Judgement calls vs "railroading"

pemerton said:

What field? (I'm law and philosophy.)

Click to expand...

That most capacious field we in the States call "English." Specifically, my research interests are in ecocriticism and 19th c. American literature.

Short answer (like you said, it's a bit OT): I'm not sure that's there enough overt richness and "gonzo" in the setting for the players to draw on in making action declarations.

It's more of a worry at this stage. As I said, I hope I'm wrong. (If I had to guess what will prove me wrong, it will be the magical elements of the setting: psionics, defiling and the "regrowth" idea that you pointed to in relation to the druid PC in your game. Plus the relative looseness of organisations like the Veiled Alliance and the Templars.)

Click to expand...

I tend to reframe Dark Sun in my mind as a mash-up of Dune/Mad Max: Fury Road/Robert E. Howard, with, perhaps, a dash of Steven Erikson, but, then, I don't have a long history with the setting, in fact, having only delved into it at all with 4E and recently at that. At least this is the kind of game my players and I wish to run with it!

I would add that Dark Sun also greatly expands the mechanical possibilities for terrain presented in the game and that optional rules like weapon breakage and desert survival can place atypical pressure (for a D&D, especially 4E game) on the PCs to respond with unusual action declarations in kind.

But I suppose more play in the setting will let us both know. Certainly, the actual play posts of your first session seem like things are off to a good start!

I think there's a level of projection going on when most people who only play mainstream games analyze the appeal of indie games. They see these finely honed games that are crafted to deliver a specific experience or deal with a specific sort of fiction and assume exacting standards and lack of flexibility on the part of players, a search for the perfect game. That is almost the opposite of what I personally am after.

The reason why I value games that have focus and clarity is not because I want one specific experience. I want many specific experiences that allow me to have fun in different ways. I am not looking to play poker and only poker for the rest of my life. Instead I want to play poker, spades, euchre, and bridge. I just would like to know what game I am playing when I am playing it so I can play it fully and authentically. I want to play hard. I also want to play it with other people who want to play that particular game with me so I can play off of them.

Like I said up thread it is all about expectations and permissions. When everything is permitted nothing can be meaningfully expected. With no meaningful expectations in place it is supremely difficult to develop skill in playing the game and to effectively collaborate creatively.

Aside: The idea that indie games are less about fun is troublesome to me. It's just not about the fun we design or create. It's about a form of fun we get to experience in the moment and not like try to control. It involves risk taking, collaboration, authentic experiences, and can be somewhat messy at times.

One of the big cultural rifts we are dealing with here comes down to Authenticity. On the indie side of things authentic experiences are deeply important. In most discussions you might see me say "really" or "real" a lot. I want real tension. I want to really play to find out. I want my decisions to make a real impact on the fiction. I want to really feel a measure of what my character does. I want us all to experience this authentic experience together. Perception is not reality here. It is not enough to feel like I'm doing something or say we're doing something. I want to really do it.

Campbell said:

I think there's a level of projection going on when most people who only play mainstream games analyze the appeal of indie games.

Click to expand...

I agree with that.

Campbell said:

Aside: The idea that indie games are less about fun is troublesome to me.

<snip>

On the indie side of things authentic experiences are deeply important. In most discussions you might see me say "really" or "real" a lot. I want real tension. I want to really play to find out. I want my decisions to make a real impact on the fiction. I want to really feel a measure of what my character does. I want us all to experience this authentic experience together. Perception is not reality here. It is not enough to feel like I'm doing something or say we're doing something. I want to really do it.

Click to expand...

I think this is interesting.

Because I'm on the GM side so much, my experience of authenticity is to some extent more as witnessing it than living it. One thing I enjoy, and I'm sure have already mentioned upthread, is when a player declares an action not because it's optimal, and not because it's what my guy would do, but because of how things are in the ficiton. The poster child for this, because of the contrast between mechanical optimality and the action declaration, is the fighter/cleric player declaring actions that, mechanically, amount to Intimidate or Diplomacy checks because he doesn't like where the more charismatic members of the party are taking things. Or because he's frustrated with an NPC, and wants to get back at them (eg the advisor, or the debate with Yan-C-Bin and the djinni).

