What Is an Experience Point Worth?

Lanefan · Jan 13, 2018

pemerton said:
That's a starting session. But the build of the PCs allows the GM (me) to frame an opening situation in response to those builds (in the circumstances, a peddler of trinkets rather than an old man in a tavern), where "the adventure" is not something I, the GM, have settled on and want to "hook" the players into - but, rather, is something that unfolds out of their responses to my take up of their "hooks" (eg the belief about finding magic items to help confront the demon-possessed brother).

To connect that to the overall discussion with [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - in Saelorns' game, the player is expected to have a PC who is interested in whatever it is that the GM throws up (so if it's kidnapped elves, the player has to get on board with that), and the fact that the player writes a PC whose main concern is freeing his brother from balrog possession doesn't generate any guaranteee that that will actually come up in play; in Lanefan's game there might be six plotlines to choose from, but in respect of each of them the situation is the same as for Saelorn - there is no guarantee that what the player cares about will matter in the game.

That's the difference between us as DMs, I suppose: if my players decided to write up all that stuff about relationships and goals and what-have-you that's great, but in no way would I as DM be bound to any of it, or committed to ensure that all of it - or even any of it - becomes relevant in play. It might, it might not - depends how things go. In the balrog example, if the party happens to someday meet a balrog (wouldn't be any time soon, as balrogs are pretty high-powered creatures and the party will need some serious levelling under their belts before even thinking of dealing with one) and if that character happens to still be around and involved at the time (not at all likely, players and characters come and go in my games) and still care about that brother-possession story (several real-world years may easily have passed between the player's writing of that story idea and the party being able to do anything with a balrog other than fall over dead in front of it, during which time the player and-or character may have stopped caring about that story line), and if I as DM haven't completely forgotten about it, then I'd probably work the brother in there somewhere.

Did the player whose main theme was freeing his brother from balrog possession check with you first, to see if balrogs or other demon-like things even existed in your game setting?

Lan-"fly, you fools"-efan

pemerton · Jan 13, 2018

Lanefan said:
Did the player whose main theme was freeing his brother from balrog possession check with you first, to see if balrogs or other demon-like things even existed in your game setting?

Well, the whole point of this is that there is no game setting outside the process of the group talking through PC creation, starting situation etc, and then kicking things off.

I've already posted three or four examples upthread of first sessions. I guess if I really didn't want to run a game with balrogs in it I would discuss it with the player, but the player knows me well enough to anticipate that that should not be an issue.

Lanefan said:
if my players decided to write up all that stuff about relationships and goals and what-have-you that's great, but in no way would I as DM be bound to any of it, or committed to ensure that all of it - or even any of it - becomes relevant in play. It might, it might not - depends how things go. In the balrog example, if the party happens to someday meet a balrog (wouldn't be any time soon, as balrogs are pretty high-powered creatures and the party will need some serious levelling under their belts before even thinking of dealing with one) and if that character happens to still be around and involved at the time (not at all likely, players and characters come and go in my games) and still care about that brother-possession story (several real-world years may easily have passed between the player's writing of that story idea and the party being able to do anything with a balrog other than fall over dead in front of it, during which time the player and-or character may have stopped caring about that story line), and if I as DM haven't completely forgotten about it, then I'd probably work the brother in there somewhere.

And you wonder why I call it a GM-authored railroad!

EDIT:

Saelorn said:
It can't possibly be a railroad if the GM doesn't plan for the actions of the PCs, or enforce them. Whatever the GM may expect the PCs to do, they will probably do something else, and thus the "story" will go in a different direction; which is why it's beneficial to not expect them to do anything in particular.

You've already made it clear that you "plan for the actions of the PCs": if you write a story about rescuing elves, and the players don't want their PCs to rescue elves, then there will be no game.

The PCs might provide some colour (eg details of how the elves are rescued) but by your own account they're not the ones who determine the subject matter of the game and the fundamental content of the shared fiction.

pemerton · Jan 13, 2018

Saelorn said:
The state of the sky is an observable fact within the game world, which the characters can observe, and which the players can observe second-hand through descriptions from the GM.

