Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ilbranteloth]

OK. But it's not the case that either result works for me. And when you say "I could just as easily" have used the second result, that's not actually true. Doing that would have been more-or-less breaking the rules of the game.

And that's one of the places that loses me in terms of BW/DW, that an ambiguous result is somehow breaking the rules of the game.

Or to put it a different way, it's an example of a game/rule that puts the game/rules ahead of the fiction. Despite the fact that the game is supposed to put the fiction first.

So would all of these be acceptable within BW/DW?

1) The party asks for an audience with the king, and are rebuffed - because, they are told, the king has been assassinated.

2) The party asks for an audience with the king, and are rebuffed. Pressing, they are told that the reasons for being rebuffed are not your concern. If the king does not wish to see you, then he will not see you.

3) The party asks for an audience with the king, and are rebuffed - because, they are told, that the king is busy with important matters out of state, and the date of his return is not until next week. The reality is, the king has been assassinated, and the doppelgängers responsible for it, are still making proper preparations to secretly take control.

If not, why? But more importantly, if not, isn't that the game limiting the stories that can be told with that system. That certain story lines are prohibited?

That's not the same thing as secret backstory. Plans to author something don't themselves establish any fiction. The fiction is established via framing, and narration of consequences.

I also think your description of the fiction is narrow, or at least not inclusive of other options that are more common in D&D. Such as the fiction is established by the actions and reactions of the characters. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the terms you're using. But to me the framing of the scene (does that include, "OK, you kick in the door, and the room is a square, roughly 30 feet per side, with some discarded furniture and moldy tapestries hanging on the other three walls). Is the boxed text in a published adventure "framing the fiction?" In D&D, the narration of consequences occurs after things like the declaration of actions, and the resolution of actions as well. In many cases this also includes quite a bit of discussion and exploration. These are not "framing" or "narration of consequences" so where to they fall in the fiction?

As to secret backstory, again I go back to Star Wars. Luke has a significant backstory. It is a secret from him, although parts of it are known to people (NPCs) that come into the story very early on. That backstory has a hugely significant impact on Luke's story from the very point that Vader says, "I am your father." As I pointed out, that changed the story from rebellion to redemption.

Would this story break the rules? Because I have no problem at all explaining how it could easily play out in D&D without bending or breaking any rules. It would run the risk of being a railroad, but it could be done in a way where the player with Luke as a character could remain control. The scenarios would be similar (caught by a tractor beam on the Death Star, so they'll have to escape, although the specific details could be anything), etc.

 

[Lanefan]

That seems me to be less a property of a particular gaming style, rather, that's just the natural outcome of any improvisational, episodic narrative. Having random characters and plot arcs drop in and out of TV shows is a regular occurrence, for example, due to cast changes, poor reception by the audience, etc.

Of course.

But a TV show also has the advantage of being able to foreshadow - that seemingly unimportant character who appeared for a few moments in episode 6 will in fact be the driving force behind the story arc of episodes 17 through 20. But from the viewpoint of watching episode 12 the audience has no way of knowing this yet, and no reason to care; for all they know the equally-unimportant character who wandered through episode 4 might be the key to it all.

A DM who plans ahead can also effectively plan and use foreshadowing. A DM whose story has no planning has to rely on the luck of foreshadowing after the fact - an odd idea, I know, but by it I mean this:

- story element X happens organically during tonight's session, somewhat out of nowhere
- DM and-or players look back through notes or memories and think "Cool! I foreshadowed that perfectly five sessions ago without intending to! Lucky me!"

Foreshadowing isn't supposed to work that way.

Lan-"if foreshadows are at the front of the ship, would shadows near the back of the ship be called aftshadows?"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I think a touch of advocacy (or proselytizing) factors into it. I mean, personally, the reason I've tried games like FATE and Fiasco and Burning Wheel, and I learned to love 4e is because of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s explanations of those play styles way back during the release of 4e.

I mean, let's face it, D&D is still the touchstone of RPGs, and DM-driven exploration of a DM-created backstory(or sandbox) is still the default way to play D&D. Your playstyle (and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] et al) hardly needs any advocacy! We all know how to play that way. It's the newer, alternate methods of RPGing that need exposure and advocacy, and simply more people to explain how they work and how trying some of those methods may make your game better. (Or not, of course.)