A more subtle version is the invoker/wizard player, who holds off on trying to bring back his imp until what he takes to be the right moment in the fiction - now he has an Aspect of Vecna under his control, he can do what he wants to do.

That's the sort of thing that makes me feel like we've done something that had at least this little bit of worth to it: someone cared enough about this fiction to engage it in that way as part of playing the game.

Campbell said:

I think there's a level of projection going on when most people who only play mainstream games analyze the appeal of indie games.

Click to expand...

Not to harp on terminology, but when I read 'mainstream games' I have to think of things people were playing in the suburbs in the '50s. Arguably, even more sophisticated boardgames are mainstreaming, right now.

D&D is the 500 lb gorilla in the tiny RPG pond, and I suppose it and other longer-lived RPGs could be called 'traditional' or even 'successful' or 'name' or something. But they're just slightly less niche games in a niche hobby. Indie games, OTOH, are decidedly niche. But they're all RPGs.

Sorry to get all pedantic, but 'mainstream games' really does bring me up short every time.

Campbell said:

Aside: The idea that indie games are less about fun is troublesome to me.

One of the big cultural rifts we are dealing with here comes down to Authenticity. On the indie side of things authentic experiences are deeply important.

Click to expand...

So it's troublesome some folks find the games you're advocating for un-fun, while it's OK that you find the games they're advocating for fake (un-Authentic)?

For all that were a small hobby and would benefit from sticking together, once you get outside of the attempted 'big tent' of D&D (and often, even within it), things seem to get pretty catty.

pemerton said:

Nor do I. Nor does Luke Crane. Running BW is a litany of bad news to the players.

It's the impassive bit that I find hard, and I think that is the point Luke Crane is getting at.

Click to expand...

The impassive bit doesn't bother me either.

Where I find impassive more difficult is if-when I'm providing really good news.

Lan-"and for tonight's session the cliffhanger from last session is all hands roll saving throws...failure on which will put my impassive ability to deliver bad news to the test"-efan

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

When I address mainstream games I am speaking in terms of a particular cultural context. I am specifically speaking of the dominant culture within our greater community. I choose not to frame it in terms of the traditional culture because it does not represent the roots of the game (the war gaming culture), but instead a transformation of what these games were assumed to be about. It also nicely dovetails into the relationship between indie and mainstream movements in other media. That includes elements like authenticity vs. mass appeal, the role of social cohesion in the culture, and openness to experience vs. assumed tropes and structures. I am not claiming cultural superiority here. I am merely trying to explain my perspective.

I was also not saying that anyone has to find any particular game fun. I was responding to an argument [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] made up thread where he claimed indie gamers had a narrow specific definition of fun and were seeking some refined perfect thing. I was trying to explain what I think the appeal of these games are in the cultural context they were born out of rather than what those who are not part of the culture assume their appeal must be. I want a more varied and dynamic experience, not less of one. I want more creative risks. I want more collaboration and less individual design.

When it comes to authenticity I was speaking to a specific cultural and aesthetic value that I hold that I believe is less important in the mainstream culture than things like social cohesion, protecting the experience from perceived negative outcomes, getting exactly what you want out of play, and fidelity to individual creative vision of characters and settings. Things like character and story arcs, detailed world building built on a GM's specific creative vision, adherence to character concept, overt manipulation of mechanics and fiction, story advocacy over character advocacy, over processing of play through mechanics or GM design in the moment, and avoidance of creative risks lead to an experience that feels less organic and authentic to me.

Within this thread there have been innumerable occasions where posters have claimed that player perception is what matters, not what actually happens at the table. They have disputed a need for transparency, organic storytelling, authentic communication, and authentic experiences. I have stated my preferences for these things in the context of where and how GM judgment calls can be used to enhance play as long as they are made in a disciplined way.

