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

Casting power word stun is railroading, because it forces a particular outcome?

I think @thefutilist has a good definition.
Action taken by the DM. I had thought "PCs railraoding" was understood to be a contradiction in terms.

And I think this example is getting far enough from a RPG to miss the point.
Not at all. I am specifically talking about the "independent" "objective" world prepared by the GM--just one prepared so thoroughly, so exactingly, that there is one, and only one, "logical" (within the DM's mind, of course) path forward.

I get that you disagree with it. "Driver's seat" is pretty subjective, sure. I don't get why you think it is incoherent.
Who is causing the group to arrive at a particular destination?

Is it one or more players, having the agency to do actually anything they like, go actually anywhere they want to go, without regard for the DM's prepared list or the offerings they add to it?

Or is it the DM, preparing a list, and then if none of those things are accepted, preparing a new list until eventually the party accepts doing a thing the DM has offered to them?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, I don't think it does. It's more like saying that every scene needs to serve a purpose of some kind. That no scene should be dull or pointless.
Where I'm of the mind that as long as it's engaging for those involved, anything goes. I don't care if it's not pushing the adventure or story forward right this minute; we've potentially hundreds more sessions to see to that.

I'm also of the mind that the Lord of the Rings movies could (and maybe should) have been six-to-eight hours long each, in order to tell the full story and not skip over bits.
Perhaps. I think I missed the example. I don't know what the scene was about or what was being discussed.
Maybe @Faolyn would be so kind as to repeat her description of it - the tea-drinking session.
I can say that just based on your description, that's likely not something I'd want in my game. I want conflict. I want decisions to be made and action to be taken.

That doesn't mean that there is anything at all wrong with it... I expect there are plenty of people who would enjoy such a session of play. I just imagine I'm not one of them.
Fair enough, though if your players wanted to engage in something like the tea-drinking session would you actually shut them down and force them to move on?
Well, my point was that player agency can be limited to the character's autonomy. It's a common refrain... the player must be limited to knowing and doing what the character knows and does. That the player cannot influence play beyond that.

I don't agree with that particular bit of wisdom.
"That particular bit of wisdom" is what allows true-to-character roleplay to exist without having to take the intentional metagame step of compartmentalizing player knowledge away from character knowledge, something that IME almost everybody is more or less bad at.
But as @zakael19 shared not far upthread... there's some common themes across multiple kinds of play that are striving for player-driven play... those tend to be about openly sharing information as much as possible. About not hoarding secrets and using them to block or thwart players. About promoting play of the game rather than focusing on the setting.
The setting can be the game and play can still be player-driven.
 

I quoted from Vincent Baker not far upthread. That same post includes the following, which seems relevant to some of the discussion in this thread:

Collin:​
Things on character sheets, in particular characteristic, skills, and whatnot. What is their purpose, and are we going about the right way of fulfilling their purpose?​

The latter: no, mostly we aren't going about the right way of fulfilling their purpose. We're held back by our loyalty to the broken old historical approach, it blinds us to what's really going on. We collectively need to do character sheets and what they're for a whole lot better, if we want to accomplish anything.​
Accordingly, the former: ready? This is intense.​
Imagine Thatcher's London. Imagine a person in Thatcher's London who has everything to lose.​
That's a character. That's a whole, playable, complete character. If I ask you to speak in that character's voice, you can; if I present some threat or challenge, you can tell me easily how that character will react; if I describe a morning and ask you what that character will do in it, you'll know. Take ten minutes to think and that character's as real as can be.​
Character sheets are useless when it comes to creating, describing, defining, realizing characters. Totally pointless, valueless, toss 'em in the recycling. A notebook is helpful for remembering things, or 3x5 cards or post-it notes, let's use those instead. Or let's use nothing at all, if we can remember what we need to remember! Probably we can.​
This isn't (just) to Collin but to everybody: I can't teach you anything useful about RPG design if you persist in thinking that mechanical character creation or the character sheet have anything to do with the character at all. It's a misleading historical mistake to call the process and the paper "character-" anything. If you want to get anywhere, if you want to understand, if you want to create anything at all, you have to let that old error go.​
So we start right here at this point: the character exists only in our minds. If we write something down about the character, it's only to remind us, to help us keep the character in our minds. The character cannot be touched by rules or game mechanics at all, under any circumstances, no exceptions. The character is pure inviolate fiction. This is fundamental and inescapable.​
And from there we build.​
<snip what I already quoted>​

