D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Manbearcat]

Generically, no. Its possible, after all, for the GM to simply be revealing something he'd already established but not yet revealed to the players, or even (and I've done this before in various games) to remind the player of something he's previously revealed, but the player had forgotten.

That does not, however, seem to be the default usage in the PbtA example presented; its an invitation by the player for the GM (within constraints) to add in a new element that had not existed in any real sense prior to that invitation. It may be something that can be fitted into the fiction seamlessly (that's at least the ideal), but it previously had not existed in any meaningful, real sense.



But its really not; its changing things only in terms of in-game processes. Whether an orc dodges and gets missed, the sword cuts him, or the player fumbles it, this is representation of process that's actually going on in-game. Its being created in a sense, but in that sense its being created in world, the same way someone building a wall would be doing so.

The material created via the process at hand, is largely ex nihilio; it does not represent any actual process in-game. Remembering something is not creating it, but that's what happens here to serve the game agenda. Its not something that actually changes anything in-game contextually except informatively, but in practice it makes a reality that would not exist any other way.

And those are simply different things. People don't understand that's true (whether or not they understand why that matters to people) are really kind of hard to take seriously here, and it absolutely makes it impossible to have a discussion about why one is desirable and the other not or not, because to people on the other side they're attempting to argue that chalk is cheese because they both start with a ch.



That's true, but bluntly, irrelevant. The fact on a meta level its so does not mean the distinction does not matter.



I don't think you're wrong, but I still think you're struggling with either understanding the distinction or understanding why its important.

You're correct. I am indeed struggling with both of those things (the distinction you're attempting to draw and the understanding of why its important).

Is it "the illusion of process?" Because there is no process. We all know this. So is it that facility with sword or climbing or rhetoric gives the illusion of process in a way that you feel consulting your accumulated knowledge/memories fundamentally cannot be mapped to a process that in anyway resembles what happens when an intelligence sorts through its databanks for relevant information?

If it is indeed "the illusion of process" (and, again, you feel that facility with sword/climbing/rhetoric is functionally doable via TTRPG resolution mechanics in a way that accumulated knowledge/memories are not), then what is that "illusion of process" doing for play?

1) Is it about the verisimilitude testimonials of a player with a certain sort of cognitive orientation (eg "I need the illusion of process to feel like the imagined space is 'real' even thought its obviously not")? This I've talked about many times...while its great that a certain sort of person feels a certain sort of way about an illusion of process...that doesn't mean (a) that illusion of process is a thing (its not) and (b) it certainly doesn't mean that the human condition is objectively governed by their personal litmus test for verisimilitude.

2) Is it about competitive integrity (this one I really don't understand and I've spoken to that a bit above); eg if players can attempt to declare accumulated knowledge/memories of setting that are helpful to them (like what happens in real life...people recall accumulated knowledge/memories that are helpful on multiple axes...or they fail to do so...or they manufacture them and the false memory gives them a morale boost or it deceives them and draws them into deeper waters than they were prior), then the competitive integrity is gamed in a dysfunctional way and skillful play ceases to exist as a result?

3) Is it about the ability to draw inferences (again, I touched on this above...the skillful loop of a Dungeon World game is all about soft move portending hard moves and players orienting themselves around that - drawing inferences - and navigating decision-points and making moves to curate the consequence-space their characters may face downstream of decision-points)?



Out of those 3 things, the only one in play is (1) above. And its only in play because some folks feel a certain way about a certain thing. But their personal cognitive framework that generates this feeling, while totally legitimate, doesn't make a thing objectively true (eg inhabiting an imagined space requires a certain sort of illusion of process). Are we just saying "perhaps those people shouldn't play those games?" Even then, I'm not convinced (as the present consensus on neuroplasticity doesn't particularly support that sort of inability to systematically adjust and remap cortically...people change regularly throughout their lives...I've changed radically multiple times throughout my life).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

At this point I have hard time believing that people are arguing in good faith. It simply is inconceivable to me that intelligent people (or frankly, anyone) would not understand the difference.

Attempting to hit things might cause things being hit, attempting to remember things cannot cause the things being remembered to be true.

 

[Ovinomancer]

At this point I have hard time believing that people are arguing in good faith. It simply is inconceivable to me that intelligent people (or frankly, anyone) would not understand the difference.

Attempting to hit things might cause things being hit, attempting to remember things cannot cause the things being remembered to be true.

For what purpose do you imagine they are being dishonest -- what is being gained?

