Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Manbearcat · Jul 18, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Yes. That you don't see a way is somewhat telling.

The ruby is cursed. The ruby belongs to a powerful entity who now declares enmity. The ruby.... so many ways to make finding exactly what the player wanted into something that the character suffers for.

I agree.

The GM's primary role in TTRPGing (outside of a few instances) is (a) to know what adversity is relevant to this particular play and (b) bring that adversity to bear against the PCs in the imagined space in the most interesting/compelling/challenging/provocative (and these will be contingent upon the game) way possible.

Above I mentioned a Dogs play excerpt. The adversity I played was the intense shared longing through letters received on the road, provoking the PC toward finding out duty and discipline or desperate distraction?

In a D&D game featuring Fail Forward like 4e, in the fiction, the temple raider PC successfully pulls an Indiana Jones swap of the ruby for the bag of sand...except mechanically, the Skill Challenge was brought to close on that last check with a failed Thievery. The PC has the ruby...but the bag of sand had a rip in it from a narrow escape from a prior trap...now the sand is emptying to the floor and the trap has triggered a temple collapse (and a Healing Surge loss or 1/4 HP).

Now we have a new scene (a new Skill Challenge) that features a mad dash through the collapsing temple to the surface.

That fails (mechanically) right before they reach the surface. However, the complex doesn't collapse on the PC. The ruby is tied to a sleeping primordial. Taking it beyond the seal awakens the primordial, triggering earthquakes and devastation in the area (and eventually, down the line, the primordial itself). Further, the secret order that has sworn generations of oaths to protect the seal confronts the PCs on the crumbling stone balcony outside of the complex, overlooking a terrible fall. Boulders are falling on the balcony from the ridge above them. Lava geyser are erupting in cracks. And the PCs are all well down on Healing Surges from the two failed SCs and possibly going into the fight Bloodied.

Whatever the game's adversity is supposed to be is what you play as GM.

Just bring it.

Relentlessly.

FrogReaver · Jul 18, 2019

Campbell said:
@FrogReaver

I think you are starting from a faulty premise. You are assuming that game mechanics cannot meaningfully contribute to play despite having no direct experience of games where the rules are meant to supplement role play.

Incorrect. Next time ask my opinion before broadbrushing me.

Game mechanics are great for play. They are great for the game aspect. They may even enhance roleplay in certain ways. But they also detract from it in certain ways as well. If you want to talk about the pros and cons of certain mechanics in those regards I'm game. If you want to act like there are no roleplay drawbacks to mechanics then you need to revisit your foundation.

We play these games because we value what they have to say about human nature and how people interact with each other.

I play games because they are fun. It doesn't really get any deeper than that.

They help us form mental models of who our characters really are and how they think and feel.

I assume you mean mechanics here. I am perfectly capable of figuring out who my character is and how he thinks and feels etc. I don't need stinkin mechanics to do that.

They help us get away from the tactical mindset encouraged by games like D&D and help resolve the barrier between smart play and authentic play.

Sure. I never claimed D&D turn based tactical combat enhanced roleplaying. It doesn't IMO. It's more of a nice fun break from roleplaying... almost like a mini wargame inside our roleplaying. Though even then there are occasional moments to roleplay even during the combat.

You see - I understand perfectly well the differences between the activities taking place in the games I play.

I can tell you that I feel like I have had more authentic and immersive experiences playing games like Blades in the Dark, Masks, Monsterhearts and Apocalypse World than I ever have with Dungeons and Dragons.

That's great. I would not have such an experience if I was told that my character isn't my own - though I very well could have fun playing games where that was the case - the play for me would not feel very authentic nor immersive though.

A question for you: Is it possible that you just find it easier to roleplay in games you like? Is it possible that I am right and that such mechanics don't actually enhance roleplay any at all other than the simple fact that it's easier to roleplay in a game you like?

Part of that was our commitment to the characters.

That can be done in any system.

Part of it was the lack of certain D&D cultural features.

No doubt there's plenty of D&D that's anti roleplaying - both in certain mechanics and culture.

I think the mechanics contributed a great deal.

Contributed to what aspect?
Immersion?
Roleplaying?

And can you elaborate on how you see them doing that?

Lanefan · Jul 18, 2019

The quote tags in the post I'm replying to here are a bit of a hot mess, so if some quoted bits don't quite make sense it ain't my doing.

pemerton said:
But that is all about vetoing or refusing to entertain certain action declarations. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] was positing a successful outcome.

Aye, that I was.

As [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has posted, this seems to assume that the fiction has a content that is independent of the players. But why would, or should, that be so?

Because it's a great big setting out there with lots of stuff in it?

Why would the GM know any better than the players what is good for the fiction?

Why wouldn't she? And sometimes she'll be right, and sometimes she won't; and the same can be said for the players.

But this can all be done on a failed check, or in framing new situations. Why does a successful check also have to be a vehicle for this? What control are the players entitled to have over the fiction?

