What Is an Experience Point Worth?

Lanefan · Jan 19, 2018

darkbard said:
If that's how your group has fun--spending, in theory, a whole session mapping out empty corridors--that's certainly within your prerogative. I (and most, if not all, of the people I've played with) consider that a waste of time and unfun. But if you and your group enjoy that, I say to you, "have at it! The game can be many things to many people."

Yes it can.

What rubs me the wrong way is that you continue to jump into threads like this one to argue that those who prefer another style of gameplay, be they myself, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], etc. "owe it to their players" (as if you know their players' true desires) or to the integrity of the game to play instead in your fashion.

I try to imagine myself in a game such as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's* and while some elements of his games look excellent there'd be a lot of times where I-as-player would be tearing my hair out in frustration and yelling "Why did you skip that? I might have wanted to do something there!", or "Slow down! I'm trying to map this!", etc.

* - not to pick on pemerton specifically. I use him as an example only because I've read some of his very detailed game-log posts.

This seems to strike at the heart of it: you adhere to secret backstory at the cost of what even you yourself say would be better gameplay, i.e. "would have worked much better."

Once something's been introduced to play it's in, like it or not.

Before it gets introduced to play I can still mess with it if a better idea comes up (though I have to take care that messing with something here doesn't have unforeseen knock-on effects there).

Another example: there's been times in the past where I'll use some canned module for an adventure, modified to suit the campaign. Then three months after we've played it I'll find another module that would have fit the bill so much better had I only known about it (or had it only been released) at the time. D'oh!

Lanefan

Manbearcat · Jan 19, 2018

Sadras said:
@Arilyn pretty sums up my thoughts on this with his post above. As I mentioned our table plays with a combination of the two styles. What is important to note that the 5e DMG seemingly dismissed by the 4e proponents does possess a great deal of indie concepts/variants.

With concepts along with their mechanics for things such as - success at a cost, degrees of failure, the inspiration mechanic, backgrounds, ideals and flaws, skill variant rules, plot points and I'm sure quite a few others D&D has certainly evolved with the RPG community around it, recognising and incorporating various ideas from other games.

A few responses on this Sadras (as I'm sure you're including me in this):

1) I don't come at this conversation as a "4e proponent" so I'm not sure why that is the classification used here. Further, my guess is I run (and appreciate) a wider variety of games than 99 % (of not more) of the folks on ENWorld, so "4e proponent" certainly isn't apropos on those grounds either.

2) I'm not sure why you say that we haven't acknowledged indie-inspired components in 5e. I'm certain that you have been involved in conversations where [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I have discussed (and tried to make the center of discussion) things like Background Traits (player fiat effectively), Lair Actions, Social Interaction conflict resolution mechanics, IBF and Inspiration, Success at a Cost, the invocation of Fail Forward in the Basic Set section on noncombat action resolution, and various Author or Director stance PC build features. We were talking about these things 4ish years ago (in whichever iteration they came online during the playtest).

Acknowledging and understanding aspects of 5e's development goals or end design has never been an issue.

3) Here is the issue with calling 5e a "mainstream indie game" or even an "indie-inspired game" (non-OSR I'm talking about). (Non-OSR) Indie games aren't defined by a component here or a component there. They are the opposite of an al a carte toolset for DIY and a loose play premise/paradigm where rulings not rules are a feature (which is basically the beating heart of the OSR!). They are ultimately defined by their (a) tightness of design (b) engineered around a specific and focused play paradigm/premise.

This is why 4e is easily looked at as a "mainstream indie game" or an "indie-inspired game" and why 5e is (very clearly and transparently...as this was obviously the design goal) basically a "meainstream OSR game" inspired primarily by a mash-up of AD&D 2e/Castles and Crusades and some 3.x with some (not fundamentally integrated...by design) indie knick-knacks that can easily be dispensed with!

pemerton · Jan 20, 2018

Lanefan said:
You owe it to your players to at least make passing mention of the corridors - whether it's a long walk or short; up or down or level; whether there's lots of intersecting passages, or few, or none; whether the corridors are damp or dusty or empty or well-used, etc., because that's what the PCs see.

