D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

How could it be jargon when I didn't use jargon? You translated my post into jargon and then accused me of what you wrote.

Well, if I take it literally than it's trivially false. Which is not what you seem to have intended.

 

[pemerton]

my guess on their meaning given the context of the current conversation, is that until a player/GM specifically manifests something into the world to exist then nothing is existing, everything in the world that hasn't specifically been decided is a grey featureless blob of in potentia,

What does this mean?

How would something that no one - neither player nor GM - has mentioned in play not be a "grey featureless blob of in potential"?

this typically grates against the type of person who values a world that exists independently of the players, one where even if the players weren't there to observe it still feels like it would still be doing it's own thing, a world where everything is where it is for a narrative reason and not just because the dice came up sixes so it now exists there because the player wanted/needed it to.

This just seems to be a way of saying what I said: the GM has written down the fiction in advance of play, and is authorised to use it to adjudicate action declarations by saying "yes" or "no" independently of dice rolls.

And of course all "narrative reason" means is that the GM wanted/needed it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Now here's an interesting thing: that GM had played RPGs for a couple of decades (with me GMing), but that session was maybe the fourth he'd ever GMed (not just 4th of BW, but 4th ever).

I think this gives the lie to the notion that GM-driven play is in some sense more intuitive or easier to grasp, either for players or GMs.

Who said it was easier? It's just more common.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, if I take it literally than it's trivially false. Which is not what you seem to have intended.

Even if you're right, it just isn't jargon because you literally translated what I said into jargon and then accused me being jargony. That is literally wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How could it be jargon when I didn't use jargon? You translated my post into jargon and then accused me of what you wrote.

It's jargon because you're using the idea of "the world exists outside of the PCs" when in fact the world doesn't exist. So what you mean is something other than what you said.

 

[Xamnam]

It's jargon because you're using the idea of "the world exists outside of the PCs" when in fact the world doesn't exist. So what you mean is something other than what you said.

I read "outside of the PCs" as intrinsically placing the frame of reference in their world and not ours. To them, it does (can?) exist, in the normal meaning of the word.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's jargon because you're using the idea of "the world exists outside of the PCs" when in fact the world doesn't exist. So what you mean is something other than what you said.

That is not what jargon means. If you don't agree with what I wrote, say that. This just sounds like trying to score rhetorical points. Are we working towards understanding, or are we trying to win?

 

[Faolyn]

So, I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. And I don't disagree with your first, either, but I'd soften it, at least for BW. Unless the game is about a MacGuffin of some sort, then (1) knowing the precise location of items isn't that important, and knowing the exact contents of the tower isn't important; and (2) predetermining what's in the tower closes off possible avenues for the fiction and makes it harder to honor BW's procedures. What's important is being open to the possibilities that come up in play. All the things you're saying would work — it absolutely makes sense for there to be spellboks in a wizard's tower, abandoned or otherwise, yet nevertheless Thurgon didn't find them and found the letters instead. What that means about the spellbooks is TBD at that point, left for the players to chase or not, as they want. Aramina's player could rewrite her beliefs and become obsessed with Evard's spellbooks, which could then drive additional play along those lines.

Separate from this talk about whether the spellbooks are there or not, I think this is clever resolution, as it doesn't turn the consequences of Thurgon's failure onto Aramina. Instead, Thurgon finds out that grandpa's an evil wizard, and Aramina can still pursue her belief in accordance with her player's desires.

I didn't say "precise location." I said "existence."

As I said before, I realized the monster's lair would likely contain his "spellbooks"/ritual info because it would be logical. I realized this before the players went in (which they didn't do), and I didn't decide that an NPC would get their hands on them until much later. I didn't map out the lair or plan out every detail before I ran the game. I only know that the adventure said that this is where the monster rested and didn't come up with any other details.

But apparently, even that much is against what pemerton looks for in a game and may be too much of the GM creating details for them.

 

[Autumnal]

I know its hard for people who have spent their whole lives being GMs that wrote every stitch of fiction in the game, but there's a vitality to play in which A) nobody knows what will happen, and B) players are making decisions like "maybe there are spell books in this abandoned wizard's tower."

I just want to point and say “This this this, yes!” I’m a nearly-always GM and I’ve found running Fate, Dungeon World, etc, to be a lot of fun. I’ve had great players who are at least as inventive as I am, and bouncing ideas back and forth leads to settings and events I find better-for-my-enjoyment than doing it by myself in advance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is if you choose to make a random choice. Back at the doors nobody forced them to pick a door. They could have chosen to go back the way they came. That's agency. Low agency, but still agency.

But now you're introducing more choices. Going back is a known thing. This is why the example isn't really great. Blind choices aren't about agency.

Nobody has said it's the same as @pemerton's game, or at least I certainly haven't.

You said agency is binary. I said that wasn't a useful way to look at it. Here you seem to agree?

It's not about avoidance in weighing the merits. It's about his pejorative and incorrect assessment of the entire traditional playstyle as a railroad. I would have welcomes him just saying, "Hey everyone. This is how I play and these are what I view as it's strengths and weaknesses. What do you all think?" or something along those lines. Had he done that, this thread would have been about the merits and flaws of his style, as well as possibly the merits and flaws(does not include railroading) of the traditional style.

Then let's move on to the actual discussion. What are its strengths and weaknesses? What are those of trad play? At this point, I think we all understand @pemerton 's take on it, and that many others don't like the use of railroad. So let's move on from that, and examine the actual content of the argument.

His way absolutely suits a game. A lot of people really enjoy it. Personally I don't want to exercise that much control over the game as a player, nor do I want scenes to always revolve around something important to one of the PCs. I can certainly see how a lot of people would enjoy that style of play, though. And it does give the players more control over the game.

Sure, different games will appeal to different folks!

This is interesting. Suppose the players want to play a traditional style game. They want to explore the world and have it revealed to them by the DM as they go. They want to explore dungeons that they didn't help bring into being. And so on. Wouldn't getting into a game like that give them a lot of say over what the game is about since it chases what the players are interested in?

It seems to me that a traditional player in a game of @pemerton's style would have little say and it would not chase what that player is interested in, just like traditional play doesn't give Pemerton what he is interested in giving him little say in a game of that style.

Look at the OP. At this point, it's possible that the game will resume with those players and that GM. If they all come to an agreement, and resume the game, that doesn't mean it can't be a railroad. It seems very likely that it will be.

Similar to the above, if the player wants to play in a traditional style game, then he is getting his say by having the PC knowledge figured out in traditional manner.

It's probably best to look at player agency as a quality of a game. What agency does the player have in the game, as a player. There's no point in concerning ourselves with the player's choice to play the game or not in that regard.

It seems to me that it really is one thing, Playstyle preference. If you are playing a game that runs the style of your preference, you have a lot of say. If you are playing a game that is of the other playstyle, then you don't have a lot of say.

That's really what it boils down to, yes.