D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

And yet… no one posting in this thread who is familiar with these kinds of games shares your concern. Why do you think that is?

Are we mistaken? Are we being dishonest?

I suspect it was because he didn't want to give me all the information he gave his players for some reason. I've no idea why he was so evasive about it.

Pretty much the AD&D thieves’ skills would be the limit. Climbing walls, picking pockets, reading languages, moving silently, and so on.

Then why didn't he just say that instead of "It includes 1e thieves." Usage of "includes" means that there is more outside of 1e thief skills. Pemerton is a lawyer and a professor. He knows how to use words and what the usage of "includes" would mean. If he had meant just the 1e thief skills, he would have said that.

The player and the GM being in agreement about the character’s capabilities isn’t a railroad. Good grief.

And yet he accuses every tradition DM of railroading his players despite the players and DMs being in agreement.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I assume you now graciously accept that you were wrong and I am right.

Mod Note:

Really? In what world does this seem civil? It comes across as an attempt to goad your interlocutor into losing their cool.

Don’t escalate, please.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Basic stuff like that which will be apparent to any player with half a brain.

Mod Note:

Personal insults, too?

At this point, I’ll note that your argument partner was thread banned by another Mod. But you were just as willing to tango.

Boot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I suspect it was because he didn't want to give me all the information he gave his players for some reason. I've no idea why he was so evasive about it.

He did. I mean… the name of the ability was enough for many of us. None of us decided to google the definition of “cunning” and then stick dogmatically to the first definition we found.

But even then, @pemerton then elaborated on it being about classic D&D thief tropes. So if there was any doubt remaining, that should have helped.

But for you, it didn’t. Do you think that maybe you’re trying to be right more than trying to be accurate?

Do you think that making assertions about a game you clearly aren’t familiar with is the best way to understand it?

Then why didn't he just say that instead of "It includes 1e thieves." Usage of "includes" means that there is more outside of 1e thief skills. Pemerton is a lawyer and a professor. He knows how to use words and what the usage of "includes" would mean. If he had meant just the 1e thief skills, he would have said that.

Because it may go beyond that a bit. It depends. Usually, in games like this, there may be some interpretation if something is related or not. Again, familiarity with games that work this way would help you here… or in the absence of that familiarity, asking relevant questions.

You’re blaming him here for what you don’t know.

In play, something may come up and the player might say “would my cunning expert trait apply here?” and the GM would then say yes or no. If there was disagreement, then they’d talk it out until agreement could be reached.

And yet he accuses every tradition DM of railroading his players despite the players and DMs being in agreement.

Yes, it’s almost as if agreement between player and GM isn’t the determining factor in what constitutes a railroad.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it’s almost as if agreement between player and GM isn’t the determining factor in what constitutes a railroad.

I'm not the one who said it was. Regardless, traditional games are not inherently railroads despite the incorrect claims of others.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I suspect it was because he didn't want to give me all the information he gave his players for some reason. I've no idea why he was so evasive about it.

Then why didn't he just say that instead of "It includes 1e thieves." Usage of "includes" means that there is more outside of 1e thief skills. Pemerton is a lawyer and a professor. He knows how to use words and what the usage of "includes" would mean. If he had meant just the 1e thief skills, he would have said that.

And yet he accuses every tradition DM of railroading his players despite the players and DMs being in agreement.

Mod Note:

And more mind reading. Don’t do that!

GENERAL NOTE:
People, there’s obviously some less than stellar posting going on in here, and has definitely seen its share of threadbans.

The deteriorating nature of discourse is jeopardizing the continued existence of this as an active thread.

Dial it back, or the lock will be placed on the doors, understand?

 

[Faolyn]

So, you say that you play PbtA games. The only one I remember you actually mentioning is Monster of the Week, which as best I understand is a pretty traditional game in its play structure, but that uses some AW-esque mechanics.

So I don't know if you use the AW technique of "asking questions and building on the answers". But here's an example, from John Harper who is a pretty serious expositor of AW and similar games:

In Apocalypse World, the players are in charge of their characters. What they say, what they do; what they feel, think, and believe; what they did in their past. The MC is in charge of the world: the environment, the NPCs, the weather, the psychic maelstrom.​

​

Sometimes, the players say things that get very close to the line. Usually this happens when the MC asks a leading question.​

​

MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"​

Player: "Oh man, those [freaks]? They use human ears."​

​

That's a case of the player authoring part of the world outside their character, however -- and this is critical -- they do it from within their character's experience and frame of reference. When Nero answers that question, he's telling something he knows about the world.​

Anyway, if you use this technique then you know the answer to your question already.