<snip>

The place in the quote above where I put the ^^^ is the railroad part. You jumped straight from talking to the angels to putting the PCs at the reliquary entrance (if memory serves, there was some distance to cover between the site of the angel conversation and the reliquary itself; and I don't recall the angels teleporting them or anything such) without a chance for the PCs to do anything in between...incuding talk further with the angels to get more info!

<snip>

Also, keep in mind that while you-as-DM might know there's no danger involved and that the journey is perfectly safe, the players / PCs very likely don't and must be given the chance to approach it with this in mind. (even just asking for assurance from the angels if the journey is safe would be a start, but you cut that off too).

None of this makes any sense.

Why do I "owe it to my players" to describe the corridors? That's like saying I "owe it to them" to describe the embroidery, or the colour of the dirt on the road, or the details of the windows in the cathedral. Until you can show me that anything is actually at stake in any of these descriptions, they're all just colour - and I'm pretty satisfied with the amount of colour I establish in my game.

As far as the "railroading" issue - as I already posted, the players (in character) ask the angels to take them to the reliquary, and the angels do so. When, in your game, the players order an ale at a tavern, do you describe every motion of the barkeep in pouring the ale; every step of the barmaid in bringing the ale to the PCs' table? There is always detail that doesn't get narrated. Again, until you give me some reason to think that something was at stake, why would I bother about it?

(And I as GM know no more about what is in Mal Arundak between the room where the PCs lifted the curse on the angels, and the reliquary, than the players do. It never mattered in the game to establish that.)

You seem to be importing an asumption from Gygaxian dungeoneering - that geographic details of indoor areas (ie rooms, corridors, staircases, etc) always matter. That assumption is true for dungeoneering, but in its universal form is simply false.

Lanefan said:
I try to imagine myself in a game such as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's* and while some elements of his games look excellent there'd be a lot of times where I-as-player would be tearing my hair out in frustration and yelling "Why did you skip that? I might have wanted to do something there!", or "Slow down! I'm trying to map this!", etc.

There's no mapping. Likewise, the player who wants to draw copies of the embroidery on every NPC's tunic is simply out of luck. I don't have that information ready to hand, and frankly have very little interest in it.

But as far as wanting to check out the corridors in Mal Arundak, if you want to do that well you can say so. I would ask, "What are you hoping to find?" And if you say "Whatever is interesing there" then I can quickly tell you "You wander the corridors for a bit, but there's nothing of interest other than some meditation rooms for the angels. The reliquary seems to be the heart of the structure." If there's something particular you're hoping to find (eg further information about Miska the Wolf-spider) then we can frame a check or two and resolve that.

But as I already posted, in my game no players declared such actions for their PCs. They asked to be taken to the reqliquary. And they were. No one's desire to do something different was thwarted.

Lanefan said:
Where I can imgaine an NPC's reason for doing something is X and write it down, then as play proceeds my narrations etc. are based around that now-fact. It remains X.

Now in fairness sometimes this can make me kick myself, in a situation where, say, I think of reason X and build it into the narration etc. and then two weeks later think of a reason Q that would have worked much better. But, them's the breaks - can't be perfect all the time.

To follow up on [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s post - what happens if, at the moment of play, you work out that Q would be better?

Lanefan said:
Before it gets introduced to play I can still mess with it if a better idea comes up (though I have to take care that messing with something here doesn't have unforeseen knock-on effects there).

Sadras said:
Secret backstory that has not yet been revealed/established may of course be changed.

This is a very significant claim. I think it's contentious.

Lewis Pulsipher, in his essays in early White Dwarf about how to GM D&D in a "wargaming"/Gygaxian style, emphasises that for the GM to change the backstory (eg redraw dungeon corridors) is bad play, because it makes it impossible for skilled players to "solve the puzzle" of what the dungeon contains, and to thereby exercise their skill in beating the dungeon.

