D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Cadence]

I don't understand how any of this is different from what @Manbearcat, @darkbard and @Nephis have posted about their play experience with the Dwarven forge, except that their play was structured via a resolution process - Spout Lore - rather than via ex tempore GM discretion.

Why do you label their play as "quantum collapse" but not your own?

It feels to me like a "quantum collapse spell" if I'm supposed to create a specific memory for my character during the play session and then I get a solid chance of that coming into existence (aka "having always been true"), especially if the background likelihood of it doesn't seem large.

Some of the replies upthread made it sound like that was how some folks run spout lore (although they may have later clarified).

It doesn't feel like part of a "quantum collapse spell" if my character is attempting to wrack their memory for something less specific and if I don't necessarily expect to have a solid chance of getting exactly what I want if what I'm wanting seems uncommon. (Or similarly if I'm searching for something instead of trying to remember it).

Saying I'm remembering that the Castellion's son in the nearby capital owns the Archmage Embry's Ring of Invisibility that has a big ruby (all come up with on the fly during play), feels a lot different for me to come up with in play as player than saying I'm trying to remember any local stories of someone with an item that lets them turn invisible and checking for rumors of that if not.

If nothing else, this thread should have amply demonstrated that I am obviously not adequately able to explain why I feel that way to you.

Here is Nephis's actual play report:
So she was playing her character - the character (at least as best Nephis recalls) had heard rumours of Dwarves once living here; she was in a place filled with dig sites and glaciers; it was already established, as part of the fiction about th PC Maraqli, that she was a learned scholar carrying a bag of books.

If they were in a place where there were lots of dig sites (which sounds Dwarvey to me), then a player saying the character was sifting through their knowledge to see if they remembered anything about dwarves or anyone else likely to have a forge in the area, seems like something I would not be surprised by. Or if particular Dwarves had been established in play, back story, or down-time, then trying to remember something about the forge those particular Dwarves would invariably have also feels entirely within the usual.

Q1: Is it enough for you as a DM for a player to try to kick off some lore spouting by saying the character was sifting through their memories and historical knowledge (or maybe physically searching the area if that felt more appropriate for the PC) for a dwarven or other forge? Or would I need to mentally create some facts about a particular forge in the area and say I remembered those details and wanted to check if my memories were correct?

Q1a: If the answer to Q1 is the later:
If you had a player who found the later annoying but the former just fine, would you as DM be ok with letting them use the former and not giving you the extra detail to work with?

How far did the PCs in the DW game have to travel to get to the Forge they recalled?

I don't know how far they had to travel. If it was an area that had been established as full of dig sites (which I'm assuming means Dwarven places were all over), I'd kind of expect that they wouldn't need to travel far. (Like someone hunting deer in an appropriate ecosystem where they were common). If it was an area there was no particular reason already established that a Dwarven forge would be nearby and one might reasonably expect that only one in 50 of the nearest hexes might have one, then I'd expect the travel distance to need to be longer. And if it was the middle of an elvish forest I'd expect it to be a long way to the dwarven forge, but maybe not as far for something else useful and interesting.

Q2: In your game as a DM, how hard of a compulsion do you feel to have the particular memory be accurate, as opposed to being something else that was interesting and useful? (Would it usually be a forge right nearby? Or would it often be something usable as a forge that might need some travel?).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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."

Good. Thank you. Agreed.

It indeed is subjective whether 'setting editing' mechanics affect one's immersion or not. But for some they do. So it is useful for such people to be able to communicate whether the game objectively contains such or not.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You get differences, but the AP doesn't care.

The AP is incapable of caring about anything. It is a book. You are ascribing an inordinate amount of agency to an inanimate object.

Who does care then? Do the players care that because they interacted with the adventure differently? Probably, but in a good way. Likewise with the DM. If the players interact with the adventure differently and get s different result, he should be happy!

The AP doesn't change, though. This is actually a major selling point for AP -- you can bring whatever characters you want to! If this isn't evidence enough that characters are interchangeable, I don't know what is.

You have literally said that when you prepare an AP, this isn’t how you play it. Are you engaged in degenerate play? Even the GM Guide says not to follow a prepublished adventure slavishly.

I mean, here, I'll put if very simply: The party I played CoS with was a dwaven fighter/rogue, a firbolg druid, a human cleric, an elven wizard, and a human barbarian. We recovered the Raven token, found and recruited the ally, and got the sunsword. We faced and defeated Strahd! Now, your turn (or anyone else) -- provide your party that completed CoS and say if you also did these things.

Which ally? Just one? Did your ally die before you even reached Strahd? Did you visit Vallaki? What did you do about the Baron? What about Kresk? Did you ally with the abbott or attack him? Run across any werewolves? Were they important in your playthrough? Our group actually never ended up visiting the Amber Vaults. A shame, because apparently there was a bunch of cool stuff there.

You seem to place a lot of stock on the fact that the playthrough ends with defeating Strahd. If we TPKed before fighting Strahd, is that sufficiently different? What about if after we defeated Strahd, we took on the Dark Powers?

 

[Thomas Shey]

But you seem to think it is self-evident that action declarations that implicate setting should be treated differently from those that implicate scratches on Orcs. It's not. Both add new content to the shared fiction.

I don't think its self-evident they "should" be treated differently, but I think they're different enough its entirely understandable that some people will want them to be. And frankly, the attempt to deny that difference seems to be an attempt to paint those in those camp as irrational. If that's not its purpose, its not clear what purpose its supposed to serve.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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).

Then, I think as prior I have to simply suggest there's too different a set of perspective on this to proceed usefully further. I've been attempting to convey the difference for probably a dozen posts or more now, with no apparent progress; there's no reason to assume trying for a dozen more will do anything different.

 

[FrozenNorth]

This is how their sold, this is their marketing, I'm pointing that out.

Why do you care about how they are marketed and how is it relevant?

There is a subset of the player base that will run it with very few changes, and they, and their players, will be happy with that.

There is also a subset of the player base that will tinker with the AP and will change it in small and large ways, and their players will be happy with that.

Your point about the first subset “being the way the game is marketed” is both wrong (as most GM-facing material emphasises that the GM can change whatever they want) and erases an entire subset of GMs from reality. Why do that?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Again, it's not what you did but how you did it that would be different; and it's the "how" piece that matters in the run of play.

Since I assume you are not familiar with Curse of Strahd, I will point out a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand by @Ovinomancer : the identity of the ally in Curse of Strahd is not fixed (so you could end up allying with Van Richten, Mordekainen or even Sthrahd’s bride), the nature of the token also changes from playthrough to playthrough, as does the location of the sun sword.

So individual run throughs actually vary quite a bit from each other.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Good. Thank you. Agreed.

It indeed is subjective whether 'setting editing' mechanics affect one's immersion or not. But for some they do. So it is useful for such people to be able to communicate whether the game objectively contains such or not.

Have you ever asked this about a game you were potentially going to play in? If so, what game? Did you play or opt out?

None of my players have ever asked something like that. It seems an odd criteria.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Since I assume you are not familiar with Curse of Strahd, I will point out a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand by @Ovinomancer : the identity of the ally in Curse of Strahd is not fixed (so you could end up allying with Van Richten, Mordekainen or even Sthrahd’s bride), the nature of the token also changes from playthrough to playthrough, as does the location of the sun sword.

So individual run throughs actually vary quite a bit from each other.

And none of those things are changed based on the characters in play -- they're elements of the AP that are entirely independent of the characters. I left them vague for people that haven't played the AP buy might and because it would have taken quite a number more words to get that across. However, you've made the point for me and noted all the things that can be different in the AP that have nothing at all to do with what characters are playing. Thanks!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since I assume you are not familiar with Curse of Strahd, I will point out a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand by @Ovinomancer : the identity of the ally in Curse of Strahd is not fixed (so you could end up allying with Van Richten, Mordekainen or even Sthrahd’s bride), the nature of the token also changes from playthrough to playthrough, as does the location of the sun sword.

So individual run throughs actually vary quite a bit from each other.

I’ve run it. Those changes are not of major significance.