Is it your contention that I should not hold a distinction between these things?
Is it your contention that I value authenticity too much?
Is it your contention that the mainstream culture values authenticity just as much as I do?
Is it your contention that I should not speak on these distinctions?
Is it your contention that I should take on the values of the dominant culture in the interests of unity?
Do you have a less contentious framing that I should use that still gets to the heart of my concerns?

I am not trying to start a fight here. I do not want to have a debate over what set of approaches are strictly better. I also do not think we should avoid discussion of our differences. If unity means conformity to the values of the dominant culture I have little interest in it. If unity means celebrating the diversity of perspectives, approaches, and games within the hobby while discussing our differences with respect for each other I am all for it. It might get contentious at times and sometimes the way we frame things might get overly aggressive and fail to adequately reflect the situation. When we do this we should be called on our . I have tried to do this throughout my involvement in this thread.

This thread has resulted in some of the best discussions I have had on this site in a long time, specifically because we have been able to speak to the distinctions between the ways we prefer to play and run role playing games. I think it is a good thing when our cultures engage in a meeting of the minds, even when it is difficult, especially when it is difficult. It does no one any good to only discuss things with those who agree with them. At the very least we gain a better understanding of each other.

Campbell said:

When it comes to authenticity I was speaking to a specific cultural and aesthetic value that I hold that I believe is less important in the mainstream culture than things like social cohesion, protecting the experience from perceived negative outcomes, getting exactly what you want out of play, and fidelity to individual creative vision of characters and settings. Things like character and story arcs, detailed world building built on a GM's specific creative vision, adherence to character concept, overt manipulation of mechanics and fiction, story advocacy over character advocacy, over processing of play through mechanics or GM design in the moment, and avoidance of creative risks lead to an experience that feels less organic and authentic to me.

Click to expand...

While I understand what you're getting at, I feel it's pretty much impossible to tag anyone's game as "less authentic" or "inauthentic" without coming across as pejorative, which I don't believe aids open communication.

Ilbranteloth said:

I disagree in the bolded text. In order to go where the action is, you need to know what the PC's action is. Not the PCs motivation.

If the PC attempts to haggle for some Calishite silks, I (the DM) don't need to know that he wants to purchase them for his mother. To play the NPC haggling, I need to know what the NPC's motivation is.

Click to expand...

I've been out of the conversation for a stretch, so I'm just commenting on a few bits here that I've seen with a quick scan.

On this above, when [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] invokes the principle of "go to the action", he is referring to one (or both) of two specific types of action:

a) System agency: The premise that the game itself is fundamentally built around. If you are a PC in Dogs in the Vineyard, being a player means you have already bought into the play paradigm of being a flawed, vulnerable-but-stalwart, gun-toting Paladin in a Wild West that never was, meting out justice and keeping the peace in towns shot through with sin. If you decide that your Dog has lost faith, has had enough of this impossible life of service and wants to hit the trail for a Boom Town. Alright then, retire him and briefly memorialize him for all of us with that story. But make a new Dog that is embedded into that premise. Because this game isn't called Lost Dogs and Boom Towns where we follow your fallen Paladin through his pursuit of fortune.

b) Player agency: The premise, themes, and tropes that the player has signaled they are interested in via the PC build mechanics.


Its not enough to have NPCs with impulses and drives of their own. Well, its enough if "the action" is "whatever spills out of an honest, premise-neutral, organic-outgrowth (but cognitive bias afflicted...this we cannot do away with no matter how much we feel our model bears fidelity to an impartial, properly parameterized fantasy world simulation) rendering of a person/place/thing in accordance with those animating factors."

But that isn't "the action" that pemerton is alluding to. He's alluding to the centrality to every moment of play of (a), (b), or (often) both. You could call this "premise logic", "genre logic", "drama logic"...what-have-you. Regardless, it is the prioritization of that (as "the action") over and above the prioritization of what I have bolded above (as "the action") that is fundamental here.