Having someone describe something they made up to you isn't "observing", either first-hand or second-hand. It's listening to a piece of fiction.

Here's a way to make the point concrete. I have visited the pyramids in Cairo. I can tell you that they are big. I can't tell you how big they are, because (a) I can't judge heights of structures particularly well and (b) I haven't got the height memorised from reading about it. Yet, from my report, you can know that there is some definite height that the pyramids are, because they are real existing things.

But if I tell you that, in my gameworld, there are some pyarmaids, and they are big, there is no definite height that they are, because they're not really existing things. They're imaginary.

The same is true of clouds. If I tell you that the sky was cloudy but not completely overcast today (not actually true where I am, but let's suppose it was) then there is some definite amount of cloud cover that occurred over the course of the day, although - from my remark - you can't tell what it was.

But if I tell you, as a player in my game, that the sky is cloudy but not fully overcast, there is no definite amount of cloud cover that obtains. That's the nature of fiction. For the same reason, there is no definite length of Sherlock Holmes' left big toenail on the occasion of his first meeting with Dr Watson - whereas there is such a length for my left toenail the time I made my first post on ENworld, even though neither I nor anyone else knows what it was.

Saelorn said:
If the GM is doing their job, then the players will know whether there are clouds before they decide whether the character will attempt the plan.

<snip>

The vast majority of the time, the player will ask you to describe the wall before they commit to the plan of climbing it. They won't even attempt to climb a wall if they don't think they have a chance to succeed, or if the consequences for failure seem especially dire.

What will happen "the vast majority of the time" is very variable across tables. I don't generally describe walls in a great deal of detail: it's not that interesting to me or my friends.

Furthermore, it is possible to misjudge: a wall might look easier to climb than it is (eg there are visible holds, but they turn out to be unexpectedly slippery) or vice versa. Likewise, the amount of cloud might be just enough for the PCs' plan, but maybe not quite - the proof might be in the eating. And in a RPG, "the eating" generally means rolling the dice.

A gameworld in which there are no unexpected factors, no surprises in the environment, and in which nothing exists which the GM has not described in advance, is going to be both (i) lacking in detail, and (ii) very very sparse. In a dungeon this can make sense (although not very much sense for dungeon walls, which might have surprising properties that become evident upon attempting to climb them); in any sort of moderately realistic or verisimilitudinous setting it makes no sense at all.

Even if you use random charts to roll for the contents of rooms, markets etc not all options can be covered - eg Gygax's table in his DMG for "furnishings and appointments, general" includes urns but not vases, stools but not tuffets, etc. But is it really the case that there are no vases to be found in the city of Greyhawk just because Gygax neglected to put them on his chart?

Saelorn said:
You must determine the nature of the wall before the attempt is made, or else the player is incapable of taking its nature into consideration before choosing to make the attempt. Your method violates the basic process of play, by describing the environment after adjudicating the resolution of uncertain actions.

For the reasons I've given, what you say is just wrong. There's always the potential for a factor to be relevant which the GM doesn't describe - eg if the climbing is of a cliff, is there a small root poking out about halfway up which might provide a crucial handhold at a certain moment? Is the stone wedged in the crack next to the root going to give way if someone puts weight on it? (And human bodyweight, or halfling weight?)

All those things matter to a climb, but the players don't know before they declare and the dice are rolled. If the check fails, what do you tell the player? Is every failed climb because the PC pulled a muscle? Or are some the result of the environment revealing properties of itself that weren't known when the attempt was commenced?

Saelorn said:
I was assuming that you were playing an RPG, with role-players, who would rightfully kick you out of the game if they discovered you were cheating in such a malicious manner. If you aren't playing an RPG, with role-players, then you may not have to hide your true motive... but neither would that be relevant in any way to a discussion of role-playing games.

This is just hyperbole. I've been RPGing for longer than you, and have played and GMed a wider range of games, from Classic Traveller and RQ through AD&D and 4e to Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic. I don't need a lecture about what is and isn't roleplaying, and what is or isn't cheating.