This isn't about advocacy. I don't think anyone here is against someone advocating their playstyle. It's interesting to see the other playstyles that come up. My issue is what [MENTION=81033]Imara[/MENTION] notes. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often portrays my playstyle in a negative light. See his comment upthread where he said DMs playing my playstyle don't have to take the players feelings and desires into consideration. That's patently false statement. All DMs need to take the players feelings and desires into consideration or they aren't DMs for very long. This is a group game where everyone needs to be having fun, not just the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not really getting the drawbacks thing.

Someone goes onto a puzzle hobbies site and posts "I really like doing crosswords!" And then some other poster says, "I prefer sudoku. What are the drawbacks of doing crosswords?"

It's a strange question. What's the answer meant to be? "Well, they invovle words, not numbers, so aren't so good if you prefer numbers to words." But presumably that's self-evident.

Some less self-evident drawbacks of crossword puzzles. They often involve vague clues that could fit many different answers. If you write down a word that seems to fit, often it won't and you'll have to erase it and any other words linked to it that you answered with the wrong connecting letter in mind. That often results in a very messy, destroyed or illegible piece of crossword puzzle.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course.

But a TV show also has the advantage of being able to foreshadow - that seemingly unimportant character who appeared for a few moments in episode 6 will in fact be the driving force behind the story arc of episodes 17 through 20. But from the viewpoint of watching episode 12 the audience has no way of knowing this yet, and no reason to care; for all they know the equally-unimportant character who wandered through episode 4 might be the key to it all.

A DM who plans ahead can also effectively plan and use foreshadowing. A DM whose story has no planning has to rely on the luck of foreshadowing after the fact - an odd idea, I know, but by it I mean this:

- story element X happens organically during tonight's session, somewhat out of nowhere
- DM and-or players look back through notes or memories and think "Cool! I foreshadowed that perfectly five sessions ago without intending to! Lucky me!"

Foreshadowing isn't supposed to work that way.

Sure, I agree that you can't truly foreshadow unless you're doing some authoring, you need to be able to put something in the beginning when you already have the end in mind.

But I think that's kind of the point...foreshadowing is intended to demonstrate authorial control. It demonstrates to the viewer that the narrative wasn't improvised, that the author knew all along what was going to happen. That would seem to be antithetical to the very play agenda [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] desires! You have to sacrifice true foreshadowing in a game where the goal is for the DM to be surprised by the ending as the players. (You could get a similar effect by simply making callbacks to earlier introduced characters or plotlines, but that's merely referential, not foreshadowing).

 

[Campbell]

What I still don't (and maybe never will) understand is why, when you present them, you usually present them in the light of being the wrong way to run a game...where in fact they're perfectly valid examples of how to run a quite reasonable and enjoyable game.

Lan-"is there a hidden backstory to your preferred playstyle?"-efan

I think this comes from a culture that expects a very specific relationship between the GM and other players, regardless of the game in question. There's this idea that there are Good Game Masters and Bad Game Masters - also that there are Good Players and Bad Players. Basically there's this idea that skills transfer between games and play groups. I do not meaningfully agree with this notion. I think there are innumerable ways to do this thing we do that provide different experiences that may or may not suit what motivates us to play games. These are different games. They can involve meaningfully different relationships between the players, Between the players and their relationship to the mechanisms. Between what is expected from a given participant and what they are permitted to do. Some skills transfer between games, but not all. That's part of the fun. Learning new skills, having different experiences, finding new ways to have fun we would not otherwise have if left to our own devices.

I mean this is like expecting because a player has developed skill in Euchre, Spades, or Bridge that they can just step in and be good poker players. It's also assuming that they do not have to develop a sense of the particular poker table they are playing at even if the rules of the game are not different.

When I say I do not care for particular techniques or expectations of play I am really saying something like I prefer poker to spades. That I prefer card games that are not about taking tricks. I am not saying spades is a bad game that no one should have fun playing it. I am saying I would rather not play spades.

