Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ilbranteloth]

I think I've seen this discussion before...

The bottom line for me is that there are a lot of valid ways to play and DM, and not all groups like all of the ways. One of my recent groups could not choose a direction without a hook to follow. Often a very big hook. In general, they preferred a railroad. So I obliged, while providing many, many options to consider alternatives.

The theory is fun to discuss and consider, but in the end, as a DM you need to learn to meet your group with what works for them, or you find a different group.

 

[Manbearcat]

Thanks for clarifying the DW mechanics a bit for me. I get it a bit better now. Does not sound at all like something I'd be interested in except as a one off or change of pace type of game.

You're welcome.

From what I can see, GM judgment absolutely comes into both games, just in different ways. In D&D, the DM sets the DC of a proposed task based on prevailing conditions within the fiction, which can largely determine failure or success on the PC's part. Where as DW seems to have set target numbers for any and all actions, and then the GM uses his judgment to determine the specific outcome.

I can certainly see how the D&D style lends itself more to the Storyteller GM approach as you have described it. I agree with that. However, I don't think that it must be so by any stretch. And I would also say that DW seems just as subject to GM manipulation, it would just come about in a different way.

Can you try explain how you think this might come about in a Dungeon World game (despite the fact that it is a transparent violation of the game's play Agenda, a few GMing principles, and would actually be more difficult to do than just letting things unfold naturally)? I think I may have an idea of what you have in mind.

My own thoughts on the above?

Here is the thing on this. You can break the sum agency of a game down into:

GM Agency
Player Agency
System Agency

I've brought this up before a few times in this thread, but I truly cannot stress how integral this is to our discussion (generally across the scope of this thread and specifically for the you and I right now).

So you're correct that all three of B/X, Dungeon World, and 5e require GM judgement. However, there are significant differences in:

a) Scope and type of System Agency (this includes top-down play Agenda, resolution mechanics, and general procedures)
b) Latitude or constraints on GM Agency due to System Agency and GMing principles (or lackthereof)
c) Expectant Player Agency as a result of genre, social contract and that provided by System Agency (including PC build mechanics).

As a result of this, GMing in each of these systems has different kind and type of cognitive workload in each moment of play and mental overhead sum total in the course of their duties.

More on this directly below:

Fair enough. Do you think that I could describe the action you've provided through the lens of 5E mechanics and come up with the same result? I would expect so. In your description of hte player declaration/action resolution dynamic, I don't see any reason that 5E must go about things differently.

Do I think running 5e without deploying any Illuiosionism at all could yield precisely the sequence of the Dungeon World excerpt upthread? Yes, I do, but it would have a considerably more difficult time doing it reliably because (i) the fundamental system maths disparity, (ii) the very different resolution mechanics/resource models/play procedures, and (iii) the deep disparity of System Agency and GMing Agency between the two systems.

So with that said, let us go back to a - c above and then consider the following components of 5e's GMing ethos:

* ...as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.

* <the DM> creates and runs adventures that drive the story.

* Inventing, writing, storytelling, improvising, acting, refereeing...Focus on the aspects you enjoy and downplay the rest.

* ...the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

There is a lot more than that including the profound role that the GM plays in determining outcomes merely in the course of mediation procedures. On the continuum of GM Agency, 5e is on the extreme of one side. As GM Agency becomes more prolific, System Agency becomes less so. The game outright gives the GM a mandate to ignore/change/downplay/subordinate the rules. Also consider the expectation that the GMs created/run adventures drives the story. That has a lot to say about (c) vs (b) when compared to Dungeon World. Also consider the fact that the games encounter building tools are absolutely broken (and I said they would turn out that way during the playtest because of fundamental design decisions). When the apex priority of play is to "create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama", all of this stuff combined puts a lot of pressure on the GM (while enabling them considerably) to deploy Force/Illusionism techniques (which you see advocated for in some of the early WotC modules) such that the yield of play is indeed that "tension and memorable drama" with the gross becoming "epic stories."

So with all of this in mind, I'm left wondering why GM Force/Illusionism is something to be protested in 5e? The text certainly doesn't decry it as taboo. In fact, it at least tacitly embraces it due to all of the above (and I'd say tacitly is a massive understatement).

Again, all of that being said, I still stand by my position that you can absolutely run 5e without any Force or Illusionism. When I run it, I use my friend's hexcrawl/setting/maps, pick up where he left off the week before, deploy the resolution mechanics in orthodox process sim fashion (with the 10 Ability Score laymen as the model) and basically just eyeball the Encounter Budget with a keen eye toward numerical superiority, spellcasting, and team action economy (my profound experience with these games is more robust than their, predictably, wobbly encounter design). I use Success with Complications (DMG 242) except use failure by 3 or less rather than 2.