And if we're playing in a different (non-Gygaxian) way, then it is still a big thing: because if the GM is free to change the backstory before it's established in play, then how is s/he sometimes allowed to rely upon it to stipulate that action declaration fails? What governs the choice between the two options? And how does this relate to the role of the players in RPGing?

pemerton · Jan 20, 2018

Arilyn said:
I think having a large tool box is maybe the best way to go? Lanefan' s GM toolbox is filled with a selection of good traditional tools, and he is suspicious of those "newfangled" toys. pemerton, on the other hand, loves the "newfangled" toys and is ignoring the old ones, finding fault in their ability to help construct stories.

I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring? I understand how to declare action delcarations unsucccessful, without rolling, based on my conception of what would make for good fiction; I just don't do it.

And as I posted just upthread of this, I think there is a big question here that I'm hoping we can now address - a lot of the distractions and underbrush having been cleared away:
[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] have said that the GM can change backstory up to the moment it is revealed/established in play; but they also clearly think that the GM can rely on unrevealed, secret backstory to declare failures in the way I've described just above.

What governs the GM's decision in this respect? If the GM sticks to the secret backstory when s/he likes it; but then changes it when s/he thinks of something s/he likes better - so that the players' decision to search for the map in such-and-such a place will automatically fail, with no check, if the GM decides to stick to his/her original idea that the map is actually on the other side of the world; but may succeed, if the GM decides that this new suggestion is better - then how is that not railroading? It is the GM who is deciding all the outcomes, based on what s/he thinks does or doesn't make for good fiction.

Arilyn said:
I think a good GM should have a full toolbox with goodies from the many years the hobby has existed. Being flexible and adaptable is usually considered an invaluable trait, and many different tools designed for different purposes can help. Mixing things up helps keep up player engagement. Game getting a little unfocused lately, as an indie style? Have players go through a preplanned story, and give them a creative break. Players getting restless with troubles GM is throwing at them? Let them create and pursue their own agendas for a while.

How do you envisage this working, in practical terms? Do you announce to the players "Hey, in today's session your action declarations won't really matter - just focus on the story I'm telling you"?

I can understand playing different sorts of RPGs, but I don't really see how what you suggest is meant to fit into a single "game"/campaign.

Arilyn · Jan 20, 2018

pemerton said:
I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring? I understand how to declare action delcarations unsucccessful, without rolling, based on my conception of what would make for good fiction; I just don't do it.

And as I posted just upthread of this, I think there is a big question here that I'm hoping we can now address - a lot of the distractions and underbrush having been cleared away:

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] have said that the GM can change backstory up to the moment it is revealed/established in play; but they also clearly think that the GM can rely on unrevealed, secret backstory to declare failures in the way I've described just above.

What governs the GM's decision in this respect? If the GM sticks to the secret backstory when s/he likes it; but then changes it when s/he thinks of something s/he likes better - so that the players' decision to search for the map in such-and-such a place will automatically fail, with no check, if the GM decides to stick to his/her original idea that the map is actually on the other side of the world; but may succeed, if the GM decides that this new suggestion is better - then how is that not railroading? It is the GM who is deciding all the outcomes, based on what s/he thinks does or doesn't make for good fiction.

How do you envisage this working, in practical terms? Do you announce to the players "Hey, in today's session your action declarations won't really matter - just focus on the story I'm telling you"?

I can understand playing different sorts of RPGs, but I don't really see how what you suggest is meant to fit into a single "game"/campaign.

I just meant the tools of traditional storytelling in rpgs, such as creating a story ahead of time for players to run through. Module kind of stuff.

