

But the play would still not look anything like The Isle of Dread played as intended, ie a classic D&D hexcrawl.

 

[Maxperson]

As I posted upthread, I think the real advice is either "create a character who is willing to undergo whatever adventure the GM offers up", or perhaps "create a character who is willing to undergo <this adventure>".

The former I think speaks for itself. As far as the latter is concerned, my question would be: who is deciding what is at stake in <this adventure>, and what are they having regard to in making that decision?

When I started my 4e D&D game, I had a particular scenario that I wanted to use (the homestead assault in module B10 Night's Dark Terror). So I asked each player to come up with a reason why their PC would be ready to fight Goblins, as well as one loyalty for their PC. In most cases, those two things were tightly intertwined.

I integrated those loyalties into the situation I established, so as to make the stakes of the situation ones that spoke to those elements the players had established for their PCs. And continued to do so throughout the campaign, as the characters and the shared fiction developed. (This is what 4e D&D calls "player designed quests".)

This is why the game took the shape that it did. It was not a game in which I, as GM, established all the stakes and hence all the consequences.

The notion of "the adventure" is not really salient for Burning Wheel play. There are scenes, and situations.

At least in my experience, the play focuses on the characters with a degree of intimacy and care that is not common in D&D play as I have experienced it and heard it reported on.

I don't agree with that. For sure making a character to undergo what the DM offers up is one way to play, but I wouldn't want to play that way for an extended period of time.

If I prep the local Lord's oppressive taxation causing an excess of homeless beggars(an adventure!) and tell the players, "You notice an abnormally large number of beggars while you are walking towards the local inn.", I wouldn't want them to feel forced to take part in that. If they feel intrigued enough to engage that plot hook, then the adventure begins. If not then the large number of beggars becomes background color for them as they go to do other things.

I may prep 5 different things, but they players don't have to engage any of them. They are even free to tell me that they want to go to the mysterious mountains and look for the reason those mountains got their name. Since I don't have that prepped and they will need to travel there, I have time to finish out the night and prep new stuff for the adventure THEY chose.

 

[Campbell]

Something as simple as “Be a fan of the players” is not consistent with the “DM as neutral referee” playstyle.

Absolutely. A significant part of the reason to reduce or eliminate the need for the GM to act as a referee is so that they can be emotionally invested in the characters, seek to put them through the crucible and see how they come out on the other end.

 

[pemerton]

because they are the GM, and being the GM comes with certain responsibilities but it also comes with certain perks, you have the responsibility of settling player disputes and building encounters but you also get the perk of being the one to shape and present the world to the players, that is the nature of the game system.

Because that's literally the entire point of having a GM. Otherwise, you'd be playing a GMless game. Those do exist.


Because not everyone is going to have a perfect knowledge of those universes, and because people are going to have different knowledge of those universes. Like, for Middle Earth, are you going for the book version or the movie version, or a blend of both? For Marvel, are you going for the comics--in which case, which comics universe?--the MCU, or a blend of both? Ditto for Greyhawk.

That's why the GM is the one to describe the world, so there is a shared experience.

Now, the GM can, and probably should, do this with player input, either as everyone working together to create the entire world or as everyone making suggestions as to what they want in the world. But due to the way that nearly every single game works, the GM is the one who makes the final call.

The bolded sentence seems, to me, to contain an internal contradiction. (Or at least a rather serious tension.)

But anyway, it's not true even in D&D that there is a baseline nor that the GM establishes and interprets the setting. 4e D&D works with a different baseline. AD&D OA works with a different baseline. The concept of a different baseline was well-known in the early 80s, when the book "What is Dungeons & Dragons" was published.

Nor is it the case that in "nearly every single game" the GM has this function. Here are some RPGs that take a different approach: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Agon 2nd ed, Classic Traveller (published 1977).

Vincent Baker spelled out the core function of the GM about 20 years ago:

You need to have a system by which scenes start and stop. The rawest solution is to do it by group consensus: anybody moved to can suggest a scene or suggest that a scene be over, and it's up to the group to act on the suggestion or not. You don't need a final authority beyond the players' collective will.

You need to have a system whereby narration becomes in-game truth. That is, when somebody suggests something to happen or something to be so, does it or doesn't it? Is it or isn't it? Again the rawest solution is group consensus, with suggestions made by whoever's moved and then taken up or let fall according to the group's interest.

You need to have orchestrated conflict, and there's the tricky bit. GMs are very good at orchestrating conflict, and it's hard to see a rawer solution. . . .

In our co-GMed Ars Magica game, each of us is responsible for orchestrating conflict for the others, which works but isn't radical wrt GM doage-away-with. It amounts to when Emily's character's conflicts climax explosively and set off Meg's character's conflicts, which also climax explosively, in a great kickin' season finale last autumn, I'm the GM. GM-swapping, in other words, isn't the same as GM-sharing​

This is why games like Burning Wheel, AW and the like pay special attention to the role of the GM in orchestrating conflict. This does not entail that the GM is the one who establishes the stakes of those conflicts. In those systems, the players are the ones who do that!