D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[pemerton]

Personally I would find constantly hopping between the heads of two characters super jarring and damaging for immersion. If two characters are having a deep heartfelt conversation or a witty repartee, portraying them both would feel more like writing fiction that roleplaying. If it doesn't affect you that way that's great I guess!

As I said, if the two characters come into conflict then the GM plays one of them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Why you keep long-windedly repeating the claim that making stuff up is making stuff up? No one is disagreeing with that.

Subject matter is a thing. And you can divide things by the subject matter. No 'should,' but 'could.' Like if you were playing in an established setting, the setting book (or equivalent) would be 'an authority' of certain details of that setting. Or if the setting was created by the GM, the GM could be authority on such details. Or if one of the players created that setting they could. Or are you saying that it is impossible to play a Story Now game in an established setting?

 

[pemerton]

We obviously see this very differently. That's fine. The GM role will differ from game to game.

<snip>

Generally as a GM I view the role of scenario design/scene framing as a necessary evil so we can all start playing. I design scenarios that place a focus on the player characters, but once things are in motion I just want to really think hard about how NPCs would respond and just go with that. Having to do anything else would be an undue burden from my perspective.

This is interesting. As a GM I don't find myself inhabiting NPCs in the same way I do my character as a player. I expect one consequence is that my NPCs are more lifeless than yours. It's probably something I should work on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I said, if the two characters come into conflict then the GM plays one of them.

But it's not just a conflict. Don't these characters talk to each other all the time? Plans, banter, etc? Do you just have conversations with yourself? Isn't that weird?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is interesting. As a GM I don't find myself inhabiting NPCs in the same way I do my character as a player. I expect one consequence is that my NPCs are more lifeless than yours. It's probably something I should work on.

This is actually pretty hilarious, given that you say you can play several characters at the same time? Certainly you could do the same with NPCs?

Also, I don't think not immersing in NPCs same way than into PCs mean they need to be lifeless. Mine certainly aren't. It's just not as method as with the PCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why you keep long-windedly repeating the claim that making stuff up is making stuff up? No one is disagreeing with that.

Subject matter is a thing. And you can divide things by the subject matter. No 'should,' but 'could.' Like if you were playing in an established setting, the setting book (or equivalent) would be 'an authority' of certain details of that setting. Or if the setting was created by the GM, the GM could be authority on such details. Or if one of the players created that setting they could. Or are you saying that it is impossible to play a Story Now game in an established setting?

I'm struggling how you could get there, or start with that opening, if you had actually read and considered the quoted post.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm struggling how you could get there, or start with that opening, if you had actually read and considered the quoted post.

Considering that your two latest posts seem to have mostly ignored what I actually said, I guess that is relatable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Considering that your two latest posts seem to have mostly ignored what I actually said, I guess that is relatable.

The first one didn't actually, it was on topic, and the second one was reiterating because you stated you didn't get it. I mean, are you intentionally ramping up the aggression factor here?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The first one didn't actually, it was on topic, and the second one was reiterating because you stated you didn't get it. I mean, are you intentionally ramping up the aggression factor here?

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus Typically the setting is something established by all participants in some way. In most such games, the settings are sketched out and each individual group will finalize the details. Once things are established, then future play is constrained by that.

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.

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.