Still, while my experience and my house-ruled use of Success with Complications certainly helps along yielding "tension and memorable drama" in most moments of play, it doesn't remotely produce it as organically (and with less cognitive workload and attendant stress) and inexorably as Dungeon World (and I certainly don't get to "play to find out" in the way that I do with DW). It seems to me that 5e's answer to that is GM Force/Illusionism to bridge those gaps.

I used the term side trek just for ease of reference, and because it seems to be somewhat tangential to the main story....meaning that if the PC had succeeded and not forced a hard move on your part, he would not have fallen into the river and been swept away.

I also kind of view it as a side trek (in a loose sense) because of practical concerns of play; for instance, what are the other players doing while this is all happening?

I'm going to sblock the entirety of the "Sled into the Glacial Crevasse" scene for your reference. This may give you further insight into things and may help our conversation along so I'll put the work in:

[sblock]

Saerie

Alright. We're right up against our ration allotment, so we can't afford something to happen there. So no goblins on Quartermaster. I'll have Otthor take care of managing our provisions and overseeing setting up and breaking down camp, etc. With his 8 on his QM check, we'll consume the right amount of rations. I'll take Trailblazer. My 10+ will get us there quicker and cut down on some rations used. That leaves Scout. The goblins know this territory best. They know the signs of dangerous geographical hazards, the wind fields in case storms blow in suddenly, and they should know where dangerous avian predators lair. They can take the Scout role. Here we go for them:

Scout (Goblins)
2, 3 + 0 = 5

Mark 1 xp

During camp along the way, I want to speak with the dog and find out what the old boy knows about what happened in this settlement.

I'll also talk to Otthor about, upon our return, picking up the corpse of the poor young man that was changed. The old Remorhaz tunnel where I mercilessly slew him will be easy to find. Hopefully we can locate the two refugee families and they can give him a fitting burial in their cemetery. Surely they know the family. They might even be his kin.

GM:

1) Despite his deafness, you're able to communicate with the dog somewhat. This is what he is able to relay:

Some time ago, people started going crazy and killing each other. One man gouged another man's eyes out, for no reason, in the middle of broad daylight and bashed his head in with a rock. The dog actually discovered him. He was found just sitting there, with the body, babbling incoherently. When he developed strange symptoms, the townsfolk executed him and burned the body. People became terrified that there was a sickness and folks weren't leaving their houses much. But more of the same followed not long after. The murdered were buried in the cemetery. The "sick" were executed and burned.

Things got really, really bad shortly thereafter when the goats started all going mad, stampeding and killing people and each other. More people died but several of the goats were put down. All bodies were burned. The men who were outside fighting the goats began to lose their minds and change. It seemed like people did better if they stayed inside so the whole town banded together, fought off the afflicted, and barricaded themselves in the common building, thinking that they could wait it out and that there would be safety in numbers. When tempers erupted later that night, two families fled the settlement together, sure the place was cursed. They tried to convince everyone else to leave with them. No one else would go. The dog's master stayed so he stayed with him.

By the next morning, everyone had killed each other or began changing and then cocooning. The dog hid for days and then tried to escape when everything was still. That is when you guys showed up and everything happened.

2) You cut off a significant amount of travel via a handy shortcut you discover (2 rations off of your total used, so you spend 8 instead of 10). You locate some elevation on the icy tundra and use the prolonged downslope to lessen the wolves burden and sustain momentum on the ice. For a good 4 hours, the wolves expend no real energy and they're able to take turns resting on the front of the sleds.

The land starts to rise and fall and is fraught with boulders and sharp rocks on the final approach. The elevating earth ascends angrily toward the White Dragon's domain and the entrance to the Coldlands beyond. In the distance, you can see the great open cavern, cut naturally into the bottom of the mountainside's face. Earthmaw.

The small goblin stands up and points, beginning to celebrate. The moment that he does so, a terrible sound begins beneath you. To date, the goblins have guided you away from the lairs of nesting Wyverns, Perytons, and navigated around the dangerous terrain of false-floors. However, when the sound of cracking ice begins and a jagged, zig-zagging line accelerates in front of the sleds (the cowardly, but useful, goblin was able to tie/rig together both sleds, creating something of a master sled with a larger platform (1) that could be pulled by all 8 wolves and (2) that he could drive as neither of the other goblins are proficient enough), terror turns his celebrations into a shriek. Almost immediately thereafter, the false layer of thin ice gives way and the crevasse reveals itself with a terrible noise. The cracking, gravelly yawn of the glacier threatens to swallow you all as the back end of the sled goes in first.

