What Is an Experience Point Worth?

Lanefan · Jan 15, 2018

pemerton said:
So what you describe is one way to run a game - the GM keeps throwing "hooks" at the players until they bite on one.

Another way is for the players to generate PCs that have hooks built in (eg the mage with a demon-possessed brother who wants to acquire magic items that will let him confront his brother and end the possession) and the GM bites on those.

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] asserts that the first is RPGing and the second is not. You seem to assert that the second is not possible.

I see it as possible, but in all likelihood not sustainable. Why's that, you ask? Because if the DM isn't interested in running the game or story that results from the players' hooks that game ain't going very far (without a DM there's really no game); while if a player isn't interested in playing the game or story that results from the DM's hooks the game can (in many cases) survive that player's departure.

Put another way: if I as DM put together a campaign or setting with an underlying idea that the game will revolve around maritime tales and adventures, pirates, swashbuckling, build in some of the mythology etc. from Pirates of the Caribbean, etc., then that's what I'm largely looking to run. But if the players turn up with one looking for a largely-urban and diplomatic campaign where he can save his brother from demonic possession, and another looking for a campaign where she can play out the story of working her way up from scurvy lab mage to the head of the guild, and a third looking for a campaign with lots of arctic ice-and-snow dungeon crawling...yeah, we'd better have a session 0.

I know the second is possible, because I've done it. And I think it has one obvious advantage: instead of waiting until session 3 to get a game going that everyone is invested in, you can start with it in session 1. (And "session zero" becomes redundant.)

Depends. Most of the time IME players simply want a game to play in, and they'll more or less buy in to what the DM is selling - at least to begin with - in order to play said game. Then, as it goes along (unless the campaign is just a straight start-to-end AP) the players via their characters will learn more about the game world and start coming up with their own ideas as to what to do with/to it, to which the DM must react accordingly.

Another reason I prefer my approach - instead of characters who have only thin, mercenary motivations ("no reward is worth this!") you can have RPGing about characters who have a richer, more verisimilitudinous range of motivations (as is found in both romantic and modernist fantasy stories).

As a player, I don't put that much thought into (most of) my characters until after they've survived their first adventure or two, as many - particularly at low levels - don't*. And in process of surviving those first few adventures some of their backgrounds and much of their personalities will grow organically out of the run of play, so instead of doing a bunch of forethought and player prep ahead of time that might be wasted I need only do some later backfilling of gaps.

* - it's a known fact that any character so unfortunate as to have me as a player is in mortal peril every waking moment...

If the players want to play the game, and yet the game is "grinding to a complete halt", what has gone wrong? (This doesn't happen eg if everyone has arrived and wants to play bridge.)

They have no ideas of their own as to what to do next and are looking to the DM to drive. Some players are like that - they are perfectly good at reacting to what the game world does to them and playing through whatever arises, but that's about all they want to do as they're not so good at proactively driving the story.

Part of this is not reacing neutrally. Eg your players want to sail into the sunset. But your map says there is no coastline. Now what happens? What does a "neutral reaction" look like?

Highly unlikely it would ever get to this point, as were there no coastline the characters (players) would almost certainly already know this - the basic maps are not hidden. So instead they'd jump on horses and ride off into the sunset...

This is why I call it a railroad - because in that situation the GM's vision of the fiction, and of the outcomes of choices and desires in the fiction, trumps the players'. And in most real RPGing situations it's situations more intimate to gameplay than sailing into the sunset - eg the players want their PCs to break into the bank using the sewers, and the GM declares there are no sewers; the players want to bribe a guard, but the GM decrees that all the guards are uncorruptable; etc.

In my approach, the GM takes the players' action declaration at face value, does not veto it by reference to secret backstory (otherwise describable as the GM's personal preference for the gameworld), and instead either says "yes", or sets the parameters for a check which then resolves the matter.

I think in these examples the end result might look very much the same in play, with the mechanical difference being that the DM is - if uncertain (e.g. she hasn't pre-determined whether there's any sewers or not that will suit the PCs' plans) - doing the random rolling to make these decisions instead of the players. Were the players to seek information about the sewers then yes, they'd get some sort of roll to see how well they did. Meanwhile I'd be rolling in secret to determine a) if this town has much by way of a sewer system, and b) whether the sewers will suit what the PCs are trying to do (e.g. are the pipes to the bank big enough for a person to fit through), then using all these rolls in combination, narrate the results of their info search.