The players control the fiction by what they have their characters (try to) do.

For example, if on reaching the Duke's study the players/PCs decide not to search it at all but instead try to get to his bedroom (thinking the real incriminating stuff might be there) then off the fiction goes to the Duke's bedroom; and if the players/PCs then decide to charm-kidnap his valet (and succeed in doing so) and leave the castle with him then off the fiction goes to somewhere else.

Couldn't the GM do this before the action declaration is framed?

If the players (and thus PCs) are dead set on finding financial papers it's not for the GM to proactively give them other ideas, is it? It's the GM's place to respond to what the players have their PCs (try to) do...and sometimes that response might open their eyes to some other alternatives that they've stumbled across without really intending to.

And why can the players not make this point to the GM - they declare an action different from what the GM thought they might, thereby pointing out that there's more than one way to achieve the same end!

Of course they can, and it's then the GM's duty to respond accordingly.

Why does the GM's view of what might be interesting fiction take priority?

Isn't a GM allowed to have an occasional cool idea and throw it in? Or supply a twist?

Lanefan said:
Lanefan said:

It counts as a success if you leave on the rest of the GM's narration which you conveniently snipped off, where incriminating evidence is found only in a different form than the player had in mind.

<snip>

I simply look at the bigger goal (to incriminate the Duke) stated in the original declaration and base the success-fail narraton on that. The specifics - papers vs seal - aren't much more than window dressing.

Click to expand...

You yourself concede that it's nt success if one actualy takes seriously the expressed intent - to find financial records that incude certain entries. It's only success if you ignore that, and substitute some other, more generic intent. So what is the point of the action declaration being more detailed than we look for evidence if the GM is going to interpret it as that?

Or to put it another way, what is the point of the players trying to introduce content into the fiction if the system treats it as mere "window-dressing"?

Well, I suppose another way a GM might have handled a success roll would be to have the PCs find some financial papers in the desk that weren't incriminating at all. The players seem to have two goals at once - find financial papers and incriminate the Duke - and while it might be preferable to somehow break those down into separate declarations that's not what happened here; so the GM gets to make a call: which goal is more relevant - the papers, or the incrimination?

Lanefan said:
Lanefan said:

Otherwise the GM is very limited in what she can reply with: either yes, you find papers of the sort you're looking for (on success), or no you don't (on failure). The GM can't introduce the seal or other incriminating evidence here on a failed roll as to do so would turn a failure into a success and thus disrespect the roll.

Click to expand...

But this is just begging the question. If the player wants to find financial records, and doesn't, that's a failure. What form the failure takes is a further thing.

You are simply substituting a different intent. On what basis?

On the basis that this "different intent" was stated as part of the action declaration in the first place.

I guess it depends what you consider to be a success. In this case we have two goals at once:

A - find some financial papers
B - incriminate the Duke

B is a broader and, probably, more important goal than A; A is merely a means to achieving B. Given that both goals were stated in the action, there's four possible results:

1. A - Yes, B - Yes
2. A - No, B - Yes
3. A - Yes, B - No
4. A - No, B - No

No denying that 1 is a success and 4's a failure; but what are 2 and 3? As B is the more important goal I'd say 2 is a success and 3 is ultimately a failure as even though some papers were found they didn't help in achieving goal B.

For the same reason, if the roll came up as a failure then 2 is off the table while 3 might be within a GM's purview.

And what about unintended and-or unexpected results? Are these not allowed? On any of the above results is the GM allowed to throw in "Oh, and by the way while searching the desk you also stumbled on some love letters to the Duke from Lady Alisanne; and last you checked Alisanne ain't the Duchess. The letters indicate a lengthy (and lusty!) relationship."

Lanefan · Jul 18, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Acting is not roleplaying.

I was with you all the way to here, but this is where you lose me: acting very much is roleplaying. An actor, pretty much no matter what else might be involved, universally does one thing while on stage or screen: plays a role.

Manbearcat · Jul 18, 2019

FrogReaver said:
A question for you: Is it possible that you just find it easier to roleplay in games you like? Is it possible that I am right and that such mechanics don't actually enhance roleplay any at all other than the simple fact that it's easier to roleplay in a game you like?

I’m not Campbell, but I’ll throw some words at this from GMing perspective.

Its definitely true that most people almost surely enjoy the experience of games they like, and through their affinity they develop or have a natural aptitude for better play.

Humans have pretty extreme neurological diversity, so I would say that it’s trivially true that cognitive predispositions and mental frameworks (be they inherent or earned through tenured environmental exposure) can make it less likely that people change significantly over time or pivot from one thing to another, and back, through the course of time.

But that is as far as I’m willing to go.