Saelorn said:
if the GM tailors the play experience to what the players think is interesting, then they can collaborate together to tell a story instead of role-playing at all.

And this is silly. Playing "indie"-style, story now RPGs is nothing like collaborative storytelling.

Sadras · Jan 13, 2018

pemerton said:
That's a starting session. But the build of the PCs allows the GM (me) to frame an opening situation in response to those builds (in the circumstances, a peddler of trinkets rather than an old man in a tavern), where "the adventure" is not something I, the GM, have settled on and want to "hook" the players into - but, rather, is something that unfolds out of their responses to my take up of their "hooks" (eg the belief about finding magic items to help confront the demon-possessed brother).

To connect that to the overall discussion with @Saelorn and @Lanefan - in Saelorns' game, the player is expected to have a PC who is interested in whatever it is that the GM throws up (so if it's kidnapped elves, the player has to get on board with that), and the fact that the player writes a PC whose main concern is freeing his brother from balrog possession doesn't generate any guaranteee that that will actually come up in play; in Lanefan's game there might be six plotlines to choose from, but in respect of each of them the situation is the same as for Saelorn - there is no guarantee that what the player cares about will matter in the game.

I'm running two campaigns -
1) One started with a group of adventurers called the Company-4-Hire with 4-5 backstories of the origin of the characters into the Company but with each character having no immediate "adventure" to pursue. I as DM provided a few "jobs" which the characters accepted for monies. The campaign has reached a point where they are now following the Tyranny of Dragons storyline - which is mostly me tinkering with published modules, players involvement in the story has very much ended.

2) This group of adventurers is made up predominantly of hin (halflings) and is based in the Five Shires and Karameikos. The players came up with the idea of an organisation kidnapping persons for the slave-trade - and the party have lost family and friends this way. The party plans to pursue this organisation and hopefully rescue their loved ones and exact much vengeance on all those involved in the slave trade. That is all the players' ideas - and they have added how the party was formed.
I used the Iron Ring as the slave trade organisation and added a cultist organisation who was the buyer of the slaves and they're now running a modified B10.

In both instances the story and ideas are now being led by me, with various paths and side-quests they may pursue.
In the first campaign, one of the player's background 'inherited' a piece of metal that could fashion into a weapon. I have secretly made this to be 1 section of the Rod of Seven Parts which will eventually be explored.
Session 0 and the background material influences me as DM - but once the game starts it is the DM who fashions the rest of the world. Like you said my take up of their "hooks".

HOWEVER what I do allow is the player to write additional exposition on their character, as long as it ties up with everything written/realised previously. I then as DM can obviously use some of that (and do if possible) in the ongoing story. Again, I'm not bound to though, but I also cannot dismiss it as invalid either.

Lanefan · Jan 13, 2018

pemerton said:
Having someone describe something they made up to you isn't "observing", either first-hand or second-hand. It's listening to a piece of fiction.

Here's a way to make the point concrete. I have visited the pyramids in Cairo. I can tell you that they are big. I can't tell you how big they are, because (a) I can't judge heights of structures particularly well and (b) I haven't got the height memorised from reading about it. Yet, from my report, you can know that there is some definite height that the pyramids are, because they are real existing things.

But if I tell you that, in my gameworld, there are some pyarmaids, and they are big, there is no definite height that they are, because they're not really existing things. They're imaginary.

The same is true of clouds. If I tell you that the sky was cloudy but not completely overcast today (not actually true where I am, but let's suppose it was) then there is some definite amount of cloud cover that occurred over the course of the day, although - from my remark - you can't tell what it was.

But if I tell you, as a player in my game, that the sky is cloudy but not fully overcast, there is no definite amount of cloud cover that obtains. That's the nature of fiction. For the same reason, there is no definite length of Sherlock Holmes' left big toenail on the occasion of his first meeting with Dr Watson - whereas there is such a length for my left toenail the time I made my first post on ENworld, even though neither I nor anyone else knows what it was.

And - with apologies to your left toenail - the amount of relevance to anything is also the same: zero.

