D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Ovinomancer]

I'm starting to wonder if you and I remember adventures in quite different ways when telling war stories over a beer five years hence.

You seem to remember events, I tend to more remember what individual characters do during those events while sometimes forgetting what the actual events were!

I might not necessarily remember the battle against the BBEG in and of itself but I will remember Thog's valiant-but-doomed face-charge against him; an event that 99% likely would not have happened had Thog not been in the party. I might not remember the sequence of events otherwise in that adventure but I will remember the escalating rivalry between Danegald and Beyonak as each kept trying to one-up the other in feats of martiality and derring-do, to the point where after the adventure they challenged each other to duel. I might not remember what happened during the adventuring day on Auril 15; what I will remember is that's the night Carantha and Jorelle fell in love.

I haven't said what it is I recall. I'm not recalling my own experiences over a beer right now. I'm talking about how games play. When I recall past play, it's usually a combination of cool happenings and things said. For instance, one of my favorite recollections of play was an all dwarves dungeon crawl in the Underdark. My character and another were bickering while our third was investigating a door. As we bickered, the third suddenly yelled, "will you two shutup, I'm trying to listen!" and to the GM said, "I listen at the door, what do I hear." I think it was a number of minutes before we stopped laughing. Another was an NPC who said something that sounded loaded but was completely innocuous, which was, "Well, I mean, they're not my virgins." So, yeah, no, analysis isn't my sharing tales over a beer, and I do not see why it should be expected to be so. I can separate out the fun and look at the play in a critical way and not lose anything by doing so.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's try a thought experiment. We're playing in an RPG game with a Luck roll that can be substituted in for other rolls, with downside that if the roll is failed, something unlucky will happen in addition to the failed roll, plus it's ablative and goes down with use.

My character is falling off a cliff and know he lousy at skills that would help grab on, and instead roll luck successfully. The DM asks how it occurs, I say that there was a sapling growing from the cliff and I grabbed on - a fairly common trope.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Later I'm wandering through the tundra, slowly freezing to death. My academic has no real survival skills, so when attempting to make camp I substitute in another luck roll. Mind you, failing this will be dire between the failure and the bad luck result. Luckily (heh), I get the best possible roll, which mechanically should take care of all basic needs - so food, warmth and shelter in this case. Since my character can't provide those for himself, the DM thinks about how the luck can manifest and makes up that nomadic natives have small camps about for when they are hunting and I have stumbled on an empty one.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

...

Let me state this again in mechanical terms. I have a check that will require the DM to come up with something outside the direct actions of my PC, including negative consequences on a poor roll. In both cases it came up with something that makes sense to be found in the area but did not explicitly exist requiring the DM to author it in response to a successful player roll.

If you are okay with that but not the Spout Lore roll to remember the Forge, how do they differ mechanically for you? How they differ conceptually for you?

The first I have absolutely no problem with. DMs, even in d&d sometimes cede authority to a player (tell us how you kill the orc as an example). I don’t have a problem with the basic concept of a luck mechanic (at least at first pass through)

I don’t think I have any problem with the 2nd either.

Im still mulling over where I see the major differences with this and other methods.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's try a thought experiment. We're playing in an RPG game with a Luck roll that can be substituted in for other rolls, with downside that if the roll is failed, something unlucky will happen in addition to the failed roll, plus it's ablative and goes down with use.

My character is falling off a cliff and know he lousy at skills that would help grab on, and instead roll luck successfully. The DM asks how it occurs, I say that there was a sapling growing from the cliff and I grabbed on - a fairly common trope.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Later I'm wandering through the tundra, slowly freezing to death. My academic has no real survival skills, so when attempting to make camp I substitute in another luck roll. Mind you, failing this will be dire between the failure and the bad luck result. Luckily (heh), I get the best possible roll, which mechanically should take care of all basic needs - so food, warmth and shelter in this case. Since my character can't provide those for himself, the DM thinks about how the luck can manifest and makes up that nomadic natives have small camps about for when they are hunting and I have stumbled on an empty one.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

...

Let me state this again in mechanical terms. I have a check that will require the DM to come up with something outside the direct actions of my PC, including negative consequences on a poor roll. In both cases it came up with something that makes sense to be found in the area but did not explicitly exist requiring the DM to author it in response to a successful player roll.

If you are okay with that but not the Spout Lore roll to remember the Forge, how do they differ mechanically for you? How they differ conceptually for you?

I mean this is a clear meta mechanic. It has the player to make decisions that their character is not making (presumably the character doesn't knowingly decide when the luck manifests) and at least as you presented it, leads to reality editing.

I literally banned lucky feat from my 5e campaign, granted, mostly because it is absurdly good and overshadows other feats. Though I don't think e5 lucky really results any reality editing, as it is just a reroll. It doesn't actually let the character do anything they hadn't a chance to do in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Would you agree that how the GM narrates it is constrained, by whether or not the roll to hit succeeded or failed?

