D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[soviet]

IMO Most D&D players want nothing to do with authorship. At least not on any level beyond, I swing my sword at that orc. I try to look intimidating to that goblin. I search for a secret door. I move to block the door.

That's the limits of the authorship powers they want and that's very similar to the limits of authorship powers in LARPing.

Who cares?

The fact that some people don't like chocolate ice cream doesn't stop chocolate ice cream existing, or being valid as an ice cream, or tasting differently to strawberry ice cream.

 

[FrogReaver]

Who cares?

The fact that some people don't like chocolate ice cream doesn't stop chocolate ice cream existing, or being valid as an ice cream, or tasting differently to strawberry ice cream.

So the discussion has turned to whether D&D players author content in the same way as Story Now games. I think it's pretty freaking important to note that D&D players don't do so and don't even want to do so.

If you want to understand where the biggest difference between D&D and Story Now lies for these players - it's right there.

 

[Scott Christian]

Which things change. This shouldn't be hard, just look in the AP and see where it says "if paladin then A, if barbarian then B." You seem to be pointing out that the characters are different. I'm talking about the adventure. It doesn't care if a barbarian or a paladin shows up.

This is where DM prep comes in. It does not say it in the AP - because the AP is an outline.

Varies. I don't have a fixed prep amount for a session of play. Sometimes it's very little -- a review of notes for a few minutes. Sometimes it's very long, like when I'm restructuring a section of the AP to pull out the blatant and clunky Force bits or if I'm building up some set-piece maps and encounters. I like running location based things that are linked with some light Trad in my homebrew stuff, so I tend to focus on making encounter areas more engaging and better structured from the APs (which, frankly, are extremely hit and miss about this stuff).

I don't know what value you'd take from this. I'd never run an AP straight with no prep, though, because I tend to find that I hit places where the AP's writers and I violently clash and it actually is seriously unfun for me. The opening to Descent is a great example of something that if I ran it straight I'd probably say, after a few moments of play, "you know what, guys, I ain't feeling this crap. Let's pull out a boardgame or something."

I sincerely did not mean it as a value judgement. I meant it as, perhaps the DMs I know and myself run APs quite differently than many other DMs I have seen. I have watched DMs run the APs by the book. It's fun for most players. I have also watched DMs run an AP based off decisions, actions, backstory, and even spoken thoughts of other players. I apologize, but I have not read Storm King's Thunder. (I have always wanted to be a player, so avoided the temptation. ) But, running Icewind Dale, we had a Duergar in our group. We were plotting how to scout/attack the Keep at Caer-Dineval. The player player playing the duergar mentioned a few things about what should be there. No rolls. No asking the DM. Just: I am a player who is from this region and of that culture - this is what I know. And voila, the DM took the time to add it in. That is why I asked about prep. It took time to do that.

And regarding your hit or miss stuff, my guess is you are your own worst critic. Seeing how much knowledge you have, I doubt anything you build is an actual miss.

 

[Scott Christian]

So the discussion has turned to whether D&D players author content in the same way as Story Now games. I think it's pretty freaking important to note that D&D players don't do so and don't even want to do so.

If you want to understand where the biggest difference between D&D and Story Now lies for these players - it's right there.

Definitely agree. I think there are layers, where some DMs allow more authorship than others. But, none of that matters in retrospect. It is about the term railroading and participationism and force. None of these are needed.

 

[FrogReaver]

So thinking some more - what is the difference between authorship and just roleplaying your character?

'I try to hit the orc' - authorship or roleplaying the character?
'I try to recall if there's a forge nearby' - authorship or roleplaying the character?
'I try to climb the tree' - authorship or roleplaying the character?

I personally tend to view these statements as 'roleplaying the character'. Maybe 'roleplaying the character' is some specific kind of authorship in some peoples minds, but to me 'roleplaying the character' is not even close to the activities I think of when I think of 'authorship'. I'm not here to make the semantic argument that 'roleplaying the character' is or isn't authorship, only that if it is authorship that it's a special type and should be differentiated from non-roleplaying the character types of authorship.

Some examples of 'non-roleplaying the character' authorship:

'The Town has the following buildings'
'These NPCs have these characteristics'
'There's a secret door here'

Then we get into a more complex situation - where mechanical intervention ties a 'roleplaying the character' action to a 'non-roleplaying the character' authorship. A simple example of this style of mechanic might be: ' try to recall if there's a forge nearby' - normally a roleplaying action but mechanics can morph this into actually 'authoring a forge nearby' by making it true that there is one nearby anytime the player rolls a mechanical success (not saying any particular game does it this way). The point is that actions taken by just playing the character can turn into authorship actions depending on the mechanical backdrop and how the mechanics tie those roleplaying actions to the creation of fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Definitely agree. I think there are layers, where some DMs allow more authorship than others. But, none of that matters in retrospect. It is about the term railroading and participationism and force. None of these are needed.

Do you think railroading is a useful term for a degenerate case of sandbox play? I kind of do.

 

[Aldarc]

So the discussion has turned to whether D&D players author content in the same way as Story Now games. I think it's pretty freaking important to note that D&D players don't do so and don't even want to do so.

If you want to understand where the biggest difference between D&D and Story Now lies for these players - it's right there.

I think it's pretty freaking important to note that you don't speak for me or what I want to do in D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it's pretty freaking important to note that you don't speak for me or what I want to do in D&D.

Context is important.

IMO Most D&D players want nothing to do with authorship.

 

[Aldarc]

Context is important.

Don't think that I'm not ignorant of it, FrogReaver, either as a general concept or in this particular case. Nothing stopped you from likewise including "most" or "many" in your follow-up post, and its absence was glaring, particularly as your statement about D&D players shifted from more nuanced "most" to a blanket statement assertion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Don't think that I'm not ignorant of it, FrogReaver, either as a general concept or in this particular case. Nothing stopped you from likewise including "most" or "many" in your follow-up post, and its absence was glaring, particularly as your statement about D&D players shifted from more nuanced "most" to a blanket statement assertion.

IMO. The initial context 2 posts before (and the direct reply to someone quoting that post) should have been enough to clue you anyone in that I was still referring to the same set of players I was before.

It's not like I went from saying most D&D players to saying all D&D players.