If you don't use this technique, it's pretty simple: as a GM you don't frame PCs into scenes, or invite action declarations, that will produce contradiction with established fiction.

You honestly can't tell the difference between what you did and AW's example? OK then...

If the players decide that slavers use ears as currency, you don't have to rebuild an entire complex to reflect that.

If it had already been established that slavers use toes as currency, you wouldn't ask that question a second time because you already had the answer.

If you did decide to ask that question and get ears, not toes, you have to then go back and readjust every previous encounter with them to reflect that. That bag of toes the players were carrying around to use when they have to deal with slavers now becomes a bag of ears. That change isn't a huge deal.

But having the currency be ears (or toes, or some other body part) is a huge deal. Only slavers and people deal with them use this money. If the PCs are carrying around a bag of ears, or wearing a string of ears around their necks like the slavers do, they are announcing to the world that they are slavers. This will have repercussions, if the GM is any good. There's going to be people who will ally with the PCs because they are thought to be slavers. There's going to be people who will refuse to deal with the PCs, or try to kill them on sight, for the same reason. Likewise, if the PCs see someone carrying around a bag of ears or wearing a string of ears, then they will also come to the conclusion that that person is a slaver. And if you introduce someone with no ears, then it's automatically established that this person is or was a slave.

Do you see how having the players make this decision can have a huge ramification for the setting?

When your players decided that the runes meant exit, what consequences did that have? How did your setting change and develop because of this decision?

From what I can tell: none.

 

[AlViking]

...


Yes, it’s almost as if agreement between player and GM isn’t the determining factor in what constitutes a railroad.

The word railroad is a very loaded pejorative and pemerton seems to redefine it to mean any game where the players can only make major changes to the fiction through their character. Then they expect everyone to understand what he means and that he doesn't really mean a controlling DM where player decisions never matter even though that's what it means to everyone else.

People have pointed this out to them many, many times and at this point using railroad to describe every single game that doesn't use cooperative world building as a railroad sure feels like they're knowingly using an antagonistic phrase on purpose.

 

[TwoSix]

You honestly can't tell the difference between what you did and AW's example? OK then...

If the players decide that slavers use ears as currency, you don't have to rebuild an entire complex to reflect that.

If it had already been established that slavers use toes as currency, you wouldn't ask that question a second time because you already had the answer.

If you did decide to ask that question and get ears, not toes, you have to then go back and readjust every previous encounter with them to reflect that. That bag of toes the players were carrying around to use when they have to deal with slavers now becomes a bag of ears. That change isn't a huge deal.

But having the currency be ears (or toes, or some other body part) is a huge deal. Only slavers and people deal with them use this money. If the PCs are carrying around a bag of ears, or wearing a string of ears around their necks like the slavers do, they are announcing to the world that they are slavers. This will have repercussions, if the GM is any good. There's going to be people who will ally with the PCs because they are thought to be slavers. There's going to be people who will refuse to deal with the PCs, or try to kill them on sight, for the same reason. Likewise, if the PCs see someone carrying around a bag of ears or wearing a string of ears, then they will also come to the conclusion that that person is a slaver. And if you introduce someone with no ears, then it's automatically established that this person is or was a slave.

Do you see how having the players make this decision can have a huge ramification for the setting?

When your players decided that the runes meant exit, what consequences did that have? How did your setting change and develop because of this decision?

From what I can tell: none.

Pemerton is unable to answer this query due to a thread ban.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not the one who said it was.

As far as I can tell, no one did. You seemed to misread the idea that a player would know their place in the game (like, their role in play and their character theme… often summarized by things like character class)
as some kind of “one true wayism”.

Regardless, traditional games are not inherently railroads despite the incorrect claims of others.

That, like cooks and runes being quantum, appears to be a matter of opinion.

After the arguments made in this thread about GM authority… including one of yours where you said it would be within the GM’s authority to deny a player’s declared action, force that player from the game, and then assume control of their PC as an NPC… it’s very hard not to see at least elements of railroading.

I mean… for hundreds of pages now we’ve been talking about an example where a player indirectly contributed to the outcome of a check that was needed and people have been railing against the very idea of it, and pointing out how the GM should have sole authority in that regard.

Maybe you don’t see the similarity to railroad there… but it’s very much “my way or the highway”… which in the context of RPGs seems pretty railroady to me.