D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

EDIT: I missed a page. I will repost this with updated information.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point of confusion is that I think you can be fully on with, say, using an adventure path and also not be ok with the GM calling for rolls and then ignoring them, or fudging dice rolls, or any number of similar GM practices that are annoying. So I read @hawkeyefan 's account as an example (or at this point, examples plural) of bad GMing rather than endemic to 5e. Or to use my above example: I enjoy CoC, but I would not enjoy a keeper who ignores dice rolls in a similar way. I find a term like "GM storytelling" to be too vague to really capture the variety of playstyles and practices available within "trad" games.

(Further, it has been stated that it's easier to tell or more obvious when a gm is using Force in, say, Dungeon World, but I'm not sure it's all that difficult in trad games either, as the account shows.)

This is where I like to point out the blatant railroading of Descent into Avernus's opening. The PC have no choice but to stat play in a specific scene, where the lead NPC of the scene gets a nice cutscene of what he's doing (it's not nice at all), and then that NPC threatens the PCs to do his bidding or they will be executed. If, afterwards, the PCs do not do his bidding in the timeframe allocated, he sends a hit squad after them. If the PCs defeat that hit squad, he sends two more, and so on, until the PCs complete his bidding or they are killed and you start over. These options are starkly laid out in the text and the GM is encouraged to use these threats to make sure the PCs are engaged in the proper course of action.

Now, while this sounds like there are rolls involved, the reality is that nothing the PCs do is available, and the GM can allow rolls for all kinds of things (in fact, it appears you should allow rolls as a general direction from the rules -- something hotly argued still on the boards), but anything that thwarts this setup is to be discarded.

I ran this in Descent, but I massively altered the first act. This NPC was there, but was desperate for assistance and willing to pay with no threats or repercussions allowed -- just a bit of authority to help the PCs given. That was sufficient, the players liked having the additional authority, especially since they wanted to do the job. All I had to do there was to play up what the bad guys were actually doing. It was still GM storytelling, though, in that the game was about the plot I had from the AP and not about the PCs dramatic needs. I don't see GM storytelling to not be descriptive, even across the range of play. Rather, I see the need to talk about specific ways that storytelling can occur when it matters. At the higher level, GM storytelling is contrasted by a few other things -- story now, classic play, etc -- that it makes for a good first parsing of play. Then you drill down if that seems necessary. I will agree that there does need to be some more discussion on the various ways GM storytelling occurs -- I'd like to have a conversation about how "living world" sandboxes are a distinct form of GM storytelling from a rigid AP, for instance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That makes sense. And vice versa, if someone is planning a road trip across the US, saying to them "hey, have you thought about flying to Europe instead" is similarly not so useful.

This is usually, 'hey, I want to do things like you do in Florence and Rome and Paris. How can I fit this in when driving from NYC to Michigan? That's when you get, "have you considered going to Europe?" The response is usually, "why would I go to Europe for these things when I can get the same things just by stopping by some Italian restaurants and meeting some Quebecois on holiday?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems to me that @hawkeyefan ’s description is analogous to the DW example of a hawk appearing out of nowhere due to a failed roll and carrying a character to a dungeon. @Ovinomancer called that a degenerate form of play for DW, and I suspect many here would refer to ignoring player rolls in D&D the same way.

Okay, second try. You claim this is analogous, but don't do any work to show how. We have from @hawkeyefan's latest example, the GM describing a scene where the PCs are forced into an action (make a save) and then that action is totally ignored and the PCs get no chance to make actions of their own while the GM instantiates their own preferred outcome. We have player action declarations disregarded, we have system disregarded (no initiative, PCs aren't allow to take actions, the saving throw outcomes don't matter) and the GM deploys their preferred outcome.

In the DW example, the GM isn't ignoring any of these. The GM can only deploy the bird because of the system say. The system has the say because of the player action declaration. The player action declaration is what it is because of player input. There's an unbroken chain of things here that have to happen to get to the point that the GM can even deploy the bird, and none of it is disregarded. Further, the play moving forward will be the same loop -- the GM isn't free to continue doing bad things unless that chain leads back to a failed roll.

So, no, you're entirely incorrect about my opinion. Unless you mean to say that if the GM just does this in DW, ignoring how the game says to play, that this would be degenerate, then, sure, but I'm having trouble understanding the point of your comparison then.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

If a player declares an action for their PC, and fails (6 or less), and the GM makes a hard move, and that hard move follows from the fiction, how is the player input being disregarded? What am I missing?

