D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

So, one answer to the question you asked could be obtained by looking at actual RPGs that (i) satisfy this desideratum, and (ii) have been mentioned in this thread.

So, consider Burning Wheel. Suppose that I'm playing Thurgon, and Thurgon is in Evard's abandoned tower, looking around while Aramina regains consciousness (having overtaxed herself trying to cast a spell fighting off a demon that was loitering near the tower). One of Thurgon's Beliefs is Aramina will need my protection, one of Aramina's Beliefs is I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! while another is I don't need Thurgon's pity. Thurgon's other Beliefs and Relationships include stuff about his family and his mother, Xanthippe. So I declare an action for Thurgon, "I look around the tower for spellbooks."

Now first, the GM needs to decide whether to "say 'yes' or call for a roll of the dice. Noticing that spellbooks are a key thing for Aramina, and knowing about the complicated relationship between Thurgon and Aramina, the GM sees straight away that something is at stake here, and so it would be inappropriate to say "yes". So a roll is called for. If it succeeds, then intent and task are realised: Thurgon finds spellbooks for Aramina. But as it happened, the roll failed. So the GM narrates a consequence in accordance with the rules, which state that the focus of failure should be on intent. So the GM say, "You don't find any spellbooks. You find some letters in a child's writing, apparently written to Evard, that address him as "Daddy" and are signed with an X". I can't recall all the details any more, but it's pretty clear that "X" is Xanthippe. In other words, it seems that the evil wizard Evard is in fact Thurgon's maternal grandfather!

You've used this example many a time but I still don't see how the system can allow one very obvious, realistic, and fairly-common-in-real-life outcome to occur: that the spellbooks are there in the tower but Thurgon simply missed them in his search.

I say this because the way the system seems to be set up, if Thurgon looks for them elsewhere and succeeds in his search that places those spellbooks at that location and not in the tower; and if he keeps looking in different places he's bound to succeed on a roll sooner or later and find them.

Is there a way that when Thurgon fails to find the spellbooks in the tower the GM can as part of the consequences note down that the books were there all along, he missed them, and to find them he's going to have to come back and look here again? (which by extension means they henceforth won't and can't be found anywhere else no matter how hard he looks or how good his rolls are)

No. I'm not advocating for anything. I'm expressing a preference for an approach to play, and especially to framing and action resolution, of the sort described in this post.

Nice sidestep - your post (quoted) is regarding scene framing and action resolution, where my previous question was around player knowledge vs character knowledge when making an in-character decision (which the above doesn't seem to address, in that there's no real decision points in that few moments of the fiction).

 

[Lanefan]

So let me put it another way: if the GM comes up with the world on their own, and tells me what is in it, and uses that stuff they've authored to establish all consequences, then whatever I bring to the table, in my conception of my PC, my aspirations for my PC, etc, are like your example of the digging of the hole. Nothing about the game changes because of them.

That might depend, I suppose, on whether you're viewing the fiction through your character's eyes or your own.

Even though it's the same setting, the same game, and so on; the whole thing changes if I'm looking at it through the eyes of my hard-as-nails Roman Mage who wants to be Empress someday and has aspirations and ambitions all over the place as opposed to when I'm looking at it through the eyes of my drunken Dwarven War Cleric who just wants a good fight - preferably vs a Giant, but anything will do - followed by a strong beer or ten and to whom 'ambition' is a four-letter word.

The game itself might not change based on who I'm playing in it, but my perception of it sure does; and that's really all that matters to me as a player.

 

[pemerton]

I still don't see how the system can allow one very obvious, realistic, and fairly-common-in-real-life outcome to occur: that the spellbooks are there in the tower but Thurgon simply missed them in his search.

I say this because the way the system seems to be set up, if Thurgon looks for them elsewhere and succeeds in his search that places those spellbooks at that location and not in the tower; and if he keeps looking in different places he's bound to succeed on a roll sooner or later and find them.

The bolded passage demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the rules of Burning Wheel. In a sense it's unsurprising; but given that lack of familiarity, I am a little surprised by the confident assertions about what is or isn't possible.

