Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5185460" data-attributes="member: 42582">Cool.Well, the question is, what would the players be choosing from otherwise? And what counts as meaningful?I know that Forge theory isn't all that popular on these boards, but to be honest I think that it helps unpack some of these issues and the debates that have a tendency to recur here. In this case, I think the discussion of illusionism is being distorted in the way that Mallus described - that is, too many assumptions are being drawn from classic AD&D play compared to other approaches to play.As far as I can tell, from a combination of experience plus reading what others have to say, AD&D has two classic approaches to play: either purist-for-system simulationism (here we all are, a fighter, a wizard, a cleric and a thief in a fantasy world - I wonder what our adventures will be?) or a pretty austere form of gamism (here's this fantasy world generated in accordance with all these random tables, that looks almost like purist-for-system simulationism, except that when we take a second look at it we see that the real point of it is for the GM to run the players through the challenges that the game setup poses). In either approach, from the subjective perspective of the players there's no scene framing other than the initial "You all meet in a tavern" because from that point on the whole game unfolds according to the logic of those random tables, plus the GM's decisions about how to apply them and interpret their results. Playing this way, making decisions about "quantum pubs" or "quantum NPCs" would count as dubious metagaming, and is a good candidate for either illusionism (if the players believed that their choices about where to move in the world mattered, and in fact they didn't) or railroading (once the players pierce the veil of illusion).The highwater mark for encouraging this sort of illusionsim/railroading is AD&D 2nd edition, which keeps all the mechanical trappings that supported purist-for-system simulationism and austere gamism, but wants to deliver a Dragonlance/Driz'zt experience in play. The "solution" to the incoherence between mechanics and goals is to have the GM tweak mechanical outcomes to produce goals. This is why I agree with the Forge-ites that AD&D 2nd edition is an incoherent ruleset. But I have to admit that, for a lot of players, it seems to deliver something they want (or at least are willing to accept).Because I dislike this sort of illusionist/railroaded play so much it's a bit hard for me to reconstruct the preferences of those who like it, but my best guess is that they want play to produce a story, but also want mechanics that feel like the physics of the gameworld - including, for example, an absence of overt sceneframing, because when mechanics are the physics of the gameworld then the scene only changes because individual PCs and NPCs make game-mechanically legal decisions to move from A to B and to perform actions X and Y. It seems that the players who want this combination of story and physics are therefore prepared to put up with the GM exercising either covert or overt power in order to make the simulationist mechanics produce satisfying narrative outcomes. (This is even the explanation for the use of illusionism that Celebrim has given upthread.)But once other approaches to play are considered, things change. For example, if - from the very get-go - it's understood that certain decisions will be made by the GM, then the GM making those decisions is not illusionism (because there's no deceit). But if those decisions are not relevant to the meaningful choices the players have to make in the course of play, then the GM making them is not railroading either. In the same way that no one regards it as railroading for a typical D&D campaign to begin with "So, there you all are in a tavern waiting for a patron to show up" - this isn't railroading, it's just the GM kicking things off - so if it's agreed that the GM will do this sort of thing from time to time then it's not railroading. It's just the GM doing his/her job.A practical example from my own 4e campaign: the players made a mistake and blundered into a TPK ambush by undead spirits that had been summoned, as guardians and wardens, by a goblin shaman. After the last PC went down - which in 4e is not necessarily dead, but rolling death saves - I found out who wanted to start a new PC and who wanted to keep playing his existing PC. All but the player of the half-elf warlock wanted to keep going - the half-elf's player wanted to bring in a drow sorcerer instead. The next session then starts with the PCs (minus the half-elf, plus the drow) in the goblin dungeons. A bacsktory for the drow is worked out between me and the player explaining how he got there. For the others, it's simply assumed by them (I'm not even sure it actually came out in the course of play) that the goblins took them prisoner once the undead had knocked them out. And the prisoners can smell the smell of roasting half-elf as the goblins prepare their evening meal.This is not consistent with traditional AD&D play, because the transition from TPK to prisoners wasn't mediated by the rules, except in the very loose sense that the 4e rules didn't mandate that the PCs had to be dead simply because they lost the combat. (For me, this is an attractive feature of 4e - it removes the need for the GM to fudge in the interests of the story.) Nor had I made any notes about the goblins intending to take prisoners, although there was already a dungeon on the map of their lair. There was no railroading or illusionism. The whole thing was worked out by negotiating with the players, and driven by obviously metagame considerations.Now, from what I've said, you can't work out whether the game is gamist (but not the sort of austere gamism that AD&D favours, but that's not the only viable form of gamist play) or narrativist (ie story and theme are to be worked out in the course of play). I'm not 100% sure myself - although Forge theory dictates that each functional game has only one ultimate goal of play, I'm still not fully persuaded of that. Or maybe my game is mildly dysfunctional but we cope. In any event, I'm pretty certain that a game can be played which gives the GM a certain sort of authority over sceneframing but which nevertheless involves neither illusionism nor railroading. All it requires is letting go of an attachment to hardcore simulationist mechanics - some things can happen without needing to conceive of them as mediated via the action resolution rules.Here are some relevant threads from the Forge and related sites that make me think it's important to keep the two distinct:<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1448.0" target="_blank">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1448.0</a> on simulationist reality and narrativist reality - the latter does not assume that there's a world out there to explore, but rather that there's a story to be had if we all play together. <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1361.0" target="_blank">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1361.0</a> on transitioning from scene to scene - the post by Paul Czege about half way down the first page is especially clear, I think, on the contrast between "continuous play" of the classic AD&D sort and more overt scene framing play. <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=29332.0" target="_blank">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=29332.0</a> on the notion of railroading, and illusionism - it's not illusionism if the players know, it's not railroading if the players are OK with it (Edwards calls that "participationism"), and it's not even force if the GM doesn't transition the scene without the players' consent (which seems to be Edwards's preferred approach). <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791.0" target="_blank">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791.0</a> distinguishing narrational authority (ie who gets to narrate the colour of a PC's action eg "My sword digs deep into the dragon's scales), plot authority (ie who gets to decide when the reveals happen eg "Now his mask finally comes off, and you realise that he's your father!"), situational authority (ie who gets to frame scenes) and content authority (ie who gets to decide whether or not the masked man is the PC's father). And pointing out that the last two are orthogonal to illusionism/railroading. <a href="http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=11244" target="_blank">http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=11244</a> which debates whether or not D&D has scene framing at all. <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=227.0" target="_blank">http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=227.0</a> on some scene framing techniques, and ways in which a GM can be more or less flexible and follow player cues in deciding to cut the scene.In my own game I use a mixture of "continuous play" and explicit scene-framing, but am trying to move from more of the former to more of the latter, to get rid of the boring bits. I've used skill challenge mechanics to help with this a bit (doing travel and searching as a skill challenge, so there's a definite beginning, middle and end) and also some pretty overt GM narration ("You go down the corridor and find nothing interesting").</blockquote>

Verification