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

That reading, [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], does not seem fair to any of the parties involved, whether in their favor or against them.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Fair enough, and I don't think there's anything wrong with asking the question "what might happen here?" or "what might be the consequences of this action?" I mean, at some level those are questions that HAVE to be asked. Again, there's a need for coherency, so at least some sort of plausibility is implicit in that.

I do rebel against this notion, which is pretty commonly brought up here, that somehow GM's are "just figuring out what would really happen" or that they "must simply follow the consequences" with the idea there is even any way to determine that which is not 99% simply what they want to see happen next (for whatever reason, fun presumably). I'd say that this stance is not based on 'physics' (of any kind particularly) either. It seems to be based on, actually I don't know what. It claims literally that there is some 'natural progression' of a given 'world state' that can be 'worked out', at least in some degree.

Honestly, I'm not sure where you fall in this, and I'm not that interested in lambasting or jousting with anyone over these sorts of things. We all have various notions, and if we have fun playing based on them who really cares, right? I have just felt a bunch of heat for pointing out this "but he's not wearing any clothes!" thing (in a few threads, this one, and the parent thread probably, maybe a couple others over the past few years).

Click to expand...

I think you are taking things a bit too literally here. I am definitely not arguing that people are figuring out how it would really play out if this fictional setting was modeling real world causality. All I am saying is when the GM makes a determination, "What do I think would really happen here" is a perfectly valid way to decide, and it can result in a world that feels believable. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the GM is somehow tapping into what would really happen. It is a judgement call. I think that you have the same person making this judgement over the course of the campaign does tend to produce a sense of a consistent world. But no one is claiming perfection here. We are just claiming it is perfectly fine and works for our purposes. Also you can make that judgement using any number of criteria: what would be most cinematic? What would be mosts genre appropriate? What would be the most exciting? What would be the most scary? etc. You can even combine these things: What would really happen and ALSO be exciting?

Frankly, I prefer to determine as many outcomes as I can without rolling dice, unless the outcome is uncertain. So while I 'could' determine randomly if a particular faction is at a specific location, as a DM I know if it is likely for the faction to be there. Just like I know if there are wandering monsters about. I could roll randomly to decide if the players encounter monsters, but my preference goes to simply deciding it myself, rather than the dice deciding it. I don't think either option is more or less realistic than the other.

What is far more important to me when determining the outcome, is the current pacing of the game, the narrative consequences, what seems sensible/realistic and consistent with the facts, and the fun factor. For example, if I feel that the players are taking too long to find the sect, and if I feel they may be looking in the wrong place, I could decide to have them stumble upon a clue, or the sect itself, wherever location they may happen to be going to. If on the other hand I have other plot points for them, I may make it more difficult for them to find the sect. Likewise, I won't serve up yet another battle with random monsters, just because a random dice roll said so. If the players are just recovering from a big fight, I can perfectly decide for myself what the likelyhood of another monster patrol showing up is going to be.

I do however use random dice rolls when determining what the players encounter while exploring. But I always give myself the freedom to ignore the outcome, if it doesn't seem fitting.

Imaculata said:

I do however use random dice rolls when determining what the players encounter while exploring. But I always give myself the freedom to ignore the outcome, if it doesn't seem fitting.

Click to expand...

I will add this, because I prefer not to fudge die rolls I'm more likely to go into yes or no territory. Although even with die rolls one has the option of yes but complication or no but clue (fail forward) and this DM adjudication may often be influenced by pacing and plausibility.

pemerton said:

I also think the method can matter. Some other posters seem to disagree, though.



Both these posts seem to asssume that there are only two possible resolution systems for determining if the PCs find sect members at the teahouse: the GM decides based on his/her beliefs about the gameworld, or the GM "says 'yes'".

That is, they seem to assume that play will be driven simply by GM decision-making.

I find that to be an odd assumption to make, but unsurprisingly I agree that running a game that way will tend to make for a mediocre play experience.

(One reason I find it an odd assumption: the first RPG system I know of that explicitly deals with the issue of trying to find certain sorts of people in urban situations is Traveller (1977), and it assumes that the outcome of such attempts will be affected by rolls that are affected by skills like Admin, Streetwise and Leadership, with subsequent supplements adding further relevant skills like Carousing and Recruiting. It doesn't say anything about the referee just decding what happens.)