What we have here is a resolution mechanism with no character sheet. It treats all outcomes as equal, except in cases where it's "a character dies" vs. "a character's life is radically and permanently changed." In those cases, it biases toward the latter.​
See?​
Let's add a wrinkle. Let's say that over the course of the whole game, each of us is allowed 10 rerolls, no questions asked. Just in case we want another shot at our preferred outcome. Now we need a "character sheet," except that of course it's really a player sheet. We need to keep track of how many of our rerolls we've spent.​
Let's add another wrinkle. Let's say that at the beginning of the game, we each choose a sure thing, a limited circumstance where we don't roll, but instead one or the other of us just chooses what happens. I choose "my character's children are in the scene." You choose "once per session, at my whim."​
Here, this late, I've finally made a mechanical reference to the fiction of the game. I still haven't considered probabilities at all, and do you see how "my character's children are in the scene" and "once per session" are the same? They're resources for us to use, us the players, to have more control over what becomes true.​
Maybe we should write them down on our player sheets too, so that if we forget or get sloppy we can call one another on it.​
But so okay, that's pretty good, but how do we come to agreement about the two possible outcomes in the first place? Here's a rule: neither outcome can overreach the present capabilities of the characters involved. That makes sense; if my character didn't bring the revolver, I shouldn't be insisting upon "shoot and kill" as a possible outcome, right? Same with my character's skills and foibles as with his belongings. Like, if I establish that my character has a weak heart, that opens up some possible outcomes for us to propose; if I establish that my character is an excellent driver, that opens and closes some others.​
Come to think of it, when do I get to decide if my character has access to an antique revolver, has a weak heart, is an excellent driver? Do I get to decide on the fly or do I have to declare it up front?​
Either way, I should write all this stuff down on my player sheet, as I establish it. That way I know what I'm allowed to propose as possible outcomes.​
See how this goes? The "character sheet" isn't about the character. Maybe - maybe - it refers to details of the character, if that's what our resolution rules care about. But either way, even if so, the "character sheet" is really a record of the player's resources. "Character creation" similarly isn't how you create a character, but rather how you the player establish your resources to start.​

The quoted passage is about character sheets. It could also be about GM's notes: these are records of the GM's resources. If the resolution rules care about the details of fictional setting and situation, then the GM's notes will also refer to those details. But the purpose of the notes is to constrain and guide the GM, in terms of what to say when it is the GM's turn to say something.

Once we move from metaphor to this sort of literalness, we can then look at how the things that players do (drawing on the rules of the game and what is on their sheets), and the things that GMs do (drawing on the rules of the game and what is in their notes), interact.
Well, I guess Baker and I don't see eye to eye on character sheets and mechanics and their role in defining character, then.
 



Who is causing the group to arrive at a particular destination?

Is it one or more players, having the agency to do actually anything they like, go actually anywhere they want to go, without regard for the DM's prepared list or the offerings they add to it?

Or is it the DM, preparing a list, and then if none of those things are accepted, preparing a new list until eventually the party accepts doing a thing the DM has offered to them?
I don't see why it has to be a binary one or the other. From my perspective, it's both; without the cooperation of both players and GM, nothing happens at all. If the PCs arrive at a given location and play continues, it must be by mutual consent.
 




People are very good at imagining things. To the extent that if you get six people in a room they can imagine six completely different things.
I am intensely curious to know what rules are required for how the group should imagine things. Particularly from someone with old-school sensibilities such as yourself.

I don't see why it has to be a binary one or the other. From my perspective, it's both; without the cooperation of both players and GM, nothing happens at all. If the PCs arrive at a given location and play continues, it must be by mutual consent.
One: "By mutual consent" isn't enough for a sandbox. I thought this, too, was already established. If all you need is mutual consent, then literally every game ever has been the purest sandbox possible unless the DM outright lied to their players.

Two: Wait, so now collaborative development IS a thing? Something that I know multiple people very specifically rejected as utterly unacceptable in this thread?
 

Remove ads

Top