As for railroading? No, I don't think having the GM change things to be more interesting is railroading, as long as it's not impacting player choice in a negative way. Sometimes the GM is in charge of the story, just like at other times it's the players. GM usually ends up being the final arbiter in most games, anyway, and it works just fine. Your preferred style works too, and I enjoy that as well, but the " old fashioned" GM driven stories are not railroads. Railroading is the GM telling players how to act, or deciding ahead of time that certain events will occur, and players can't influence the results at all.

As for mixing the two styles in same campaign? I do it all the time. If players decide to go after something unexpected, off we go. I had a PF arc go in all kinds of great directions that wasn't even remotely like what was published, but player back stories and ideas drove the story. FATE games are a constant mix of my stories, blending into player ideas. It's organic, and doesn't need announcements ahead of play. Even in games based off the Appocalypse engine, I will sometimes sketch out a rough story, so if players are floundering creatively, I can provide direction. Trains can be useful.

pemerton · Jan 20, 2018

Arilyn said:
As for railroading? No, I don't think having the GM change things to be more interesting is railroading, as long as it's not impacting player choice in a negative way.

That's not quite what I was getting at - my point is that, if the GM is free to change to make things more interesting, then if the GM instead sticks to his/he notes and then declares a declared action a failure with no check, how is that not railroading? The GM had the power to do something different - eg see how the check turns out and then narrate success or failure on the basis of that - but instead chose to establish the ficiton as s/he wanted it to be regardless of what the player was hoping for.

Arilyn said:
Railroading is the GM telling players how to act, or deciding ahead of time that certain events will occur, and players can't influence the results at all.

Again, if players can only influence results when the GM decides not to veto them on the basis of his/her prior imagined backstory, how is that not a railroad?

(If the GM allows the player to roll the dice, and pretends that the check might have mattered but nevertheless gives an answer based on his/her preference to stick to what s/he already imagined happening, that doesn't stop it being a railroad. It's just a railroad in which the GM is establishing an illusion that action resolution took place.)

Lanefan · Jan 20, 2018

pemerton said:
Why do I "owe it to my players" to describe the corridors? That's like saying I "owe it to them" to describe the embroidery, or the colour of the dirt on the road, or the details of the windows in the cathedral. Until you can show me that anything is actually at stake in any of these descriptions, they're all just colour - and I'm pretty satisfied with the amount of colour I establish in my game.

As far as the "railroading" issue - as I already posted, the players (in character) ask the angels to take them to the reliquary, and the angels do so. When, in your game, the players order an ale at a tavern, do you describe every motion of the barkeep in pouring the ale; every step of the barmaid in bringing the ale to the PCs' table?

You're very good at this: taking something potentially significant (in this case what may or may not have happened in the corridors of a hostile place) and throwing back a laughable example to compare it with and then saying they're the same.

News flash: they're not.

There is always detail that doesn't get narrated. Again, until you give me some reason to think that something was at stake, why would I bother about it?

It's in theory a hostile place they're in, meaning that there's by default always something at stake for the PCs (i.e. potential danger) until exploration and observation shows them otherwise.

Yes there's details that get skipped...details that don't matter. Travelling through a hostile place is not such a detail.

(And I as GM know no more about what is in Mal Arundak between the room where the PCs lifted the curse on the angels, and the reliquary, than the players do. It never mattered in the game to establish that.)

Then that's squarely on you as GM.

You seem to be importing an asumption from Gygaxian dungeoneering - that geographic details of indoor areas (ie rooms, corridors, staircases, etc) always matter. That assumption is true for dungeoneering, but in its universal form is simply false.

Wrong. Geographic details are always important, be it in a dungeon, a castle, a town, a wilderness, outer space. I repeat: always important. Knowing where you are and what's around you spatially is important. Knowing how you got there is important. Knowing how to get out is often even more important.

There's no mapping. Likewise, the player who wants to draw copies of the embroidery on every NPC's tunic is simply out of luck.

Yet again you take something important and liken it to a triviality.

I don't have that information ready to hand

Again, that's on you as GM to have that information (the maps, not the tunics).

and frankly have very little interest in it.