Again, anything to do with the actual construction and make-up of the game world (in this case, the sewers) is DM-side stuff.

Here's another possibility:

The question of how many ships in port only comes up because one of the players cares about it - they want a ship for some purpose (to hijack; to burn to the waterline; to stow away on; whatever). So either you tell them there's a ship, and then they can enacat their plan, and the game goes on (that's saying "yes") or - if that would be too easy and would deflate the high stakes of play - then you set a check (eg "Make a Perception roll to spot a ship suitable for your purposes") and if they succeed on the check their PC sees the ship they need, and if they fail some appropriate uhappy result is narrated ("The only ship that looks like you can get to it for your arsonist plans is also the one that you know has to carry your secret society's message to the next port - so what's it going to be?" - that's "roll the dice" instead of "saying 'yes'"). The game never grinds to a halt.

This is more or less how something like this would play out here too, though it'd probably go into a bit more detail instead of being concatenated into just one perception check. If the PCs (players) cared about what ships there were I'd likely end up being asked for numbers, types, whether each is docked or anchored-off, presence or absence of crew or guards, etc.

It's the issue of possibility that frustrates me a bit. I don't mind how other people play their RPGs, but I find it baffling when they deny that other ways are possible even when pointed to actual play accounts of people playing in those other ways!

Anything is possible. Not all things are practical.

Lanefan

Manbearcat · Jan 15, 2018

Lanefan said:
I see it as possible, but in all likelihood not sustainable. Why's that, you ask? Because if the DM isn't interested in running the game or story that results from the players' hooks that game ain't going very far (without a DM there's really no game); while if a player isn't interested in playing the game or story that results from the DM's hooks the game can (in many cases) survive that player's departure.

Anything is possible. Not all things are practical.

Lanefan

I don't understand this Lanefan.

You do realize that there are LOTS of TTRPGs that have a baked-in premise that is meant to be addressed during play. That premise is neither owned by the GM nor is it owned by the players.

Folks who agree to play Blades in the Dark are fundamentally agreeing to play a game about a ruthless gang that is starting at the bottom rung of the power ladder in a gothic, supernatural-charged, city (which is inspired by early 20th century London/Birmingham). They aren't playing through a GM conceived metaplot. They aren't playing to tour a GM-conceived setting. They aren't playing to not address the premise of that gang scrapping and striving to climb that power ladder (eg, lets go eff off and sail the black sea and hunt Leviathans forever even though this game isn't about that!).

Folks who agree to play Dogs in the Vineyard are agreeing to play gun-toting Paladins meting out justice in a "Wild West that never was". There is a focused game premise baked-in, with character build-rules and setting that hook directly into that. Then we play to test God's Watchdogs (the PCs) and see what happens to them, their loved ones, their Faith, and the people they're tasked to protect from sin and demonic influence. Its not a game about "hey lets go be cattle ranchers because eff it!"

Folks who agree to play My Life With Master are looking to find out what happens when Love and Self-loathing compete as minions (PCs) under a dark lord(ess) enforce the villainous will of their master against a town held hostage...and ultimately rebel.

There are tons of games with a baked-in premise and a baked-in setting with abstractions that gets fleshed out during play (because the setting isn't the point). The game's premise and the game's setting doesn't belong to the GM. Yet people play them...earnestly...and intensely.

I just don't understand what work "not practical" is supposed to be doing here? I've GMed dozens of Dogs, Mouse Guard, My Life With Master, a few game of Blades, a game of Sorcerer, lots of Dungeon World & Apocalypse World, Monster Hearts, Masks, all the Cortex+ games, 10 Candles, Dread. Others I'm failing to remember now. They were all very practical. All very functional. All very coherent. All very enjoyable. All extraordinarily wieldy.

Games with a non-GM derived and focused play premise and a setting that doesn't belong to the GM (and isn't the point of play) are all very "practical."

