D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

Your second example is closest to what I mean, but it feels a bit too..."weakly" mysterious, if that makes sense? The events are well in the past, and there's a lot of leeway for how things had played out, which makes the revelation of the black arrows feel like a fun surprise rather than a "whatever you come to believe was right all along." The issue may be (I'm not sure) that the murder mystery feels like a relatively "closed" event (e.g., every true murder victim has to have died in one and only one way, there has to have been at least one killer, there was at least one weapon or object that killed her, etc.), whereas with this possession, it feels like legitimate new understanding could arise at any time as we learn more about what it all means and what happened around that time. You can't really understand a murder as something other than a murder, but a "possession" could have many meanings and become far more nuanced as you learn more of the how and why. (Admittedly, some murders have context that changes things...but all it can really do is either reveal that what you thought was the true cause of death wasn't or that who you thought actually did the deed did not.)

I guess what I'm saying is, "why did my brother get possessed?" is a fundamentally different kind of mystery from a murder, theft, fraud, etc. It is a question about purpose and justification, rather than about facts-of-the-matter per se. Answering that kind of question feels like enriching the play experience, establishing new background, redirecting the trajectory, and I'm more than cool with my players doing those things. It does not feel like "once we see enough clues, we will then declare what the events were and that will be what the past always was." Note that this does differ from proper illusionism because the players can be in author stance with it. But it reflects the same..."history is clay in our hands" perspective. That causality itself bends to whatever makes sense in the fiction, since chronologically later events (examining things and developing beliefs about them) causes past events to be a certain way and no other.

I don't think I feel the force of the contrast you're drawing between a killing and a possession as events which might be attended by mystery. But I assume you regard the cult's weapons as more closely resembling the latter than the former.

The third thing I honestly don't know how to parse. It sounds like use of force to me, and to a problematic degree, at least for the part where they wake up in the manor.

I don't quite follow this. Waking up from unconsciousness in a manor seems like it would fall within a pretty typical range of consequences for a failed check in a mystery/horror context.

The characters don't appear to have the freedom to be wrong (whether in whole or in part), because the threads will be drawn together no matter what, it just might be more complicated than expected.

I don't really follow this either. Suppose many lines of inquiry and player suppositions suggest that X is the perpetrator. Couldn't one consequence of failure, at the resolution point, be that really it was Y all along?

If the mystery is fore-ordained to be solved

Where is this coming from? A mystery scenario can resolve without the mystery being solved.

For instance, in the first Cthulhu Dark scenario I GMed the scenario resolved - the PCs drove the merchant ship with a mysterious cargo in its hold onto the rocks - but they never learned what the cargo was. Nor do I think it was ever established who exactly committed arson on the houses of two of the PCs.

Especially in Cthulu-esque play, there can be resolution without answers.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. The GM makes a soft move.

From the AW rulebook, pp 116-17:

Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [ie a GM move] and say it. . . .​

​

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.​

​

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.​

​

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.​

Typically, You see high mountains, strewn with boulders is not going to count as a move (it doesn't threaten anything, announce any badness, separate anyone, generate an opportunity, etc). So saying that and only that would be bad GMing in AW/DW.

I guess I'm wondering. In either of those games can you describe a sequence of play where the players would come to a cliff. Players try to climb the cliff. They fail their climb check (or whatever is being used for this in those games). Giant Birds are introduced. Those birds try to grab and carry off a player?

In reverse order I'm picturing:
Player reacts and tries to fight off the birds. (Potentially setting up a hard move if unsuccessful).
Soft Move - Giant Birds are introduced and attempting to grab and carry a player off.
Player reaction - starts climbing the cliff (there's now a pause in the conversation).
***Not sure what caused the cliff to get introduced in the first place.

Does this essentially describe how such a scene would work in one of those games?

 

[pemerton]

To me that sounds like exactly the same thing.

Huh?

The module is not setting out a command structure. The "second string" are not part of the fiction unless the GM introduces them because they are needed to take the place of the principal antagonist in the event that the latter is killed "too early".

I don't get why this is so hard to convey.

 

[FrogReaver]

Huh?

The module is not setting out a command structure. The "second string" are not part of the fiction unless the GM introduces them because they are needed to take the place of the principal antagonist in the event that the latter is killed "too early".

I don't get why this is so hard to convey.