The reason I ask is because (i) whether or not the Orc dodged depends upon causal factors not entirely under the PC's control, and (ii) the roll to hit is something that is done by the player following their action declaration for their PC I attack the Orc.

Which to me is rather parallel to what the GM narrates about Dwarven forges is constrained by whether or not the roll to Spout Lore succeeded or failed, even though (iii) whether or not a Dwarven forge exists depends upon causal factors not entirely under the PC's control, and (iv) the roll to Spout Lore is something done by the player following their action declaration for their PC I try to recall useful and interesting stuff about Dwarven forges in these parts.

Parallel does not entail is indistinguishable. The differences I see are one that @Manbearcat and @Nephis have flagged - I that remembering things is a mental rather than a physical action - and one that I have flagged - the Dwarven forges are setting/backstory elements and the dodging Orc is something that occurs in the "present" of the fiction. Those are both differences of subject matter.

 

[pemerton]

Thought experiment time:

Suppose there was a mechanic such that: you try to recall useful information toward a particular goal. On a success the DM provides something useful for that end (very Spout Lore like so far). On a failure the DM gets to author a PC memory that complicates or changes your relationship with someone important to your PC.

What would be your thoughts on such a mechanic?

My thoughts would be that you're reinventing games like Burning Wheel and AW/DW. @Manbearcat has already said a bit about this. He's suggested candidate failure narrations for Spout Lore. I've talked about examples of my own BW play, where (as GM) I've established unhappy truths about important NPCs on failures, and where (as player) I've learned unhappy truths, such as that my PC's mother seems to be the daughter of Evard.

Here are some examples from the AW rulebook (pp 202, 205) of narrating failure when a PC tries to read a person, or open their brain to the world's psychic maelstrom:

Marie is trying to reconcile with Roark after [m]ucking it up with Joe’s Girl, and going into the conversation she reads him, of course. She misses the roll. Roark, out of his own self-interests, is ready to let bygones be, but now no way I’m telling her that. I get to make as hard a move as I like, and I choose to offer an opportunity, very much with a cost. “It’s obvious, he hasn’t even opened his mouth and it’s obvious, he’s not going to listen to you,” I say. “You can have him back, but you’re going to have to in-brain puppet strings him to do it.”

Marie practically keeps house in the world’s psychic maelstrom. She thinks ghosts live in there and maybe she’s right. She goes in there to consult with them, and (unusually) misses the roll. I’m tempted to capture her, but instead for my hard move I decide to announce future badness - not often a hard move, but in this case it counts. We play out her conversation with the ghosts, but they aren’t helpful and she comes out frustrated. “Roark’s there,” I say. “He looks happy, his face has this look of wonder on it. ‘Marie!’ he says. ‘Marie, such a gift you’ve given me!’” “I what?” she says. “‘Roark, are you okay?’” “‘I’m not Roark,’” I say, and not in Roark’s voice. “‘It’s me, Monk!’”​

 

[pemerton]

On metagame mechanics: I agree with Ron Edwards that "I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player."

Who Spouts Lore, the player or the character? Answer: the character.

Who spends an OGL Conan fate point to make it true that an ally is there to help the PC break out of prison (I take that example from p 68 of my original printing of the rulebook)? Clearly it is the player.

Who, in BW, hopes to meet a friend who will help them (thus triggering a Circles check)? Answer: the character.

Who, in 5e D&D, spends a use of the Lucky feat to get a reroll? Answer: the player.

Who, in AD&D, prays to a god for divine intervention hoping to get a reroll? Answer: the character.

Who, in Apocalypse World, performs the Harm move whenever a PC takes harm, to find out exactly how bad it is? Answer: the player. (The characters efforts to avoid harm have already been played out prior to the Harm move being rolled.)

Who, in Classic Traveller, uses their familiarity with sub-cultures and the lower classes to pick up information about where contraband and forged documents might be obtained? Answer: the character.

Who, in 4e D&D, spends a use of Come and Get It? Answer: it depends. If the effect, in the fiction, is that enemies charge the PC of their own volition, it seems the player did. If the effect, in the fiction, is that the PC is wrongfooting his enemies with his deft polearm work - and this was the typical effect in my game - then the character.

This all goes to @Campbell's point not far upthread, that the differences between these things matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On metagame mechanics: I agree with Ron Edwards that "I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player."

Who Spouts Lore, the player or the character? Answer: the character.

Who spends an OGL Conan fate point to make it true that an ally is there to help the PC break out of prison (I take that example from p 68 of my original printing of the rulebook)? Clearly it is the player.

Who, in BW, hopes to meet a friend who will help them (thus triggering a Circles check)? Answer: the character.

Who, in 5e D&D, spends a use of the Lucky feat to get a reroll? Answer: the player.

Who, in AD&D, prays to a god for divine intervention hoping to get a reroll? Answer: the character.

Who, in Apocalypse World, performs the Harm move whenever a PC takes harm, to find out exactly how bad it is? Answer: the player. (The characters efforts to avoid harm have already been played out prior to the Harm move being rolled.)

