A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 22, 2019

Sadras said:
The only way I see this being important is if all the kids were eaten, which means the chase becomes revenge/justice instead of rescue and possible revenge/justice OR based on estimations if by the time the characters catch up to the orcs all the kids would be eaten, so again revenge/justice solely.
Unless the party plans to make their speed slower if 2 kids were eaten instead of 3.

You do have a point, how many imaginary children the imaginary orcs ate is a bit of an 'angels on the head of a pin' sort of a question. Still, classic D&D guarantees the PCs NOTHING. Even if they give up every possible thing they could stake which would plausibly provide them an edge its perfectly acceptable for the DM to simply state that they find a pile of bones at the end of the trail. I've seen plenty of DMs do things like that too!

This brings up, again, the things I did in hacking 4e. Not only is all conflict using challenge mechanics (or combat) but players have a built-in set of mechanics they can use to have their characters buy successes in those challenges. You can see how this would open up a lot of possibilities (and yes, you could argue that the players will simply buy success all the time, but many of these costs are permanent and fairly steep, so they'd certainly be making significant choices about how the fiction would proceed from there).

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 22, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
The problem isn't GM authority. GM authority can be a perfectly valid thing in a game. The issue is some GMs don't wield it well, some players bristle at it, etc. Again, if you prefer games with less GM authority, that is totally fine. But treating it as a universal problem because you don't like it: that is where this conversation goes off the rails.

I'm not afraid of bad GMs actually. I am simply convinced that RPGs can provide improved play process and better results when the GM has certain structures to work with.

Manbearcat · Mar 22, 2019

pemerton said:
@Manbearcat - one moral of your posts is that there's no uniform thing good GMing (and hence no uniform thing jerk GMing). This can be set out in terms of both risks and skills.

An obvous risk in GMing AD&D in a non-class dungeoncrawling context (and 2nd ed AD&D really brings this risk to the fore) is railroading/"Mother may I" - because the system simply lacks a mechanical framework beyond GM decides for making important decision about the fiction outside of combat. We can see this in the orc cannibilism chase situation: AD&D barely has the mechanics to determine whether or not the PCs forgoing rest lets them catch the orcs (at best their are movement rates, but nothing for determining whether eg the orcs get slowed by a flooded creek or twisted ankles), let alone for determining how frequently and how many children the orcs eat.

That particular risk simply doesn't arise in (say) Burning Wheel, which has robust mechanics for resolving an indefinitely wide range of conflicts.

A risk that arises in classic ("skilled play"/dungeoncrawling) D&D is that the GM lacks impartiality and "gets involved". And the flipside of that is that a good GM for that sort of game need the skill of remaining impartial and impassive, and of judging what's the proper amount of information to communicate so as to keep the "free kriegsspiel" going but not just telegraph the solutions. As I've often posted, it's a skill I lack.

Conversely, my love of getting involved - of taunting and poking the players and seeing how far and in which direction I can push them - which would be a liability if I was running a ToH tournament, is a virtue when GMing Burning Wheel, or Prince Valiant, or 4e. It let's the players know what I think is at stake in a situation, gives them something to play off and push back against, creates conversations in which they can correct misapprehensions if they think I've made them, etc.

That's not to say that there can't be multi-purpose systems. A lot of people think of Classic Traveller as a game to be GMed by an impartial referee. But I'm finding it to be eminently playable in something closer to a DW style (and even in the original, 1977 rulebooks there are passages that point in this direction, like the observation (Book 3 p 19) that "in many cases" the referee "has a responsibility" "to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played").

But most systems tend to foreground one set of skills and techniques and make some other approaches a liability. A strong sense of how things will unfold is pretty crucial if a GM-driven, 2nd ed AD&D type game is going to reliably produce strong story - if the GM doesn't bring that to the table, then in the absence of mechanics that will reliably deliver it, or player authority to do it, where's it going to come from? (Hence we get the typical AD&D 2nd ed era, CoC, etc module design.)

But briniging that inclination to the GMing of (say) a DW game will just cause headaches and heartaches.

Its almost like...

I don't know...

call me crazy...

but system matters!