Kobold Boots · Jan 15, 2018

After reading all of this, I'm left with the desire to DM @pemerton, @Saelorn [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], and @Manbearcat via virtual table in at least a one shot.

While they're going back and forth with each other, all I'm thinking is that there's a lot of creativity that I'd like to see in one place.

I'll be careful what I wish for.
KB

Lanefan · Jan 15, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
After reading all of this, I'm left with the desire to DM @pemerton, @Saelorn [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], and @Manbearcat via virtual table in at least a one shot.

While they're going back and forth with each other, all I'm thinking is that there's a lot of creativity that I'd like to see in one place.

Thanks.

I'll be careful what I wish for.

Would PvP be allowed?

Kobold Boots · Jan 16, 2018

Lanefan said:
Thanks.

Would PvP be allowed?

It's expected

Seriously though were this to ever actually happen, all of my games allow players to do whatever they desire to do, including PvP but the social contract in return is that the game is highly dangerous and there are consequences to deal with.

Lanefan · Jan 16, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
It's expected Seriously though were this to ever actually happen, all of my games allow players to do whatever they desire to do, including PvP but the social contract in return is that the game is highly dangerous and there are consequences to deal with.

Cool! Sounds more or less like what I run.

Sadras · Jan 16, 2018

darkbard said:
Your vision of roleplaying is limited to GM control, and you refuse to acknowledge as possible (let alone potentially preferable) any style of gameplay that seeks to limit the privilege of GM control over that of the other players in the game.

What purpose does the GM have at your table?

Jhaelen · Jan 16, 2018

Lanefan said:
I know nothing about Fate beyond what I've read on these forums, but I think that might be the first and only time I've ever seen anyone write anything positive about it. 13th Age, on the other hand, I've seen all kinds of positive things about.

Well, ENWorld is quite focused on RPGs that are either derived from or very similar to D&D. Apart from the initial buzz before and shortly after it was released, you don't get to read much about 13th Age here. It was overshadowed by D&D 5e very quickly.

Fate isn't the kind of system that is discussed here often, although the system and several of the RPGs that are based on it have won a few awards, including ENNies. I think it's one of the best systems to introduce new players to RPGs. It's free, quite free-form, light on rules, and very well suited for cinematic-style games. So, yeah, I think there's a lot to like at it.

pemerton · Jan 16, 2018

Lanefan said:
if I as DM put together a campaign or setting with an underlying idea that the game will revolve around maritime tales and adventures, pirates, swashbuckling, build in some of the mythology etc. from Pirates of the Caribbean, etc., then that's what I'm largely looking to run. But if the players turn up with one looking for a largely-urban and diplomatic campaign where he can save his brother from demonic possession, and another looking for a campaign where she can play out the story of working her way up from scurvy lab mage to the head of the guild, and a third looking for a campaign with lots of arctic ice-and-snow dungeon crawling...yeah, we'd better have a session 0.

Seriously, this looks like something that might take a couple of emails or a conversation at the start of the first session to sort out.

As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted not far upthread, sometimes the game iteslf tells us what it is going to be about, at least in general terms. Of games that I GM, Marvel Heroic RP is a pretty clear example of this: Marvel super heroes come with built-in hooks. The players flipped through my printouts of "datafiles", chose War Machine, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Ice Man and Invisible Woman, and away we went!

Burning Wheel or default 4e (to look at some other games I GM) are a bit broader in their range of tropes and theme, but not that broad. I didn't have any problems starting a game with either system - the PCs that get thrown up tend to have *fantasy adventurer* written all over them.

When I started my Dark Sun game, I emailed around a quick spiel about what Dark Sun is about - sword & sandals, sword & planet, desert, psionics, sorcerer-kings, templars, gladiators. These are all pretty recognisable tropes, and the PC gen options (with themes like Gladiator, Wilder, Althasian Bard, etc) send clear signals to the players which in turn don't leave the GM in much doubt as to what the game might be about.

Rolemaster is a very open-ended system - but when I started my OA RM game in 1998, telling my players I was thinking a little bit more Japanese than Wuxia, the players made a couple of samurai, a fox spirit ninja, a martial artist sone of a merchant family, and a martial arts monk - ie the sorts of PCs that fit into a OA game.