For instance: how does "Let it Ride" apply to the looking for Evard's spellbooks? Under what conditions might a search in another location constitute a sufficient change in the fictional circumstances that "Let it Ride" no longer applies?

As far as the opening question is concerned: under what circumstances would it be reasonable for the GM to introduce, into the shared fiction, some event or person which makes it clear that Evard's spellbooks remain in his tower, implying therefore that Thurgon must have failed to find them when he looked for them?

The answers to all of my questions depend on further issues about stakes, consequences etc that unfold through the play of the game. There is no mechanical or uniform answer to them. But obviously some combinations of answers explain how the fiction you are concerned with might be established in play.

You can download some of the relevant rules of the game, for free, here. Those rules explain Intent and Task, Let it Ride, how to narrate consequences, and also set out some although not all of the rules and principles that govern scene framing.

Is there a way that when Thurgon fails to find the spellbooks in the tower the GM can as part of the consequences note down that the books were there all along, he missed them, and to find them he's going to have to come back and look here again? (which by extension means they henceforth won't and can't be found anywhere else no matter how hard he looks or how good his rolls are)

If you are asking "Is there a way of the GM making notes such that the GM can rely on those notes to circumvent the rule "say 'yes' or roll the dice", the answer is No. If you are asking whether the game permits infinite retries, the answer is NO, for two reasons: Let it Ride may apply, and the participants are beings of finite lifespans.

your post (quoted) is regarding scene framing and action resolution, where my previous question was around player knowledge vs character knowledge when making an in-character decision (which the above doesn't seem to address, in that there's no real decision points in that few moments of the fiction).

In the post you say doesn't involve real decision points, I described making decisions about whether or not to look for spellbooks in the tower. That's a real decision point, far more fundamental to play - as the consequence illustrated - than deciding which of two arbitrary doors to walk through.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think what he meant is, if you have a bunch of people who want to go on The Quest, but another player who only wants to do their story and doesn't want to have a reason to go on The Quest, it's selfish of that other player to demand that The Quest be dropped in favor of their own story. Or, if everyone is doing their own story and not finding reasons to work together all that much (or at all), then it's selfish to require that they just sit there, potentially for hours, and do nothing while they wait for their turn with the spotlight.

In @Lanefan ’s preferred paradigm, exactly one person can demand that everyone drop everything and go on The Quest: the DM.

If everyone acts like”the DM”, the game devolves into each person doing their own story and not finding reasons to work together, and it’s selfish to require that they sit around for hours doing nothing while waiting for their turn in the spotlight.

What several people on this thread have pushed back on is the idea that anyone should have the power to demand that everyone drop everything and go on the Quest, and that this is the only way anyone should play D&D.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Permerton seems to think the options are "everything is created solely by the GM" or "everything is created by the players" with no middle ground. That having the GM describe anything to your PC is railroady because your PC should know it already.

I think this is a straight-up calumny of what @pemerton is saying.

In what world are PbtA cames solely player-authored? In every game that I’ve played, the GM plays a large role in authoring the fiction.

The fact that the GM is not the sole author of the fiction does not mean that the GM is NOT an author of the fiction.

I push back on this because several posters seem to believe that if the GM has anything less than total control, he has no control at all.

 

[Enrahim2]

I don't accept that I am a "polluter". Nor do I believe that I am obliged to accept your opinion as the the correct range of use cases.

"Railroading" is a normative notion, in the sense that in many cases of its use (perhaps not all), it is used to describe something as not meeting some sort of implicit standard. The standard, in the context of RPGing, is sufficiency of player participation in establishing the shared fiction. When you call something a railroad you are pointing to a concern about such things. Likewise in my case.

I draw the line of the standard differently from you. I know that. You know that. There is nothing objectionable about me stating my point knowing that you don't share my judgement. I don't see why I am obliged to abandon my normative threshold in favour of yours.

There is ZERO difference in this respected between "is a railroad", "is artificial", "is an obstacle to immersion", etc.

I don't get offended by learning what was already obvious to me, that some people's standard for artificiality in RPGing is different from mine. I don't see why others should get offended - that's a strong word! - by learning what was already surely obvious to them, that my standard for sufficiency of player participation in establishing the shared fiction is different from theirs.

I feel like we are actually making progress here! It seem like you accept I might have a basic understanding of your position, and I start sensing an outline on how you can have arrived at "railroading" as a suitable word for the concept you try to express.

The key issue here is your "The standard, in the context of RPGing, is sufficiency of player participation in establishing the shared fiction.". If this had indeed been the universally accepted standard for the use of the word "railroading", your use of the word would indeed have been fully unproblematic as you point out in your last sentence.

However, the issue is that this is not the commonly accepted standard. The common standard for calling something "railroading" is the degenerate case where it is not only absence of subjectively sufficient player participation, but actually no player participation. The normative weight of the term lie in that it is assumed that this level of participation is not sufficient for anyone. Moreover the most common use of the term is in a context where a GM is accused for providing no opportunity player participation trough either incompetence or intent. This is why people might be prone to be offended if you are labeling their activity as "railroad" without further explanation. They can reasonably interpret your statement as a claim that they are either incompetent or having bad intent. I guess you don't fail to see how anyone can be offended by feeling they are wrongfully accused of being incompetent or having bad intention?

Talking about level of player participation you prefer is a valid and interesting topic. It can be critical for finding a group that aligns in what you would like to play, and should at the very least be a part of session zero. As such there are standard patterns to talk about what level of player participation one prefers. In this context i have seen railroading used as a term to describe the direction of less player participation. However in this context where there indeed are talk about degrees of player participation the "railroadiness" is not having the same normative meaning. In this context I think I have seen as many people stating a preference for less degree of player participation (being guided, experiencing something prepared, railroady at times), as people requesting higher levels of player participation. However in this context also the terminology use is generally indicating a preference "closer" to railroading (denoting an axis toward an extreme). The word "railroading" itself appear understood to be the degenerate case of no player participation at all.

There also is a lively debate about what is railroading, but that generally revolves around identifying cases where there can be considered no real participation. The underlying motivation for this debate appear to be to determine what is the scope of what is considered universally bad and should be avoided in general. This is where concepts like quantum ogres and multiple doors with no information tend to be central. The way you are writing about railroading is also very easy to interpret into this context - in which you are misunderstood to claim that even sandboxes are to be understood as not providing any real player participation, and hence universaly bad.

The best way I have managed to read you now is the following: You are aligning with the railroading term as commonly used in general under the understanding that there is still no player participation of a particular kind - which you further describe. Moreover you appear interested in preserving a certain norminative weight to the term. However this norminative weight is supposed to be taken as a purely subjective one, as opposed to the more objective one most usage of the word is normally associated with.

As such you are appearing to do two controversial things with the word "railroading", the first, most obvious, and in my eyes quite reasonable is proposing a new way to gauge if player participation really "matter" with regard to what happen in the game. I think the observation that for many what is important isn't the range of options a GM provide, and the range of possible consequences the GM envisions as possible that is of (most) importance for a player feeling that they really contribute, but rather the extent the player's original contributions make a (lasting/important) impact on the fiction.

However the second thing you are trying to do with the word is to reject the proposed objective normative weight of the term - replacing it with a purely subjective weigth. You appear to be either oblivious to this objective normative sense of the word, or actively ignoring it. This is the property of the proposed understanding of the word "railroad" I find most controversial, and the reason I think such a change in use simply cannot fly. I think we as a community still need a term to describe this universally recognized problematic state of game that there is a steady stream of horror stories confirming exist in the wild. Railroading is the word we have used for it, and as such I don't think it can be repurposed the way you suggest.

In light of the above I still strongly advice you to figure out a new word. If you want the word to still carry a subjective normative weight, I agree that simply sightseeing might not fit the bill. Maybe "just sightseeing" might be conveying both the feeling of not being able to creatively contribute, while also conveying the personal preference that you yourself would have liked more?

 

[uzirath]

Your examples are all from a traditional, classic game: The DM has all the power but allows the players freedom to do things.

