Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[hawkeyefan]

Adding another thought on "the crunch" - it's somewhat related to "no retries", though more at the level of framing than the nuts-and-bolts of mechanical retries:

Once the player has decided the PC is going to look for a vessel to catch the blood, that's where the focus of that bit of action has settled. If that works, then the PC's got some blood; if not, then getting the blood just became that much harder.

As a general rule (or course every rule can have exceptions), I don't think it's good for pacing to have a look for a vessel, and if that fails then try for the mattress, and if that fails than carry off the body to drain it later, etc. That might be comic in the right context, but I don't think it's that dramatic.

Maybe my intuition about this (which will then inform the way I GM it, and narrate the failures if they occur) is related to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s distinction between scene-framing and other sorts of approaches - I'm inclined to want the scene to have some sort of focus or "crunch" and it resolves one way or the other. Not too much putzing around with "OK, this didn't work, so let's try this other thing."

That's probably also one reason why I use puzzles (riddles and the like) pretty infrequently.

I see a problem with this approach. You're basically making the entire situation hinge on the perception check when the actual fiction would not require that. Removing game mechanics and rules for a moment, why can't the player retrieve the blood in some other way?

This is another reason why I would have just said yes.

 

[Manbearcat]

In sports, the stats themselves are sometimes interesting but what's being done with them is ruining the game...at least as far as hockey and baseball are concerned, I can't speak to other sports...as the intent seems to be to turn players and coaches/managers into robots, or as close as can be achieved.

Boring.

Same might go for DMing - if every time I made a decision as DM I stopped to put it through the process wringer that some here espouse two things would happen in random sequence: my game would stop dead, and my head would explode. And even if I got past that, I'd worry the result might turn me into a more predictable/less spontaneous DM.

Boring.

Yeah, not going to get into this because my response would be extremely long (shocker!) and an uninteresting tangent to everyone here.

Which makes sense from a realism perspective as what was once new becomes familiar. Same idea as always driving down the same road on one's daily commute - the first time is interesting, the 90th or 164th or 8745th time not so much.

We have a misunderstanding. What I was trying to communicate was that if you took 5 different groups of PCs through the same dungeon (theme, setting, map/key/stocked, puzzles, wandering monsters all the same), the resulting overall events and their sequence of encounter/discovery wouldn't be significantly different from group to group. There would be some nuance based on classes/builds/roles, player action declarations, rolls. Compared with (say) what could possibly unfold from World's End Bluff (discovery of the fate of the isolated settlement) > Perilous Journey (from WEB to EM) > Earthmaw (dealing with the Hobgoblins and ultimate parley with their king) part of the Dungeon World game I cited (which would probably be the equivalent of a large dungeon...certainly not in prep or play procedures, but in table time), the play results are non-dynamic. I mean, starting at World's End Bluff...Earthmaw and the Blizzard Dragon Averandox (which they were going to appeal to for help) may have not even existed. The game could change not just dynamically, but pretty much completely from play-through to play-through (that is what "make a map and leave blanks" and "play to find out what happens" engenders).

 

[Imaro]

An occasionally bored player is bad but a bored DM is campaign death. I do seek out like minds and I am very upfront with playstyle. There are plenty of players for a good DM of any style. Choosing to be middle of the road is fine too. Everybody needs to have fun.

I dont view it as "middle of the road"... I view it as enjoying the flexibility in techniques and results of catering to a diverse group.

Just to add more clarity I was thinking of an (admittedly imperfect) analogy... would you consider Jeet Kune Do a "middle of the road" martial art since it eschewed much of the traditional constraints of classical martial arts for a use what works best in the moment philosophy? I wouldn't, IMO it's just as hard to master and is superior in some aspects to the classical MA's. In the UFC we are seeing less classically defined fighters (as opposed to when it first started) and more fighters who train in multiple techniques and arts to be better all around combatants... I like to think this is similar to how I view running a game should be...

I think a mixture of techniques and principles where you pick the one most appropriate to generating fun for you and your group in the moment is what I aspire to and I think it's a perfectly legitimate agenda to have when gaming.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's not that GM desire is bad. GM desire is amazing, fruitful, and vital. The principles are as much for my benefit as they are for the players. I absolutely have investment, interest, and aspirations just like any other player. Like any other player I let those things go so we can play to find out. I'll have more later.

