4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[pawsplay]

Since the the difference between in-system and out of system force is mere propaganda (that is, some people feel that being forced using a system rationale as opposed to freeform judgment is "fairer")

Can you support this premise? I do not accept it.

 

[eyebeams]

You seem to be using it in a different manner than I'm familiar with, at least.

I've heard it used quite often in discussions of the WoD and the Realms when it comes to the GM using powerful NPCs within the system and setting. FR and WoD games make it a trivial matter for a GM to impose his or her will through an NPC without breaking any written rules in the slightest. When this is used as a kind of bullying, people have called it railroading, and while I think railroading is terribly imprecise, people have had bad experiences where the GM as Khelben or whoever force things.

 

[eyebeams]

Can you support this premise? I do not accept it.

See previous post. There is little difference between a magical wall made of GM whim making sure you you can't go to Myth Drannor and Elminister doing the same thing, except that there are game systems in place that detail how Elminster totally takes over your agenda.

 

[pawsplay]

If you throw someone in a box with situation and they'll die or something of they don't resolve it, it's an unambiguous use of force to set up a situation the GM desires.

But is stil not railroading, unless certain elements are present. All games have a design that forces certain choices to be made. Railroading is not simply that, nor is it simply complaining. Railroading is using GM power to prevent players from wriggling out of a specific conclusion. Railroading is not simply setting up an encounter and forcing players do deal with it. Railroading is when the ordinary state of action-reaction is dispensed with and all choices lead to the same results. Your example is bad, because not dealing with the situation leads to death, which is a different result from living.

It should be possible, however unlikely, to circumvent obstacles in an adventure. With railroading, you stack the deck, and it is irrelevant whether you do this in-game (irresistible force) or out of system (infinite resources arrayed against the player's undesired choices). Simply because a 1st level dwarf fighter cannot slay Orcus is not railroading; the choice is afforded him, but the dwarf probably lacks the ability. If Orcus shows up and insists the dwarf spends the night at a spooky inn or he'll kill him, and the story is the inn, not about Orcus, tht's railroading.

 

[pawsplay]

There is little difference between a magical wall made of GM whim making sure you you can't go to Myth Drannor and Elminister doing the same thing, except that there are game systems in place that detail how Elminster totally takes over your agenda.

Neither of those things is, of itself, railroading. Context is everything. Surely, no one is going to argue that it is improper for a powerful wizard to whisk people wherever he feels like, or for a magical wall to be built (provided the setting allows such things).

The question is, why are those elements present? Are they a part of the world? Are they the premise of the adventure? Or do they exist in order to dictate the PCs actions to them?

Certainly, both those things could be railroading. Both examples are clearly situational elements in the setting, so I don't even see what distinction you're trying to make.

 

[eyebeams]

But is stil not railroading, unless certain elements are present. All games have a design that forces certain choices to be made. Railroading is not simply that, nor is it simply complaining. Railroading is using GM power to prevent players from wriggling out of a specific conclusion. Railroading is not simply setting up an encounter and forcing players do deal with it. Railroading is when the ordinary state of action-reaction is dispensed with and all choices lead to the same results. Your example is bad, because not dealing with the situation leads to death, which is a different result from living.

It should be possible, however unlikely, to circumvent obstacles in an adventure. With railroading, you stack the deck, and it is irrelevant whether you do this in-game (irresistible force) or out of system (infinite resources arrayed against the player's undesired choices). Simply because a 1st level dwarf fighter cannot slay Orcus is not railroading; the choice is afforded him, but the dwarf probably lacks the ability. If Orcus shows up and insists the dwarf spends the night at a spooky inn or he'll kill him, and the story is the inn, not about Orcus, tht's railroading.

There's no difference, really. Orcus saying "I won't kill you if you go to the haunted house," in no way bars the dwarf from trying to kill Orcus instead and Orcus killing him, which is the same dead/not dead choice that existed before, and you said *wasn't* railroading -- except of course that people call it that all the time.