But sometimes in both the real and game worlds, minor things like the amount and type of cloud cover can become extremely relevant. In the real world we can simply look at it and observe for ourselves, while in the game world we're reliant on the DM to provide this information in the amount of detail required for the purpose at hand...which means that if the amount of detail isn't enough the players/characters either have to a) ask for more, or b) proceed using incomplete information where doing so may or may not come back to bite them later.

What will happen "the vast majority of the time" is very variable across tables. I don't generally describe walls in a great deal of detail: it's not that interesting to me or my friends.

Furthermore, it is possible to misjudge: a wall might look easier to climb than it is (eg there are visible holds, but they turn out to be unexpectedly slippery) or vice versa. Likewise, the amount of cloud might be just enough for the PCs' plan, but maybe not quite - the proof might be in the eating. And in a RPG, "the eating" generally means rolling the dice.

Of course. But if there's something obvious such as a pool of acid at the foot of the wall being fed by rivulets of acid running down said wall, it's kind of incumbent on the DM to point it out. Even if she quite reasonably judges that the PCs can't tell the difference between acid and water without a (player-stated) closer look, she still has to mention the pool and rivulets...right?

A gameworld in which there are no unexpected factors, no surprises in the environment, and in which nothing exists which the GM has not described in advance, is going to be both (i) lacking in detail, and (ii) very very sparse.

Perhaps. It could also be overflowing in detail and very rich in environment...at risk of bogging the whole game down in said detail and richness.

For the reasons I've given, what you say is just wrong. There's always the potential for a factor to be relevant which the GM doesn't describe - eg if the climbing is of a cliff, is there a small root poking out about halfway up which might provide a crucial handhold at a certain moment? Is the stone wedged in the crack next to the root going to give way if someone puts weight on it? (And human bodyweight, or halfling weight?)

All those things matter to a climb, but the players don't know before they declare and the dice are rolled. If the check fails, what do you tell the player? Is every failed climb because the PC pulled a muscle? Or are some the result of the environment revealing properties of itself that weren't known when the attempt was commenced?

The question then becomes why the DM failed to describe it. If she simply failed to point out something obvious, that's on her. But if she judged (or secretly rolled, whichever) that the PC doesn't notice the not-obvious environmental factor and the PC subsequently fails a climb check, she's perfectly within her rights to narrate this overlooked factor as the reason.

Playing "indie"-style, story now RPGs is nothing like collaborative storytelling.

Hmmm...the way you describe it sometimes, it seems mighty close.

Lanefan

Arilyn · Jan 14, 2018

Nope, what pemerton is doing is not a "storytelling" game. Storytelling games share some similarities with rpgs, but differ in some very important ways. In a storytelling game the "conflict" arises with which player has control over the scene. There is often no GM. Time can bounce around, sometimes the end result is known, and players enact the scenes which lead to the end. If the story is about the fall of an empire, for example, players will take turn framing pivotal scenes. Often in storytelling games, players have no particular character, although this is not always true. There are no individual challenges that players are trying to overcome. Instead, a player might declare that the emperor's daughter is planning on betraying her father. Other players may agree and the story goes on, or there could be disagreement about this piece of fiction, and then the "rules" of the game come in to help decide who's idea will triumph.

pemerton is using a more modern style of GMing, which is becoming more common. It's my preferred style, and it works really well, especially in keeping players engaged. There are lots of games which encourage this style, which are definitely rpgs, (13th Age, Fate, Cortex Plus, Dungeonworld, Gumshoe, etc.)

pemerton · Jan 14, 2018

Lanefan said:
sometimes in both the real and game worlds, minor things like the amount and type of cloud cover can become extremely relevant. In the real world we can simply look at it and observe for ourselves, while in the game world we're reliant on the DM to provide this information in the amount of detail required for the purpose at hand

Or, alternatively, we can extrapolate it from the result of the action resolution attempt. Are those crumbling ledges strong enough to stand on? . . . let's roll the dice and find out.

