Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

[Alexander Kalinowski]

I do think this is the heart of the split. But I also think the majority of people have generally treated actions as statements of intent in RPGs. Whether the GM is deciding or not, when a player says "I do x" It is rarely assumed to be automatic. If I say "I hit it with my mace", in most games I am probably still going to roll, so it is clearly a statement of intent, not statement that makes the action take place. I can even be more specific and say "I hit the goblin in the face with my mace". Me saying it doesn't make it so. Why would there be an expectation that it is any different when it isn't combat or something not covered by specific rules?

Edit: I do get that there are exceptions and some systems handle this differently. This just seems like it has largely been the norm over time.

Or take something as simple as:
Bob: "I run those 3 meters over to Orc A and attack him with my sword!"
GM: "Alright but Orc B triggers his Delayed Action to shoot at you with his bow. <rattle, rattle> 9 Hits, you go down."

Players can't even declare actions, only intent, because they don't know if there are any unknown factors in the game world presently at work that could prevent the completion or even the attempt.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you're significantly exaggerating things when you say "the session grinds to a screeching halt".

If a player writes stuff on his/her equipment list or treasure list that differs from the fiction that the GM (purports to have) narrated, the game won't grind to a halt.

If a player's writing stuff on her treasure list that's different from what the fiction says she should have then we're either into poor record-keeping (if done unintentionally or without malice; or at a loss to the PC) or outright cheating (if intentionally done for PC enhancement or gain). Either way, on discovery the game does grind to a halt* while the bookkeeping gets cleared up.

* - believe me; I've probably seen this a few hundred times or more, both around treasure and PC finances recording and around xp tracking. Some people are simply incapable when it comes to simple arithmetic, and when that 'incapability' always seems to work in the PC's favour there's a bigger problem afoot (seen this one a few times too, sadly).

If two players interact, in character, in ways that presuppose or establish a fiction that differs from the GM's, the game won't grind to a halt.

Though it might get a) somewhat disfunctional and b) mighty confusing for the other players who don't know whether to follow the GM's fiction or that of the two players.

I've played in a game that fitted this description and lasted for months before the GM eventually rebooted things (by transporting the PCs 100 years into the gameworld's future) - the game died not long after (unsurprisingly).

Sounds like disfunctional to me, eventually running aground.

Then there can be more complicated stuff, like Vincent Baker's example of "the smelly chamberlain":

the players get together behind the GM's back and say "hey you know the NPC Chamberlain, our contact with the king? Let's all, no matter what the GM says about him, let's all react to him as though he smells bad. We can't insult him to his face, we need him, but let's be subtle and see what the GM does with it."

So they do.​

Baker has a long discussion of possible ways this might play out; the short version is that there's no obvious reason why the GM's understanding (ie that the Chamberlain doesn't smell) should prevail.

Well, except for the very obvious one that the chamberlain is, at that moment, the DM's character - and is thus his/hers to play as s/he sees fit.

If the same trick was played on another PC - everyone else reacted as if the PC smelled - would you suggest that PC's player was obliged to play along? Of course not. So why should such an expectation be forced on to the DM?

If the GM leaves, or is removed, maybe one of the players is ready to take up the reins! (I've had this happen in real life.)

But anyway: If A and B play chess together, and A owns the board and pieces, so that if A gets frustrated with play s/he can literally pick them up and go home, does it follow that A's mood is part of the rules of chess, or invalidates the rulebook? I don't think so. I'm making the same point about RPGing - the pertubations of social dynamics don't tell us much about what the rules of the game are, nor who is permitted or required to do what in the course of play. RPGs are no different from chess, or cricket, or any other game, in this respect.

Yes they are, in that like it or not there's an inequality in role and participation between those at the table: one of those people is more important than the rest.

Any game or campaign can usually survive the loss of a player. Very rare is the game or campaign that survive the loss of its GM.