Unrevealed backstory?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Exactly. I'd also add that it doesn't make much sense to me that something preplanned 1 week ago is any different in nature than something preplanned 1 second ago.

That is, all fictional framing and consequences in both story now and traditional games only exist because the GM wanted to include those fictional details in those games and then had the power to actually include them.

*IMO improv (framing or consequences) is just the preplanning of fiction momentarily before needed as opposed to long before needed.


If D&D told the DM to fudge and railroad players into particular framing and consequences we wouldn't say that's not railroading just because the D&D system (or module) is having the DM do those things.

So I don't find the excuse that 'the system had me do it' as a persuasive excuse for why something isn't force. It might very well not be force, but there's some other reason it's not.

You don't see what might have happened between when you prepped last week and 1 second ago? There's this little thing called playing the game.

Your assessment here doesn't seem to consider how a decision made by a GM during play might be informed by input from the players, and how that might be different from one prepped before play.

You're basically saying what happens in play has no impact? Which I don't think is your intention, but that's certainly how it sounds.

To me that sounds like exactly the same thing.

If the boss isn't killed, the lieutenant never exists.

 

[pemerton]

I think something consistent with @Helpful NPC Thom's statement is the idea that GMs will use whatever tools and techniques they have available to them that they find appropriate in order to make the narrative of the game ... palatable to them.

<snip>

Different GMs, running different games at different tables, will find different tools and techniques to be available and appropriate. I think the vast majority of GMs want to have some input into the narrative of the game

Sure. I assume that most GMs want to have input into the fiction. I mean, there's a reason that Gygax's dungeons have a higher quotient of liches et al (a standard S&S trope) as antagonists rather than dark unicorns or mad leprechauns.

But authorship isn't synonymous with force as that term is being used by @Ovinomancer, @Manbearcat, or me - nor as it is used by Edwards, and but for Edwards et al's coinage we wouldn't be using the term at all.

To my mind, here is the real question: if the action resolution mechanics of a system will produce an upalatable narrative - eg if the combat mechanics create such an intolerable risk of destabilising things that you need a Schroedinger's lieutenant to step in in the event the combat mechanics dictate that your principal antagonist is killed by the PCs - then why are you using those mechanics? Or if the ostensible authority structure of your game runs the risk that the narrative will become unpalatable to you - eg it's fundamental to your goals as GM that the players play through a particular AP, but the ostensible authority structure gives them permission to declare action that are incompatible with that (like We go over here and do this other thing) - then why stick with that authority structure?

There are particularly obvious occasions when I hear stuff that makes no sense - eg it's trivial to find posters and bloggers saying that what characterises a RPG is that the players can declare any action they can think of for their PCs, when in fact we all know that there are thousands, probably 10s and maybe even 100s of thousands of D&D tables, GURPs tables, Champions tables, etc where that is simply not true: that if the players declare actions that would have the effect of taking their PCs out of the planned adventure then either the game/campaign comes to an end, or the GM uses some form of Force to negate the intended effect of those action declarations and keep the game "on the rails".

But even when it's not as obvious as that, I have to wonder: if your action resolution mechanics and ostensible authority structures aren't delivering palatable narratives, and you're regularly using GM force to circumvent that, why maintain the pretence that this is how you resolve declared actions and this is how authority is distributed.

Now as per my post upthread about the "paradox of Participationism", I do also from time-to-time see descriptions of the D&D 5e authority structure which in fact suggest that there are no canonical action resolution mechanics beyond GM decides; which also entails that while players may in a formal sense have authority over action declarations for their PCs, that authority is not of great substance as the GM can narrate whatever they want in response.

That is also an approach to play that doesn't require Force (given how it conceives of the other features of the game that I've mentioned) and doesn't fall foul of my (somewhat rhetorical) questions above. But I think it's also fair to say that this is an approach which is at least quite often hesitant to wear its full nature proudly on its sleeve.

The reason it's so hard to argue that PbtA games are vulnerable to force is because force is usually described as happening after actions and resolutions

I don't really agree with this. It's because there is no point during the resolution and framing process at which the GM draws upon unrevealed information - be that mechanical information or fiction/backstory - and feeds that in independent of the players' declared actions and their resolution.

 

[pemerton]

That is, all fictional framing and consequences in both story now and traditional games only exist because the GM wanted to include those fictional details in those games and then had the power to actually include them.