The goblin driver leaps for safety above and barely finds it.

One of the two armored goblin brothers is almost immediately claimed by the deadly darkness below. His brother dives for him and grabs hold of his arm...both of them hanging dangerously by a hand meagerly grasping the sled.

Rawr is easily able to use his claws to hang onto the sled but the dog is going to go over if he isn't saved. And you two are going to need to defy some danger as well and figure this thing out.

The wolves are up top, howling and growling...trying desperately to pull the precarious sled out. But its far, far too much weight for them and, despite their efforts, they are slowly sliding backward toward the indifferent chasm...

Otthor

The first thing I'm going to do is position my body so that when the dog falls, he falls into me. I'll accept the blow and try to hang on so he doesn't fall.

Defy Danger (Con)
4, 2 + 1 = 7

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM

The dog's mouth loses its grip on the rope tying the two sleds together. He falls hard into your body and lets out a terrified howl that resounds in the darkness below. You're able to intercept him and get him so that his paws and mouth are able to hang onto the many ropes that bind the sleds.

However, in doing so, your own grip is compromised and you loose it. You fall to the end of the sled with the two goblins, barely hanging on to the last bit of rope and wood. There are no handholds to climb here. If you're going to get out of it, you'll need to find another way.

Saerie

As Otthor rescues the dog, I'm going to shout to Rawr. "Get up top, Rawr! Now!" I'm thinking that if he can get his weight off of the sleds and the two of us can get top-side, we can probably anchor things and keep the wolves from going over the precipice. He must weigh 350 to 400 lbs, if not more, so just getting that much weight off of things should help immensely. My weight, plus his, plus the two of us pulling the sled out might do the trick!

Is his Hobbled tag still a problem enough that he can't climb?

GM

He is pretty close to healed. Besides, the situation is so dire that adrenaline alone would allow him to make the climb if nothing else. He'll be able to make it no problem. But you need to go ahead and Defy Danger.

Saerie

Alright, given that the dog is stably holding onto the ropes of the sled, I'm going to use his furry body as hand-holds and to pull myself up top and over the edge.

So + 1 to Defy Danger but I can't get a 10 +.

Defy Danger (Str)
2, 4 + 0 (+ 1 dog) = 7

Whew. Good thing I went with the dog's Intervene!

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM

As you're cresting the top, your climbing over the dog loosens the grip of his muzzle on the rope. Further, in your efforts, the ties to your cornpurse that hold it tautly in place have been severed. You see them both begin to drop to the chasm below.

You can grab only one.

Sarie

I reach down and grab the dog by the scruff of his neck, pull him back to the rope that he had his muzzled wrapped around. When he is secure, I crest the top, listening closely for the sound of the coin purse hitting the bottom so that I might be able to discern how far down the drop is.

GM

Within about 3-4 seconds, you hear the sound of a sploosh as the coin purse meets a watery grave in a subterranean (freezing no doubt...but flowing) body of water.

Saerie

When I get to the top, I'm grabbing the harness and putting it firmly in Rawr's muzzle so that he can keep it from fully going over and maybe help pull the huge weight of the two wooden sleds and my companions. "Everything you have Rawr! PULL!"

I'm looking for a thick spot in the ice that I can drive a piton into it to anchor a rope in.

Discern Realities (Wis)
4, 5 + 2 = 11

3 questions and + 1 forward. The only one I'm interested in is:

What here is useful to me?

GM

The weight of you and Rawr off the sled helps immensely. The wolves' backward momentum is fully stopped once Rawr sets his might to the task of pulling the sleds up. The dog, Otthor, and the two goblins hang there precariously when the sleds begin to slowly...ever so slowly...inch forward.

You look around, the glaciers ice is thick almost everywhere you look. A piton driven down into it will hold.

Saerie

I grab the mountaineers gear that I found in the Remorhaz tunnel (so I'm spending that 1 Adventuring Gear). I drive a piton into the ice with a hammer and quickly knot a rope around it. When finished, I'm throwing it down to them.

Defy Danger (Int)
4, 1 + 1 (+ 1 DR) = 7

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM

Precious time. That is your complication.

You get it done as quickly as you can, but your hands are frozen and aching and you fumble for a moment getting the pitons out of your pack. The first knot doesn't hold perfectly and you have to redo it before you loop it over the head of the piton. You sprint to the edge and throw the rope over. What you find when you get to the edge and toss it over?Let's find out.

Both yourself and the goblins are in grave danger and at risk of dropping into the frozen, watery depths. What are you going to do about it Otthor?

