D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[AbdulAlhazred]

In a fictional story, what's the difference between authoring a bit about the culture of a whole country or people and authoring a bit about who committed a murder? These are the same process -- I imagine them, I tell other people about them. So, then, what makes the process of authoring work within a game? The structure of authorities and constraints. There's nothing special about the fiction authored after all -- no difference in effort or reality between imagining Custom A or Custom B, or imaging murderer A or murderer B. So, then, it's the process of how we find out who gets to author what when, why, and how. This is how games work.

Right, I would imagine a process in, say, a PbtA-based murder mystery game going something like the GM setting a scene "You are on the scene of a murder, the victim lies nearby." and then just asking questions of the players, "Detective Bates, are you examining the area? Oh, I'll focus on the victim, what do I see? I don't know Bates, what DO you see? Well, the victim's throat was slashed..." There you go, you now have a murder, there's a victim, there's at least one character investigating. The GM has introduced the FACT of a murder, and the player has defined a, putative, cause of death. These are canonical facts, and maybe others exist too, but this is a perfectly good process! While it is true that it MAY not be a mystery to the players as to who committed the crime, at least not forever, such a game could quite easily arrange for an additional mechanism that would allow that. Certainly it is a mystery at this point to the CHARACTERS! In DW specifically, since it doesn't focus on this sort of plot, chances are the 'mystery' will be largely authored by a combination of the players and the GM such that the characters will be confronted with some sort of dramatic tension.

In D&D, it's a very simple structure -- if it's not a character action declaration (not result, but attempt) or something about what a character feels or thinks, then it's the GM's authority. There are some constraints, although 5e really kicks those in the nuts with it's Rule 0 iteration which gives the GM authority to ignore constraints at any time for any reason. Still, we're all probably aware that if you just run over the players and do whatever or are unfair you won't have a game, so there's still some teeth to constraints even as the system spits on them. But, if we imagine we're playing in a principled way, then maybe those constraints are "it has to match the prep" and "it has to follow." These are, I think pretty common (although the prep one is often weaker). This sets the GM up as the source of all backstory and it works. But it's not the only possible structure of authority and constraints, and arguing that it is or must be because of some imagined difference in fictional things is really just smuggling in assumptions based largely on a limited experience. Now, you can absolutely have preferences for authority/constraint structures, but this is truly a matter of arbitrary taste -- it's not based on any objective value structures.

Honestly though, DOES it work? I mean, sure, for a certain range of play you can rely on a GM to set things up. I've yet to see a murder mystery setup that is guaranteed to work, no matter who the GM is. If the players they happen to get are not playing along in a certain way, then its going to go off the rails. Classic D&D, and in this sense 5e is no different, really doesn't have any PROCESS inherent by which things can 'just work'. Dungeon World OTOH WILL produce some sort of coherent narrative, there will be an 'investigation' and activities and whatnot appropriate to that will happen. If the players aren't playing along with that, then the game will just go some other direction and it won't be an issue, there's not some plotline that will fall apart! Overall it is much more likely to work though, IMHO.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, in broad sense making stuff up is making stuff up. Still, I think the distinction I made is coherent enough. Although of course connected, settings and events are different things. So it is distinction that can be made. Now, if you don't care about such distinction, that's another matter.

Well, right. there are surely differences in who authored what, and when and why, and how, but its all pretending. Settings can be engineered either beforehand or along the way. I think its still pretty clear that Story Now is more about the sequence of events presented in the game and less about the setting per se. So we can have Zero Myth, Low Myth, or Lots of Myth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, there's not distinction here that actually matters to RPGs. There's nothing inherent to the fiction imagined, but rather the process -- the authorities and constraints -- that make the difference. IE, there's no difference between me imagining a culture or murderer and you doing the same. The only bit that makes either of these imaginings useful to an RPG is which of use has the authority to have our imagining enter the shared fiction. And what constraints we're under for what we can enter into the shared fiction.

To expand this a bit, the only difference between the player imagining who killed the Duke and the GM imagining who killed the Duke is who gets the say to make their version the one that's entered into the shared fiction. The GM imagining the murderer is not some special or different process, or privileged in any way, over the player except for those authorities. The same applies to cultural details. And, between imagining murderers or cultures, there's again little difference because anyone can imagine anything at any time. It's what constraints that apply that matter -- is it the proper time in game to author a murderer or a culture?

And, once we realize that it's actually the authorities and constraints that matter, it makes it much easier to look at a different structure and walk through the process of play and how it differs.

I had hoped a different statement of it might help, as this is one of the points that's been made repeatedly and seems to not be landing.

