D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Cadence]

Interestingly, I don’t think that anyone new to RPGs would present many of the challenges we’ve seen in this thread.

I'm guessing the modern HS ones would have internalized creative mode vs survival mode at some point. ;-)

 

[Scott Christian]

Could this be because HS students are familiar and comfortable with the typical authority distribution between teacher-student and thus easily fall into the assumed authority distribution many bring to a D&D game?

That is a great question. But I meant it in general terms. I do not DM. I just sit, grade and watch them play. We constantly have new players, and about half the time, I just let the experienced students teach them. The other half I teach. (Maybe a bit more than half, but certainly not 75% or anything like that.)
But, back on the thread of railroading, etc. The majority of them do use the APs I bring in. Most, due to the impetuousness of youth, and the dynamics of playing a social game and being a teenager who is still learning to be social, are not anywhere close to the actual path. This also might be because they don't always read it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, I wouldn’t disagree with that.

Interestingly, I don’t think that anyone new to RPGs would present many of the challenges we’ve seen in this thread.

True, like an arrow hitting the bullseye.

 

[Blue]

This, right here. I can teach high schoolers who have never read the PHB D&D. They could never have seen the game before, and within ten minutes have an understanding of how the game is played. In an hour, they will know and understand how the game is run, in almost all aspects. They may not have the rules and powers and mechanics memorized, but they understand the process of the game.

It seems to me, that some of this discussion should try to be more in line with that type of concision.

I have taught middle schoolers how to play FATE in 10 minutes, created characters right there, and playing their first game within 30 minutes. And that has meta-currency that can be used to establish fiction as well as do other things. They didn't blink an eye - that was their first experience and there was nothing to unlearn.

I mention that because I had a tougher time with it myself, because I had decades of D&D, from Red Box Basic thru 5e, and it required some new ways of thinking and letting loose some reins that I previously as DM would hold tight - and all of the great DMs I previously played under that I tried to emulate held tight.

All in all, I think the expanded viewpoint of playing various types of games has improved me in other ones. It's made me more self-aware of the choices and style and how to match them, and what assumptions I have may not match my players. This isn't saying X is better than Y - that's just an accident of the order I learned the games in. Instead it's that more tools in my toolbox and understanding where I should use them (and where I shouldn't) has made me a better DM.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

I’ve played it. They are.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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!

I’ve seen this before. I illustrate one way things are difference. You respond that the things aren’t REALLY different and that just proves your point. I suggest a different difference. Rinse and repeat.

I get it. I could provide a dozen of different differences and you would still find them meaningless. At this point, we are just not going to agree.

 

[Nephis]

So much to respond to! I'd like to clarify a few thoughts vis a vis our particular game setting, my particular character and class, our use of Spout Lore (especially by Maraqli the know-it-all), and the use of endangering puppies, etc. which will hopefully shed light on some of the questions mentioned above.

Maraqli was created as a research librarian (class: wizard) and as such constantly looked to increase her knowledge. To wit, she kept a highly detailed notebook (which I the player kept up and often referenced) of things that had happened along the journey. In preparation for the dangerous trek up the enormous mountain next to the Library (Pilgrim's Landing on the map @Manbearcat posted earlier), she purchased several new tomes, namely a book on dangerous, possibly mythical lizard-type creatures (eg. dragons); the history of the local area; myths and legends pertaining to Snowmist (this mountain in question); flora and fauna of Snowmist and its environs; and a few others, while Sir Alastor hired a guide and stocked up on rations and ammunition. These books were Maraqli's store of "weapons," since she had few martial skills, something to fall back on when her spells were used up, insufficient, or non-existent (curiously, I never chose fireball, nor did I choose any other offensive spells initially). Spout Lore, then, became part of her arsenal of actions (that is, a way for her to access her vast amount of knowledge without simply saying "I'm Maraqli: I know [this] stuff!), as much as Sir Alastor the Paladin's weapons, pieties, prayers, and presence were his.

The camps listed on the map (Camps 1-5) were stages for climb attempts on an Everest style mountain, obviously seriously increasing in difficulty and danger as the number progresses. Even by Camp 2 (the Dinosaur/Dragon Dig Site), it was pretty freaking tough. There were not many dig sites (due to the difficulty of terrain/climate/fauna/resources/etc.), but there were clear possibilities of more sites in a landscape that had been already established as having a heck-ton of history and legends (not insignificantly was one about Frost Giants, which ended up playing a role in the Dwarven Forge, the dwarf in question having long ago died of old age and thus less than helpful to our fair heroes). Therefore, Maraqli's having a memory of having read or heard about a legend of a dwarven forge fit in with the setting and her character's qualities.

As has been alluded to by others, this information did not mean it was easily won, nor do I think it would have made more sense for us to have built a forge: a librarian armed with her research and her brain and a paladin armed with his sword and his courage were far more likely to (perhaps foolishly) follow the legend, particularly when it had already been established that Maraqli thought nothing of endangering herself in the pursuit of knowledge. Even if a failure meant that the forge she believed in did not exist, she probably would have pursued it, to be honest. But instead, they both believed it to be true (as it turned out to be) and ventured into dangerous terrain to find it. A failed roll sent Maraqli careening down a crevasse in the glacier, tumbling to arrive alone (initially) at the forge's gate. We expended the resources of time, health, rations, and safety on this side journey, so we definitely "paid" for the success - no freebies.

With regard to endangering puppies to which one poster alluded, I must assert that, yes, puppies were endangered by our rolls. @Manbearcat used some of our failed rolls and limited successes - and even successes - to introduce interesting philosophical dilemmas with regard to killing animals protecting their young, particularly in that wyvern side adventure he mentioned. We had to weigh the pros and cons of killing the mother (which would have killed the young who would not have survived without her) and find creative solutions within our bag of tricks, also enabling us to organically further develop our characters.

Earlier I used the term "narrative" with respect to @Manbearcat's description of our trek out on the ice: I think "fiction" might have been a better term to use. What I meant was that his knowledge of the terrain and of adventurous hiking, etc., lent a certain immersion to his framing of our journey. In fact, when he described what we had to do to get to the wyvern's nest I honestly had to overcome a sense of vertigo since Maraqli had none! I loved these moments of immersion, and I equally loved the (many) moments of collaborative story-telling in DW and the other PbtA game that I've played (Blades). I also love playing 4e D&D quite a bit, but I feel that the collaborative nature of PbtA games gives me more a sense of both immersion and agency. If that's your jam, I highly recommend it!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ve played it. They are.

They’re really not, in my opinion. I’m sure we’re wirking with different ideas of “significant”. Or that, within the confines of an adventure path, such changes may seem significant.

The location of an item changes things slightly. You have to retrieve it from this location rather than that location. Perhaps you fight a different enemy, or perhaps what would be a fight in one location becomes a stealth job in another.

But the important thing is that you’re trying to retrieve object. That’s the thing that remains the same, and that’s the important thing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This, right here. I can teach high schoolers who have never read the PHB D&D. They could never have seen the game before, and within ten minutes have an understanding of how the game is played. In an hour, they will know and understand how the game is run, in almost all aspects. They may not have the rules and powers and mechanics memorized, but they understand the process of the game.

It seems to me, that some of this discussion should try to be more in line with that type of concision.

Um, I can teach a newbie DW, or AW, or Blades in the Dark in that amount of time as well. It's only people that have played D&D for a long time and have a very tightly conceived way of thinking about how games should work that there's a problem. Even here, I can teach the game in little time. The problem with almost all of the arguments here are that they're looking at a DW mechanic from within a structure that is otherwise D&D. The entire game changes, and that mechanic exists in that larger, different, structure.

Take @Cadence's arguments about the invisibility ring. I read that and I see someone thinking that the game state is like one found in D&D where the player is imagining something about an invisibility ring and pushing it into play -- totally disconnected from whatever else is in play like a D&D game where mechanics aren't tied directly to the fiction or the play. So, he's not entirely wrong that a DW player could do this thing, where he is wrong is in thinking about what's going on in play when the player does so. If the player was doing this, it's because that ring is already a critical focus of play -- it's important, it's needed, it's a PC dramatic need. In that case, it's entirely relevant, and that spout lore isn't going to solve anything, just provide a new route for play. Because, if the PC does this, it's going to be part of play, not something that just sits or is there for whenever the player wants to pick it up and play with it. DW does not go in for the same kinds of play D&D does. The tools and mechanics are suited for the play it does do.

Look, I play and run 5e. I like the game. I also play and run other games (DW I've read and discussed extensively and could run at any moment, really, but I haven't a game under my belt of that particular iteration of PbtA). These games are completely coherent and not like 5e in structure or play. If you're legit trying to understand the things being said here, maybe start from a point of "hey, these guys aren't dummies, and they clearly think this work and works well. Plus, there's a lot of these games, and a good bit of players if the numbers from Roll20 are to be believed (and since you don't even need a tabletop to play them, those metrics very likely skew low). So, if this seems to work, and these guys are saying it does, and trying to offer how, maybe I should stop and consider this from the point of view of 'okay, this works, how can I imagine a way that it works that isn't me assuming it's broken?'" That's what I did, and it's what actually got me over the same hump I see so many people hitting in this thread. I stopped and thought, "pemerton seems a smart guy, and so does manbearcat. Let me start by assuming this stuff works, and try to realign my thinking so that it does." It clicked. I went from arguing vociferously against @pemerton and his ideas to running my own game of Blades in the Dark in about 6 months.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’ve seen this before. I illustrate one way things are difference. You respond that the things aren’t REALLY different and that just proves your point. I suggest a different difference. Rinse and repeat.

I get it. I could provide a dozen of different differences and you would still find them meaningless. At this point, we are just not going to agree.

You pointed out differences caused by the RNG and the GM's choices setting up the module. The characters and who they are have nothing to do with these. The other differences are mostly color -- how many hitpoints were lost defeating these villains, did you negotiate the Burgomaster down (which the module expressly says you cannot do) or did you unseat him and install his rival or did you do something else? Cool story, yes, but it doesn't change anything else about the module -- the Amber Temple is still there and still does the same things, Strahd doesn't change because you do this -- he barely cares. Etc., Etc. Yes, the account of play at the end of the day is different in some details, but the story beats are the same, the story points are the same, and the game is still the same overall story. None of that changes with the characters present.

Again, if a paladin in present in the party vice a barbarian, what in the AP changes to reflect these different characters? You're waiting until the end to point out the differences in this or that combat or how this or that social encounter turned out. I'm pointing out that those combats and social encounters start the same, the bad guys want the same thing, the goal of the encounter is still the same, and nothing at all changes in any of this if you have a barbarian present or a paladin.

If characters mattered, whether or not Strahd was even a thing in the game would have to depend on a character being introduced to play that had something to do with Strahd as a character goal. The existence, place, power, and goals of Strahd are completely independent of the characters playing.