Otthor

When I see Rawr and Saerie make it to the top and I feel the downward slide of the sleds end, I know deliverance is on its way. As we begin to slowly rise I can hear the grunts and gasps for breath. A look next to me reveals the goblin holding the sled by one hand and his brother in the other is struggling mightily. His mental and physical fortitude to hang on are failing. I let go with one hand knowing that it will likely cost me. Having a much longer reach than the goblin, I can grab his brother's furs. With my physical strength waning, I rely on my spirit and tenacity, hoping to inspire not only the goblin but myself. "Hang on! MMMMRPH! You're going to make it!"

Defy Danger (Cha)
4, 3 + 1 = 8

Success with a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

GM

The load off the goblin brother immediately invigorates him as his other hand firmly grasps the sled. Your heroic efforts and seeing his brother have to firm hand-holds on the sled instills further strength in him to survive.

The sled very, very slowly rises as the weight is still immense. Your fingers are growing so very weary. There is little chance that you can just hold on like this for the time it will take for the sled to rise to the top.

Otthor

With my extra weight off the sled, I know it will rise more quickly. If I fall, so be it.

Defy Danger (Str)
1, 1 - 1 = 1

Mark 1 xp

My strength is gone. Before my hands let go of their own volition, I shout to Saerie in elven. "Fear not for me. Carry on. I will find you. May gentle breezes guide you and sweet waters comfort you, my friend."

I let go.

GM

As you descend into the darkness, Saerie appears in the crack of light above with a dangling rope for the goblins. The dog crests the top and the whole of the sleds begin to ascend rapidly.

You plunge into icy water and are carried in a hard current over unforgiving rocks.

You take b[2d8] from the freezing cold and the rocks, no armor applies.

Otthor

8, 3. I take 8 damage.

GM

Saerie, all three goblins, all eight wolves, the sheepdog, and your steadfast bear Rawr are all accounted for. Everyone takes a moment, gasping for breath from the exertion and collecting themselves from the intensity of what just took place.

Earthmaw is within reach. Just a jaunt over a small stretch of glacial rises. The darkness that swallowed your friend lies below you and his words echo in your mind.

What are you doing?

Saerie

We share a brief moment similar to the shock that befell that Fellowship after Gandalf's fall in Moria. I help everyone up and give them time to catch their breath and let the adrenaline subside. I briefly glance at the ominous blizzard on our flank and then stare out at the fading rays of sunlight across the windswept tundra. Trusting my friend despite my pang of guilt, I simply say "...on to Earthmaw."

[/sblock]

In that way, I think it's different than the Fronts system from DW that you've described, but not all that different as it may first seem, I think. DW has a map representing a physical location, with a couple of detailed Fronts and then a bunch of blanks. My campaign could be similarly described....except that the "map" wouldn't be a physical location so much as story options.

Agreed. Generating a full hexcrawl/setting map with a metaplot vs "make a map with blanks" + "play to find out" + "generate a few Fronts that challenges the player's goals" is definitely not a different species. The devil is in the details of prep, system, and play (both procedures and outcome).

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], what do you mean when you say 'sandbox'?

In referring to a "classic sandbox" with a "somewhat static, reactive character" I'm following [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s post 65; and [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s post 41:

There are multiple ways to play to find out, including one way that is far older than the hobby. Examples include:

• Free Kriegsspiel. Kriegsspiel was a very detailed Prussian wargame developed in the 1800s in order to train junior officers. Playtesting revealed that Kriegsspiel war games took entirely too much time to resolve and removed much of the immediacy of decision making required on the battlefield. In order to get around it, a variant named Free Kriegsspiel was introduced. In Free Kriegsspeil, rather than an elaborate rule book to resolve military matters an experienced senior officer would take on the role of Game Master and rely upon their knowledge to resolve maneuvers. Play depended on detailed scenarios and the historical warfare knowledge of the Game Master. Free Kriegsspeil formed the foundations of the war gaming tradition that Dungeons and Dragons grew out of. Rather than taking on the role of military commanders, players would play individual adventurers. The fundamentals of this playstyle are relatively simple: The GM or referee utilizes scenarios that players are free to engage with in any way, and the GM makes judgement calls based on his own knowledge of the fiction, based on what would be most likely. In cases where he is uncertain he utilizes random rolls to disclaim decision making. We simply play the fiction out. The weakness of this method of play is that it leans heavily on scenario design and the expertise of the Game Master. Think of a dungeon is a front on a war against civilization. Games that embrace this method include Stars Without Number, OD&D, Moldvay D&D, Traveller, and RuneQuest. Playing at the World does a very good job of explaining how this play style came about, and how it generally functioned.