Who, in Classic Traveller, uses their familiarity with sub-cultures and the lower classes to pick up information about where contraband and forged documents might be obtained? Answer: the character.

Who, in 4e D&D, spends a use of Come and Get It? Answer: it depends. If the effect, in the fiction, is that enemies charge the PC of their own volition, it seems the player did. If the effect, in the fiction, is that the PC is wrongfooting his enemies with his deft polearm work - and this was the typical effect in my game - then the character.

This all goes to @Campbell's point not far upthread, that the differences between these things matter.

Yeah, I actually agree this is part of it. But not the only part. If the action the PC is taking could not causally produce effect it is having, then it is still meta.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@peme

Would you agree that how the GM narrates it is constrained, by whether or not the roll to hit succeeded or failed?

The reason I ask is because (i) whether or not the Orc dodged depends upon causal factors not entirely under the PC's control, and (ii) the roll to hit is something that is done by the player following their action declaration for their PC I attack the Orc.

Who rolls the die doesn't matter. Never has. We could easily flip the math so that attack bonuses are static and targets roll saving throws against them. This really wouldn't change anything. It's just that players like rolling attack rolls.

Which to me is rather parallel to what the GM narrates about Dwarven forges is constrained by whether or not the roll to Spout Lore succeeded or failed, even though (iii) whether or not a Dwarven forge exists depends upon causal factors not entirely under the PC's control, and (iv) the roll to Spout Lore is something done by the player following their action declaration for their PC I try to recall useful and interesting stuff about Dwarven forges in these parts.

Parallel does not entail is indistinguishable. The differences I see are one that @Manbearcat and @Nephis have flagged - I that remembering things is a mental rather than a physical action - and one that I have flagged - the Dwarven forges are setting/backstory elements and the dodging Orc is something that occurs in the "present" of the fiction. Those are both differences of subject matter.

Well, perhaps we can say it is about subject matter, if we also include what sort of causal process is being simulated under subject matter. But I feel that is downplaying the differences in question quite abit.

Imagine this way of attacking an orc: The player declares that because their character is a medical expert, they have determined that the orc is not feeling well. Due the extortion of battle, the orc is about to have a heart attack. The player rolls medicine check, and succeeds. The orc has heart attack and takes damage.

This, I feel, is what attacking orc would look like were it analogous to spout lore.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine this way of attacking an orc: The player declares that because their character is a medical expert, they have determined that the orc is not feeling well. Due the extortion of battle, the orc is about to have a heart attack. The player rolls medicine check, and succeeds. The orc has heart attack and takes damage.

This, I feel, is what attacking orc would look like were it analogous to spout lore.

Is there any reason to think the Orc is so unwell as to collapse from exertion? Or is it already established that the Orc is hale and hearty (eg CON of 16, as per the 5e D&D SRD).

Has the PC undertaken an actual medical examination of the Orc? Or is it the player who is conjecturing a possibility, and seeking a roll to confirm it?

I think your example is trading on a lack of fictional positioning to present something that is rather arbitrary as analogous to something that is not at all arbitrary (ie a scholar who has studied the lore of a region reflecting on her knowledge to recall what she has learned).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For some folks posting here who run these games, "interesting and/or useful" seems to mean just that - it could be the forge existed the way the player has the character remember it, or it could easily be something else interesting and/or useful to the player that the DM puts in. That seems not that different to me from the way I've seen some things happen in D&D games - albeit with a formal structure not present in D&D and with the conceit of the character remembering it.

For other folks posting here who run these games, it sounds like the words "interesting and/or useful" aren't as broad as they sound when read by an outsider, and almost certainly means the forge would exists the way the player has the character remember it. The equivalent in the D&D game could seemingly be a ring that had a fairly high chance of creating whatever the player had the characters want/remember.

It feels like these two different ways of running it would result in two very different games (and the disagreement between some of those posting on each side seems to back that up) and would give the players very different levels of authorial/narrative control.

I know this was a few pages back, but...

There's a lot less light between how I would run it and how @Manbearcat or @Ovinomancer would in practice, because there are a whole set of other aspects of the DW agenda, principles, and process that apply and constrain specific instances of responding to Spout Lore, or other player moves. Some of the other differences might also devolve down to stylistic things like what I consider an immanent situation vs what either of the above mentioned posters might consider it. Beyond that, I don't consider any of these examples to be fully specified, and thus when Manbearcat stated 'thus and so' it is quite possible there are elements of the characters, situation, and backstory which inform that of which I am ignorant and making assumptions about. One thing I would have to say about a game like DW, small things matter! In a classic dungeon crawl, or a linear AP-like setup, there's not going to be a ton of variance in what is presented. Maybe the thief gets ganked by the trap and the party leaves to come back another day, and a different party might make a different decision. However, they are still facing the same challenges. In a DW game it is likely that 2 different parties won't run into much of anything in common! Every game is unique and idiosyncratic.