 

[pawsplay]

There's no difference, really. Orcus saying "I won't kill you if you go to the haunted house," in no way bars the dwarf from trying to kill Orcus instead and Orcus killing him, which is the same dead/not dead choice that existed before, and you said *wasn't* railroading -- except of course that people call it that all the time.

There is a difference: the rationale for Orcus being there. You are correct, there is no mechanical difference. Railroading is not an accusation of cheating the rules, after all.

 

[pemerton]

My preferred style is immersion. GNS is so meta, and that's not where I want to be when I game. Even as a GM, I want to be experiencing more than directing. I think ideally the player is slave to the PC... what's the possible harm in that, considering the PC is a creation of the player? You should be happy to inhabit a persona of your own creation, and if you've done your job, your fellow players will like your character, too.

My experience is that PCs who are deliberately crafted by a player in author stance are more likely to be interesting over the long term than those who emerge purely "organically" in actor stance.

Given this, I think that a bit of "meta" is an aid rather than a hindrance to immersion, given that immersion is itself facilitated by interesting PCs.

Of course your experience may differ, given that what players do as authors and actors is pretty varied.

This is really rephrasing my point as a feature, not a bug. There's nothing wrong with this, but you can't very well complain about "railroading" and support this, except to say that you like one version of railroading and don't like the others. This is valid for you, but it's not a broadly applicable critique.

D&D is chock full of elements that enforce a certain feel, from caster restrictions to more subtle elements like the ways some spells and powers plug into the assumed elements of the setting.

<snip>

Now if you're talking about railroading as something that should be possible even after all of this, but is still barred by the GM (or the play group in GMless games), then you're talking about something outside of the scope of the system. No version of D&D can keep the DM from imposing this sort of thing. It can formalize expectations about what will and won't be allowed, but these are fairly meaningless.

I agree that D&D brings with it a hoste of assumptions about feel. I also agree that these assumptions are prone to generate a certain play experience (or at least to make certain play experiences hard to achieve). I don't think that it's all that helpful to describe this as railroading.

Talking of railroading in the more typical sense (ie a GM depriving players of meaningful choice), I think that a game text can be more or less inclined to advocate or discourage this sort of play. D&D, since 2nd ed AD&D, has certainly had a habit of promoting it - that is, of encouraging the GM to intervene to ensure the story, rather than providing a system that will permit the players themselves to make the choices that will ensure the story.

This is not supported by any system where the dungeon is the primary source of conflict unless the dungeon is designed to address a narrative premise. This of course is a type of dungeon that almost never exists when people actually play D&D.

I think that some of the Penumbra modules are examples of "narativist" dungeons. WoTC's Bastion of Broken Souls tries to be, but I think it fails as written.

 

[pawsplay]

My experience is that PCs who are deliberately crafted by a player in author stance are more likely to be interesting over the long term than those who emerge purely "organically" in actor stance.

Given this, I think that a bit of "meta" is an aid rather than a hindrance to immersion, given that immersion is itself facilitated by interesting PCs.

Of course your experience may differ, given that what players do as authors and actors is pretty varied.

I have a thread going on about what I do think. Suffice it to say I embrace meta, but I think that's only part of the story.

EDIT: Thread here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=228449

 

[marune]

If you throw someone in a box with situation and they'll die or something of they don't resolve it, it's an unambiguous use of force to set up a situation the GM desires. The player's choices proceed from what s/he's given, so any option is basically what the GM allowed. Whether this is "critical" in some other sense is a sentimental judgment.

In both gamism and narrativism, player's choices are "critical" as in : not forced by the DM.

In the first case, the DM should not fudge the result of a battle to make the player win anyway (saving his plot) when they use bad tactics (adjustments for his own mistakes is okay).

In the second case, when a scene offers different ways to address the premise, the DM should use force to push them toward his preferred answer (except on a failed action resolution).

I would use railroading to denote such DM behavior.