D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Malmuria]

Would a dungeon crawl be considered story before or story after?

 

[Manbearcat]

Would a dungeon crawl be considered story before or story after?

They can be Story Absent (this is all of my Pawn Stance Moldvay Basic ever). There is no story. We don't have a metaplot through-line or unrevealed, consequential - this is key, backstory that I've conceived prior to play that drives play. We don't stitch together a story of the events of play after they have occured. There is procedural generation of content in the way of Wandering Monster checks and Reactions that have a Story Now affect to them, but that doesn't suddenly qualify my Pawn Stance Dungeoneering that I've run (possibly more than any type of play) as Story Now.

They can be Story Before if you actually do have a metaplot through-line or unrevealed, consequential - this is key, backstory that I've conceived of prior to play. If that metaplot and unrevealed backstory consequentially impacts framing, action resolution adjudication (as an input...typically in the form of "saying no" or gatekeeping or exposition dump), or consequence framing? You're in Story Before territory.

Story After is simply stitching together a retrospective story post play where neither system nor premise has any say in the matter. Its akin to making a story out of your Monopoly piece going around the board and claiming territory etc. I've never done this but I'm sure its out there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Would a dungeon crawl be considered story before or story after?

I think the conceit is story after, because there's no planned story, there's no focus on story during play, so any story that there is is pieced together afterwards. I'm not sure I'm onboard with this conceit.

 

[Malmuria]

They can be Story Absent (this is all of my Pawn Stance Moldvay Basic ever). There is no story. We don't have a metaplot through-line or unrevealed, consequential - this is key, backstory that I've conceived prior to play that drives play. We don't stitch together a story of the events of play after they have occured. There is procedural generation of content in the way of Wandering Monster checks and Reactions that have a Story Now affect to them, but that doesn't suddenly qualify my Pawn Stance Dungeoneering that I've run (possibly more than any type of play) as Story Now.

They can be Story Before if you actually do have a metaplot through-line or unrevealed, consequential - this is key, backstory that I've conceived of prior to play. If that metaplot and unrevealed backstory consequentially impacts framing, action resolution adjudication (as an input...typically in the form of "saying no" or gatekeeping or exposition dump), or consequence framing? You're in Story Before territory.

Story After is simply stitching together a retrospective story post play where neither system nor premise has any say in the matter. Its akin to making a story out of your Monopoly piece going around the board and claiming territory etc. I've never done this but I'm sure its out there.

Can you explain pawn stance? I've tried to look it up since your use in the other thread but I don't quite understand.

Edit: also, Monopoly is the story of urban capitalism, as told through the lens of a humble, working class thimble.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Does that help? I still feel like I may be giving information that isn't what you're asking for but I just don't know how to respond better than "they do it because they, personally, want to, and they have repeatedly told me that they are glad they get to do as they want, rather than having to do what I want them to do."

Stream your sessions?

 

[Ovinomancer]

...Because they felt like doing so? Like...I don't know how to answer this question. My players investigate things they find interesting, or follow what they just "know" their characters would do, or take risks to see what consequences fall out (usually that's only a couple of the players, two are more explorers than instigators and one, on hiatus, kinda waffled between; the new guy strikes me as more of an actor, but he's new so I don't know for sure yet). They do what they like because...they like it. I often ask them what they want to do at both micro and macro levels. E.g. "you now know the cultists are amassing weapons...what will you do?" Or "the hellcats are stalking you, and if they catch you guys, you'll be in for a fight. What do you do?" for micro level stuff, and then after or between sessions I ask for feedback, commentary, and suggestions, e.g. "what kinds of adventures sound fun to you guys? Are we having enough combats? Has anything been allowed to fester that you'd like to deal with?" etc. Sadly my players often just say it was great and they look forward to more, but I'm getting better at asking more useful questions to get feedback.

The players engage with whatever they choose to engage with. I always leave that in their hands. If that means something gets ignored or diminished in importance, so be it. Sometimes that will have consequences (e.g. letting a known threat go unaddressed), sometimes it won't (perhaps dismissing an opportunity because they have things to do that they care about more).