Click to expand...

I may be contradicting my earlier post, but as I’ve tried to dig deeper into these concepts I’m finding that, like so many others, methodology and experience are two entirely separate entities that are sometimes intertwined. Certain methods may be more predisposed to a certain style of play, but I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s rare for it to be incapable of producing that style of play.

This isn’t entirely a surprise to me, because much of how we play our game is a mashup of other stuff I/we are learning from elsewhere.

For example, due in large part to discussions with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others, we handle things like critical hits, misses, and death quite differently than the usual approach in D&D, and this also addresses fudging.

The primary reason I fudge occasionally is because of a choice we’ve made on mechanics. We would prefer a bell curve for skill checks, combat, etc., but we like a d20 better. So instead of using 3d6, we accept that most of the time the d20 is fine, but in those circumstances where we decide it’s not, then we adjust the consequences. So they were fine with me fudging.

But some people are strongly against fudging. And if I know that, then I don’t fudge with that group.

So I started rolling attack rolls in front of the players, and they would know when I was fudging. There were still no objections, but occasionally somebody would say, “nah, that’s fine. Let it ride.”

An interesting thing is that the players who objected to fudging and wanted to “always let it ride” were usually not the ones accepting their character’s death under these circumstances. They would accept the fudging without question.

But it got me thinking. Who is better able to decide if it’s the character’s time than the player that created them? Why can’t the player decide to fudge the die? Would it be different if I let them make the initial decision?

We typically have at least three PCs each, but some characters are more precious than others. Also, sometimes the current fiction implies the characters’ survival is more important.

A lot of the time it’s just death, but they have become more dramatic. We still have the underlying rules for guidance. Sometimes they let the death saves decide. Other times they have decided that even with help, they can’t be saved.

I can’t say that we experienced any of these to be “better” than the others. They didn’t affect the realism of our game, because we continued to make the experience - the content “realistic.”

I think our goal of a “realistic” game does have an impact on how these rules are used in our game. Our changes to the math of death saves was done to be “more realistic,” in that we felt it was unrealistic for a character who
Is reduced to 0 hp has a 60%+ chance of surviving without any assistance at all. Our falling rules were modeled after when science tells us you have a 50% chance of dying. But in all these cases it’s really just a feel, not true fact. And it’s generally more about the math than the method.

But others might argue our death mechanic is less realistic. That we don’t get to choose when we live or die and that it should be the dice that do so.

I’d argue that the person (the character) isn’t. The player is making that decision*, and the only thing that changed is which player decides - the DM or the player who created the character. And for us, it’s sometimes a joint decision, even including other players.

But not every player will like it, or play in good faith, etc.

So I agree that the method might have an impact, or make it easier or more difficult, but ultimately I think the concept of realism in a game is more about the experience than the mechanics. But I’ll also acknowledge that for many players the mechanics have an equal or greater importance than realism for their gaming experience.




*This ties into my increasing belief that there is a difference between player agency and character agency, a topic for another day. Because it’s even more complicated than this one.

Ilbranteloth said:

But others might argue our death mechanic is less realistic. That we don’t get to choose when we live or die and that it should be the dice that do so.

Click to expand...

In real life there are examples of people choosing when to live or to die.

Manbearcat said:

One quick comment on balance. This comment will be invoking 4e (because that is what has been invoked), but at its heart, its a design question (as an input) and the related product of play (output).

4e's balance often gets invoked as if its (a) some sort of retardent to dynamism and (b) some form of perpetuator of status quo.

That isn't correct for 4e (its actually not even in the realm of correct and the inverse is provably so) and its not correct as a product of design aimed at balance.

4e has balance on 4 different axes:

1) Broad intraparty balance at the site of the encounter.

2) Broad intraparty balance at the site of the adventuring day.

3) Expectant results of a 5 player party (which covers all the Roles) vs unremarkable deployment of a same level encounter budget.

4) Expectant results of an archetypal workday for a 5 player party (which covers all the Roles).


Because these 4 design aims are explicit and were achieved, there seems to be this designation by some (typically those that didn't play it very much or didn't play it at all), that such (achieved) design aims must yield a play culture that stays tightly within the boundaries of (3) and (4). Then, following from that, there is this assumption of my (a) and (b) above (lack of dynamism and boring, uninteresting status quo).