Even if someone else in the group picks up the reins and takes over GMing, it's almost certain that person will run a different campaign (and-or rules system) with different PCs and thus provide a different experience for the rest of the table. Now this 'different experience' may be better or worse than what came before (most likely a bit of both), but in any case the original game/campaign is lost with its GM.

Lan-"and I'm not even addressing the questions of who owns most of the gaming materials and-or hosts the game; also usually the GM IME"-efan

 

[Bedrockgames]

Exactly.

It depends on the system and it depends upon specific artifacts of the system:

1) Tons (most) systems have various forms of player fiat; “I cast Prestidigitation/Mage Hand and do Fantasia thing x” doesn’t get mediated.

But this is a corner case. It is like the paladin example. And you certainly wouldn't have fiat if there were any degree of uncertainty. For example if you announced this right when you walked into a room of orcs, the GM might just say, "roll initiative first". Obviously there are games where this isn't the case, there are approaches where this isn't the case. But it is pretty clear to me, it is generally the norm that these kinds of declarations in mainstream systems are statements of intent. Unless it is a game that limits the GMs normal powers, there is always the assumption that the GM could step in and ask for some kind of check or tell you it doesn't work for X reason (i.e. you've been brought to the Demiplane of Dread and now your Detect Evil spell doesn't work like it did before).

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly.

It depends on the system and it depends upon specific artifacts of the system:

1) Tons (most) systems have various forms of player fiat; “I cast Prestidigitation/Mage Hand and do Fantasia thing x” doesn’t get mediated.

Well, in fact the player is only announcing intent here too, in this case to cast spell 'a' to achieve effect 'x'; and yes technically it does get mediated (the spell could get interrupted, the caster has to have the ability/slot/components/resources/mana/whatever available for use, the caster has to be conscious and not being punched in the face at the time, etc.) but most of the time this mediation step is skipped over as all those things are OK.

2) Plenty of systems require knowing both action and intent so Failure can be Forward (expresses as a complication of intent).

The intent is to do the action in the first place. I think where you use "intent" here you mean "expected or desired result", which is something else again. So, to clarify: parse the difference between these two statements:

1. I intend to undertake action x in an attempt to achieve result y.
2. I undertake action x and achieve result y.

1 is a statement of intent, which is what all action declarations really are, and allows provision for the game state and-or other participants to get in the way of the action and-or the result.

2 is a statement of fact and ignores the game state (or, worse, arbitrarily overwrites it) and all other participants.

Many players - and DMs, for all that - say it like statement 2 when they really mean it like statement 1.

 

[Aldarc]

This fake dichotomy between action and intent is less transparent than the lot of you are making it out to be.

"I swing at it with my mace," for example, conveys both the action that is transpiring (regardless of intent or success) as well as the general intent to hit 'it' with the PC's mace. The GM may ask for a roll to adjudicate the success of this as an attack; however, the action and the declaration of intent both occur. Trying to separate declaration of intent and action into neat little boxes seems like an erroneous game fueled less by trying to understand game principles and more about trying to win Pyrrhic pissing contests.

 

[Lanefan]

This fake dichotomy between action and intent is less transparent than the lot of you are making it out to be.

"I swing at it with my mace," for example, conveys both the action that is transpiring (regardless of intent or success) as well as the general intent to hit 'it' with the PC's mace. The GM may ask for a roll to adjudicate the success of this as an attack; however, the action and the declaration of intent both occur. Trying to separate declaration of intent and action into neat little boxes seems like an erroneous game fueled less by trying to understand game principles and more about trying to win Pyrrhic pissing contests.

Not so fast there, bucko.

"I swing at it with my mace" declares intent (to swing) and action (the swing itself) while implying a desired result (to hurt or kill the target). This is great, and the game (in this case via its mechanics) goes on to determine whether or not the desired result occurs, or does not, or is replaced with something else. If there's any controversy here I can't see it for the life of me.

Contrast this, however, with "I hit it with my mace". This similar - but in a way much more controversial - statement very neatly sidesteps (and subsumes) both intent and action and jumps straight to the desired result, in effect challenging the game (in this case, represented by its mechanics) to go back in time a bit and make the statement untrue.