I've just never found it that hard to work out some general parameters and then see where they lead.

Lanefan said:
Most of the time IME players simply want a game to play in, and they'll more or less buy in to what the DM is selling - at least to begin with - in order to play said game. Then, as it goes along (unless the campaign is just a straight start-to-end AP) the players via their characters will learn more about the game world and start coming up with their own ideas as to what to do with/to it, to which the DM must react accordingly.

Two things.

(1) Why not start with the players' ideas? Instead of mucking about for X sessions first.

(2) What form does the GM's reaction take? If the reaction is to veto actions and thwart plans on the basis of secret backstory, then what is the point fo the players coming up with those ideas? If the reaction is to resolve those actions and narrate the backstory accordingly, then how is what you're doing different from what I'm doing?

Lanefan said:
As a player, I don't put that much thought into (most of) my characters until after they've survived their first adventure or two, as many - particularly at low levels - don't*. And in process of surviving those first few adventures some of their backgrounds and much of their personalities will grow organically out of the run of play, so instead of doing a bunch of forethought and player prep ahead of time that might be wasted I need only do some later backfilling of gaps.

Again, the obvious alternative is to give some thought at the start and for the GM to take that seriously. Eg if you want to play a character who is committed to saving his brother from possession by a balrog, that seems a more likely way to get such an outcome.

Lanefan said:
I see it as possible, but in all likelihood not sustainable. Why's that, you ask? Because if the DM isn't interested in running the game or story that results from the players' hooks that game ain't going very far (without a DM there's really no game)

<snip>

Anything is possible. Not all things are practical.

Just to add to what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] said, about the fact that this must be practical to some extent given that thousands of RPGers are doing it: I trust my players to push the game in interesting directions. They have interesting characters, and interesting ideas about what to do with those characters.

I've got interesting ideas too - I think for a very amateur storyteller, I do OK at coming up with some interesting situations in the course of GMing my games.

The fiction that results is generated by the interaction of these creative endeavours, as mediated through the game rules.

darkbard · Jan 16, 2018

Sadras said:
What purpose does the GM have at your table?

Pretty much exactly the role described throughout this thread by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (and elucidated at times by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]): frame the PCs into scenes signaled by their character builds and stated goals and motivations, adjudicate the result of PC failure according to the mechanics of the game system, etc.

I should note that I haven't always GMed in such a fashion. I've been gaming for some 35 years, and for the bulk of that time I knew no other way to play than through GM-driven plotlines, etc. It wasn't until I encountered an alternative vision of what RPGing could be via the influence of the "indie game" movement that I saw the possibilities opened up by reducing the "M" in GMing to a misnomer. Refereeing is a far more apt term in my opinion.

Just as one would say no sport is about the referees(s), despite their crucial role, but about the players, so too could RPGing be made in such a mold. But the kind of GMing I had done before my "conversion moment" was, indeed, about the GM and my vision of play (running APs, building mysteries for the PCs to solve according to preset information, etc.). Inevitably, though, I would run into problems when the goals of the player ran contrary or orthogonal to what I had preplanned, which opened up the can of worms of railroading the PCs back into the story in clever ways or forcing, in hamhanded fashion, their storylines into my own.

The posts of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] (and a few others) opened my eyes, though, to a form of gaming where all participants, the GM included, are equal participants in the narrative; where the GM too plays to find out what will happen, not simply reveal his already predetermined narrative to the players; and I haven't looked back since.

Again, this is not to say that this way is inherently better than other forms of gaming; clearly others prefer other ways to play. I think it is better, but that's a matter of preference. I also think it's ultimately more democratic, which makes for more appealing interpersonal dynamics, but, again, that too may be a matter of taste.

But when [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] deny that such gaming is possible (or practical, whatever that means in this context) or that it is even RPGing, I simply say, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] already have before me, the facts speak otherwise.

What Is an Experience Point Worth?

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Manbearcat

Legend

Kobold Boots

Banned

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Kobold Boots

Banned

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Sadras

Legend

Jhaelen

First Post

pemerton

Legend

darkbard

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles