D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Mort]

you, as a player, control thurgon, everything thurgon does is because you declare it, functionally You. Are. Thurgon. every time you quibble over 'well actually me and my character are separate entities' is sidestepping answering the question you were actually asked


in DnD, you roll to see how well your character attacks the enemy, the dice represent your skill in taking an action but the action requires the orc to be there in the first place, you cannot say 'i desire to attack the orc' in an empty hall, roll a success, and an orc manifests out of the air for them to then hit because they rolled well, in DnD the act of looking for spellbooks is an entirely separate matter from if the spellbooks are actually in that location, because the world exists as more than raw grey potential, the rules of BW permits everyone and anyone who can look for the books the ability to make those books appear if they suceed on a dice roll,

Thinking about this - it's not THAT hard to actually use the 5e skills in say the exploration pillar - in a more active player influenced (narrative controlled) way.

Traditional:

Player: Are there orcs in these hills?

DM: you're not sure, roll a knowledge history check for me.

Player: Elq has a +5 (rolls) - 18.

DM: You're fairly certain there are no orcs in these hills

Alternative with more player narrative control:

Player: I think there are orcs in these hills!

DM: hmm, roll a knowledge history check for me.

Player: Elq has a +5 (rolls) - 18.

DM: Yep, there are definitely orc tribes in these hills, let's expand on that...

Now 5e is not REALLY geared for that, quite a few games have already thought of good mechanics, (DCs would have to be thought of etc.) but it would be an interesting experiment. Some players might like it. And, as evidenced by this thread, some would hate it with a passion.

 

[Campbell]

I think it might be useful for people to approach this stuff from a perspective of can I see how that would be useful / meaningful for someone who has different priorities than me? Even if it's not for me can I at least respect the craft, the discipline? Can I start from the perspective that people are doing what their doing for good reasons? That if they could get everything they are looking for by doing things in the same way I do them they probably would be.

 

[bloodtide]

For my part, I feel that every time I say something using a metaphor or a technical term or an unfamiliar piece of vocabulary you and other posters criticise me for it.

Yep, we are on the same boat together here

I'm prepared to make the effort to work out what you mean, but then would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

Me too. And if you can make up stuff, so can everyone.

So what's the actual difference? Both worlds are constructs of the imagination. It seems to me it's just the method of how and when things are determined.

I am mostly a DM with a plan. Anything the PCs encounter is set up and planned out before they get to it. I very much like to have things SET, so the players if they wish can 'scout out things' and plan ahead. At least in a general sense.

I do sometimes use 'pre made filler' when needed, but mostly only for minor or generic things.

I do also love random rolls. Is there a monster lair? What kind of monster? And so on? Though often this won't be done "live": it's again done more before the PCs get there. But I still do a lot "live" for things that are not set and have no reason to be.

Thinking about this - it's not THAT hard to actually use the 5e skills in say the exploration pillar - in a more active player influenced (narrative controlled) way.

Your example comes off as not making sense.

"Traditional way" -The player asks a question. The GM lets the Dice Roll give the answer.

"Alt way"- The player makes a demand. The GM lets the Dice give the answer.

In both cases, the DM has no say?

 

[Mort]

Your example comes off as not making sense.

"Traditional way" -The player asks a question. The GM lets the Dice Roll give the answer.

No,

in the traditional way the player asks the DM if his character knows of orcs in the area. DM has him roll a knowledge check.

Success (at a DC determined by the DM that the player likely doesn't know) gets a "correct" response from the DM (correct being whaterver the DM had planned as far as orcs in the area).

Failure gets an inconclusive or incorrect response from the DM.

The DM has ALL the say here. He determines if there actually are orcs and what information he reveals on the orcs on a good or bad roll.

"Alt way"- The player makes a demand. The GM lets the Dice give the answer.

In both cases, the DM has no say?

The players roll determines if there are orcs.

But the DM gets a lot of say as to how they would fit into his existing framework/narrative and how the play develops from there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, it's not to helpful to the conversation to give a vague limited example.

Well, I asked you what games you had in mind to try and get an idea of what you might be familiar with, but you didn’t share.

I’m not gonna write the whole rulebook in a post. So examples are what we’ve got.

Maybe not you, but many posters immediately say "all games should be like the Other Games" whenever anyone mentions any other game.

Sure, plenty of people do that. I actually like a pretty wide variety of games, so I try not to do that. Some games, however, are more specific in how they work than others.

But limited examples don't help.

If I gave the example of : Railroad games are great because sometimes you have to force players to have fun: Like in a recent game Mike was bored, so I Railroaded a Plot right over his character and he had fun.

Does my limited example help you at all to understand how I use Railroading in my game and why it is such a great thing?

It helps me understand how and why you use railroading, yes. It doesn’t make it sound great to me, but I don’t expect there's anything you can say that would.

 

[Lanefan]

I sort of feel I have a handle on how you play your game.

But to follow up;
First, do D&D rules grant the DM the authority to only propose The Quest and essentially decide that any player-authored quests simply do not meaningfully affect the world-state?

Second, if the answer to the first question is no, would it no longer be D&D if the rules explicitly recognized limits on GM authority?

To the first, no.

To the second, hmmmm. Uncertain. It would greatly depend on both what those limits were and what they were intended to accomplish.

This is what you wrote and what my post was in response to:

Do you believe more narrative games necessarily dissolve into every character selfishly following their own story to the detriment of the group?

Not all of them. However there's been some posts that very much seem to have this "my character uber alles" attitude as a foundation, and I've been trying to call those out when I see them. And - as those posts are coming from proponents of those games and sometimes with examples of how some of those games more or less gently encourage this by design - I can only assume that attitude to be, if not prevalent, at least common enough to be concerning.

If so, why don’t you believe the people who actually play those games and tell you it doesn’t happen?

I do believe those people, until and unless their other posts tell me different; at which point I stop believing.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The choice was there from the beginning. You had to have arrived at the doors from somewhere.

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

It's binary in the sense that either you have it or you don't, but if you do have it then there are subjective degrees of it. What you perceive to be low agency someone else might perceive as medium or high.

In essence, we all have our own preferences on what we want out of our agency and those can differ dramatically. What doesn't meet our personal criteria would be ranked lower and that which does meet it would be ranked higher.

Just because I have high agency in a traditional game doesn't mean that @pemerton would view his agency as being high in the same game, and vice versa. They are different games and value different aspects of agency.

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.

I don't know enough about his style of game to give the pros and cons. I'm also having a tough time coming up with strengths for traditional play which cannot also being accomplished in other ways for non-traditional play. It seems to me that strengths/weaknesses would be better done looking at individual systems to see how they go about meeting their design goals, than looking at the playstyles themselves.

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.

I think if they do return, which I wouldn't were I them, they will have chosen the railroad which makes it acceptable.

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.

I don't think it's a quality of the game at all, though. It's a quality of the person playing. If I have high agency in a traditional game and Pemerton has low agency in the same game, and vice versa for us in his style of game, then it can't be a quality of the game. Agency has to be a quality of the player or group, dependent on what he/they want out of agency.

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

Then there's not much point in bringing up agency in a discussion. Just accept that people who enjoy playing with styles other than your own have lots of agency in the games they play in, regardless of whether you enjoy that sort of game or not.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

And this brings up my questions about horror, mysteries, and twists.

What if the purpose (or one possible purpose) of the spellbooks (or some other item) is to provide a twist in the game? Here's this MacGuffin that other people are going to want to use, possibly for harm. Do the players keep a hold on it? Try to destroy it? Use it for themselves? They may never have thought to even look for the MacGuffin, but here it is. Now, I'm not a Tolkien fan, but think like Bilbo accidentally acquiring the One Ring. He didn't think to look for it; he found it by chance--and look at all the drama--worldly and interpersonal and just plain personal--that came about by this bit of GM fiat.

There was an example of Thurgon's grandpa being a demon. Does this mean anything in the greater world now? Or is it just a personal torment that has no bearing on anything unless the PCs bring it up again. Can the GM have this new fact affect Thurgon in any way?

The MacGuffin needs to address one of the character's beliefs. BW can be a bit of a harrowing game when it's really working. The system's pointed towards challenging the characters' beliefs — I always feel like the GM should be a little bit like Sam-I-Am. "You don't like green eggs and ham, eh? How about on a boat? How about with a goat? Maybe just a little taste?" So, it can become the plot focus, but it needs to be tied to the characters' beliefs, which are either (1) tied to the situation, (2) tied to other characters, or (3) broader philosophical points about how the world works. Or some combination or combinations of the three. So, to use Bilbo and the ring, I don't think this is radical, but I read The Hobbit as being about Bilbo's confrontation between who he thinks he is and who he actually is; the Ring is part of the vehicle for that exploration. He found it by chance, but it's intimately related to his ideas of self — "Are you the same hobbit with a magic ring? What if it's the magic ring?"

For your second question, to a large degree, it depends on the players to decide what Grandpa Demon means and how it effects play. (Since we're talking hypotheticals, we'll pull pemerton out of it and sub in a generic player.) Thurgon's player could rewrite a belief framed around newly discovered his demonic heritage and how Thurgon will handle it. For instance, I'm nothing like Evard, and I'll prove it by making recompense for his foul deeds could drive play in interesting directions. Or Aramina's player could rewrite her belief of I don't need Thurgon's pity to something more pointed, like Thurgon's protection is tainted; don't trust him! Alternately, Thurgon's beliefs could tackle this from a different angle, like I'll stop at nothing to make my mother confess to our demonic heritage. That said, if it's established in the fiction, yes, of course the GM could come back to this. If Evard's still around, then he could, for instance, be the power behind the throne in a seemingly unrelated plot. As long that plot was challenging a character's beliefs, even if the belief isn't specifically about Evard, then it's fair play to bring him back.

Edit: added parenthetical to second paragraph.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Comprehend Jargon
Level - 1
Range - 0 (but see write-up)
Area of effect - self (but see write-up)
Duration - concentration
Casting time - 1 action
Saving throw - special, see write-up
Components - see write-up

This spell allows the caster to decipher jargon in a language the caster can otherwise read or speak, and translate it into terms others can easily understand. If the jargon is particularly dense or obscure the caster must make a save with advantage, failure meaning the caster is confused for 3d8 minutes during which time movement is random and no actions may be taken other than in self defense. Casting this spell using a 3rd level slot or higher increases the range to Touch and the area of effect to One Willing Recipient. If the jargon is in written form this spell's Material component is, of course, the page, book, or screen on which it is written; this is not consumed in casting and may be reused later.

 

[Oofta]

Thinking about this - it's not THAT hard to actually use the 5e skills in say the exploration pillar - in a more active player influenced (narrative controlled) way.

Traditional:

Player: Are there orcs in these hills?

DM: you're not sure, roll a knowledge history check for me.

Player: Elq has a +5 (rolls) - 18.

DM: You're fairly certain there are no orcs in these hills

Alternative with more player narrative control:

Player: I think there are orcs in these hills!

DM: hmm, roll a knowledge history check for me.

Player: Elq has a +5 (rolls) - 18.

DM: Yep, there are definitely orc tribes in these hills, let's expand on that...

Now 5e is not REALLY geared for that, quite a few games have already thought of good mechanics, (DCs would have to be thought of etc.) but it would be an interesting experiment. Some players might like it. And, as evidenced by this thread, some would hate it with a passion.

See I would approach that differently - it's not that there are orcs in the hill but there are reports of ... and then go on whatever notes or ideas I had. Perhaps there are no orcs because there's a new version of troll, or maybe undead have been rising up at every night of the full moon killing everything including orcs, whatever I had in my notes. I don't make players guess the right thing to ask for, if they may have knowledge of the hills then a successful roll means they actually do have knowledge of what monsters are in the hills orcs or anything else. If I had nothing in my notes and I was uncertain, I'd roll to resolve that uncertainty or perhaps I'll throw in some orcs because I hadn't thought about it, it doesn't contradict existing lore and I can think of a way to use them. At the point I answer the question, the player has no idea how I came to the answer. They just know they have a decent idea of the hills.

There's nothing wrong with there being orcs or some other creature in the hills and I think at this scale it works just fine with D&D if that's what you want. But in general I'll already have a basic idea of what's going on, there's no reason to add quantum orcs that may or may not exist based on a player's roll. This is true especially because I tend to drop hints here and there, foreshadowing what may exist in them thar hills. If the player decides that, I'm limited in what I can foreshadow or link in to other existing plans.