The differences are more in terms of what the game can do with this process. In the case of a player authored murder of a duke, as you posit, the Czege Principle pretty much militates against finding a solution to the murder being a way to resolve a conflict within the fiction involving the character. So, the agenda will focus elsewhere, such as on the character's reaction to such a murder or whatever it might be in that specific game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But certainly one can play Story Now in an established setting and presumably that would have some weight? Like if we would play Story Now in Warhammer 40K universe, then certainly 40K lore would be in some sense binding? So basically what I'm imagining is like that, except it it the world created by the GM, so they're the source of the setting information. Though it wouldn't necessarily even need to be the GM. It could be a world created by one of the players, and then they would be the authority of the setting info.

Sure, I think we got pretty far down the line in discussing Dungeon World or other PbtA and, at least potentially, low myth games for a while. That is certainly not the only way to go, Story Now can certainly exist in a setting of any level of detail. However, that might impose certain constraints in terms of available play process. Clearly DW isn't that appropriate to 'high myth'. OTOH AFAIK Doskvol is a pretty detailed milieu where a lot of elements are known to be present and at least some details are nailed down.

One thing that is true is that a game with backstory that is 'open', that is known to all participants to nearly the same degree, at least potentially, is different from one where the backstory is the private creation of one participant and largely unknown to the others. If we play Marvel Super Heroes everyone knows the story of Wolverine. While the GM could certainly make up some stuff that is unknown on that topic, it is pretty constrained and the PCs can reason about Wolverine with a fair degree of assurance that what they know is canonical.

I'd think most environments are somewhere in between. I believe that @pemerton set his BW play in Greyhawk. There's a certain amount of established material there (more or less depending on which sources you rely on) but a LOT is still pretty much just basic outline. Nobody in that setting is going to author the location of Hardby, but players would be free to put the location of a wizard's tower up for arbitration using a knowledge check.

 

[pemerton]

Also, bonds get fulfilled and then you move on to new bonds, so there's a sense in which they are more episodic themes than long-standing things.

In BW, players can rewrite a Belief or Instinct at any time, with the proviso that the GM can enforce a delay in the change if they think the player's change would be an avoidance of an immediately pending bit of pressure.

Now, there are Story Games that operate in other modes. Some are very much fixed on GM structured environment, or on a milieu that is extremely well-defined, like playing Marvel Super Heroes, where we know what the ethos of an X-Man is supposed to be. We know who they are associated with, their history, etc. Its far from Zero Myth, the opposite really. I think in that case the discussion is more on the lines of what people think is canonical for that specific milieu. The processes inherent in the system in use and its agenda would be quite important, and only @pemerton, for example, could say which such games he's got a taste for.

I would love to play Dr Stange in a MHRP game! I could also imagine playing Cyclops in an X-Men game, though maybe not for too much of a long haul.

But in that case I'm still not looking to the GM to tell me what I would know or think or feel about the setting. The reason I would want to play those characters is, in part, because I have my own sense of their setting and how they fit in and what sorts of things they might do in it.

If its a ZERO MYTH game, like Dungeon World is designed to be, then the situation should never arise where the GM has a reason to say something like that. The only time they would in DW is literally as a hard or soft move, or possibly in scene framing. In the later case it would be presented more as an 'environmental' thing, in line with how I was presenting it. That is "You notice that oddly the friars are serving meat, and it is Friday." or that might come in response to a DR move by the player. Otherwise if the player doesn't come out with it, there's no 'myth' that exists which informs us such a thing must be true, no such backstory is predetermined. If the GM wants to present it as an 'Unwelcome Truth' or something similar, that works too.

<snip>

I think this is fundamentally where you are distinct from @Manbearcat at least. I'm not sure about @pemerton, but I suspect he would also focus a lot more on the 'putting pressure on the PCs' aspect. Personally I wouldn't put any words in the mouths of the designers of DW in terms of how they envisage pressure, but my understanding of the text of the game seems to tell me that they'd consider your approach to be rather 'softball'.

<snip>

I do think your DW is a bit more 'classic' in some respects. Maybe that is more presentation than substance, but it is definitely true that the game veers more in the direction of pressure cooker than what you describe.

As a description of DW play - at least as the rulebook presents it - and @EzekielRaiden's game, this seems right to me. EzekielRaiden seems to describe a lot of exploration, revelation of GM-authored plots, etc; and I don't get much of a sense of where the players or their characters fit into things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, I think we got pretty far down the line in discussing Dungeon World or other PbtA and, at least potentially, low myth games for a while. That is certainly not the only way to go, Story Now can certainly exist in a setting of any level of detail. However, that might impose certain constraints in terms of available play process. Clearly DW isn't that appropriate to 'high myth'. OTOH AFAIK Doskvol is a pretty detailed milieu where a lot of elements are known to be present and at least some details are nailed down.

