D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

In a backstory-first approach, a player's action declaration I try and remember <whatever> is resolved by the GM deploying their authority over backstory, and telling the player what their PC remembers.

In a situation-first approach that constrains the GM's backstory authority, a player's action declaration I try and remember <whatever> is resolved by focusing on the situation. Can the protagonist recall the vital information? Once that is resolved - using whatever process the game calls for - the backstory is amplified to include whatever elements are necessary to support that resolution.

So is hitting an orc with a sword more similar to which of these? How would different mechanics of handling that affect which it is?

 

[Manbearcat]

So you think that who has authority to control which parts of the fiction is not objective trait of the mechanics?

I don’t see how this is related to anything that I’ve written nor what you just quoted (which was saying “whether a particular mechanic draws a player into inhabitation or pulls them out is not an objective trait of a mechanic…it’s an autobiographical fact about the cognitive orientation of the player”).

With that out of the way, the answer is “of course who has authority to control which parts of the fiction is a product of system. (How could it not be?)”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t see how this is related to anything that I’ve written nor what you just quoted (which was saying “whether a particular mechanic draws a player into inhabitation or pulls them out is not an objective trait of a mechanic…it’s an autobiographical fact about the cognitive orientation of the player”).

With that out of the way, the answer is “of course who has authority to control which parts of the fiction is a product of system. (How could it not be?)”

So then you agree that who controls the setting elements outside the characters is an objective part of the mechanics?

 

[Manbearcat]

So then you agree that who controls the setting elements outside the characters is an objective part of the mechanics?

Can we skip the foreplay and you get to your ITS A TRAP portion of things where you INDIE GAMER MANBEARCAT UTTERLY DESTROYED BY FACTS AND LOGIC me?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can we skip the foreplay and you get to your ITS A TRAP portion of things where you INDIE GAMER MANBEARCAT UTTERLY DESTROYED BY FACTS AND LOGIC me?

As appealing as that sounds, believe or not, I am genuinely trying to understand what you think. Because to me it seems you say things that contradict each other, so I am confused. Is this just subjective thing in the head of the player or is it an objective part of the mechanics, and thus can be communicated (e.g. this game has it, this game doesn't.)

 

[prabe]

As appealing as that sounds, believe or not, I am genuinely trying to understand what you think. Because to me it seems you say things that contradict each other, so I am confused. Is this just subjective thing in the head of the player or is it an objective part of the mechanics, and thus can be communicated (e.g. this game has it, this game doesn't.)

The answer to your question, I think is ... kinda both. Like, some games have these sorts of mechanics and some games don't. But the rules may not use the types of terms that you're looking for, or that you think someone who wants that type of game is looking for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The answer to your question, I think is ... kinda both. Like, some games have these sorts of mechanics and some games don't. But the rules may not use the types of terms that you're looking for, or that you think someone who wants that type of game is looking for.

Sure, I'm sure the the different games don't use similar terms, I was merely talking whether this is an thing we can recognise objectively to exist, regardless of what it is called.

 

[prabe]

Sure, I'm sure the the different games don't use similar terms, I was merely talking whether this is an thing we can recognise objectively to exist, regardless of what it is called.

I think in principle it can.

I think in practice there are enough differences between readers that agreement might be difficult.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think in principle it can.

Yeah. I think that too.

I think in practice there are enough differences between readers that agreement might be difficult.

It might not be overtly bold to draw such a conclusion from this thread...

 

[Manbearcat]

As appealing as that sounds, believe or not, I am genuinely trying to understand what you think. Because to me it seems you say things that contradict each other, so I am confused. Is this just subjective thing in the head of the player or is it an objective part of the mechanics, and thus can be communicated (e.g. this game has it, this game doesn't.)

SUBJECTIVE - Whether a mechanic draws a player into habitation or pulls them out.

OBJECTIVE - The actual process of play that generates content. "I say this thing happens." "You say this thing happens." "We all agree this thing happens." "The dice say this thing happens."