OK, so here's something that could be discussed. Namely, how important are challenges in one's RPGing. How are challenges set up? Who gets to decide whether or not a particular situation is to count as a challenge. And who gets to decide what the stakes are of succeeding at, or failing at, a challenge.
D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
But punching a dude in the facer is an obstacle. There's question of whether or not the punch is successfully thrown (D&D doesn't take this for granted, normally), and then the question of what the punched dude does in response, as well as other obstacles that might follow from starting a fight in a tavern.
Likewise, "I go up to the band and ask them to play the Marseillaise" might involve an obstacle, namely, the reluctance of the band or the band manager or whomever to have the band engage in such a political statement.
The more general point is this: the players getting their way in terms of what sorts of obstacles their PCs confront is not the same as the players getting their way in terms of overcoming those obstacles. This is the difference between the framing of scenes/situations, and the resolution of declared actions.
Right.
In my first long Rolemaster campaign, by the mid-teen levels the PCs were important people in the politics of the Great Kingdom - one a magistrate in Rel Astra, another a seer in the palace of the Overking, etc. Because it's a FRPG of a fairly conventional sort, naturally there were important things to be done that relied upon a "strike force" of high level mages and warrior/mages rather than on more mundane diplomacy or warfare. But the social status of the PCs was not in doubt.
In my second long RM campaign, the PCs ended up as leaders in their various spheres of endeavour - one a leader of a band of warrior monks, one married into an important noble family, etc.
In my main 4e campaign, when at low paragon the PCs arrived in a town the baron sent word inviting them to dinner, and they had an audience with the patriarch.
And so on. This is part and parcel of playing characters who are part of their world, rather than disembodied aliens. I don't think classic D&D's stronghold rules are a particularly elegant way of trying to capture this phenomenon, but when they're abstracted away from their wargame-y details they are clearly on the right track, in my view.
What's the issue with framing an appropriate check, here?
I think your examples are stated without regard to questions of fictional positioning.
But anyway, I don't agree that "this is not how D&D works". Here's Gygax, in his DMG (p 20), on the logical of the thief's ability to read languages:
This ability assumes that the longuage is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable.
In other words, if the fictional position of the thief PC is such that the language was one they might have encountered in their past (ie it is not ancient and strange such that it's not possible they might have seen it), then the player is entitled to the roll.
Gygax doesn't give advice on how to narrate failure, but "You've never seen this language before" might be reasonable. And of course AD&D already assumes that PCs are doing useful stuff in their downtime (DMG p 85; PHB p 106) and so the fact that the PC hasn't seen it before on this occasion doesn't preclude them trying that language again in the future.
The original OA had more abilities of this sort, including the contact ability, for the Yakuza class.
The real question, in many of these conjectured action declarations, is fictional positioning. If a PC is a first level character whose backstory suggests no link to the king, then what fictional position is going to support the action declaration "The king owes me a favour"? On the other hand, if the character is - at any level - in a tavern, then their fictional position clearly supports the presence of a nearby dude to punch. (Unless there is some other established feature of the fiction that suggests or dictates that the tavern is (near-)empty.)
Another issue, in some of these cases - and this is something I've discussed with @hawkeyefan over the last few pages - is consequences for failure. What is the consequence for failure on the Diplomacy check to establish that the king will (for whatever reason that is appropriate given the PC's fictional position) grant a PC an audience? I think a lot of the more hostile discussion about resolving these sorts of action declarations tends to assume that there are no consequences for failure. But there is no reason why that should be so, in D&D any more than any other RPG.
AnotherGuy
Hero
My experience has been that loosening the reigns so to speak requires some care for a heavy traditional table but it can work and is rewarding.
Some players are quick off the mark and they are absolutely amazing in helping you and the rest of the table with these new kind of styles - I find this to be true with players of mine which are DMs themselves.
Other players are more cautious and take longer to find their footing which is ok as the rest of the table is there to help.
And then (as in my case) you have that 1 player (a powergamer) who looks to test the limits of these new roleplaying styles. It requires some care by the DM, especially in a game like D&D where the system doesn't have the necessary checks and balances to facilitate the other kind of styles well.
i.e. I dropped DMGs' 5e Plot Points which is a resource awarded to players which provides them direct narrative control because of that 1 player which made everyone at the table groan when he used the Plot Point.
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
Skimming these exchanges at warp speed and found this to comment on.
As I’ve said in the past, I think there are some false distinctions and false dynamics set up regarding what meaningfully constitutes railroaded play. Regarding micro vs macro, this is one such case:
* Railroaded play is a macro phenomenon where pressure upon play aggregates, culminates, and is exerted at the throughline or trajectory level.
You could look at it as “the strategic layer.”
* Instances of Force are micro phenomenon which, in concert at scale or even singularly if an instance of Force is of high enough magnitude, generate the macro phenomenon of Railroaded play.
You could look at it as “the tactical layer.”
One other thing I’ve commented on in the past is related to the above.
It is not remotely sufficient to “defang Railroaded play” merely by offering either/both (a) alternative sequencing of plot points/nodes or (b) breaking up the GM/module metaplot via brief diversions of auxiliary content such as setting(GM)-derived side quests.
Metaplot node 1 > side quest to rescue x > Metaplot node 3 > side quest to slay y > Metaplot node 2 > side quest to recover n > Metaplot node 4
* The above is irrelevant to the macro pressure which Railroaded play exerts. The consequential throughline and trajectory of play is still intact even if the players decide to fill in the middle of the puzzle before the left corner vs the right corner…or if the host whips out a deck of cards and deals a hand of Hearts for a brief diversion from the puzzle.
Further, the signature of Force in the puzzle’s picture will surely be detected in the course of putting that puzzle together when the table goes back to it from the brief diversion of a round of Hearts. What is salient, what is permissible, how things are framed, how action resolution is mediated/curated, and what consequences are rendered will be expressed in particular key moments (or more) in such a way that seminal content/results which invest play with defining forward momentum will be controlled via subtle (sometimes not so subtle) deployments of Force.
Last edited:
All this!
KYRON45
Hero
Sometimes railroading is about motivation because the players aren't paying attention to how you are trying to control them.
Manbearcat
Legend
To comment on @soviet ’s point and to extend your own, it doesn’t take an endless stream of “shutdowns” to enculturate a player or a cohort of them into demurring, turtling, or otherwise reducing their “proactive profile” significantly or totally.
It just takes enough and particularly enough about truly impactful things such as what is salient to play and who controls the cascading situation-state and forward momentum of play.
I mean, when trivialities are shut down at any frequency? That only further amplifies the conditioning process of players opting out of proactivity.
I appreciate this example tremendously.
Similar Threads