As to the last style (we've discussed this aplenty), it is almost surely the most popular form of TTRPGing on the market presently (for a myriad of reasons). During the playtest, I called D&D Next (which became 5e) AD&D 3e w/ some bolted on (meaning not integrated holistically) indie tech. But its play paradigm is fundamentally centered around a heavily GM-driven, 2nd ed AD&D type ethos with an overarching metaplot (my guess is that the overwhelming majority of groups, probably 4/5 or more, play 5e in an AP fashion). At the lowest of levels, it can try to lean toward reproducing a neutral refereed, B/X skilled play, crawl experience, but the primary machinery of B/X isn't codified and central (though you can hack it towards it and hexcrawls are reasonably facilitated). 5e's GMing ethos, the resolution mechanics, and the intentional design around natural language and "rulings not rules" aims toward lack of a tight/focused play premise coupled with "GM as lead storyteller" (not just through the anointment in the text, but by proxy of the requirement of GM judgement, rather than system, being the primary mediator of action resolution). Consequently, 5e has 0 chance of producing a 4e, Dungeon World, Torchbearer, or Burning Wheel experience.

Put another way, "not taking a position on design" (as the 5e designers connoted in the midst of the playtest that 5e was supposed to be a modular toolkit where individual tables actually make their own game) is "taking a position on design." So it should be no surprise that in the absence of clear design intent and focus (intentionally), a heavily GM-driven experience emerges organically from that primordial ooze (even if the text didn't back that notion...which it does).

And this is no big deal and perfectly fine. But its frustrating that we can't have cleaner conversations on such things. You can actually tease out intent and play implications of aspects of design (from the broad, such as GMing ethos, to the narrow, such as handling failure).

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 22, 2019

Sadras said:
Max you realise given your above relationship between knowledge of character hit points and metagaming, players will inadvertently metagame. The only way to realistically (with assurety) say that your players don't meta on this issue, is if the DM was the sole bookkeeper of the characters' hit point scores.

In a similar vain, some on Enworld (myself included) in an attempt to stamp out meta play have players roll for all their Death Saves at the time of rescue or at combat end, whichever may come first.

I have, in ages long past, witnessed games of D&D in which the DM literally did just that, kept all the character sheets and only doled out purely descriptive information that the PCs 'should know' (in his opinion of course). The idea, I assume, was to create some sort of genuine RP experience which was entirely true to some kind of ideal of perfect in character play. All of these attempts rapidly imploded, though I have heard rumors of legendary games where this was pulled off successfully.

Still, I don't recall anyone lauding this technique as actually producing great fun in practice. It was at best seen as a form of novelty play.

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 22, 2019

Lanefan said:
No, the problem is that you HAVE to retcon things to allow for the presence at the time of the (permanent-in-the-fiction) new element being introduced out of the blue right now so as to allow for things that would, could, or might have been done differently in previous play had that element been known about at the time.

The only way to avoid the evil these retcons represent is to not allow major elements to be introduced out of nowhere...which is pretty much my whole point. If your PC didn't have a noble background at char-gen and the run of play hasn't given it one in the meantime, then no noble background for you. The same constraints apply equally to the GM, of course: if the town didn't even have a defensive wooden palisade two weeks ago when the PCs last were here it can't* suddenly have centuries-old feet-thick walls now.

* - barring the vagaries of wishes etc., but it would soon be obvious by the behaviour of the townsfolk that those walls came out of nowhere.

And this also sums up much of my issue with the 'no-myth' type of games where everything is made up on the fly: sure it can work great for a while when there's little-to-no established fiction, but the longer the campaign goes and as more and more fictional elements get established (and thus locked in), the more care has to be taken that things introduced now aren't invalidating things established earlier; all in the name of internal consistency. This puts a ton of work on the GM's shoulders** to keep everything straight; and as nobody is perfect it's inevitable errors will happen. Minor errors can usually be smoothed over. Major errors (of which I'd count my wagon example as one) wreck the game.

** - nothing at all says it can't be a player doing most or all of the recordkeeping; but I call out the GM specifically here as someone has to be the final arbiter should disagreements arise in the collective table memory regarding something bit of established fiction, and that would usually be the GM.