Early rpgs taught us that we got to make tactical decisions about when to use spells, when to run and hide, when to sneak and when to fall into a spiked pi.... I mean check for traps. But very soon we got games like Traveller, where the players could easily decide against whatever a 'patron' said and be in a different planetary system within minutes.

The sandbox - describing everything, everywhere, either through prep or tables - was one way of coping with player expectations of broader, more fundamental decisions about their characters' lives.

The "scenarios" in this style are essentially "static" situations that the PCs engage via their PCs. The examples I have in mind, based on my own experience with material being published c1977-c1982, are for B/X, OD&D and early AD&D, RQ and Traveller.

The Village of Hommlet is an example that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and I discussed upthread - we were in agreement that the situation is "static" until the PCs inject themselves into it, which I regarded as a virtue but Lanefan as a weakness.

The classic dungeon is another example - be that a semi-serious dungeon, like the example of The Haunted Keep in Moldvay Basic, or a funhouse dungeon like White Plume Mountain, or some intermediate example like Moldvay's Castle Amber.

In the case of Traveller, I'm thinking of White Dwarf scenarios like The Sable Rose Affair or Amber to Red; or GDW modules like Mission on Mithril.

These scenarios don't have a trajectory of their own. They are situations conceived of by the referee for the players to engage via their PCs - poking here, asking questions there, gradually building up a picture of the situation so that (ultimately) they can "beat" it.

Because the situation is static but for the response to the PCs, the actual sequence of events in play is driven by player choices - they choose which rooms the PCs enter and which they ignore; they choose whether the PCs try to sneak past the guards or assault them; when these sorts of scenarios are incorporated into a larger "world", the players choose which "hits" to make and which to leave.

In this sort of play, a lot of NPC responses are determined randomly (reaction rolls; evasion rolls; etc - with the players being able to influence this by standard strategies like offering bribes) or by generic scripts (hobgoblins hate elves and always attack them; skeletons fight until destroyed; etc) which the players are capable of learning via divination magic, collecting lore from NPCs (think of classic D&D's elaborate rules for sages), etc.

When the GM turns the "world" into a "living, breathing one" - ie the sorts of changes [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], upthread, said that he would prefer to see made to T1 - it is no longer the players who are choosing what parts of the "world" to engage, and driving the fiction by their choices. The world is going to come to them (eg if the players ignore the orcs, the GM works out orcish events offscreen, and these then feed back into the events that occur to the players). The extreme example of this is the players whose PCs ignore the cultist plot and find, X amount of game time down the track, that the world has come to an end in a great apocalypse. But the same trajectory of play can unfold in less extreme cases.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So with that said, let us go back to a - c above and then consider the following components of 5e's GMing ethos:

* ...as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.

* <the DM> creates and runs adventures that drive the story.

* Inventing, writing, storytelling, improvising, acting, refereeing...Focus on the aspects you enjoy and downplay the rest.

* ...the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

IDK if that's the whole thing or how everyone may approach it, but sounds pretty reasonable.

Some of it, like the GM's role being to interpret the rules and change them if desired isn't really a game-specific thing but a mere truism, no ruleset can stop a DM who decides to use it from also deciding to mod it.

There is a lot more than that including the profound role that the GM plays in determining outcomes merely in the course of mediation procedures.

I would say 'resolution system' rather than 'mediation prodedures,' but that's an important point...

On the continuum of GM Agency, 5e is on the extreme of one side.

The "Empowerment" side.

As GM Agency becomes more prolific, System Agency becomes less so. The game outright gives the GM a mandate to ignore/change/downplay/subordinate the rules.

OTOH, 3.x did the same thing with Rule 0. Well, it /said/ the same thing with Rule 0, yet it spawned the Zealot Cult of RAW. Clearly there's more to it than giving a mandate that the DM can't be prevented from just taking.

The difference is the above important point. From the core resolution system on out, the system leaves things for the DM to finish. You can't 'play the game RAW,' by RAW, you get as far as the first action declaration and the impartial just-RAW-DM is stuck making a ruling. It's Rulings not Rules because the Rules don't work without Rulings. That conditions players to expect continuous DM 'Agency,' and conditions DMs to exercise it.

That's Empowerment. With teeth.

Also consider the expectation that the GMs created/run adventures drives the story. Also consider the fact that the games encounter building tools are absolutely broken

It's not a paint-by-numbers game. To run a good game, you need have or develop the more-art-than-science skill (or have the natural talent). That means not everyone can DM. When a player isn't happy, and you say "well, fine, you run something," he's probably not going to bite, if he does, it's probably going to suck, because running with as much responsibility as DMing demands is /hard/. That makes DM's rare, which makes DMs special, and feeling special is (gasp) Empowering.

