D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed. A game where the players create freeform descriptors for their characters (like Fate Aspects, or Experiences in Daggerheart, or the One Unique Thing in 13th Age, off the top of my head) are about delegating the players more backstory authority to flag elements they want to see in play. It's pretty orthogonal to narrativism.

I think the reason they get dragged along with it for folks who come from other, non-narrative-game perspectives is that these innovations generally came to their attention only through narrative games like AW, 13A, etc. So if they're in a narrative game, they must be narrative mechanics, right?

 

[pemerton]

Agreed. A game where the players create freeform descriptors for their characters (like Fate Aspects, or Experiences in Daggerheart, or the One Unique Thing in 13th Age, off the top of my head) are about delegating the players more backstory authority to flag elements they want to see in play. It's pretty orthogonal to narrativism.

Right. Some narrativist play - eg Burning Wheel, to a slightly lesser extent Torchbearer, and in a bit of a different way MHRP (at least as I've played it) - relies on that player backstory authority to help make it work. Some - eg Prince Valiant - doesn't.

 

[kermit4karate]

Right. Some narrativist play - eg Burning Wheel, to a slightly lesser extent Torchbearer, and in a bit of a different way MHRP (at least as I've played it) - relies on that player backstory authority to help make it work. Some - eg Prince Valiant - doesn't.

It's funny. The guts of what I've been reading about narrativist play lately on enworld describes how I've DM'd D&D since the '80s. Story over rules adherence; mechanical results serve the fiction, not vice versa; player agency helps shape the story's direction -- that basically just describes good D&D, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[KYRON45]

Gotta be honest, I've never had a player ruin one of my games. Like, no one in real life has ever said, "You're railroading!" even though people here have said I do. No one has argued against my interpretation of spell variability (magic is unpredictable) or how my monsters differ from those in the MM (stat blocks aren't gospel).

I decide how a dragon's breath weapon works, whether orcs can track elves by scent, how quickly a particular troll regenerates or whether Magic Missiles can bounce. I decide how many dice a player has to roll for damage when they fall down a 50-foot crevasse. (IMO, a player should always be a little afraid to leap across a dark ravine, and I don't care if someone writes a 1,000-word essay about it.)

To the DMs of the world, take back your power!! Rulings before rules! People need structure, even when bloggers and podcasters say they don't. Be the sheriff of Table Town!!

Put down the rulebook, and be the benevolent dictator humanity deserves.

Now, bring on the hate, and I shall drink it like manna from heaven.

I find your rhetoric intriguing.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter or possibly order a t-shirt.

 

[TwoSix]

It's funny. The guts of what I've been reading about narrativist play lately on enworld describes how I've DM'd D&D since the '80s. Story over rules adherence; mechanical results serve the fiction, not vice versa; player agency helps shape the story's direction -- that basically just describes good D&D, as far as I'm concerned.

"Story over rules adherence" isn't something I would associate with narrativist play, as that kind of phrasing has an association (to me) with the GM shaping outcomes based on what they feel should happen.

Narrativist play is intended that all outcomes are ultimately determined by the outcomes from the resolution methods; nothing should be "fudged".

 

[KYRON45]

"Story over rules adherence" isn't something I would associate with narrativist play, as that kind of phrasing has an association (to me) with the GM shaping outcomes based on what they feel should happen.

Narrativist play is intended that all outcomes are ultimately determined by the outcomes from the resolution methods; nothing should be "fudged".

Nothing "should" be fudged...but all things "can" be fudged.

 

[Campbell]

Nothing "should" be fudged...but all things "can" be fudged.

That is definitely not a sentiment most anyone who is a fan of Narrativist play would agree with. The most central principle is something along the lines of "be a curious explorer of the fiction" or "keep the story feral". The basic idea is that the GM sets the scene but once the scene is set we are all playing to find out what happens. No one has an agenda for how it plays out.

 

[KYRON45]

That is definitely not a sentiment most anyone who is a fan of Narrativist play would agree with. The most central principle is something along the lines of "be a curious explorer of the fiction" or "keep the story feral". The basic idea is that the GM sets the scene but once the scene is set we are all playing to find out what happens. No one has an agenda for how it plays out.

I'm not one to label things. I play the game and see what each situation calls for.
Sometimes rules are strictly adhered to...other times....what will make this moment more (insert adjective here).
From time to time DMs tell the party what's what....other times, it's the other way around.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not one to label things. I play the game and see what each situation calls for.
Sometimes rules are strictly adhered to...other times....what will make this moment more (insert adjective here).
From time to time DMs tell the party what's what....other times, it's the other way around.

Quite a few of us here are pretty strong advocates for the idea that you shouldn't play different systems in the same way.

Fudging that's OK in one system doesn't mean fudging is OK in every system.

 

[KYRON45]

Quite a few of us here are pretty strong advocates for the idea that you shouldn't play different systems in the same way.

Fudging that's OK in one system doesn't mean fudging is OK in every system.

Isn't this a general D&D thread though?