D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Thomas Shey]

On the foundational level the entire philosophy of how Fate and Apocalypse World operate is completely different. Both operate in a way that is philosophically different than GM as Storyteller D&D, but could not be more different from one another if they tried. FATE is at heart a game of cooperative storytelling where GMs and players collude to tell a story together. Apocalypse World represents a rejection of that collusion. A complete and total rejection of it in damn near every way. It instead asks to follow the fictional situation to its end. For players and GMs to just bring it without a particular end in mind.

I literally don't know how anyone who has direct experiences with these games could say they are even close to the same sort of experience.

Well, on its simplest level, because the differences to them are less important than the things they have in common. We're not talking about people who are particularly fond of any of them here, after all, even if they've had extensive experience.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes. I love Fate, but for all the critics claiming that it's not a real rpg, that players can wish anything into existence, Fate, at its core, is a pretty traditional rpg. It has innovations that some players find tricky to wrap their heads around like aspects. Fate points take centre stage, which may be loved or hated, but these are just game mechanics. The play loop is quite traditional. And I agree, Fate feels very different from AW.

IMHO, Fate and Cortex lean fairly Neo-Traditional Games (with strong "Fiction First" principles) that highlight PC characterization and dramatic beats via fictional tags (i.e., Aspects and Distinctions).

For most people not at least part way over into those games penumbra its all of a piece. But I've seen the topic at hand come up about all of them repeatedly (most commonly about Fate, but that's largely because its so central and, well, brute force there).

It's remarkable how any player mechanical authority over the fiction outside of the traditional bounds of GM is somehow regarded as "brute force." If that sort of limited player authority via fate points constitutes "brute force," what does that say about games where the entirety of that authority lies with the singular GM?

Well, on its simplest level, because the differences to them are less important than the things they have in common. We're not talking about people who are particularly fond of any of them here, after all, even if they've had extensive experience.

You complain about pemerton not seeing the distinction you are arguing, yet here you are trying to insist that the square peg fits the round hole?

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMHO, Fate and Cortex lean fairly Neo-Traditional Games (with strong "Fiction First" principles) that highlight PC characterization and dramatic beats via fictional tags (i.e., Aspects and Distinctions).


It's remarkable how any player mechanical authority over the fiction outside of the traditional bounds of GM is somehow regarded as "brute force." If that sort of limited player authority via fate points constitutes "brute force," what does that say about games where the entirety of that authority lies with the singular GM?

GM authority is about as brute force as it gets. Are you somehow confused that I don't think that's true for some reason? I've thought the top-down focus of trad games had problems for at least two decades now.

You complain about pemerton not seeing the distinction you are arguing, yet here you are trying to insist that the square peg fits the round hole?

In terms of both types of games providing tools for players to reach outside of the straightforward ways PCs interact with their environment, yes. I'm not denying there's differences in how they go about it--as I said, the Moves that do this in PbtA are faaar more indirect that the straightforward Asset creation in Cortex or the Aspects creation in Fate, though you can argue the PbtA ones can have far more reacth--but as I've said, I think that's a matter of degree, not kind. Given what I'm talking about is, as I said, things that change the setting in a non-cause-and-effect way, what's wrong about that?

(I'm also, again, getting the feeling that people are under the impression I'm hostile to being able to do that. I'm not. As I've noted I'm perfectly willing to play from Author or Director stances, and objection to doing any of those things from those stances would be, well, strange. Where I draw the line in comfort is probably a bit this side of either set of games, but I don't have any intrinsic objection to it. I just recognize other people do and think some people, including Pemerton, are too focused on the power allotment, when I don't think that's the issue with most of the people objecting (there's an exception or two in this thread, but I don't feel a need to call them out).

 

[Thomas Shey]

And to make it clear, I do get the distinction being made between the Fate/Cortex "Let's get to X" and the PbtA "Let's see where we're going". None the less, I still think there's a great degree of steerage in the latter on the part of players, its just that the net overall steerage of the game is lower, so its not as extreme as in the prior two.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see that this is a third option, appears to fit nicely within my second. And sidequests aren't really a feature of DW because there's not a main quest to get aside from.

If fulfilling the initially-defined dramatic needs of a PC is what the campaign is wrapped around, and partway through this a totally different and unforeseen dramatic need arises that has nothing to do with the initial ones, how is fulfilling that not a side quest?

 

[Lanefan]

None of those things actually were different because of the different characters, though. The places were there both times. The people were there both times. The differences here are the choices in play, but if you swapped out a character in each party, you'd not have any really meaningful differences. The game, the goal, the locations -- all the same.

I guess you really have to play a game that does fully center characters to notice the difference. All of the rebuttal arguments are about exactly what I, and others, are saying -- the tactical choices made in play. They keep missing that so much is entirely independent of the characters.

Which is the same as saying that fifteen different people might walk down a street at different times and while the experience of doing so might be completely different for each one (who they meet, the weather, the time of day, the smell of someone's rose garden if it's in bloom, etc.) it's all the same in the end because in the end the street itself didn't change and they all got from one end of it to the other.

You seem to only be looking at the part that says the street is the same and people go from one end to the other. I'm looking at the variable experiences they have en route and saying that's more than enough to consider each person's walk down the street to be a unique event.

 

[Manbearcat]

If fulfilling the initially-defined dramatic needs of a PC is what the campaign is wrapped around, and partway through this a totally different and unforeseen dramatic need arises that has nothing to do with the initial ones, how is fulfilling that not a side quest?

Because “Side Quest” connotes “GM/metaplot (Story Before) authored.”

The reason why Maraqli’s and Alastor’s “Forge Adventure” doesn’t qualify for “Side Quest” status is because:

a) The inciting event that triggered the armor breakage was PC dramatic need centered (therefore player authored).

b) The armor breakage was “system’s say” meets “player’s choice” (the player could have chosen Str Debility which would have led to different effect and divergent downstream fiction).

c) Repairing the armor became a dramatic need that the players collectively authored to be subsequent focal point of play.

d) Downstream of (c) all subsequent moves were employed to achieve the win con of “armor restored” (starting with the moves at the dig site to restore it that didn’t turn out > Spout Lore > explore glacier for forge > deadly adventure ensues and significant new content creation as a result.


————

I would hope the above should be clear in how it’s profoundly differentiated from “GM offers plot hooks that have nothing to do with PC dramatic need/relationships” until players bite and “go to the place to get the thing for RandomNPC001.”

 

[Ovinomancer]

If fulfilling the initially-defined dramatic needs of a PC is what the campaign is wrapped around, and partway through this a totally different and unforeseen dramatic need arises that has nothing to do with the initial ones, how is fulfilling that not a side quest?

There isn't a main quest, so there can't be side quests. The construct is wrong.

 

[pemerton]

But it is. There are games where players have no such authority at all,

In 5e D&D play, how is it decided (1) if an Orc dodges a sword blow and hence isn't scratched by it, and (2) if a bee doesn't sting a PC so as to make them fail to reach a crucial handhold while climbing?

Put your hand on your heart, you genuinely do not know what subset of mechanics me, @Thomas Shey and some others mean?

You mean the ones that constrain the GM's authorship of interesting bits about the "past" of the setting.

 

[Cadence]

In 5e D&D play, how is it decided (1) if an Orc dodges a sword blow and hence isn't scratched by it,

The characters to hit value is greater than the orcs defense value? The distinction between whether it was a dodge or soaked by the armor seems like it's often ignored, but sometimes the DM may narrate it one way or the other?