The problem with this is simple. The idea that (3) and (4) are actual play culture fundamentals is absolutely wrong. They are balance calibration features of design. Further, those two as play culture artifacts are completely at at tension as (4) assumes you aren't doing 3! Further still, both DMGs go on at length of how to perturb that balance calibration archetype and what the implications of such perturbance will be...therefore assuming you're going to be doing just that!

Further, further, further, still...

If each Role can be thought of as a different Magic the Gathering deck (and that is exactly how they should be thought of - I guarantee that was a design impetus if not THE design impetus; eg a "Monored Aggro Burn vs Jeskai Midrange"), then significantly varying the exact same encounter budget and using different battlefield qualities (terrain, obstacles, distances, terrain powers, Hazards/Traps) and different objectives (eg "Hold the Line vs Waves", "Escort/Protect the Minion from here to there", "Deal with Interference While Completing/Foiling the Ritual", "Defeat the Enemy Before X Rounds", etc) is going to change the dynamics of the combat significantly and introduce variables that will play to the strengths or to the weaknesses of different character builds and group builds!

Just because the baseline has been calibrated such that the GM can predict the outputs within a reasonable margin-of-error, doesn't mean that there ceases to be variables x, y, and z that can be perturbed to create significant dynamism at the encounter level and for the adventuring day. If anything, it emboldens GMs to perturb that x, y, and z because they can foresee the potential outputs of those inputs within a reasonable margin-of-error.

That is why GMs such as myself appreciate rigorous baseline calibration, especially if a system has a robust range of x, y, and z.

Click to expand...

I’ve always thought it more closely resembled MtG rather than video games as so many conclude.

It’s also an awesome description/explanation of why 4e never worked for me. I suck at MtG and that general design approach, and I could never really come to terms with the math/mechanics of 4e. My brain just dies it comprehend it well enough to be good at it.

Maxperson said:

That isn't what I said, though. This is what I said, "However, if we start trying to play combat like real life where everyone can react in real time to what creatures are doing near them, the game would bog down to the point where combat is simply unplayable."

That involves a lot more than just having a chance to escape. Goblin one moves, then 19 other goblins and the PCs have a chance to react to what is happening. Then all the goblins and the PC start reacting to each other. Perhaps the goblins all start to rush. But what if 3 pull out crossbows? Goblins will react by getting out of the way. The PC will react by trying to get to cover or low to the ground. The crossbow goblins maybe aim lower, or maybe move to get better position. And on and on. That just can't be effectively modeled and even if you try, it will take huge amounts of real time to play out a combat like that.

Click to expand...

Actually that’s roughly how I run combat. Of course it’s not real time in terms of each swing, but we don’t use initiative and don’t really use rounds either. We go with a general idea how long an action might take, and if there is time before that action is completed other things happen.

And they are free to change their actions in response to other actions. It’s not unplayable at all, and helps move things along and keep people involved. It’s not as tough or complicated as it sounds.

Ilbranteloth said:

Actually that’s roughly how I run combat. Of course it’s not real time in terms of each swing, but we don’t use initiative and don’t really use rounds either. We go with a general idea how long an action might take, and if there is time before that action is completed other things happen.

And they are free to change their actions in response to other actions. It’s not unplayable at all, and helps move things along and keep people involved. It’s not as tough or complicated as it sounds.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's also not what I'm describing. What I'm talking about is everyone being able to react to everyone else in roughly real time. In a combat situation, as the party and the 20 goblins move, it's unlikely that they are going to be able to move more than 5 feet without the combat adjusting to what is going on. So every 5 feet you have 20+ combatants reacting to each other moving, and to attacks, spells, and more.

You can definitely get more realism out of combat than D&D has without bogging it down, but you can't get anywhere close to reality without it being a nightmare.

billd91 said:

If you have a trust problem with GMs, then that sounds like a you issue to me. It may be safe to say there are some GMs out there who might choose what happens based on what they want to happen - but I also know there are a lot of GMs out there who take the idea that they should be impartial seriously. Frankly, I'm a little more suspicious of the "Say Yes or Roll" mentality than the "Say Yes or No when appropriate for the situation" mentality because I don't feel the former gives the setting/mysteries/NPCs an even break with the PCs.

Click to expand...

It isn't a trust issue. Its simply a judgement made by basic reasoning and experience.