What other reason could there possibly be? This is why I say I would be so crestfallen if I learned that they were only playing along because they thought they "had" to. That would be...awful. It would mean they were just along for the ride, appeasing me rather than enthusiastic for participating and telling the story. I prepare possibilities so that I can more readily and smoothly support whatever things they decide to do. If they decided that stopping the various "bad guys" was a boring waste of time and that sailing the high seas was where the real ADVENTURE was, well, I'd be sad that the stuff we'd done so far had mattered so little, but I would absolutely shift gears and work with that. The current established fiction wouldn't go away, and the party would likely hear news eventually about various events going on in the lands they had left behind (many of them less than pleasant) but other than that, they would be free to do as they liked. They certainly have enough money by now to just sail off into the sunset if that is their wish.

The Bard is a healer, a poet, an archaeologist, a zoologist. He cares deeply for the people in his life and seeks always to right wrongs and foster reconciliation. He has twice over adopted groups of people as "his" for personal reasons, and in so doing made great changes in the world. I did not prompt any of his desire for healing or protection; even the player did not intend this initially, as the Bard character was intended to be a bon vivant and has instead proved a noble soul, much to the player's surprise.

The party Druid, freshly returned to us, is curious to a fault and deeply committed to finding the true nature of things. He has seen beneath some of the dividing lines of magic and faith and wishes to attain true enlightenment, delving deep into ontology and teleology, at least in his Druid-y, spiritualist way. He has just returned from walking with celestials (something no mortal has done for millennia), and now has found a calling, a mission, even a creed if you will. He's still figuring himself and his mission out, but his life has gained direction and purpose where before he was adrift, ready to go wherever the winds of curiosity might blow him.

Other characters are similar. The Ranger (on hiatus) trying to navigate the difficult path between the ordinary city life his (paternal) grandmother seeks for their clan, the Old Ways that he and his cousins wish would be returned to, or his newly-discovered claims on great power and prestige that would make him even more intrinsically city- (and money-)bound than his grandmother ever dreamed of being...much like his hated (maternal) grandfather, the slimy merchant-prince. The Battlemaster, seeking to advance the height of his tactical acumen...and discover the secrets of his forebears, the ancient elves, spurred on by the powerful and unusual enchantments of the blade his parents left to him before they passed away (a racial feature from one of our resources, Grim World). Our newcomer, the Spellslinger, a world traveller on the hunt for new secrets of arcane gunsmithy and alchemical propellant, but also students ready to learn the art...and scoundrels needing it demonstrated firsthand, as she has served as a bringer of justice in her far-off homeland.

Does that help? I still feel like I may be giving information that isn't what you're asking for but I just don't know how to respond better than "they do it because they, personally, want to, and they have repeatedly told me that they are glad they get to do as they want, rather than having to do what I want them to do."

Yeah, you didn't follow my question (which is okay, it's a different way of looking at things). The question isn't what do the players do, but rather who creates that motivation. The sultana, for instance -- why would the players want to talk to her? Take whatever that answer is, and then ask, who made this up? The way you talk about your game, it's you making it up -- the sultana is a means to gain information or means to tackle a problem that, ultimately, you posed. That the players are onboard, even engaged with solving this problem that you've presented is going directly to one of the points of the thread -- this looks like participationism. That's perfectly fine, I think the majority of play in RPGs, and I mean the large majority, is participationism oriented. Clearly it can't be a bad thing in and of itself!

The question here isn't to expose your play as bad, it's to encourage looking at it in a critical manner, to encourage deconstruction of the play. I found my games got better when I did this because I had a deeper understanding of what was happening and how it could be leveraged, even when I didn't choose to change direction at all. It also lead me into being very willing to try different games for what they offer and suggesting that it's better to use a game designed to meet a set of play goals rather than try to drift/mutate a game that isn't into one that kinda sorta maybe does a job.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you explain pawn stance? I've tried to look it up since your use in the other thread but I don't quite understand.

Here's a decent definition:

Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

Pawn Stance: A subset of Author Stance which lacks the retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

What this means is that, in pawn stance, the play is the player just doing what the player wants and not trying to justify or create any motivation for the PC -- the character is just a pawn for the player, and no attempt to engage character is made.

 

[Lanefan]

In AW games, the system has its say and you're playing to find out what happens. So when I'm running Dungeon World and a player wants to generate content (like a useful/interesting NPC or legend) its overwhelmingly going to be the formulation of:

1) Player proposes a thing that may be true in the fiction. A Wizard might use Spout Lore or a Divination Spell. A Cleric might use Guidance. A Rogue might use Connections. Etc.

For instance, the Wizard might say "I believe there is an ancient dwarven forge nearby that we can use to repair the Paladin's ruined armor."

2) When you do it, you do it and AW games so we roll Spout Lore because the trigger is up. Here are some possible results per principally guided DW GMing.

10+ (Interesting and Useful) - "The legend says the forge is in a dugout notched under the glacier near Camp 2. It is ever-burning so where there is meltwater, you will find the forge."

7-9 (Interesting) - "The legend says the forge is in a dugout notched under the glacier near Camp 2."

6- (Its there but here is some further suckitude to frame a decision-point as well) - "The legend says the forge is in a dugout notched under the glacier near Camp 2. The fires of the forge were quenched long, long ago...as were the lives of the dwarves who worked it. Whatever did the quenching likely still lurks within."

And this is a perfect example of what really gets under my skin about this type of system: once the Wizard says there's a forge there (and not even presented as a certainty, merely as "I believe...") there is no chance at all that the Wizard can be completely wrong; that the legend is for some reason not true and thus there's no forge to be found there, or that he's got the glaciers mixed up and is remembering something he saw on the other side of the mountains.

Which on the face of it is fine if the idea is that everyone contributes to building the setting as play goes along, but it also IMO makes it far too easy for players to solve their own problems by just making something up.

I mean, even on a poor roll here they've gone from having no immediate solution* to knowing where one may be found (I assume) relatively nearby - though they might have to fight their way in - and on a 7+ roll (so, better than 50-50 odds) they don't even have to do that.

* - other than going back to town and finding a smith there.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a good question. Since the story board has three different endings, I was curious if that was leeway enough for people to not call it railroading. I suspect, that like most DM's that write their own setting and materials, some things need to be plotted in advance. And if the group is okay with running an adventure that is more linear.

And you could have unlimited endings, but for the most part that is complete impromptu. Which can be fun in its own way. But it lacks the same definition and clarity of an adventure path.

Ah - I didn't realize those were hard-end points.

I assumed an open-ended campaign and thus took them to be jumping-off points for whatever might come next; which would be storyboarded out in due course once play had progressed some and you had an idea where things might be going (at the very least, once you sort-of knew which "end point" you'd likely be jumping off from).

 

[Lanefan]

I can say that it is set up like an adventure path, therefore many of the lines are predetermined. My players, due to lack of time, like cohesiveness in their storytelling. They are not necessarily fans of spending an hour talking to a shopkeeper or veering down a road where things are just made up on the spot. Like I said, that can be fun, but it's not for everyone. (Personally, I wrote out about 200 pages for that particular adventure: NPCs, maps, setting pieces, etc.)

I'd be that player who fairly quickly veered down the road. It seems I've never met a red herring I didn't like.

I'm also not very concerned about pace of play. They can talk to the shopkeepers all night if they want, no skin off my nose.

That said, I have run this twice with two completely different groups. One group did crush and break the King's Heart while inside the tomb. They felt it was going to curse everyone. So the latter half of the adventure was impromptu, and it worked out just fine. Just as if any group thwarted any adventure path design.
For me, I just find the notion of railroading a bit silly. It's like the question @Crimson Longinus asked earlier: How many paths are needed to not call it railroading? I mean, technically speaking, there are only so many paths the adventurers can take.

The more you describe this campaign the more I'm starting to see it as something of a railroad that hits a few junctions along the way and can thus lead to three different stations (but you can only go to one). No problem with this, of course - you've defined it as a fairly hardline AP and if that's what your players signed up for, all is good.

I am very curious how some people run their first session and not railroad. I've run the sandbox before, but found some groundwork still had to be laid for a story to exist. I watched session one of Critical Role, and it was, for all intensive purposes, a complete railroad. It was just done by one of the players instead of the DM. But the DM had everything all set up. So how does everyone run their first session?

First sessions - and even first adventures - often* require a Forceful push to get things going.

* - but not always; for my current campaign I'd decided what adventure was going to happen first (as in "Dammit, I'm going to DM Keep on the Borderlands at least once before I die!") but the gathering and formation of the party and getting to the adventure was completely player-driven.