Yes.

This is not what the pro agency, anti-railroad types are talking about. They want the players to have more power then the DM. The players can alter the game reality on a whim and he DM must go along with whatever they say.

This and your following examples don't match what I've seen described (or my limited experience of different sorts of games in play). And there is definitely a continuum between these two styles of play. As shown, I hope, in my examples, the "traditional" style that my groups typically adopt provides quite a bit of player agency over the game state. Our GM does, typically, have final veto authority.

For example:

*The character comes to a locked door. The player just says "Oh my character knows a guy that makes keys", then the game reality is altered and the character has the key to open the locked door. And the DM just nods and says "yes, player".

Looking past your hyperbole, even classic games sometimes have mechanics to allow for this sort of thing. GURPS, for example, has an advantage called Serendipity which allows a PC to have one "fortuitous-but-plausible coincidence" per game session (and you can buy additional levels to allow for additional lucky breaks). Admittedly, the "GM has the final say," but knowing "a guy that makes keys" seems well within the intended scope of the advantage.

Furthermore, in my limited experience with non-traditional RPGs (congruent with the descriptions from more knowledgeable folks in this thread), overcoming the locked door would typically require a "move" with a die roll to determine the degree of success or failure. Assuming there are any stakes (and the desire to get beyond the door suggests that something is at stake), one would roll to see if they succeed or fail or succeed with complications. It is not a simple declaration that the GM must accept.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I must have missed that memo, unless it was referring to magic specific to the character; as I recall 2e taking a similar approach to 1e in this regard, to wit that presence/absence/extent of a magic item economy was up to the individual DM at the table.

There are GP prices for items in 2e, but they refer only to selling. Obviously you can do whatever you want, but 2e's rules for how you can acquire magic are extremely strict! Even if you have Enchant an Item (and probably Permanency as well as other spells) you STILL need esoteric ingredients that amount to "the GM can tell you to kiss off" as they are mostly stated to be things like the breath of a ghost or something that is going to be basically impossible to get. I think this was all somewhat of a reaction to the christmas tree of items everyone got in 1e, so 2e pretty deliberately lets you take away a lot of the magic if you want. That and magic items in 1e were like 95% of all XP since they equated to gold and had huge valuations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thing is, as written that definition is being asked to do a lot of - as in, too much - work in order to arrive at agency.

There's three different things - related, but different - contained in that definition that can (and IMO probably should) be broken out into separate elements:

Ability to make meaningful decisions (at all). This covers whether the players' decisions have any downstream relevance, or whether the GM is going to shift things such that no matter what the players decide the same outcome will occur regardless. In short: the quantum Ogres problem. To me this is the very core of agency, along with the ability to make unexpected decisions e.g. to turn back and go somewhere else entirely.

Whether, and how, and to what extent those decisions are 'informed'. Must a player have all relevant information to hand before a decision can be said to have agency, even if the character making the decision in the fiction does not? I say no; and that if the character doesn't know it the player doesn't know it, and that this lack of knowledge does NOT count as a loss of agency. This also applies to (potential) consequences. Flip side, though: if the character would know something then it's on the GM to make sure the player knows it too.

Whether, and how, and to what extent (missing: and when) the setting/scenario will be impacted. Agency is lost here if a decision's reasonable impacts on the setting/scenario are overruled or ignored by the GM. That said, players still have agency to make decisions that ultimately have no downstream impact at all, e.g. if two doors both turn out to lead to empty dead ends there was still agency in the choice as to which one to go through first.

And there's a fourth relevant piece, missing from the definition quoted above, which IMO is also a huge part of agency:

Ability to declare actions. This is different from the ability to make decisions, as actions can be declared even when no decision has been (or can be) made. And note this includes declaring actions that don't make sense or that have absolutely zero chance of success - that they're nonsensical shouldn't prevent a player from declaring them anyway, and disallowing such declarations from even being made is a violation of agency. And actions that do or can make sense should - I would think obviously - always be declarable; with the proviso that if multiple players all want to declare actions at once some sort of mechanism needs be in place to determine in what sequence they get sorted at the table.