Lanefan said:
The question then becomes why the DM failed to describe it. If she simply failed to point out something obvious, that's on her. But if she judged (or secretly rolled, whichever) that the PC doesn't notice the not-obvious environmental factor and the PC subsequently fails a climb check, she's perfectly within her rights to narrate this overlooked factor as the reason.

My point is that the GM cannot possibly narrate everything that might, in principle, be observed. For me to describe everything I can see, sitting here at my computer, would be utterly impractical and perhaps, in practicat terms, impossible. Even describing just everything I can see on my screen would take hundreds of words (which is minutes of narration in a RPG situation). So it's never going to happen.

But when the check fails, some account is needed. The GM is quite at liberty to introduce some appropriate fiction, such as a handhold that breaks away. In the real world, not every failed climb is because the climber's muscles gave way, or the climber lacked the agility to reach a hold; so why should it be that way in the gameworld? That lacks verisimilitude.

Lanefan said:
if the amount of detail isn't enough the players/characters either have to a) ask for more, or b) proceed using incomplete information where doing so may or may not come back to bite them later.

<snip>

if there's something obvious such as a pool of acid at the foot of the wall being fed by rivulets of acid running down said wall, it's kind of incumbent on the DM to point it out.

But no one is going to narrate a failed climb attempt as "The waterfall of acid, that I didn't mention until now, corroded your rope." But they might reasonably narrate it as "A sharp edge on which your rope has been rubbing cuts it through, and it breaks!"

This is how consistency is maintained - new setting information that is introduced by way of narration (of consequences; of failed checks; of new scenes that are framed) elaborates on and complements what has already been introduced, but doesn't contradict it (literally or practically). Pools of acid in plain sight aren't good narration. But a sudden break in the clouds that allows the sun to shine through may well be fair game in many circumstances.

Lanefan said:
pemerton said:

Playing "indie"-style, story now RPGs is nothing like collaborative storytelling.

Click to expand...

the way you describe it sometimes, it seems mighty close.

Collaborative storytelling: I say a bit of story, then you say a bit of story.

RPGing: The GM establishes a situation, the players say what their PCs do, and the mechanics are used to find out if the PCs succeed. The GM then establishes the next situation that results, incorporating the success or failure into that new situatiom.

Collaborative storytelling does not involve such things as distinctive "player" and "GM" roles, does not involve action declaration and resolution (the player-side "game moves" of RPGing), establishing a ficitonal situation (the GM-side "game move" of RPGing), etc.

Within RPGing, we can distinguish where the ideas for the shared fiction come from: GM alone, or GM and players; and we can distinguish how action resolution is adjudicated (via transparent rules, or via the GM's reference to secret details of the ficiton that only s/he knows); and we can distinguish goals of play (eg learn the secrets of the GM's maps and notes, as in Gygaxian dungeon play; play out the GM's storyline, as in AP play; find out what the destiny of these characters is, as in character-focused indie-style play; etc); and so on. But these are differences within RPGing.

Manbearcat · Jan 15, 2018

Saelorn said:
Meta-gaming, in the colloquial sense, only refers to how things outside the game world affect what happens within the game world. Evaluation of meta-gaming is something that occurs entirely outside of the game world.

Instead of evaluating the events of the game world and interacting with them as they come (eg evidence that your brother, who is your hero, may either be (a) fallen to some degree or (b) in danger/dead), a player evaluates outcomes of action resolution on merits of "degree of narrative causality" and considers them "contrived." Player becomes upset.

I don't see how that isn't metagaming (and nonsensical metagaming at that given that the premise of play is likely to engage with such things and also > below).

I'm going to cut my response short, since it might otherwise be taken as a personal attack against certain people, but suffice it to say that the real world does not operate on narrative causality, and suggestions to the contrary will not be entertained.

Your position on how things operate in the real world is irrelevant. The reality is, the overwhelming majority of our world's populace currently and has historically operated under the premise that "narrative causality" (metaphysical underpinnings and divine providence/organization of the universe) are fundamental to their existence. And (I think we can agree!) they have infinitely less reasons to believe so as folks do in D&D's implied setting and cosmology! Consequently, folks walking around actively disbelieving in "narrative causality" (not saying attributing it to everything, but actively disbelieving in the prospect on a per situation basis) is nonsensical.