It's not about being the wrong way to run a game. It's about being the wrong way to run a game for me to get what I want out of it. The idea that expressing strong preferences is something that should be shamed is problematic to me. I personally value diversity of play - playing different games with different people in different ways. I personally value people speaking up about the things that interest them. I personally value poker feeling like a different game than spades.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree. (Although new is relative, since it probably dates back a little over a decade. )

True.....newer would have probably been more accurate.

Absolutely. I just imagine it would be the role of the people who like and use such mechanics to explain their positive aspects, and the role of players who don't enjoy such mechanics to explain their negative aspects (or drawbacks, to use the term du jour).

I would think that anyone who goes into this level of analysis and depth of discussion would not be so easily thrown by being asked to come up with a drawback for just about anything, no matter how much they may advocate for it.

For example, I realize that when I lean toward GM driven gaming, I'm limiting player choice to some extent. When I lean toward player driven, I realize that I'm giving up some level of narrative control.

Now, I say these as a more general rule without a specific system or game mechanics in mind. But it seems that the mechanics of Burning World and similar games actually expressly forbid a more GM driven approach to the narrative.

D&D 5E doesn't have a lot of mechanics that foster a more player driven approach....but I think there is a lot more leeway within the system to allow for variance in approach.

And that's one of the places that loses me in terms of BW/DW, that an ambiguous result is somehow breaking the rules of the game.

Or to put it a different way, it's an example of a game/rule that puts the game/rules ahead of the fiction. Despite the fact that the game is supposed to put the fiction first.

So would all of these be acceptable within BW/DW?

1) The party asks for an audience with the king, and are rebuffed - because, they are told, the king has been assassinated.

2) The party asks for an audience with the king, and are rebuffed. Pressing, they are told that the reasons for being rebuffed are not your concern. If the king does not wish to see you, then he will not see you.

3) The party asks for an audience with the king, and are rebuffed - because, they are told, that the king is busy with important matters out of state, and the date of his return is not until next week. The reality is, the king has been assassinated, and the doppelgängers responsible for it, are still making proper preparations to secretly take control.

If not, why? But more importantly, if not, isn't that the game limiting the stories that can be told with that system. That certain story lines are prohibited?

I agree here....it does seem to me that Burning World and similar games seem to limit how stories can be crafted. I actually like to allow for player authorship and the players having a lot of choice in how the game goes....but I would feel very constrained if I had to play the game that way at all times. Because I also like GM driven play....where there is a main story of some sort that is constantly influencing events and challenging the PCs.

And I don't really see the players being unaware of elements as being a negative.

I also think your description of the fiction is narrow, or at least not inclusive of other options that are more common in D&D. Such as the fiction is established by the actions and reactions of the characters. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the terms you're using. But to me the framing of the scene (does that include, "OK, you kick in the door, and the room is a square, roughly 30 feet per side, with some discarded furniture and moldy tapestries hanging on the other three walls). Is the boxed text in a published adventure "framing the fiction?" In D&D, the narration of consequences occurs after things like the declaration of actions, and the resolution of actions as well. In many cases this also includes quite a bit of discussion and exploration. These are not "framing" or "narration of consequences" so where to they fall in the fiction?

As to secret backstory, again I go back to Star Wars. Luke has a significant backstory. It is a secret from him, although parts of it are known to people (NPCs) that come into the story very early on. That backstory has a hugely significant impact on Luke's story from the very point that Vader says, "I am your father." As I pointed out, that changed the story from rebellion to redemption.

Would this story break the rules? Because I have no problem at all explaining how it could easily play out in D&D without bending or breaking any rules. It would run the risk of being a railroad, but it could be done in a way where the player with Luke as a character could remain control. The scenarios would be similar (caught by a tractor beam on the Death Star, so they'll have to escape, although the specific details could be anything), etc.

I think the problem with using Star Wars as an analogy....or any fiction, really....is that when compared to a game, there is a key element missing from the metaphor: that of the player. So while a history may be secret from Luke, it may or may not be secret from the player who is playing Luke. Maybe that player had a concept for some kind of "child of destiny" character. Maybe he left the specifics of it up to the DM to fit into the game/story he had in mind, or maybe he came up with a detailed history for the PC himself.

But having said that, I get your point....something revealed to the character in the midst of the story became the driving force for the character thereafter. The same could happen in an RPG....if it's not something expressly forbidden by the game, at least.