I think this was in regard to how my players and I determine the Flaws, Bonds, and other character traits as they develop over the campaign. We have them change or we add new ones or take away the originals...it all depends. How I do this is always a judgment call, we don't rely on a mechanical rule of some sort. The only example I can think of is the Insanity mechanic; when exposed to certain horrifying conditions, creatures, or effects, you roll on a table and ten you gain a new trait. My method for doing that is far less structured.

But I do think that you've touched on what I'd say is my main point in this thread...that I think DM Judgment can be as effective as any other method, and can still be impartial and support player driven play. Yes, you may have to impose the judgment over some of the existing mechanical rules but so be it.

Gotcha. I play with an altered Inspiration mechanic, and I allow for the Bonds and Flaws and other traits to change or for new ones to be added or old ones to fade as play progresses. We're really loose with all that stuff, which I find to be more manageable than having hard and fast mechanics for everything. Same thing with experience...we ditched the traditional XP system a few editions ago.

Just quoting the above as they're relevant to the below. Also, since [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] brought up the short little DW one-off we ran (nearly 3 years ago now!), I'm going to use the characters in that to elaborate on some concepts.

Anyway, quick intro to:

How GMing principles, an integrated and robust reward cycle, and transparent resolution mechanics and play procedures disable GM Force and Illusionism...and how the opposite enables it.

I'll start with the first part. So below are the Bonds and Alignment for [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's characters.

Lucann

BONDS
* The king owes me their life, whether they admit it or not.
* I have sworn to protect my lover.
* Thurgon is a good and faithful person; I believe him to be a human worthy of my trust.
* The half-elven warrior maiden is soft, but I will make them hard like me.

ALIGNMENT: Neutral - Defeat a worthy opponent.

Thurgon

BONDS
* Theren has stood by me in battle and can be trusted completely.
* The people of the city remain brave in spite of their suffering; I have much to learn from them.
* Lucann's misguided self-indulgence endangers his very soul!
* Quinn can be brought back from the darkness into which I allowed him to fall.

ALIGNMENT: Good- Endanger self to protect those weaker.

Here is how you earn xp in Dungeon World.

1) Did you roll a 6 or less on a move (2d6 + modifier)? If yes, mark xp.

At End of Session (group move to reflect on play)...

2) Choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player (this would be the GM if it is an NPC) of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish.

3) Look at your alignment. If you fulfilled that alignment at least once this session, mark XP.

4) Then answer these three questions as a group:

Did we learn something new and important about the world?
Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
Did we loot a memorable treasure?

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.

Alright. Now we know what the game is incentivizing. Through examination of that reward cycle we can find out what the play premise for Dungeon World is:

* Playing to take risks and find out what happens (This is the primary source of xp in the game. Xp on failure pushes players away from (a) turtling and (b) optimizing action declarations toward their areas of strength...or at least it puts it at tension with the inclination for character progression).

* Playing to find out about your relationships.

* Playing to find out about your highest ideal (what are you willing to risk to achieve it?).

* Playing for discovery.

* Playing to overcome notable adversaries and obstacles (mythical monsters, impossible climbs, inspiring the most stodgy to action).

* Playing to gain something...precious (lost artifacts, divine boons, or something more mundane that an NPC just doesn't want to give up).

---

Let's start with that and a hypothetical play example. Take a look above at the following bonds and alignment from pemerton's character Thurgon:

BONDS -
* Quinn can be brought back from the darkness into which I allowed him to fall.
* The people of the city remain brave in spite of their suffering; I have much to learn from them.

ALIGNMENT: Good- Endanger self to protect those weaker.

What happens if I place the PCs into a situation where Quinn (now the vassal of The Queen of Air and Darkness), the focus of Thurgon's quest for redemption, endangers the brave people of the city?

Let's take a look at Lucann's bond:

* The half-elven warrior maiden is soft, but I will make her hard like me.

She is a stout member of Thurgon's order of knights. She is definitely not weak, but she is not the equal of Thurgon (the Knight-Commander of her order). What happens if, in the midst of this conflict, I put her in grave peril (as the result of a 6- by one of the PCs) because of a tactical misstep on her part? Maybe she pulls a Hot Rod in the Optimus Prime/Megatron battle in the original Transformers movie (the great one).

