D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

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.

Who is applying these different standards? Upthread I've repeatedly said that rolling damage dice in D&D, or calling for a save, based on an action the GM declares for a NPC, is not Force.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not @Crimson Longinus.

I what now? I think I lost the plot of this conversation…

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think I've seen it said that using unrevealed backstory to adjudicate action resolution is force--is this only true if the GM is using that unrevealed backstory to point the narrative of the game in a specific direction, or toward a specific outcome?

Good question. I'm hard pressed to take seriously the idea that making decisions on a "these individuals in this setting would respond this way" is force unless you're just using it as justification for an ulterior motive (though, of course, there's "you have an ulterior motive but are kidding yourself that you're just supporting the logical reaction of setting elements").

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is there some acceptable language to differentiate games that are basically played like cooperative Mass Effect so I can avoid them when I don't want to play them and seek them out when I do? I understand there's a great deal of nuance between different forms of games* that are focused on collaborative storytelling. There's also a good deal of nuance between different Story Now games. Most of you here have probably seen some substantial differences of opinion between @pemerton or @Manbearcat and myself about things like intent and task, walking towards conflict, and a host of other issues. That does not mean talking in broader strokes is not useful. You lot are talking about Colorado versus Utah when I'm trying to avoid an accidental layover in the United States.

Note: Example is just an example. I'm a proud Army veteran who proudly resides in Colorado which would definitely win out over Utah. Still love you Salt Lake City.

* Mostly talking individual games here because it's quite possible to play traditional games without playing them in a Mass Effect way. Does that work? Almost everyone loves Mass Effect.

Can you clarify what you mean by "cooperative Mass Effect"? Is that a reference to the way the Bioware games (and most computer RPGs) are effectively on rails, or something else? (This thread wanders enough its hard to be sure).

 

[Thomas Shey]

If your DM is rolling behind a screen and never openly shares DCs, he’s not breaking any rules. But telling if Force is being used is much harder as a result. The system does nothing to lessen the chance here. Only the DM can do that by making attempts to do so and by GMing in specific ways .

It might be a bit harder on a short-term basis, but its hard for a GM who is doing that sort of thing not to tip his hand over time if anyone is paying attention and cares. Hiding that sort of thing is not as easy as a lot of GMs think it is.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good question. I'm hard pressed to take seriously the idea that making decisions on a "these individuals in this setting would respond this way" is force unless you're just using it as justification for an ulterior motive (though, of course, there's "you have an ulterior motive but are kidding yourself that you're just supporting the logical reaction of setting elements").

Ultimately GM decision making is often blend of different motives. “It wouldn’t make sense for this person to do X, but it would make sense for them to do either Y or Z. Doing Z results more interesting situation, so they do that.”

 

[pemerton]

I would not be comfortable with the mystery of who specifically possessed the brother to come from a roll of this nature. That the brother was possessed is established fiction via the character's backstory. But, at least from what you've said, the character doesn't actually know much about how it happened...nor which specific entity did it.

<snip>

Having the possibility of being quantum-bad is not really making the situation any better. It's the quantum-ness that is the problem.

I don't understand how these preferences are playing out in your cult weapon example. I thought you said that there is no fiction (neither established and revealed, hor authored by you or as yet unrevealed) about where there weapons are coming from, etc.

Have I misunderstood you vis-a-vis the cult and its weapons? Or are you saying that killings and possessions are different?

Perhaps the problem is that the scene is doing more than just "you wake up"? You're making it so part and parcel of the waking up is revealing the guilt of one specific party as opposed to any other.

Well, I just made up the example in the course of my post. But I thought the PC was waking up in a manor that they recognised. I don't think I said anything that establishes anyone's guilt, or even who put them in the manor.

 

[pemerton]

I what now? I think I lost the plot of this conversation…

It seems to fit the pattern. Setting up a cool scene. And that's fine by me. The PCs now know of the villain and can properly plan how to fight her. And yes, the roll seems superfluous, but then again, it might be just following procedure. For example if the effect is something that triggers on seeing her, then if you follow the rules you have to roll even if it wouldn't actually matter in that instance.

Contra what @FrogReaver posted, you seemed to have no objections to the approach taken by @hawkeyefan's GM.

EDIT: That should be @FrozenNorth, not @FrogReaver.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel that random encounter tables are one of those things that are liable to produce unfun results if the procedure is slavishly followed.

In any case, the point really here was to examine the definition of force. No player input has ben overridden, so no force (by the definition used by many in this thread) is used, and if railroading is continued use of force (the definition used in this thread) it shouldn't be railroading. Yet the result feels like railroading. So what gives?

I mean, if they're unfun for you or your group, then I understand that, and I would say not to use them. But if you don't use them, then what are you substituting? Sounds like "GM Decides What Happens".

Does this not sound like GM overriding the system's say? Or perhaps to be an alternate take on it? You're taking away a system to randomly determine events and replacing it with one where the GM decides. Combined with many other layers of GM decides.

How much of the game needs to be "GM decides" before it becomes railroading? I imagine that will vary from group to group, and your tolerance of it may be much higher than someone like @pemerton 's would be. My tolerance for it is somewhere between you two.

Sure, shifting some decisions to the system reduces GM authority. It still doesn't increase player agency though. And all these scenarios involve die rolling anyway. In Dungeon World 'separate them' just works once invoked, but there are die roll before it can be invoked. In D&D bird can just be invoked without die roll, but then there are die rolls to see if dragging away succeeds. I'm not sure if this is particular drastic difference.

I would argue it does increase player agency because if the system is used to determine something, then there's some kind of formula, right? An hourly check via roll to see if a random encounter occurs, and if so, a table to indicate which one. That is an understandable thing that the players can base decisions upon. They know the odds and how those odds will be affected if they spend more time in the area or doing something that will result in another check.

Replace that with the GM deciding what happens based on what feels cool or right; what happens? There's no way to know the odds of anything, so any decisions the players are making are far less informed.

There are likely still rolls in the Separate Them result per @Manbearcat 's elaboration on the example. I think that shows the situation more fully so we all can proceed with a clearer idea of how it works.

But if we need to pinpoint the key difference, which I would say is significant, is that the GM is responding to the system and not the other way around. The system says "something happens" and then the GM decides what that may be. That would seem to be a big difference compared to a game where the GM decides both that something happens and what.

Sure. Different systems do different things better. One system might mitigate one sort of unfun. It might produce another sort of unfun. And yes, it makes sense to use whatever system the people involved produces most fun to them. But my point is that it is ultimately more about people than it is about about systems.

Sure, I don't disagree with that at all.

But, I'm approaching the topic through the lens of "Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism" and how they can affect what someone finds to be fun or unfun.

If one finds railroading to be unfun, then there are games designed to resist the chances of it, or there are techniques that can be used to lessen it in games that don't make that effort.

It seems to fit the pattern. Setting up a cool scene. And that's fine by me. The PCs now know of the villain and can properly plan how to fight her. And yes, the roll seems superfluous, but then again, it might be just following procedure. For example if the effect is something that triggers on seeing her, then if you follow the rules you have to roll even if it wouldn't actually matter in that instance.

I'm honestly fine with the set up scene in and of itself. It's not ideal for me, and I would have run it differently, but it's a use of Force I'm pretty willing to accept when playing 5e. We had basically cleared the fort, and here's the main bad guy, and she decides to split rather than face the party. Seems on brand enough for adventure fiction.

What I was annoyed by was more the deployment of rules for absolutely no reason.

 

[Campbell]

Can you clarify what you mean by "cooperative Mass Effect"? Is that a reference to the way the Bioware games (and most computer RPGs) are effectively on rails, or something else? (This thread wanders enough its hard to be sure).

Pretty much the on rails bit, but also the here's a decision which is primarily about characterization bit (Renegade vs Paragon). You make all kinds of decisions, but they are mostly just about defining who your character is. They don't actually impact what's going to happen except in very minor ways. You might get some minor callbacks, but that's it. Also big set pieces, boss battles, dramatic revelations. You can go off and explore other stuff, but nothing really progresses until you do the mission.