Nagol said:
Denying that an ultra-powerful creature has presumed to take the role of the god X would be preposterous since it is standing right over there. Denying that it actually is a god appears not to be: the Athar in Planescape hold that view, for example.

All I have to say about this is that this moves no units with me.

All I get from this is that someone wrote the Athar into Planescape and was extremely naive about the nature of divinity and the implications of D&D's setting and cosmology. I certainly wouldn't attribute to them philosophical expert status on the nature of divinity (therefore ceding my own reasoning to their creation of an obtuse sect in a section of the cosmos that they no doubt that was interesting and coherent).

I think the only problem that D&D has (when it comes to dieties and "narrative causality") is finding the subtle distinctions to make regarding Wizards, Clerics, Demons/Devils/Celestials, and the greater powers (Archdevils/demons, Gods, Primordials, Elder Spirits). If something is (a) immortal, (b) worshipped, and (c) possesses power over nature/creation/the fortunes of the inhabitants of the (typically) prime world...then they're a "god/deity" in our world. There is work to be done regarding distinctions/clarifications in "D&D world", but that certainly doesn't have any implication on "narrative causality" that would make it less omnipresent! That wouldn't be terribly difficult for myself to suss out in a coherent way (given time), so if the Athar don't possess the collective cognitive horsepower to do so then my guess is that they aren't worthy of their elevated Planescape Faction status!

The Crimson Binome · Jan 15, 2018

pemerton said:
EDIT:
You've already made it clear that you "plan for the actions of the PCs": if you write a story about rescuing elves, and the players don't want their PCs to rescue elves, then there will be no game.

As the GM, I can tell the players that they should create characters who would care about rescuing elves, because if they don't then there won't be much to the campaign. The players are free to not play in my game, if they don't want to buy into that premise. If one of them wants to run their own campaign, then maybe we'll collectively decide to play that instead, and I'll get to be a player for once.

pemerton said:
The PCs might provide some colour (eg details of how the elves are rescued) but by your own account they're not the ones who determine the subject matter of the game and the fundamental content of the shared fiction.

The PCs are the ones who determine whether or not the elves are rescued, or if something else happens entirely. As the GM, I may set the theme for the campaign while creating the setting, but the actual story is defined by whatever the PCs actually do.

The Crimson Binome · Jan 15, 2018

pemerton said:
But if I tell you that, in my gameworld, there are some pyarmaids, and they are big, there is no definite height that they are, because they're not really existing things. They're imaginary.

If something exists within the game world, then there is a definite height which it has within the game world. As the GM and setting-designer, you know what that height is. You must know it, in case it becomes relevant. If one of the PCs uses any method to measure it, then you need to know what to tell them, based on the reality which is known to you and the uncertainty involved in their method.

What you are describing is not an objective reality. It is not a world like our own world, or like any conceivable world. It is Schroedinger's world. It is a meaningless story construct, for perpetuating meaningless stories.

pemerton said:
Furthermore, it is possible to misjudge: a wall might look easier to climb than it is (eg there are visible holds, but they turn out to be unexpectedly slippery) or vice versa. Likewise, the amount of cloud might be just enough for the PCs' plan, but maybe not quite - the proof might be in the eating. And in a RPG, "the eating" generally means rolling the dice.

The truth of the situation must be fixed, regardless of the quality of the observation. That is how any reality must operate. A fluctuating quantum reality, where you can causally change the fundamental nature of a wall by attempting to climb it, would be an absurd place and is not worth discussion.

pemerton said:
This is just hyperbole. I've been RPGing for longer than you, and have played and GMed a wider range of games, from Classic Traveller and RQ through AD&D and 4e to Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic. I don't need a lecture about what is and isn't roleplaying, and what is or isn't cheating.

You may have been playing games for longer than I have, but I doubt that you've been role-playing for any significant period of that. Nothing you've said here indicates that you have any idea what it means to role-play.