Let's take a look at another of Lucann's bonds:

* Thurgon is a good and faithful person; I believe him to be a human worthy of my trust.

Maybe the situation snowballs. Maybe Quinn is about to deliver a potential mortal blow to Dame Nequall (the half-elven knight). Maybe Thurgon has a last gasp change to save his lieutenant from the imminent peril...but to do so would mean to allow a brave member of the city (perhaps an orphanage keep - there would lots of orphans after the war - desperately fending off summoned shadow fiends with a hoe) to perish.

Maybe Lucann believes Dame Nequall's failure has led to this situation. Maybe he is convinced that it is divine (rather than natural) selection that she resolutely face her fate (a horrific lesson, perhaps maiming, perhaps death) here and now. Like you teach a man to fish rather than fish for them, you do the same thing with the warrior to your left and your right. They are no good to themselves, to you, or to their unit if they cannot hold their weight (or, worst still, they imperil you).

Let's find out if he thinks that and (in)acts on it!

What will Thurgon do? My guess is he will endanger himself..but to save whom? He could Turn Undead and with a 10+ save the orphanage keep from the shadow fiends. He could Defend Dame Nequal. Can't do both!

What if, in his moment of need, he whispers a powerful prayer to Kord (Revelation), seeking divine wisdom on how to save Dame Nequal and the orphanage keep. What if the revelation is to strike down Quinn with a weapon imbued of light (he would take +1 forward to act on this).

A lot turns on this. Will Thurgon fell the focus of his quest, ensuring that he lives with his sense of failure to Quinn forevermore? If he does, he still has to bring the weapon to bear (Hack and Slash) and enspell it with divine Light (Cast a Spell). Things can go wrong there (though he does have +1 forward), or at least go sideways (leading to snowballing).

What if he endangers himself to save Dame Nequal (perhaps his prospects for defense are much higher than anything else) but lets the orphanage keep perish?

What if Lucann doesn't like his answer to the question? What happens to that trust between the two?

---

So that is how robust reward cycles in a game where the GM is instructed to "follow the rules, "fill the characters' lives with danger and adventure" and "play to find out what happens" aids me in avoiding having to apply force to achieve dramatic tension, danger and adventure.

The players tell me what is important to them and what they care about.
The system rewards them for taking risks.
Then I just follow the rules, think dangerous, and make my moves as the fiction unfolds and the play procedures dictate.

Next post I'll go deeper into how transparent (and simple, yet robust) resolution mechanics and play procedures prevent me from having to rely on Force to create dramatic situations which lead to compelling/thematic decision-points for the PCs, which in turn leads to unforeseeable outcomes and snowballing narrative.

 

[Lanefan]

I also do not always play Powered By The Apocalypse games or even other games run that way, but I find even when playing in other styles it has made me a more thoughtful player and GM. It has taught me to meaningfully value others contributions, play less selfishly, and turtle less. It has also taught me the value of not over planning and being more flexible in my play.

Please allow what might seem a stupid question:

You mention running all kinds of different "modern" RPGs - some for better, some for worse - but how much experience do you have in running old-school games e.g. 0-1e D&D or Hackmaster or any of the various OSR options?

I ask because experience frames perspective; and if most or all of your experience is with games whose year of release beguns with a '2' then your perspective will naturally be much different from that of an old-schooler like me.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

An occasionally bored player is bad but a bored DM is campaign death.

Ayup. Been there.

There are plenty of players for a good DM of any style.

This one's situationally dependent. In a large city or if one does remote play (by post, by email, VTT, whatever) it's true. In a smaller town or isolated area, not so much; and one somewhat has to deal with what one has.

Everybody needs to have fun.

Hear hear!

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Adding another thought on "the crunch" - it's somewhat related to "no retries", though more at the level of framing than the nuts-and-bolts of mechanical retries:

Once the player has decided the PC is going to look for a vessel to catch the blood, that's where the focus of that bit of action has settled. If that works, then the PC's got some blood; if not, then getting the blood just became that much harder.