@EzekielRaiden runs DW in homebrew world though, so I don't think in that sense it should be super different. Instead of Doskvol lore being binding, it is the lore of that that homebrew world that is binding. (This is separate matter to the other things they seem to be doing in somewhat unorthodox manner.)

One thing that is true is that a game with backstory that is 'open', that is known to all participants to nearly the same degree, at least potentially, is different from one where the backstory is the private creation of one participant and largely unknown to the others. If we play Marvel Super Heroes everyone knows the story of Wolverine. While the GM could certainly make up some stuff that is unknown on that topic, it is pretty constrained and the PCs can reason about Wolverine with a fair degree of assurance that what they know is canonical.

Sure, that certainly is true. Then again, it is common for people play in setting that not all players are familiar with. So in that sense it is not that different to be told things about homebrew world than it is about some published one.

I'd think most environments are somewhere in between. I believe that @pemerton set his BW play in Greyhawk. There's a certain amount of established material there (more or less depending on which sources you rely on) but a LOT is still pretty much just basic outline. Nobody in that setting is going to author the location of Hardby, but players would be free to put the location of a wizard's tower up for arbitration using a knowledge check.

Yeah, I'm really not talking about small details like where exactly some tower is. Towers can be in many places. I mean more overarching stuff like what is the culture and customs like in this or that place, climate, tech, religion, metaphysic etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But certainly one can play Story Now in an established setting and presumably that would have some weight? Like if we would play Story Now in Warhammer 40K universe, then certainly 40K lore would be in some sense binding? So basically what I'm imagining is like that, except it it the world created by the GM, so they're the source of the setting information. Though it wouldn't necessarily even need to be the GM. It could be a world created by one of the players, and then they would be the authority of the setting info.

The question here would be why use a lore heavy setting to play a game that’s meant to be low on lore?

I mean, yes you could take any setting and then use a PbtA or similar system to run a game in that setting. But how that setting info is put to use is likely going to be very different.

Any “setting secrets” that may exist should basically be jettisoned. You’d use the commonly known lore…this faction believes that, these people are enemies because of this, and so on.

Sure, that certainly is true. Then again, it is common for people play in setting that not all players are familiar with. So in that sense it is not that different to be told things about homebrew world than it is about some published one.

In my current game of Spire, my players didn’t know anything about the setting when we started, other than what we discussed at our first session. Yet the characters are natives of the eponymous city. So we decide a lot of the specifics together, or if there’s something that’s set in the lore I simply tell them. When they declare actions I share any relevant information with them. When they ask me questions, I either share details freely or else I turn the question back on them.

Even when there are details set ahead of time, there are still many that are undetermined. This is by design.

Yeah, I'm really not talking about small details like where exactly some tower is. Towers can be in many places. I mean more overarching stuff like what is the culture and customs like in this or that place, climate, tech, religion, metaphysic etc.

What’s to be gained by the GM defining all those details and the players having to “discover” them? This is the traditional approach, and although there are earlier examples, Story Now games aim specifically to handle this differently from traditional games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The question here would be why use a lore heavy setting to play a game that’s meant to be low on lore?

You like the setting and you like the system?

I mean, yes you could take any setting and then use a PbtA or similar system to run a game in that setting. But how that setting info is put to use is likely going to be very different.

Any “setting secrets” that may exist should basically be jettisoned. You’d use the commonly known lore…this faction believes that, these people are enemies because of this, and so on.

Yeah, I really don't mean 'secrets to be discovered' style of things here.

In my current game of Spire, my players didn’t know anything about the setting when we started, other than what we discussed at our first session. Yet the characters are natives of the eponymous city. So we decide a lot of the specifics together, or if there’s something that’s set in the lore I simply tell them. When they declare actions I share any relevant information with them. When they ask me questions, I either share details freely or else I turn the question back on them.

Even when there are details set ahead of time, there are still many that are undetermined. This is by design.

Sure. But some things are set ahead of time and you will tell them those when relevant. So basically we're just talking about how much that is done.

What’s to be gained by the GM defining all those details and the players having to “discover” them? This is the traditional approach, and although there are earlier examples, Story Now games aim specifically to handle this differently from traditional games.

I'm not really talking about 'discovery' style approach here. Merely one person being the repertoire of the setting knowledge and providing it as needed.

Also, don't many Story Now games actually have an attached setting?

 

[pemerton]

Even in a game where the setting is based on a real world location or era, then the participants are constrained by the tropes/elements of that setting. These may be very broad only and unconcerned with specifics. It depends on the game and the group, but most games I’ve played or read that fall into this category are much less concerned with like historical accuracy than they are with interesting play.