So when you're framing scenes or dynamically changing a situation post-resolution or tallying up the fallout after the dust has settled, that prioritization is the driving factor behind your GMing. Now the typical response to this by folks whose RPG mental frameworks are steeped in Sim priorities is incredulity like; "well, nonsensical, irrational NPCs or an incoherent setting seems inevitable with that prioritization." I promise you, games that feature "drama logic" (let's just go with that) don't eschew sense or coherency.

---

Just one other bit right quick.

A Star Wars game could trivially emerge in a "play to find out" fashion through either (a) or (b) above:

(a) The system's premise itself (and the machinery, resolution mechanics/PC build mechanics/reward cycles, therein) is about discovering the legacy if your heritage and either redeeming it...or falling prey to it.

(b) The player has a Relationship statement about his father that offers both a d4 (which creates complications) and a d8 (which pushes toward success) to dice pools:

"My aunt and uncle always say 'I have too much of my father in me.' They don't speak of him beyond that. I sense a strange pull to discover his fate that goes well beyond curiosity."

Boom. Off we go. We can easily "play to find out" how a scrubby water farmer can get to Jedi Knight or Seduced By the Dark Side or (hell) killed by Sand People/Hoth Yeti from that.

TwoSix said:

Sure, I agree that you can't truly foreshadow unless you're doing some authoring, you need to be able to put something in the beginning when you already have the end in mind.

But I think that's kind of the point...foreshadowing is intended to demonstrate authorial control. It demonstrates to the viewer that the narrative wasn't improvised, that the author knew all along what was going to happen. That would seem to be antithetical to the very play agenda @pemerton desires! You have to sacrifice true foreshadowing in a game where the goal is for the DM to be surprised by the ending as the players. (You could get a similar effect by simply making callbacks to earlier introduced characters or plotlines, but that's merely referential, not foreshadowing).

Click to expand...

Just a quick drive-by on foreshadowing. This won't tickle @Lanefan 's fancy or others with his play priorities, but foreshadowing can happen at both the micro and macro level of games of the type we're discussing.

MICRO

Two of the two most versatile of GM moves in Dungeon World are:

Show signs of an approaching threat

“Threat” means anything bad that’s on the way. With this move, you just show them that something’s going to happen unless they do something about it.

Reveal an unwelcome truth

An unwelcome truth is a fact the players wish wasn’t true: that the room’s been trapped, maybe, or that the helpful goblin is actually a spy. Reveal to the players just how much trouble they’re in.

Click to expand...

You're going to use these a lot as a soft move either in initial situation framing or as a response to a 7-9 move (and sometimes a 6- move). This could be monstrous tracks leading directly toward a steading, an ominous fog moving...against the wind (?), a storm of the century bearing down on your flank, a wink of acknowledgement by the art thief you're hunting right before she disappears into the gallery's masses, an eerie stranger appears briefly on a haunted night demanding a first born in exchange for delivery from a promised misery.

MACRO

In Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, the GM bears the weight of the principle to "think offscreen." But this doesn't mean that the players are to not be privy of that offscreen. The GM is encouraged to show how the Impulses of those Fronts and their Impending Dooms are coming to fruition offscreen. Further still, using 6- triggered, principled Hard Moves, which make manifest those offscreen dangers and dooms right out in front of the players (but not the PCs), is encouraged.

Finally, Apocalypse World (and now Blades in the Dark) explicitly advises to use overt (player-facing) clocks to "tick down" those threats until they reach "zero hour" or the PCs intervene (I don't know why DW didn't port this technique directly over, but I use it). Blades formalizes it even further with further system tech.



So foreshadowing is absolutely "a thing" in these kinds of systems...its just probably not palatable to certain folks (although I find the machinery deployed significantly enhances the sense of foreboding and urgency).