And the inevitable corollary question: if someone introduces a fictional element that might cause these sort of consistency problems, is anyone else (be it the GM or another player) allowed to veto it then and there on those grounds?

Sorry, I have to, how shall I put it?... call this as stretching for a certain type of answer.

The fictional facts (@Pemerton's 'F') is only thinly known. All we really know any real detail about in the world is what was actually engaged in the fiction. Even if you count in all the things that GM and players assumed without them being brought out in the fiction this world is VERY VERY THIN. I have run a LOT of campaigns in a single self-authored fantasy world over the last 40+ years, and yet nobody has any idea what is down the alley to the left in the town of Lad, they just don't. Nobody knows what the other 7 of 10 buildings on the main street which aren't a bar, a bank, and a general store are either. NOBODY KNOWS. I don't know, no player knows, etc. There is very frikin little that cannot be established after the fact which imposes any undue burden on how things were narrated at the time.

Sure, it is POSSIBLE to imagine things that could be established in fiction which would make one question the narrative, but these are usually unlikely things, such as the PC has been carrying around the scroll which solves all his problems since day one or something like that. Why would we retcon like that? Nobody is advocating creating nonsense. Going back and retconning that the fighter's brother has been following the party for the last 3 months? Make sure he's trained in Stealth and don't worry about it, there are plenty of chances he could do this. Most things are like that, or can be described in a way which works like that.

OK, the main character is a noble, so obviously he was one last week when the party visited the temple. Why didn't he say "I'm the Baron of Fubar, you must serve me!"? Make something up! There's no lack of 'white space' out there to fill in (notionally) to make room for why this was.

Lanefan · Mar 22, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Anything added to the fiction has the risk of being contradictory. Do you think it’s the case that the DM is better suited to avoiding such contradictions? Or that players are more susceptible?

In most cases I'd look to the DM first, if only because the DM has to have been there for every session that campaign has been played and thus in theory knows all the info (and if a player is keeping something secret from the other players, in theory the DM knows about that too and can factor it in).

Are you worried only about what’s been established?

Pretty much, yes.

Or are you equally worried about potential story elements that haven’t yet been introduced being contradicted?

Nowhere near as much, as most of the time those can either be tweaked to suit or dropped entirely. Any breadcrumbs I'd dropped earlier as foreshadowing would simply lose any relevance they might have had, is all.

The only time this would become a nuisance is if a player had something in the works that she'd discussed with me-as-DM ahead of time and then someone else - intentionally or otherwise - introduced something that nullified the first player's plans somehow.

This is really strange. It’s making an issue where none needs to exist.

It’s the equivalent of being thirsty, and someone hands you a glass of water, and you toss it aside and grab a glass of sand instead.

Sorry, I just don't see it that way.

Perhaps instead it's the equivalent of being thirsty, someone handing me a glass of water (which I drink), and then the same someone telling me two hours later that there's beer in the fridge and has been all day; had I known this at the time I'd likely have had one of those instead.

Maxperson · Mar 22, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
No, I think you're still missing a vital bit; the signal in the scenario I described is not "we want to know this monster's weakness" it's "we don't want to pretend we don't know this monster's weakness, please don't make us".

If the DM says "too bad, you all have to pretend you don't know about their fire vulnerability until something happens that makes me think 'okay you can use fire now'" then I think that DM is being a bit of a jerk. He's ignoring what the players want, and it isn't even over something vital or essential to the story....it's a minor factor in one encounter.

Is that clearer? It's not about the players trying to get an "unfair advantage", it's about the players being able to have input in some way on where the game goes and how it's played.

I wasn't missing anything. I was acknowledging the scenario you presented, and then applying it to a different scenario that involved player signaling. So to make things easier, let's accept that I understand that the players in your example are signaling that they don't want to pretend.

In my example, the players were signaling that they don't want to be surprised by monster strengths and weaknesses. So then, if the DM says, "too bad, you can't know about the unknown strengths and weaknesses until something happens that clues you in, the DM would also be being a bit of a jerk, no? This is also about the players being able to have input in some where on where the game goes and how it's played.