<snip>

If D&D told the DM to fudge and railroad players into particular framing and consequences we wouldn't say that's not railroading just because the D&D system (or module) is having the DM do those things.

So I don't find the excuse that 'the system had me do it' as a persuasive excuse for why something isn't force. It might very well not be force, but there's some other reason it's not.

I've repeatedly posted the reason. Its the contrast between "backstory first" and "situation first". I've unpacked this in terms of steps in the process of framing and of adjudication.

It's not very mysterious! It only becomes mysterious if you don't take seriously that "backstory fist" and "situation first" is a genuine contrast.

Unrevealed backstory?

No.

Have you read the module? Or do you just think I'm incapable of reading it properly?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Let me throw this idea out there.

I'm about to start playing in a 5e campaign. I've made a flowchart of what'll be going on with my character every session. There may be some small differences by the time we get to any given session, but it's a solid outline. I showed my DM and stressed how by session 6 I expect to be 3rd level so I can pick my subclass and since I'm gonna go with Hunter, I'll have a magic bow by that point. Which will come in really handy in session 8 when I rescue my brother from the cult that he's mixed up with.

Seems reasonable for a player in D&D to do this, right?

 

[FrogReaver]

Let me throw this idea out there.

I'm about to start playing in a 5e campaign. I've made a flowchart of what'll be going on with my character every session. There may be some small differences by the time we get to any given session, but it's a solid outline. I showed my DM and stressed how by session 6 I expect to be 3rd level so I can pick my subclass and since I'm gonna go with Hunter, I'll have a magic bow by that point. Which will come in really handy in session 8 when I rescue my brother from the cult that he's mixed up with.

Seems reasonable for a player in D&D to do this

IMO no.

 

[prabe]

Sure. I assume that most GMs want to have input into the fiction. I mean, there's a reason that Gygax's dungeons have a higher quotient of liches et al (a standard S&S trope) as antagonists rather than dark unicorns or mad leprechauns.

But authorship isn't synonymous with force as that term is being used by @Ovinomancer, @Manbearcat, or me - nor as it is used by Edwards, and but for Edwards et al's coinage we wouldn't be using the term at all.

Yeah. I wasn't so much arguing as ... trying to see ways for y'all not to be inconsistent with each other. Also, it's probably not an unusual thing for someone to conflate force and hard moves and authorship--I'm pretty sure I've done it myself--and I was endeavoring to pick at that a little.

I certainly agree that authorship isn't the same as force. I don't think unrevealed backstory is necessarily force--or at least, I'm convinced it's not automatically bad faith--but it's definitely authorship.

To my mind, here is the real question: if the action resolution mechanics of a system will produce an upalatable narrative - eg if the combat mechanics create such an intolerable risk of destabilising things that you need a Schroedinger's lieutenant to step in in the event the combat mechanics dictate that your principal antagonist is killed by the PCs - then why are you using those mechanics? Or if the ostensible authority structure of your game runs the risk that the narrative will become unpalatable to you - eg it's fundamental to your goals as GM that the players play through a particular AP, but the ostensible authority structure gives them permission to declare action that are incompatible with that (like We go over here and do this other thing) - then why stick with that authority structure?

As someone who routinely bounces off of published adventures both as a GM and as a player, I agree with this entirely.

That said, I ... kinda want to set up a force for a group of PCs to kill the boss, only to have his lieutenant take over and have that gang start doing different bad things because the lieutenant has different goals and priorities. Problem is, I don't run that way, so while I think it'd be fun, it's not going to happen. Oh, well.

Now as per my post upthread about the "paradox of Participationism", I do also from time-to-time see descriptions of the D&D 5e authority structure which in fact suggest that there are no canonical action resolution mechanics beyond GM decides; which also entails that while players may in a formal sense have authority over action declarations for their PCs, that authority is not of great substance as the GM can narrate whatever they want in response.

That is also an approach to play that doesn't require Force (given how it conceives of the other features of the game that I've mentioned) and doesn't fall foul of my (somewhat rhetorical) questions above. But I think it's also fair to say that this is an approach which is at least quite often hesitant to wear its full nature proudly on its sleeve.

I'm not super-inclined to argue about Participationism, but I will say I strongly prefer to have players whose characters want things and are willing to do things to get them. I find that makes it easier for me to ... come up with stuff. Otherwise there's a bit of a screaming-into-the-void feeling when it's time to get ready for a session.