As a general rule (or course every rule can have exceptions), I don't think it's good for pacing to have a look for a vessel, and if that fails then try for the mattress, and if that fails than carry off the body to drain it later, etc. That might be comic in the right context, but I don't think it's that dramatic.

Maybe my intuition about this (which will then inform the way I GM it, and narrate the failures if they occur) is related to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s distinction between scene-framing and other sorts of approaches - I'm inclined to want the scene to have some sort of focus or "crunch" and it resolves one way or the other. Not too much putzing around with "OK, this didn't work, so let's try this other thing."

Am I reading too much into this if I say it's telling me you don't like trial-and-error because it slows things down too much? If no and my assessment is correct then we've a whole other discussion a-coming.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, not going to get into this because my response would be extremely long (shocker!) and an uninteresting tangent to everyone here.

The purely sports side, maybe; but there might be some benefit in using the analogy as it relates to how it seems you view DM process management.

We have a misunderstanding. What I was trying to communicate was that if you took 5 different groups of PCs through the same dungeon (theme, setting, map/key/stocked, puzzles, wandering monsters all the same), the resulting overall events and their sequence of encounter/discovery wouldn't be significantly different from group to group. There would be some nuance based on classes/builds/roles, player action declarations, rolls.

Which makes perfect sense. (though a well-designed dungeon can lead to vastly different play experiences here too, but that's another topic entirely)

Compared with (say) what could possibly unfold from World's End Bluff (discovery of the fate of the isolated settlement) > Perilous Journey (from WEB to EM) > Earthmaw (dealing with the Hobgoblins and ultimate parley with their king) part of the Dungeon World game I cited (which would probably be the equivalent of a large dungeon...certainly not in prep or play procedures, but in table time), the play results are non-dynamic. I mean, starting at World's End Bluff...Earthmaw and the Blizzard Dragon Averandox (which they were going to appeal to for help) may have not even existed. The game could change not just dynamically, but pretty much completely from play-through to play-through (that is what "make a map and leave blanks" and "play to find out what happens" engenders).

Not sure I see the comparison here.

Your first comparitor is running the same dungeon 5 times for different parties. Your second is running a series of adventures/encounters once for a single party, that you may or may not ever run again. On the surface that's almost like comparing apples to motorboats unless I'm really missing something.

Lan-"sometimes I don't get it; other times I don't even get what I'm not getting"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. As I think I posted, D&D's solution to the pacing/dramat issues that result from "realistic" resources management is magic. (Rather than, say, abstract mechanics.)

It's not a 'solution' exactly, because the problem isn't that it takes weeks to heal, or that you can heal overnight. The problem is that DMs (and their players) may want different pacing in a campaign, and that D&D has never done much to allow for that, with the time it takes to recover - whether hps or spells or other resources - being fixed in the in-world time, rather than flexible to the pacing of the campaign (13A, for contrast, goes to the other extreme with a purely 'meta' full-heal up every 4th encounter - thus pacing is whatever the DM wants, from minutes between encounters to, at theoretical extremes, perhaps years, it doesn't matter).

In 3.x & earlier systems that don't just have overnight healing like 5e, the days/weeks it theoretically took to heal were moot, because magical healing that re-charged in a day or less was an infinitely-renewable resource. It's not that 'natural healing was slow,' it's that natural healing might as well not have existed, as it had no meaningful impact on play.

My point about this is more that the 5 minute work day has been lessened. You no longer need to have magical healing for it to not take many days to recover a large amount of HP. With Hit Dice and a short rest, you can press on for longer. And then you regain all lost HP on a long rest.

And you have at-wills, and at least some classes (fighter, monk, warlock - oddly, wizard) recover useful resources other than hps (via HD) on a short rest. OTOH, HD take two days to fully recover, so they can't be used too freely on multiple short rests, and most classes (all the daily slot casters, Warlock mystic arcanum, barbarian rage) have daily resources, while for the 'full casters' those daily resource represent the most significant portion of their effectiveness. So the impetus to the 5MWD is lessened relative to 3.5 or AD&D, but the impact is still very much there, with encounter and class balance likely to swing significantly - thus it's important to keep close to the 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest guidance (nor, for an Empowered DM, is that difficult to do).