In both examples the players are signaling their desire. So in both examples the DM ignoring the players' signals would result in the DM being a jerk, right?

Your answers make me think that this may be more about preserving the DM as the authority to introduce elements to the game, and also to decide when they can be introduced. A player cannot decide what his character may know in the world, but the DM either has to determine it, or grant it as a boon.

I think the way that sounds seems a bit problematic for some.

That's the way D&D is played. At least if you are following the rules and intent of the game. Is that problematic for some? Sure. They can change it very easily to suit their needs, though.

Again, I think a game can run perfectly fine with the DM having such authority.

Absolutely. But it's not about whether it can run perfectly fine with the DM having that kind of authority. It's about whether the players enjoy that sort of game. If they do, then great. If not, they either need to change the game or find a different one.

Maxperson · Mar 22, 2019

Aldarc said:
The part where you actually manage to establish that this is knowledge that the PC doesn't have.

The DM is the one that decides these things, unless the DM changes how the game runs. There are no rules allowing players to make up backgrounds on the fly, or to just decide the players know things about the game world. The DM is the one that decides whether it's a yes, no or uncertain which requires a roll. Thank you for sharing that you don't understand metagaming and the DM's role, though.

Maxperson · Mar 22, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
I am simply convinced that RPGs can provide improved play process and better results when the GM has certain structures to work with.

For you and those who enjoy your sort of game, sure. It won't do those things for me or my group, though. It would do the opposite as we enjoy different things than you do.

pemerton · Mar 22, 2019

Manbearcat said:
5e's GMing ethos, the resolution mechanics, and the intentional design around natural language and "rulings not rules" aims toward lack of a tight/focused play premise coupled with "GM as lead storyteller" (not just through the anointment in the text, but by proxy of the requirement of GM judgement, rather than system, being the primary mediator of action resolution). Consequently, 5e has 0 chance of producing a 4e, Dungeon World, Torchbearer, or Burning Wheel experience.

Put another way, "not taking a position on design" (as the 5e designers connoted in the midst of the playtest that 5e was supposed to be a modular toolkit where individual tables actually make their own game) is "taking a position on design." So it should be no surprise that in the absence of clear design intent and focus (intentionally), a heavily GM-driven experience emerges organically from that primordial ooze (even if the text didn't back that notion...which it does).

And this is no big deal and perfectly fine. But its frustrating that we can't have cleaner conversations on such things. You can actually tease out intent and play implications of aspects of design (from the broad, such as GMing ethos, to the narrow, such as handling failure).

I "laughed" your post because of the first 4 lines! But this is true too.

And to satisfy some other posters, it's obvious that there are many systems which have zero chance of producing various experiences; this isn't anything unique to 5e, or AD&D. Eg you can't get BW out of MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic - it's not gonna happen no matter how you wish for it, because the system (i) makes action too orthogonal to theme (which is deliberate - this is how superhero comics work, where the X-Men can explore the same or similar themes whether fighting Magneto or Dr Doom or even Arcade; the system achieves it by allowing players to pursue their Milestones almost - not quite completely - independently of the way any particular scene is framed), and (ii) is about 1000x insufficiently brutal. Failure simply won't bite like it does in BW.

Or another case, which I've personally verified over my past six months of GMing: you won't get Prince Valiant out of Classic Traveller, nor vice versa. Prince Valiant is so light in its touch yet (in my view) capable of real moments of poignancy; while Traveller is like Dungeon World mixed with a does of lotto and really gritty accounting. It can get exciting, even tense; and I find it interesting and engaging; but I can't conceive of it generating poignancy, unless you get really moved by undischarged mortgages!

Of course there's a notion that floats around that D&D, and especially 5e, is versatile in some special or distinctive way. I don't give that much credence. A game that can run as "OD&D in space" and as "1970s 'hard' sci-fi meets PbTA" (I'm talking Classic Traveller again) looks pretty versatile to me; and likewise a game that can do both supers and heroic fantasy (MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic). Whereas 5e as written will start to creak if you try even to emulate Prince Valiant (because no magical healing in that Arthurian/pseudo-historical genre).

A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Manbearcat

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

pemerton

Legend

Similar Threads