Also, if the setting is a real world one, or an imaginary prepared one, or some intersection, then authority can easily by shared.

When me and my friends played a session of Wuthering Heights, one of the PCs worked in a socialist bookshop. I decided that, in late 19th century London, that would be in Soho. Then when - due to a series of misadventures - that PC and an NPC had to carry the body of the other PC, now dead to dump it in the Thames, I just Googled up a map of London, screen-shared via Zoom, to confirm that my recollection that it wasn't very far was an accurate one.

In our Prince Valiant game, we track location within Britain on the map printed on the inside cover of Pendragon, and we track location in Europe and West Asia based on maps I photocopied from a Penguin historical atlas of the middle ages. This is all public knowledge, not GM-authority-over-backstory stuff.

In our MHRP game, when action took place in Washington, DC - a place I've never been to but some of our group members have - we again used our shared knowledge to narraet things like Nightcrawler teleporting to the top of the Capitol Dome, War Machine hanging a supervillain from the top of the Washington Monument, Ice Man freezing the lake/pond/moat at the base of the monument, hijinks involving Stark-tech orbital reentry vehicle on display at the Smithsonian, etc.

In one of our BW games that I was GMing, the PCs ended up in the Bright Desert, being abandoned there by an Elven searfarer who had rescued them from a shipwreck, but with whom they had subsequently quarelled. No map-and-key resolution was used to determine that this was where they were set ashore: we knew in general terms that the PCs had been shipwrecked off the Wild Coast, and given (i) that it was possible that they should be sailing in the vicinity of the Bright Desert coast, and (ii) that that was where I wanted the action to go (as GM) and (iii) that at least one of the players wanted the action to go there too (the player of the sorcerer with the cursed angel feather) and (iv) that another player, as his PC, was happy to be some distance away from and hence not returning to the Elven Kingdom of Celene, then (v) I just used my GM scene-framing power to stipulate that that's where the PCs ended up! But there was no secret GM backstory about this - everyone can see the map, see the general area the PCs are sailing in, and understand the basis on which I made the stipulation that I did. (While the GM may never speak the name of their move, the players don't lose their ability to identify the what and why of it!)

Later on, the sorcerer PC wanted some allies to help him deal with some Orcs. The player, who had been doing some Googling about Greyhawk in his spare time, declared "Everyone knows that Suel tribesmen are thick as thieves in the Bright Desert!" and declared his Circles check. There is no basis here for me to contest his conception of the fiction - my job is just to adjudicate the check. Given that the character has the Outcast setting as one of his Lifepaths, and furthermore we know that that involved spending time in the Abor-Alz just north of the Bright Desert, the check was clearly a permissible one. So I set the appropriate difficulty and he rolled the dice. As it turned out he failed, and so the the leader of the tribesmen who he met turned out to be an old nemesis, rather than a prospective ally. And things went on from there.

I'm setting out these examples to show how I think that shared authority over backstory/setting is perfectly workable.

I fail to understand what this means. That is, it seems to only have meaning in terms of a game where the paradigm is testing the players against a series of GM delineated 'tests', or where there is a necessity to navigate a story line designed by the GM. What, in Story Game (and particularly Story Now) play would be 'abusive'? No such abuse seems possible IMHO because there isn't some sort of 'testing' going on.

<snip>

I don't think anyone objects to framing a challenge in terms of needing some specific clothing. Then the question is "Hey, you're a guy with a very strict moral code, here's a robe you can steal that will do the trick, do you rip it off and use it, or..."; something like that... As for one player's backstory stepping on another's, let them work that out! They're all adults, maybe they'll ask you to clarify, which is fine too. Since no one person at the table OWNS the backstory/setting, there's no toes to step on. It is just a logistical/process issue.

Again, what is this 'abusive' of which you speak? Abusive of what? The prepared backstory?

<snip>

No real abuse can exist in any practical sense, AFAIK. The worst that happens is the GM thought he was going to frame scene X next, and now maybe its going to be Y instead due to some factor that the player invented in the meantime.

<snip>

I think there's still a sense in which GM ownership of the milieu is an active concept in the way you describe play and game process. As DW is envisaged, this should be impossible.

I agree with all this, both as a description of @EzekielRaiden's play and as an account of an approach to setting in a "no/low myth" context. As you can see from the first half of this post, I think the same basic points can apply to a pre-established setting too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No I am not, and the part I didn't get was what large sections of your post had to do with what I said. Repeating the disconnected bit doesn't really help there.

You were making a claim that there was a clear difference between adding some culture flavor and the identity of a murderer. My entire post was about that the difference was not what you were claiming.