(and I said they would turn out that way during the playtest because of fundamental design decisions)

Yeah, yeah, don't strain your back-patting arm. ;P

So with all of this in mind, I'm left wondering why GM Force/Illusionism is something to be protested in 5e? The text certainly doesn't decry it as taboo. In fact, it at least tacitly embraces it due to all of the above (and I'd say tacitly is a massive understatement).

Maybe it's just the name, it sounds a little underhanded, perhaps? I have no problem with it, though.
Sure I'm a DM Illusionist, watch me pull a great session outta my hat (I actually wear a hat, so I can say that)...
nuth'n up m' sleeve...


Or, we could just call it what 5e calls it: DM Empowerment.
The DM takes responsibility for his game, he make rulings rather than depending on rules.

Again, all of that being said, I still stand by my position that you can absolutely run 5e without any Force or Illusionism.

Sure. You are totally empowered to do that!

 

[pemerton]

how can something matter to you if you don't know what it is?

Is the wrong in cheating cheating? Or in being caught?

I think many would say the former - ie that cheating matters to the victims of it even if they don't know about it.

But there is an additional consideration here when it comes to the practicalities of a social experience like a RPG - namely, that as a general rule the participants can tell where various contributions came from. To refer back to my post 536 upthread:

In the examples above, the framing and hence the game is a player-driven one; eg,

No, the door isn't one you can fly through as a falcon;

No, because you failed a check you're stuck in this prison indefinitely, and I'm making it true in the fiction that that is because of your past shenanigans involving NPCs and social dynamics that you've made central to our shared fiction;

To get the help you want from the assassin, you have to relinquish the Orb that you chose to take from her and that you hid in the cathedral altar;

You've accepted the assassin's insistence that she won't summon without proper circle-drawing equipment, and so you've made yourself hostage to her ability to pick the lock and get you both out of prison;​

Etc​

It is quite transparent to the player how the choices that he made about his character, and thereby about the fiction, are driving the fiction into which his PC is being framed. It's equally transparent how, had the player made different choices, or had different outcomes on checks, the fiction would have been different. For instance, had the player not failed the check to carry the bodies through the city, the shared fiction would not have included the PC being in prison; had the player not failed the check to have the PC's cleric friend come by the prison, the shared fiction would not have included the PC being in prison indefinitely; had the player not chosen to take the Orb from the assassin and hide it, I wouldn't have narrated the assassin making the relinquishing of the Orb (which was a very difficult check) her price (indeed, if the PC had been able to escape from the prison with the help of the cleric, probably he would have made the assassin's cooperation in summoning the brother's spirit a price of helping her get out); had the player chosen to have his PC try and talk the assassin into using a circle of breadcrumbs for summoning the spirit, then that might have worked, and the summoning might have taken place inside the prison cell.

At every point, the player can see how the content of the fiction that is at the centre of play is being shaped as a result of his play of the game. There is no cunning GM manipulation or nudging taking place.

I feel that the contrast with the player having his PC go to the mercenaries' guild, so that the GM can have a NPC tell the PC (and thereby the player) that there is an adventure with orcs on the other side of the hills, is pretty apparent.

 

[Lanefan]

Is the wrong in cheating cheating? Or in being caught?

In the case of a DM, the illusion only works until someone sees through it. The solution is either to a) not look, or b) be ready to willingly accept and deal with whatever you see when you do look.

But there is an additional consideration here when it comes to the practicalities of a social experience like a RPG - namely, that as a general rule the participants can tell where various contributions came from. To refer back to my post 536 upthread:

In the examples above, the framing and hence the game is a player-driven one; eg,

No, the door isn't one you can fly through as a falcon;

No, because you failed a check you're stuck in this prison indefinitely, and I'm making it true in the fiction that that is because of your past shenanigans involving NPCs and social dynamics that you've made central to our shared fiction;

To get the help you want from the assassin, you have to relinquish the Orb that you chose to take from her and that you hid in the cathedral altar;

You've accepted the assassin's insistence that she won't summon without proper circle-drawing equipment, and so you've made yourself hostage to her ability to pick the lock and get you both out of prison;​

Etc​

Every one of those is a single event, or close, within an adventure. Different scale.

