D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like all games are 100% this. No?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I expressed my bewilderment with people not understanding this thing after all these pages. Do with it what you will, I m not going to discuss this tangent further.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like all games are 100% this. No?

Are what? I'm sorry, I don't follow.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So do you @FrozenNorth, @Lanefan, @Malmuria and others therefore assert that it is, or should be, irrelevant to RPG play whether or not dice are ever rolled to determine any outcomes, as opposed to the GM just deciding and narrating? I mean, I guess that's a position someone could hold - but I'm trying to work out if you are such people.

I categorically disagree that it is only characterization that changes. Imagine if the Ocean’s 11 movie was a campaign. First run plays out like the original movie. In the second run, the players dispense with the heist aspect, and brute force the adventure by killing their way through the casino and grabbing the loot at the end.

Both adventures started and ended in the same place. The obstacles they faced were the same. I would strongly disagree if you stated that the only difference between the two movies was the characterization of the characters.

 

[Manbearcat]

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 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.

Seriously?

A tad rude?

I'm not pretending you don't believe this. I'm not pretending that others don't believe this.

But the idea that "physical interactions in the gamestate should have a privelaged status of default credulity while accumulated knowledge/relationships/recall should somehow have a default status of incredulity" is an artifact of your (and others...no matter who or how many) orientation to the imagined space.

I grant you that your orientation to the imagined space exists.

I don't grant you that in game design and in play that physical interactions in a fictional space should have default credulity while accumulated knowledge/relationships/recall should default to incredulity. And me not granting you that isn't rude (a tad or all the rudeness piled up in the history of the world).

Whether its swording or climbing or recalling or shmoozing...put it to a test. Win and you get the thing. Fail and you get the consequences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also do people discuss things this way in real life? If you talk about prospects of playing together with someone and they're new to the system and asks whether Dungeon World or Burning Wheel has rules that allow the player to affect things outside their character, do you understand what they're asking?

 

[Umbran]

At this point I have hard time believing that people are arguing in good faith.

Mod Note:

Then it is probably time to leave the discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Also do people discuss things this way in real life? If you talk about prospects of playing together with someone and they're new to the system and asks whether Dungeon World or Burning Wheel has rules that allow the player to affect things outside their character, do you understand what they're asking?

It's not guaranteed it's what you're implying it is, but, yes, this is talked about this way with people. Sometimes they wave off because their experience and cognitive state tell them this is bad juju. Sometimes they try it and find it's not for them. Sometimes it clicks and they get it. Sometimes it doesn't click, they play it, and it clicks. I mean, I was able to take my nothing prior except D&D and similarly structured games group and run Blades in the Dark pretty easily. My experience is that people are usually willing to give it a go, and that they usually grok it pretty easily in play. Sometimes they still don't like it, and that's fine.

I mean, if he's okay with it, we can ask @prabe what his thoughts were as someone that tried these games and didn't like them and see if he thinks there's anything at all disingenuous or unintelligent about the approach or even his opinions on how it can be talked about.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not guaranteed it's what you're implying it is, but, yes, this is talked about this way with people. Sometimes they wave off because their experience and cognitive state tell them this is bad juju. Sometimes they try it and find it's not for them. Sometimes it clicks and they get it. Sometimes it doesn't click, they play it, and it clicks. I mean, I was able to take my nothing prior except D&D and similarly structured games group and run Blades in the Dark pretty easily. My experience is that people are usually willing to give it a go, and that they usually grok it pretty easily in play. Sometimes they still don't like it, and that's fine.

I mean, if he's okay with it, we can ask @prabe what his thoughts were as someone that tried these games and didn't like them and see if he thinks there's anything at all disingenuous or unintelligent about the approach or even his opinions on how it can be talked about.

That was really not what I meant though. I don't think that there is anything incomprehensible about those games or that people wouldn't get them if they try them. I was merely referring to the mode of discussion. I know I'm occasionally perhaps needlessly flippant, but I mean the long definitional jargony arguments. Do people asking whether the games contain rules that allow players to affect things outside their character result such in the real life, or do people just explain how certain moves or wises checks work and how they're different than for example D&D?

I am not trying to win an argument here, I am genuinely asking do the people understand the difference I'm referring to a sufficient degree that it can be in practice be communicated.


(I presume the previous mod text was not an order, as my posting privileges in the thread were not revoked. If I'm mistaken I'm sure I'll find out soon enough... )

 

[prabe]

I mean, if he's okay with it, we can ask @prabe what his thoughts were as someone that tried these games and didn't like them and see if he thinks there's anything at all disingenuous or unintelligent about the approach or even his opinions on how it can be talked about.

Ask away.

I wouldn't describe the general category as disingenuous or unintelligent, though my experience is limited and there may be examples outside my ken that are ... less honest and/or intelligent than others.