ETA: are you suggesting they are lying about how their games play or how they are oriented to them?

 

[Manbearcat]

At this point I have hard time believing that people are arguing in good faith. It simply is inconceivable to me that intelligent people (or frankly, anyone) would not understand the difference.

Attempting to hit things might cause things being hit, attempting to remember things cannot cause the things being remembered to be true.

Well, outside of the implication that I'm a liar, let me try to succinctly clarify my position.

* There is no hitter.

* There is no sword.

* There is no hittee.

* There is no rememberer.

* There is no memory/accumulated knowledge.

* There is no actual space where fictional stuff is happening.


Every single one of these things are fictional constructs...game pieces...game pieces we manipulate to move the gamestate from here to there to play a game and create a fiction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For what purpose do you imagine they are being dishonest -- what is being gained?

I am not going to start to guess people's motivations. For whatever reason the discussion has simply become surreal so there is little point in continuing it. (Albeit I have been known to be foolish enough to do so regardless.)

 

[Aldarc]

At this point I have hard time believing that people are arguing in good faith. It simply is inconceivable to me that intelligent people (or frankly, anyone) would not understand the difference.

Attempting to hit things might cause things being hit, attempting to remember things cannot cause the things being remembered to be true.

Perhaps your inconceivability reflects your own deficiencies of reason or good faith rather than that of others. I think that it's perfectly conceivable, reasonable, and realistic for intelligent people to arrive at different conclusions in good faith through their own mental faculties and lived experiences. None of this requires that we cast aspersions at others' intelligence, good faith, or honesty.

ETA: If you still find other people's perspectives on fantasy elf games incredulous and it causes you to question their good faith or honesty, then maybe it would be best to take a break from the thread before you escalate tensions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, outside of the implication that I'm a liar, let me try to succinctly clarify my position.

* There is no hitter.

* There is no sword.

* There is no hittee.

* There is no rememberer.

* There is no memory/accumulated knowledge.

* There is no actual space where fictional stuff is happening.


Every single one of these things are fictional constructs...game pieces...game pieces we manipulate to move the gamestate from here to there to play a game and create a fiction.

Yes, all the events in a RPG are fictional. I don't think that has ever been in serious doubt. Now do you or do you not understand the distinction I was making?

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, all the events in a RPG are fictional. I don't think that has ever been in serious doubt. Now do you or do you not understand the distinction I was making?

I just wrote a long post to Thomas Shey. That is the unabridged version of the abridged, succinct version I just typed up to you. Referencing that may help sort out my thinking on this.

In short, if you're making a distinction like "physical make believe interactions should warrant a level of credulity in their illusion of process that mental make believe things should not warrant", then...no. If that is the distinction you're trying to make, then yes, I do understand it. But no, I don't agree that its anything more than an artifact of a particular cognitive orientation toward the imagined space of games.

Is that the distinction you're making?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not going to start to guess people's motivations. For whatever reason the discussion has simply become surreal so there is little point in continuing it. (Albeit I have been known to be foolish enough to do so regardless.)

That ship (guessing motivations) already failed when you suggested people were posting not in good faith. I was seeking clarity, not inviting you to engage in guessing motivations. You already did that.

Do you think that I, to pick a person, am not actually running games the way I say I am, or that I actually have some other mental construct about them from the one I've presented? Or is it that I am just not one of the intelligent posters? I'm trying to understand what you've said. Please elaborate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just wrote a long post to Thomas Shey. That is the unabridged version of the abridged, succinct version I just typed up to you. Referencing that may help sort out my thinking on this.

In short, if you're making a distinction like "physical make believe interactions should warrant a level of credulity in their illusion of process that mental make believe things should not warrant", then...no. If that is the distinction you're trying to make, then yes, I do understand it. But no, I don't agree that its anything more than an artifact of a particular cognitive orientation toward the imagined space of games.

Is that the distinction you're making?

I don't know. Seemed pretty word salady to me, so it is hard to say. How I would characterise it relates to whether the effect is within the capability of the fictional person (PC) to causally affect. I have called things that let the player affect things outside the causal power of their PC 'reality altering' or 'narrative meta powers', but I really don't care what it is called. Call it what you want, I think the distinction is perfectly coherent and one a lot of people feel is important. So pretending it doesn't exist is counterproductive, and at this point, frankly, a tad rude. Wasn't the purpose of all the forgey jargon to make discussing games easier? So make up some forge jargon for this if you want. It is an important thing to communicate, people want to know whether a game contains this element or not, and if it does, then at what degree.