It is quite transparent to the player how the choices that he made about his character, and thereby about the fiction, are driving the fiction into which his PC is being framed. It's equally transparent how, had the player made different choices, or had different outcomes on checks, the fiction would have been different. For instance, had the player not failed the check to carry the bodies through the city, the shared fiction would not have included the PC being in prison; had the player not failed the check to have the PC's cleric friend come by the prison, the shared fiction would not have included the PC being in prison indefinitely; had the player not chosen to take the Orb from the assassin and hide it, I wouldn't have narrated the assassin making the relinquishing of the Orb (which was a very difficult check) her price (indeed, if the PC had been able to escape from the prison with the help of the cleric, probably he would have made the assassin's cooperation in summoning the brother's spirit a price of helping her get out); had the player chosen to have his PC try and talk the assassin into using a circle of breadcrumbs for summoning the spirit, then that might have worked, and the summoning might have taken place inside the prison cell.

This all seems kind of obvious, really: one thing leads to the next within an adventure.

But what if there is no "one thing"? The spirits have been summoned, the PC is out of jail, the dark naga's got its blood to play with, the PCs have done their jobs, the adventure's over with no obvious sequels or follow-ons to worry about, they've divided their treasury (and done their training) and now they've all gone down to the pub for a well-earned beer to toast their own success.

Next morning, they wake up and through their hangovers ask each other "So. What do we do next?"

One or more of the PCs may have (an) idea(s) for this, and may well talk the party into going there. Fine.

But if not, what's wrong with the DM providing some hooks?

And you never did answer my question about whether the PCs in your game ever get any breaks or downtime like this.

Lan-"33 years later and I'm finally starting on my stronghold...which'll probably take another 33 to finish"-efan

 

[pemerton]

The DM establishes the content of the game world

According to what principles? For what reasons? Until we answer those questions, how can we know whether the game is GM- or player-driven?

Every one of those is a single event, or close, within an adventure. Different scale.

<snip>

one thing leads to the next within an adventure.

But in a player-driven game as I understand it, that's all there is. There is a sequence of events, in which the PC(s) are at the centre.

And it's not just a case of one thing leading to another. I think that to describe it that way is to miss the point.

There is no inevitability to my (i) narrating that the magistrate decides they are to be imprisoned indefinitely, and (ii) connecting this, in the fiction, to the PC's past (mostly unhappy) dealings with the leader of his sorcerous cabal.

That is a choice - a judgement call, to use the language of the OP. Other choices were, in principle, available, but I didn't make them because those other choices would have taken the game away from its focus on the matters that the player has put into play via his choices in playing the game.

The analogue, in your example of a player having his PC go to the mercenaries' guild and the militia HQ, might be something like this:

The player has written into his PC backstory, "I will be avenged upon the lizardmen for their destruction of my farm."

The PC goes to the mercenaries' guild, and learns (via the GM's narration) that the lizardmen are readying an attack on Dumont tower - if you sign up now to join the defenders, you'll be handsomely paid.

The PC goes to the HQ, and learns (via the GM's narration) that the orcs are attacking the farms, and we need every able body we can get to help in defence.

In putting these two scenarios on the table, the GM forces the player to make a choice: do I seek vengeance upon the lizardmen? or do I postpone, even abandon, my quest for vengeance in order to help other defend their farms against a different threat?​

That would be the GM putting the player at the centre of things. And thereby creating the space for the game to be player-driven in the sense I've tried to get at.

Rather than the GM putting his/her desires for the content of the fiction, and the trajectory of things, at the centre.

Which is why simply noting that the GM manages the backstory doesn't tell us who is driving the game. Because it depends crucially on the reasons for narrating one thing rather than another, and the way that that narrated stuff then speaks to the players one way rather than another.

But what if there is no "one thing"? The spirits have been summoned, the PC is out of jail, the dark naga's got its blood to play with, the PCs have done their jobs, the adventure's over with no obvious sequels or follow-ons to worry about, they've divided their treasury (and done their training) and now they've all gone down to the pub for a well-earned beer to toast their own success.

Next morning, they wake up and through their hangovers ask each other "So. What do we do next?"

One or more of the PCs may have (an) idea(s) for this, and may well talk the party into going there. Fine.

But if not, what's wrong with the DM providing some hooks?

If everything the PCs care about has been resolved, then the campaign is over.

As for "what's wrong"? Nothing's wrong if that's the sort of RPGing you enjoy. It just happens to not really be my thing.

If a character's next logical in-character move is to do something that takes it out of the party, then out it goes. I've role-played myself out of many a party in the past.

See, this is is pretty much the opposite of the answer I just gave. The player has to stop playing the PC - ie as far as that PC is concerned, it's "campaign over" - if the "logical" play of the PC takes that character away from the GM's hooks. Whereas my answer, above, is that the campaign is over when the players, via their PCs, no longer have any "hooks" to offer the GM.