Maybe it's just me....but I think the players and the DM can both be inspired by the ideas of the other. I see no reason to create walls that prevent such inspiration from occurring.

Sure, I agree that you can't truly foreshadow unless you're doing some authoring, you need to be able to put something in the beginning when you already have the end in mind.

But I think that's kind of the point...foreshadowing is intended to demonstrate authorial control. It demonstrates to the viewer that the narrative wasn't improvised, that the author knew all along what was going to happen. That would seem to be antithetical to the very play agenda @pemerton desires! You have to sacrifice true foreshadowing in a game where the goal is for the DM to be surprised by the ending as the players. (You could get a similar effect by simply making callbacks to earlier introduced characters or plotlines, but that's merely referential, not foreshadowing).

Well, it depends on what you're foreshadowing. I use some foreshadowing in my game a bit....but it's not based on the ending of the game. A player could be facing some kind of decision....and you can foreshadow that without knowing which way he will decide.

 

[TwoSix]

This isn't about advocacy. I don't think anyone here is against someone advocating their playstyle. It's interesting to see the other playstyles that come up. My issue is what [MENTION=81033]Imara[/MENTION] notes. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often portrays my playstyle in a negative light. See his comment upthread where he said DMs playing my playstyle don't have to take the players feelings and desires into consideration. That's patently false statement. All DMs need to take the players feelings and desires into consideration or they aren't DMs for very long. This is a group game where everyone needs to be having fun, not just the DM.

But he's right! You don't HAVE to take into account the character's needs and desires if you're running a game focused on exploration of a DM's plot and setting. (I assume you mean characters, as you have to take into account all players' desires or the game falls apart.) I mean, it certainly helps, and if you do, I think that will almost certainly help your game. But you can just as easily play that style of game with characters with no goals other than "get stronger and find treasure" and still have an entertaining, solid game. I know, I've done it!

Again, I've never seen a [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] post where he has said your play style is wrong or bad (that was the other thread, I think, and better not to rehash here). He's been pretty upfront that he doesn't like it personally, but why should that matter? I don't see you advocating for people to try out narrative games, and I'm not offended in the slightest. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] isn't required to act like an arbiter on these topics simply because he makes really long posts that sometimes get people riled up.

Two-"this ad space available for rent, contact us at 1-800-26GAMER" -Six

 

[Campbell]

Sure, I agree that you can't truly foreshadow unless you're doing some authoring, you need to be able to put something in the beginning when you already have the end in mind.

But I think that's kind of the point...foreshadowing is intended to demonstrate authorial control. It demonstrates to the viewer that the narrative wasn't improvised, that the author knew all along what was going to happen. That would seem to be antithetical to the very play agenda [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] desires! You have to sacrifice true foreshadowing in a game where the goal is for the DM to be surprised by the ending as the players. (You could get a similar effect by simply making callbacks to earlier introduced characters or plotlines, but that's merely referential, not foreshadowing).

It also syncs with how quite a few shows are written. They do not really foreshadow. They reincorporate! They take threads left dangling from previous episodes and expand upon them. Done artfully this often feels more organic and compelling than sweeping arcs. You can often see the breakpoints in shows where writers feel compelled to force a particular character or narrative thread down the audience's throats.

 

[Maxperson]

But he's right! You don't HAVE to take into account the character's needs and desires if you're running a game focused on exploration of a DM's plot and setting. (I assume you mean characters, as you have to take into account all players' desires or the game falls apart.) I mean, it certainly helps, and if you do, I think that will almost certainly help your game. But you can just as easily play that style of game with characters with no goals other than "get stronger and find treasure" and still have an entertaining, solid game. I know, I've done it!

Don't ask me. @pemerton is the one who specified players, and players is what I took exception to. When he saw that, he didn't correct himself, so presumably he meant players.

Again, I've never seen a @pemerton post where he has said your play style is wrong or bad (that was the other thread, I think, and better not to rehash here). He's been pretty upfront that he doesn't like it personally, but why should that matter? I don't see you advocating for people to try out narrative games, and I'm not offended in the slightest. @pemerton isn't required to act like an arbiter on these topics simply because he makes really long posts that sometimes get people riled up.

Again, this has nothing to do with him advocating anything.