Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6382114" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, a railroad is just a special (and especially strong) case of GM authority!I've seen and experienced plenty of D&D play that basically fits my description, and plenty of modules too eg Dead Gods, a number of Ravenloft modules that I've seen, significant components of the OA modules, the bulk of The Sleeper in Dreams and Bastion of Broken Souls (as written, at least).Even so-called non-railroads like The Keep on the Borderland don't foster differences of player-generated PC response that I would compare to artistic creation. Choosing whether to attack the kobolds, or to try and play them off against the goblins, may be tactically imaginative, but I don't think it's very comparable to improvisational jazz.And while I don't play computer games, are there not computer games in which different sorts of strategies among factions are permitted and feasible?In using the (figurative) label of choosing between a longsword or a mace, I am not just talking about "kick-in-the-door", boardgame-style D&D. I am also talking about D&D in which the players' main contributions to the game are to geneate personalties for their PCs, which find expression via some social interaction, battle cries, etc, but do not fundamentally drive the game.Choosing whether my fighter is faithful or impious, headstrong or cautious, grumpy or welcoming of human contact - to me these are not significantly more creative than choice of weapon. They add fun colour to a session, and - if the GM is running a tight railroad - can make bearable, even pleasurable, what would otherwise be intolerable. But the only reason WoW couldn't be played with the same spirit is that it doesn't have a voice-driven interface, and so sociaility isn't as big a part of the game. When playing through The Sunless Citadel, for instance, whether my fighter is grumpy or friendly, or headstrong or cautious, makes no more real difference to the outcome than it might in WoW: it's just that, in the D&D session, with my friends there with me, I have more incentive to play for laughs or kudos from them rather than just playing to win.I'm still far from clear what sort of imaginative/creative/artistic element [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] believes is key to RPGs and missing from video-games, but if it is this sort of player creativity - generating and expressing colour for their PCs - then I'm not sure that it's a point of quality, as opposed merely to difference, from computer-gaming.Now a game in which the players contribute meaningfully to backstory, and to theme and stakes, and thereby (for instance) choose who their enemies are within the context of the campaign (eg are we soldiers for Heaven, or for Hell, or playing each side off against the other? for profit, or for humanity?), and really make a difference to how the plot of the campaign unfolds, is a different thing. That involves creativity, and something like artistic commitment, from the players.But I'm not sure that this is the norm for D&D play.I think I agree, because I think this is basically what I've been saying.It is possible to play RPGs, including D&D, in a fashion which reduces the degree of contrast between players and GM. The 4e DMG 2 discusses some of these techniques (as best I'm aware the relevant contributions are from Robin Laws, which I think is no coincidence) but not the only ones, and not even necessarily the best ones. But as I've posted upthread and reiterated in this post, I don't believe that these sorts of techniques are typical for D&D play.I don't think the analogy of "genetic package, family of origin, etc" is that helpful. All it tends to do is remind us that the Nietzschean conception of human life as artistic creation is, for many people much of the time, not very accurate. But if we want players to participate creatively in the game, then why would we project that into the game? For intance, why not let the player write all that backstory for his/her PC, and have it actually matter in play?I don't think it's a flaw; I just think it's a way in which RPGing does not, or at least need not and often does not, resemble improvisational jazz.In my group I have five players, with varying degrees of desire to inject their own "artistic vision" into the game. It means that some PCs' agendas are clearer, and more foregrounded in play, than others. That's fine, and we roll along with it.But the option is there. Those players who aren't putting in as much of their own creativity are free to if they want to.If that is going to be the selling point for 5E, or any RPG, then I would approach aspects of the game design, and even moreso the writing of the instructional text, differently from how WotC seems to be. Conversely, if I wanted to pitch 5e as it is written and presented, I wouldn't be taking the "improvisational jazz" line. I'd emphasise (i) the freedom in conceiving of your PC and the basics of his/her place in the world, and (ii) the social atmosphere of play, which is relaxing and potentially engaging in quite a different way from computer gaming.</blockquote>

Verification