Ah, and now we come to it. You're not interested in mapping, and so your game doesn't use maps. This at least I can relate to, even as I maintain you're short-changing your players.

But as far as wanting to check out the corridors in Mal Arundak, if you want to do that well you can say so.

When would I have had the chance? You jumped straight from the angels saying "OK, we wil take you there" to describing and scene-setting the reliquary, thus reducing the point in asking at all because we've already made it there safely. Before you jump the gun I as player and PC don't know if the journey is safe (and by the sound of it, neither do you as DM in this case) so - hey, why not play to find out?

I would ask, "What are you hoping to find?" And if you say "Whatever is interesing there" then I can quickly tell you "You wander the corridors for a bit, but there's nothing of interest other than some meditation rooms for the angels. The reliquary seems to be the heart of the structure."

And this is all it takes! An acknowledgement that there's something there, that the journey took place, and that it is safe.

If there's something particular you're hoping to find (eg further information about Miska the Wolf-spider) then we can frame a check or two and resolve that.

Never mind the checks, I'd probably ask you roughly how long the journey with the angels would take and then roleplay asking them for more information and not just about the adventure we're in. Hell, they're angels for crying out loud - they know lots of stuff about lots of stuff. I'd think of it as something like a several-minute-long Commune spell!

But as I already posted, in my game no players declared such actions for their PCs. They asked to be taken to the reqliquary. And they were. No one's desire to do something different was thwarted.

So it seems. Your players aren't nearly as inquisitive as mine.

To follow up on [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s post - what happens if, at the moment of play, you work out that Q would be better?

That would depend. If X had come up in play or influenced anything in any way before now then consistency would commit me to X. If X had not yet had any influence then it'd be a more open question; with the likelihood of my jumping to Q on the spot somewhat determined by the significance of whatever X-Q is. If it's something minor I'd probably go with Q. If it's something major I'd likely stick with X as I know I've already thought that through.

This is a very significant claim. I think it's contentious.

Lewis Pulsipher, in his essays in early White Dwarf about how to GM D&D in a "wargaming"/Gygaxian style, emphasises that for the GM to change the backstory (eg redraw dungeon corridors) is bad play, because it makes it impossible for skilled players to "solve the puzzle" of what the dungeon contains, and to thereby exercise their skill in beating the dungeon.

Changing anything after it's seen or influenced play in any form is bad - I even think we can agree on that.

Changing something before it's seen or influenced play but after the DM knows who's going to potentially interact with it: almost always bad form, as nearly always those changes are being made based on this meta-info.

Changing it well ahead of time without clear knowledge of what players or PCs will or might eventually interact with it: fair game.

And if we're playing in a different (non-Gygaxian) way, then it is still a big thing: because if the GM is free to change the backstory before it's established in play, then how is s/he sometimes allowed to rely upon it to stipulate that action declaration fails?

Simple. Once the backstory has been relied on in such a manner it becomes locked in as it's had influence on play.

What governs the choice between the two options? And how does this relate to the role of the players in RPGing?

For the first question, see above. For the second, the players just keep on truckin', doing what they do - which is to bring their characters to life and interact with the world around them.

Lanefan

Lanefan · Jan 20, 2018

pemerton said:
[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] have said that the GM can change backstory up to the moment it is revealed/established in play; but they also clearly think that the GM can rely on unrevealed, secret backstory to declare failures in the way I've described just above.

See my previous post. To repeat in short: relying on unrevealed backstory to determine success or failure means that backstory has now influenced play, and is thus locked in.

What governs the GM's decision in this respect? If the GM sticks to the secret backstory when s/he likes it; but then changes it when s/he thinks of something s/he likes better - so that the players' decision to search for the map in such-and-such a place will automatically fail, with no check, if the GM decides to stick to his/her original idea that the map is actually on the other side of the world; but may succeed, if the GM decides that this new suggestion is better - then how is that not railroading?