An example:

GM: [Hard Move] The dragon swoops down and grabs Bob in its claws. With a flap of its enormous wings, it lifts him off and flies to its nest.​

Player: As it's flying away, I want to aim and shoot to get it to drop Bob.​

GM: You're unable to scramble to your feet and line up a shot before the dragon is a dot in the distance. [Justification: Hard move is made, the players cannot interrupt it.]​

​

The GM can make a move as hard as he likes no problem, and it's within his rights to disallow the players to interrupt. There's even an example in Apocalypse World 1e where the GM outright states that the players can't do something while he's making his move (something to do with grenades and taking harm, if I recall).

This is within the rules, and I don't think it's an application of force, but the definition posited whereby a preferred outcome is enforced regardless of input would seem to define this as force. I would thereby argue that this definition of force lacks sufficient nuance.

Furthermore:

In either system, declaring such a thing "arbitrarily" ie without regard to the resolution mechanics, would seem to be Force- ie suspending the action resolution framework.

When the players look to the GM or they offer him a golden opportunity, he could implement this hard move according to the rules, without involving any dice rolls at all. I would argue it's not the best GMing in such a scenario, but the rules dictate he may make a move as hard as he likes in those scenarios.

A brief exchange between @Crimson Longinus and @Ovinomancer earlier in the thread:

I don't agree it would be obvious at all. If the GM has an end result in mind, they could 9/10 get there organically.

Gm has to hope the players choose to do a thing that involves a dungeon, so he can use his prep.

GM then has to hope the players fail checks in the right places so he can properly introduce a situation that allows teleporting them as a consequence.

GM then has to hope the players fail another check so that he can engage the teleporting.

NOW the GM gets to implement his prep and... wait, this still isn't Force because the GM is allowed to do all of these things according to the system's say. The GM isn't overriding anything, and isn't selecting a preferred outcome over the ones otherwise indicated. He's just exercising his authority in the game!

By this same reasoning, a GM waiting for a 6- to come up for to implement the Dragon Capture move is analogous to the GM waiting for a failed skill check in D&D to implement a Dragon Capture consequence.

It is unfair to apply these differing standards to a traditional RPG and a PbtA game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Okay, second try. You claim this is analogous, but don't do any work to show how. We have from @hawkeyefan's latest example, the GM describing a scene where the PCs are forced into an action (make a save) and then that action is totally ignored and the PCs get no chance to make actions of their own while the GM instantiates their own preferred outcome. We have player action declarations disregarded, we have system disregarded (no initiative, PCs aren't allow to take actions, the saving throw outcomes don't matter) and the GM deploys their preferred outcome.

Not going to do a deep dive into this, but the GM Guide contains points such as “make rolls matter”, and the people on this thread you are discussing with, I don’t think anyone agrees that you should disregard player agency as a matter of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

An example:

GM: [Hard Move] The dragon swoops down and grabs Bob in its claws. With a flap of its enormous wings, it lifts him off and flies to its nest.​

Player: As it's flying away, I want to aim and shoot to get it to drop Bob.​

GM: You're unable to scramble to your feet and line up a shot before the dragon is a dot in the distance. [Justification: Hard move is made, the players cannot interrupt it.]​

​

The GM can make a move as hard as he likes no problem, and it's within his rights to disallow the players to interrupt. There's even an example in Apocalypse World 1e where the GM outright states that the players can't do something while he's making his move (something to do with grenades and taking harm, if I recall).

There's an error here, and that's that you're massively extending the nature of the hard move in the dragon example and then comparing it to a different hard move where a player tries to interrupt it. The hard move here is separate the players. Originally, this was a large bird, a reasonable threat capable of doing this, but now it's being expanded to a dragon (a serious threat in and of itself and a very hard move just bringing it in) AND separating the PCs (removing the PC from the climb is separation) AND then separating the PCs again by having the players watch the dragon fly off (out of bowshot range) and take the PC somewhere far away. What you're leveraging to say this cannot be interrupted is an example of a much more contained hard move where the player is trying to prevent the move from taking effect at all. The more analogous example would be the player trying to take an action to prevent being snatched from the wall -- that has passed, it's part of the move. Once that's done, though, the play should be about what happens next -- the bird appears and snatches the player. This is about the extent of the move that can reasonably happen prior to reaction. Extending it and claiming the protection is not play that's normal. You've introduced a flawed example and are trying to claim it comparable.