I think this was in regard to how my players and I determine the Flaws, Bonds, and other character traits as they develop over the campaign. We have them change or we add new ones or take away the originals...it all depends. How I do this is always a judgment call, we don't rely on a mechanical rule of some sort.

Sounds good to me...
...as good as RP-carrots can, anyway.

But I do think that you've touched on what I'd say is my main point in this thread...that I think DM Judgment can be as effective as any other method, and can still be impartial and support player driven play. Yes, you may have to impose the judgment over some of the existing mechanical rules but so be it.

I agree, in general. Exercising judgement can work as well as any other style of GMing, in just about any game - it requires the DM take responsibility, but it can get excellent results. I'd go further and say that, in the context of our forum, here - 5e, with it's emphasis on DM Empowerment - exercising judgement is the /best/ way to run.

What I mean is that, in my opinion, the DM's opinions and desires should matter as much as the players. I don't think that having a story or direction in mind is a terrible thing. I think it's one thing to have a direction in mind and keep that direction as an option, and another thing entirely to force that durection as the only option.

Ideally, I suppose, that's not unfair. But with the implied responsibility of taking up the Empowerment that 5e offers the DM, it's good to remember that it's much easier for the DM to impose those opinions and desires. The the DM should err on the side of putting the players' experience of the game first.

What I was trying to communicate was that if you took 5 different groups of PCs through the same dungeon (theme, setting, map/key/stocked, puzzles, wandering monsters all the same), the resulting overall events and their sequence of encounter/discovery wouldn't be significantly different from group to group. There would be some nuance based on classes/builds/roles, player action declarations, rolls.

I wouldn't consider a range of results from 'TPK' to 'boring roll-over' to be mere 'nuance.'

How GMing principles, an integrated and robust reward cycle, and transparent resolution mechanics and play procedures disable GM Force and Illusionism...and how the opposite enables it.

I get the idea and I have no arguments against it, per se. But, if "GM Force & Illusionism" - or DM Empowerment & good DMing, to spin it hard in the other direction - isn't seen as a bad thing, or even seen as a good thing because it leads to enjoyable play experiences for the whole table, then that insight just means, 'well, you have choice.'

I'm not sure I buy it, either - I feel like I could enable the style myself, regardless of system.

Certainly in any version of D&D, given some willingness on the part of the players.

You mention running all kinds of different "modern" RPGs - some for better, some for worse - but how much experience do you have in running old-school games e.g. 0-1e D&D or Hackmaster or any of the various OSR options?

I ask because experience frames perspective; and if most or all of your experience is with games whose year of release beguns with a '2' then your perspective will naturally be much different from that of an old-schooler like me.

Three editions of D&D have released in years beginning with a '2,' including the current one, of course.

The old-school perspective is not an unusual one, either, our's is a fairly grey hobby and D&D is the most common point of entry to it. Everyone knows our perspective, it's the perspective all others struggle against to be understood.

 

[Manbearcat]

The purely sports side, maybe; but there might be some benefit in using the analogy as it relates to how it seems you view DM process management.



We have a misunderstanding. What I was trying to communicate was that if you took 5 different groups of PCs through the same dungeon (theme, setting, map/key/stocked, puzzles, wandering monsters all the same), the resulting overall events and their sequence of encounter/discovery wouldn't be significantly different from group to group. There would be some nuance based on classes/builds/roles, player action declarations, rolls.

Which makes perfect sense. (though a well-designed dungeon can lead to vastly different play experiences here too, but that's another topic entirely)

Not sure I see the comparison here.

Your first comparitor is running the same dungeon 5 times for different parties. Your second is running a series of adventures/encounters once for a single party, that you may or may not ever run again. On the surface that's almost like comparing apples to motorboats unless I'm really missing something.

Lan-"sometimes I don't get it; other times I don't even get what I'm not getting"-efan[/QUOTE]

Misunderstanding again. Lets try again.

Starting point B/X dungeon entrance. Play through 5 times with different groups.

Starting point World's End Bluff (where the PCs discover the Roanoke-like disappearance of the settlers) in Dungeon World through the table time equivalent of Earthmaw (or whatever might happen after WEB if things go differently). Play through 5 times with 5 different groups.

Alright, I'm out for the day.