But isn't that what you do, only instead of the map going from "the other side of the world" to "here it is" it goes from nowhere in particular to "here it is"?

And I don't know how long I have to keep banging this drum but here's another beat: a DM pre-designing her game world, or pre-designing a dungeon (and placing its contents) does not a railroad make.

How do you envisage this working, in practical terms? Do you announce to the players "Hey, in today's session your action declarations won't really matter - just focus on the story I'm telling you"?

Not [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] but I'll try answering this one: if things are getting a little unfocused a DM might out-of-character say something like "Hey, things seem to be drifting a bit - if it helps I've got some adventure and story ideas ready to rock if you all haven't anything - how's that?"

Lanefan

Sadras · Jan 20, 2018

Manbearcat said:
A few responses on this Sadras (as I'm sure you're including me in this):

I was

1) I don't come at this conversation as a "4e proponent" so I'm not sure why that is the classification used here.

You're absolutely correct, my apologies, perhaps a more apt description should have been "indie proponent"?

2) I'm not sure why you say that we haven't acknowledged indie-inspired components in 5e...(snip)...Acknowledging and understanding aspects of 5e's development goals or end design has never been an issue.

Ok, but...

3) Here is the issue with calling 5e a "mainstream indie game" or even an "indie-inspired game" (non-OSR I'm talking about). (Non-OSR) Indie games aren't defined by a component here or a component there. They are the opposite of an al a carte toolset for DIY and a loose play premise/paradigm where rulings not rules are a feature (which is basically the beating heart of the OSR!). They are ultimately defined by their (a) tightness of design (b) engineered around a specific and focused play paradigm/premise.

This is why 4e is easily looked at as a "mainstream indie game" or an "indie-inspired game" and why 5e is (very clearly and transparently...as this was obviously the design goal) basically a "meainstream OSR game" inspired primarily by a mash-up of AD&D 2e/Castles and Crusades and some 3.x with some (not fundamentally integrated...by design) indie knick-knacks that can easily be dispensed with!

It is true, many of them are not fundamentally integrated but referring to them as knick-knacks that can easily be dispensed with ignores the plug-in styled nature of the 5e chassis, and furthermore, it may arguably be said you used such language as a slight pejorative. Lastly your comment is seemingly very dismissive of the effort that was made to include them by covering many pages within the core rulebooks, far more I might add than 4e's page 42, one solitary page, which is used to shield against and deflect comments about the rigidness of 4e's AEDU/action declaration.

pemerton said:
To follow up on [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s post - what happens if, at the moment of play, you work out that Q would be better?

This is a very significant claim. I think it's contentious.

Sure, with the example you mentioned, but as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned we would never change x to y if it would in any way invalidate previous information or answers provided to the PCs.

Lewis Pulsipher, in his essays in early White Dwarf about how to GM D&D in a "wargaming"/Gygaxian style, emphasises that for the GM to change the backstory (eg redraw dungeon corridors) is bad play, because it makes it impossible for skilled players to "solve the puzzle" of what the dungeon contains, and to thereby exercise their skill in beating the dungeon.

And if we're playing in a different (non-Gygaxian) way, then it is still a big thing: because if the GM is free to change the backstory before it's established in play, then how is s/he sometimes allowed to rely upon it to stipulate that action declaration fails? What governs the choice between the two options? And how does this relate to the role of the players in RPGing?

Agreed.

pemerton · Jan 20, 2018

Sadras said:
Sure, with the example you mentioned, but as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned we would never change x to y if it would in any way invalidate previous information or answers provided to the PCs.

<snip>

Agreed.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on what you're agreeing with.

I think it's a big deal if a player declares an action for his/her PC, and the GM sticks to the X that s/he already decided, which results in the action failing with no check, given that it was permissible for the GM to change to Q instead. Because this seems to make the outcome of the action declaration depend very much on the GM"s view as to what would make for good fiction.

Is that what you're agreeing with? I get the feeling maybe not, hence this reply!