And you never did answer my question about whether the PCs in your game ever get any breaks or downtime like this.

The PCs in the game mentioned in the OP spent 18 months in the ruined tower, trying to eke out enough of a living to buy food from the locals (mechanically, this involves the game's Resources sub-system) while also training and, in one case, healing from a near-mortal wound.

But during that time the PCs (and their players) weren't at a loss for things to do. They made a choice to postpone their pursuit of the thing they cared about so they could spend that time that way.

 

[pemerton]

The theory is fun to discuss and consider, but in the end, as a DM you need to learn to meet your group with what works for them, or you find a different group.

GM advice is a real thing, just like their can be advice to help with other activities that require skill and judgement to do well.

 

[pemerton]

Why do you get to say things like, "Well, dozens of moons are not excluded." and "A third moon that is not mentioned is constent.", but when I say something that is consistent and not exluded, you bring up that it wasn't mentioned? Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the gander?

I can't follow this.

Here is one question: Is the existence of X in fictional place Y consistent with the established fiction with respect to Y?

Here is a different question: Does the GMing approach that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] described allow the players to introduce content that the GM hasn't already signalled in some fashion?

I don't see what the two questions have in common. One is about the inner logic of a fiction. Roughly speaking, it belongs to the domain of literary criticism (or some discipline in that neighbourhood). The other is about the permissible and expected moves at [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s table, given that the GM is adopting a certain approach to running the game. Roughly speaking, it belongs to the domain of anthropology (or some discipline in that neighbourhood).

The methods for answering one have almost nothing in common with the methods for answering the other.

 

[pemerton]

Can you try explain how you think this might come about in a Dungeon World game (despite the fact that it is a transparent violation of the game's play Agenda, a few GMing principles, and would actually be more difficult to do than just letting things unfold naturally)?

To me, this is a key question. And it's not a rhetorical question.

To those who assert that GM force can play the same role in (say) DungeonWorld or MHRP or Burning Wheel as it can in (say) 2nd ed AD&D, my response is, show me.

Either relate an actual play anecdote that illustrates the point, or at least sketch a conjectural example that engages with the system.

I'll focus just on BW:

If a PC's Belief is at stake (as in the OP), and the GM "says 'yes'" rather than framing a check and calling for a roll of the dice, the player can tell. Which is to say, the player can tell that the GM is departing from the principles that are stated, in the game's rulebooks, to govern the game.

If a GM calls for a check when nothing relevant to a PC's Belief is at stake, then again the player can tell.

If a GM calls for a re-check when "Let it Ride" should be in force, then again the player can tell.

If a GM frames a player into a situation that manifestly fails to speak to a PC's Beliefs, the the player can tell. For starters, the player will know that s/he doesn't feel any tension related to his/her conception of his/her PC (as expressed via those Beliefs).​

In other words, there's no way - in Burning Wheel - for the GM to nudge or manipulate the fiction in his/her preferred direction, away from the concerns the players have expressed via their Beliefs, without this being flagrantly obvious to the players.

Could you do this in 5e? Sure, in the sense that you could (i) graft on a Belief mechanic, and (ii) have the GM frame scenes in accordance with BW principles. But some issues will come to light fairly quickly: the asymmetry of player resource suites with respect to rest periods, for instance; a degree of lack of a robust non-combat resolution system to interface with "Let it Ride"; some maths issues, which tend to allow guaranteed success at low DCs (which means that "say 'yes' or roll the dice" won't work on those occasions) and can make it hard to muster the resources to allow the player's choices to swamp the d20 at high DCs; the fact that unless you change the XP system from the published ones (XP for combat, or "milestones"), you won't have any robust correlation between playing the game and PC advancement; and probably other stuff I'm not thinking of.

Which is to say - if I wanted to use 5e to run a player-driven game I wouldn't necessarily be looking to BW as my model. Classic B/X or AD&D, with some sort of attempt to integrate the rest mechanics into the dungeon exploration time cycle, would (I think) be a more profitable route.

(I don't have enough DungeonWorld experience to know how well you could try and emulate that with 5e, but besides [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s points - or maybe taking the one about different resolution systems and making it more precise - there is the fact that DW has mechanics that are almost guaranteed to produce a cycle of success and failure, driving the dynamics of the game. And there are very definite rules about what happens on a success, and what happens on a failure. I think it would be non-trivial to introduce that into 5e - eg for a start some of the most dramatic actions in 5e, like casting spells, can succeed automatically.)