A less mechanical example. Party is for whatever reason looking for a particular and unusual comb and has just gone into a bedchamber where such might reasonably be found. Now contrast the following statements, all of which may be seen as action declarations in one form or another:

1. "I search the chamber thoroughly."
2. "I search the chamber thoroughly for the silver fox-head comb."
3. "Starting with the dresser, I search the chamber thoroughly for the silver fox-head comb."
4. "I take the fox-head comb from the chamber."

1. leaves things open-ended for the GM by making no stipulations or assumptions; the GM might here ask for something more specific both in terms of search method/order or what is being sought, or just go with it, assigning chances to find the comb (if it's there at all) along with anything else relevant that might be there.

2. forces the GM to concentrate on the comb as the search's target (and somewhat assumes the PC is doing likewise) which has the benefit of keeping things focussed and the drawback of making it more difficult for the GM to introduce other things that might be found here without giving away metagame hints. The GM still either has to assume the PC's search method or ask for specifics.

3. here the GM gets both method specifics and a focus; her job has been made easier unless she's using the comb as a red herring so the PCs will (maybe) find something else.

4. and here the outcome of any search is assumed, and if the GM doesn't agree with this she's forced to back things up and say "wait a minute" - hardly desireable. The player has (let's hope mistakenly) declared result instead of intent, the same as saying "I hit it" rath er than "I swing at it". So why do players keep doing this?

 

[pemerton]

Eh, IMO this is a very weak argument and instead of being applicable to real play (as you like to so often refer to) seems only applicable to some platonic idea where a DM doesn't have bias or preference ro even differences in perception

<snip>

as long as there is room for a DM to determine what the chances of a player achieving success or failure are... then there is, at leats as it has been defined in this thread, MMI... we are just talking about degrees. No matter what examples are given in the Traveller rulebook no 2 GM's are going to make the rule the same throws for the same actions the each and every time. Same with 4e.

You seem to think that there is no difference between GM unilaterally decides what happens and GM sets DC within parameters established by clearly stated guidelines.

Maybe your experience is consistent with this; mine is not. The difference is night and day (both as player and as GM).

 

[pemerton]

If a player's writing stuff on her treasure list that's different from what the fiction says she should have then we're either into poor record-keeping (if done unintentionally or without malice; or at a loss to the PC) or outright cheating (if intentionally done for PC enhancement or gain).

A GM who (eg) lies about a die roll, or who just declares that a PC dies from a heart attack, or . . . etc etc . . . is (in many RPGs) cheating.

That's my point. Examples of cheating, or of other forms of pathological play, don't tell us anything about how RPGs work when participants are playing with sincerity and in accordance with the rules.

 

[pemerton]

"I swing at it with my mace," for example, conveys both the action that is transpiring (regardless of intent or success) as well as the general intent to hit 'it' with the PC's mace. The GM may ask for a roll to adjudicate the success of this as an attack; however, the action and the declaration of intent both occur.

Right.

I mean, suppose the GM's next announcement to the table is "The chief constable steps out of the shadows and yells "Arrest that cleric for committing unlawful violence!" Can the player really say, in response, "Hang on - I just stated an intent - my PC's arm hasn't moved yet!, so the constable can't have seen me committing any violence." That's a laughable suggestion even in a maximally GM-driven AD&D 2nd ed game.

 

[Aldarc]

Not so fast there, bucko.

So in sum, you're still engaging in semantics for a pointless pissing contest... bucko.

Edit: My general issue is that the declaration of intent and declaration of action operate in tandem as a standard part of play and parole. Sometimes players (and the GM) will emphasize the action over the intention or the intention over the action, but the general goal is the declaration of the fictional positioning. The player(s) is attempting to communicate to the other table participants about their contribution to the fiction. Clarifying intent or action may help to inform the shared understanding and negotiation of that fiction. But the idea that players only declare intent and not actions or only declare actions but not intent - attempting to somehow atomize this sort of conversation - is absolutely absurd in praxis.