This is within the rules, and I don't think it's an application of force, but the definition posited whereby a preferred outcome is enforced regardless of input would seem to define this as force. I would thereby argue that this definition of force lacks sufficient nuance.

It's a clear application of Force, and would be obvious for that at the table for the reasons I outlined -- it's ignoring the system say and denying action declarations to enforce an outcome the GM wants.

Furthermore:

When the players look to the GM or they offer him a golden opportunity, he could implement this hard move according to the rules, without involving any dice rolls at all. I would argue it's not the best GMing in such a scenario, but the rules dictate he may make a move as hard as he likes in those scenarios.

The GM could make a Hard move, but what counts as a golden opportunity? This is covered, it means that the players are ignoring clear threats to do a thing. So, yes, if you have a situation where the players are ignoring a clear fictional threat of this happening and declaring actions for something else, you are free to deploy this -- it doesn't ignore system say, player action declaration, or player input but rather requires all of these to be aligned prior to deployment.

The analogy here in 5e would be a known trap that a PC ignores to do something else, walking directly into it's trigger. What do you do? You trigger the trap. This is what this is talking about.

A brief exchange between @Crimson Longinus and @Ovinomancer earlier in the thread:



By this same reasoning, a GM waiting for a 6- to come up for to implement the Dragon Capture move is analogous to the GM waiting for a failed skill check in D&D to implement a Dragon Capture consequence.

Given your assumption of what move is made in your example above for DW, it is analogous -- Force is being deployed in your example, and deployed in the 5e example. Honestly, I'd say the Force in 5e is even worse, because of all of the system say that's being ignored to implement it (the entire combat engine), but they're both Force.

If you dial back the DW example to the bird plucking the climbing PC from the cliff (separate them) and flying away, then no, not so, because both the plucked PC and the rest of the PCs have the ability to respond to this event, removing the Force from your example. The plucking, as has been covered, is directly in line with system say, player input, and action declarations. No Force.

It is unfair to apply these differing standards to a traditional RPG and a PbtA game.

It would be, if that was what was actually happening.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not going to do a deep dive into this, but the GM Guide contains points such as “make rolls matter”, and the people on this thread you are discussing with, I don’t think anyone agrees that you should disregard player agency as a matter of course.

Player agency is disregarded as a matter of course in any game you care to mention. There's a reason agency doesn't appear in the definitions of Force being discussed. It's not about agency in general, but specific moments of play and what is happening. I don't have the agency to get a blaster rifle from the Duke's toilet in my Blades in the Dark game, and that's not Force.

And if you mean the DMG, that advice is not binding and they offer other advice that contradicts it. It's an optional approach, according to the DMG. I know, because I've gotten into arguments about it where other posters are adamantly against the idea that 5e calls for all rolls to matter.

 

[pemerton]

How does an adventure path work if the players are really allowed to declare whatever actions they like for their PCs?

It can work in several ways:

• I already gave one example: the players want to go to the Rainbow Rocks rather than the Dark Clouds. They go, accomplish want they want, and find something that makes going to Dark Clouds more pressing;

This is the "gentle guidance" and "manipulation" that is described in my quote upthread from The Traveller Book.

What do you, @Malmuria, @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver let me and @Campbell call this? We are not allowed to call it Force (ie manipulating the backstory so as to provoke the players to use their authority over action declaration in a certain way).

We are not allowed to call it "storytelling" (ie the GM using their authority to make certain scenes/events part of the played game).

What can we call it, so that we can permissibly describe what we don't want in our RPGing?

• The Adventure Path gives compelling reasons to go from A to B to C, and the players feel that is what their characters would do;

Ditto.

• The Adventure Path is designed in a generally open-ended manner, flexibly and with few chokepoints.

don't understand what this means. If the players are allowed to declare whatever actions they please for their PC, how does the table play the AP? Eg the AP contains places A, B and C and events D, E and F. What happens if the players declare action X for their PCs?

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me that @hawkeyefan ’s description is analogous to the DW example of a hawk appearing out of nowhere due to a failed roll and carrying a character to a dungeon. @Ovinomancer called that a degenerate form of play for DW, and I suspect many here would refer to ignoring player rolls in D&D the same way.

Not @Crimson Longinus.