For me, agency consists of the ability to make meaningful decisions based on the info my character would have at the time plus the ability to declare actions; as those - plus the ability to speak as my character, but I'm assuming that's a universal thing - are all I need to play my character.

But I don't consider these different things AT ALL. If I can't declare actions, have enough information to say "this seems to lead to X, and this to Y", and have X and Y have more than trivial significance, then I am not making decisions AT ALL, so to me criteria one has to include all of your 2, 3, and 4. Without those it is mere pantomime, no actual decisions are being made. And this is what I was telling @Maxperson is that every single field that deals with 'agency' outside of trad RPG DMs holds to the same definition I do, law, medicine, etc. I don't consider it a matter of opinion. Outside of some highly abstruse philosophical debate, this is a settled question.

 

[Maxperson]

So, one answer to the question you asked could be obtained by looking at actual RPGs that (i) satisfy this desideratum, and (ii) have been mentioned in this thread.

So, consider Burning Wheel. Suppose that I'm playing Thurgon, and Thurgon is in Evard's abandoned tower, looking around while Aramina regains consciousness (having overtaxed herself trying to cast a spell fighting off a demon that was loitering near the tower). One of Thurgon's Beliefs is Aramina will need my protection, one of Aramina's Beliefs is I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! while another is I don't need Thurgon's pity. Thurgon's other Beliefs and Relationships include stuff about his family and his mother, Xanthippe. So I declare an action for Thurgon, "I look around the tower for spellbooks."

Now first, the GM needs to decide whether to "say 'yes' or call for a roll of the dice. Noticing that spellbooks are a key thing for Aramina, and knowing about the complicated relationship between Thurgon and Aramina, the GM sees straight away that something is at stake here, and so it would be inappropriate to say "yes". So a roll is called for. If it succeeds, then intent and task are realised: Thurgon finds spellbooks for Aramina. But as it happened, the roll failed. So the GM narrates a consequence in accordance with the rules, which state that the focus of failure should be on intent. So the GM say, "You don't find any spellbooks. You find some letters in a child's writing, apparently written to Evard, that address him as "Daddy" and are signed with an X". I can't recall all the details any more, but it's pretty clear that "X" is Xanthippe. In other words, it seems that the evil wizard Evard is in fact Thurgon's maternal grandfather!

So in this example of play, I knew what was at stake: Aramina's desire for spellbooks, Thurgon's relationship with Aramina, and Thurgon's relationship with this mother. I understood the context within which failure would be framed.

The procedure in AW and DW is different. But suppose that, as a result of roll, the player doesn't get all that they wanted for their PC, and the GM has to make a move in response. As I've mentioned several times upthread, GM moves in AW are along the lines of "announce badness", "put someone in a spot", "offer an opportunity, perhaps with a cost", "take away their stuff", etc. And (as per the principle Be a Fan of the Characters), these normative notions - badness, a spot, opportunity, cost, etc - are to be understood relative to the players' desires and aspirations for their PCs. If the GM isn't sure exactly what these are, the game includes a GM-side procedure: ask questions, and build on the answers.

The GM is also required to elaborate later moves by reference to earlier established fiction. This is especially the case for hard moves, which should follow from prior soft moves where the threat or risk (not the one in the GM's imagination, but the one that is part of the in-play situation) has not yet resolved itself.

So, again, the players know what is at stake: it's their desires and aspirations for their PCs, as currently implicated in the unfolding fiction and the current in-play situation.

Thanks for the response and that's one answer for informed, but because it's only one answer for informed, it really doesn't answer my question. There are other ways to be informed and in order for the term not to be vague beyond uselessness as some sort of objective measure, I would need much more exactness regarding what level information allows you to be informed and all ways to be informed. If it can't be objective, then it's useless for determining agency in any sort of objective sense. Agency becomes subjective.

In your case it seems like you want something similar to the above situation and what you experience in those kinds of games. For myself and @Lanefan just knowing that there are two locked doors in front of us is sufficient information to make an informed decision. For my part I feel like that would be a low agency situation, but it's still agency.