Different system tech absolutely enables inhabitation of an experience in ways that others can’t. Two easy examples of this:

1) The Dogs excerpt I brought up earlier is just not doable in other formats. Actually playing through emotional warfare of reading a letter (the acuity-ablating, heart-tugging antagonism of a separated lovestruck couple) and finding out it’s actual impacts on the person in the field (who has a dangerous and difficult job that requires total commitment and attention-span), and how those impacts turn into a feedback loop that the character becomes beholden to...well, that is not something that any old resolution mechanics, PC build and reward cycle scheme, and GMing ethos can legitimately pull off.

2) Look at the extreme disparity of how people perceived Fighter’s melee control mechanics in 4e (the catch-22 of Marking and Forced Movement specifically). I’ve been a martial artist and an athlete (ball sports, wrestling, jiujitsu) my whole life. No game tech I’ve ever seen captures the OODA Loop that a physical combatant/competition participant inhabits as they navigate their resident decision trees (be it the catch-22 game of body control/feints/transition progression in jiujitsu or playing halfcourt defense in basketball, both on-ball and off-ball, as you protect your hoop and your teammates).

Yet look at the backlash by certain segments of the D&D community, relentlessly deriding this suite of abilities as boardgaming nonsense!

——————

If you think I have some inherent affection for these games and advocate for them because of some kind of unexamined “like” for them...then you’ve got it inverted. I like them precisely because of their design’s impact on play and have developed further affection because of my scrutiny and reflection of the play experience.

FrogReaver · Jul 18, 2019

Manbearcat said:
I’m not Campbell, but I’ll throw some words at this from GMing perspective.

Its definitely true that most people almost surely enjoy the experience of games they like, and through their affinity they develop or have a natural aptitude for better play.

Humans have pretty extreme neurological diversity, so I would say that it’s trivially true that cognitive predispositions and mental frameworks (be they inherent or earned through tenured environmental exposure) can make it less likely that people change significantly over time or pivot from one thing to another, and back, through the course of time.

But that is as far as I’m willing to go.

Different system tech absolutely enables inhabitation of an experience in ways that others can’t. Two easy examples of this:

1) The Dogs excerpt I brought up earlier is just not doable in other formats. Actually playing through emotional warfare of reading a letter (the acuity-ablating, heart-tugging antagonism of a separated lovestruck couple) and finding out it’s actual impacts on the person in the field (who has a dangerous and difficult job that requires total commitment and attention-span), and how those impacts turn into a feedback loop that the character becomes beholden to...well, that is not something that any old resolution mechanics, PC build and reward cycle scheme, and GMing ethos can legitimately pull off.

2) Look at the extreme disparity of how people perceived Fighter’s melee control mechanics in 4e (the catch-22 of Marking and Forced Movement specifically). I’ve been a martial artist and an athlete (ball sports, wrestling, jiujitsu) my whole life. No game tech I’ve ever seen captures the OODA Loop that a physical combatant/competition participant inhabits as they navigate their resident decision trees (be it the catch-22 game of body control/feints/transition progression in jiujitsu or playing halfcourt defense in basketball, both on-ball and off-ball, as you protect your hoop and your teammates).

Yet look at the backlash by certain segments of the D&D community, relentlessly deriding this suite of abilities as boardgaming nonsense!

——————

If you think I have some inherent affection for these games and advocate for them because of some kind of unexamined “like” for them...then you’ve got it inverted. I like them precisely because of their design’s impact on play and have developed further affection because of my scrutiny and reflection of the play experience.

you mention extreme mental differences in people. How can you say with certainty that it isn’t those mental differences that prompt you to have such experiences with certain game mechanics. Isn’t it possible that my mental differences could cause me to have totally different experiences with those same game mechanics.

If if that’s the case (I think it is) then is it really the mechanics that enable that play or rather your pre-disposition for such mechanics?

Manbearcat · Jul 18, 2019

U

FrogReaver said:
you mention extreme mental differences in people. How can you say with certainty that it isn’t those mental differences that prompt you to have such experiences with certain game mechanics. Isn’t it possible that my mental differences could cause me to have totally different experiences with those same game mechanics.

If if that’s the case (I think it is) then is it really the mechanics that enable that play or rather your pre-disposition for such mechanics?

We’re complicated animals who live complicated lives. And these games, all of them, are complicated, relatively speaking. Nothing is ever one thing.

But I think the line of evidence that I love running something like Dogs, something like 4e, while having many times more experience (and just as much enjoyment) with Moldvay Basic and AD&D1e is a pretty strong one.

FrogReaver · Jul 18, 2019

Manbearcat said:
U

We’re complicated animals who live complicated lives. And these games, all of them, are complicated, relatively speaking. Nothing is ever one thing.

But I think the line of evidence that I love running something like Dogs, something like 4e, while having many times more experience (and just as much enjoyment) with Moldvay Basic and AD&D1e is a pretty strong one.

But you are looking on the individual level and saying those mechanics help you role play. Im looking at an individual level and saying those mechanics hinder my roleplaying

The mechanics are the same but we get two different reports of their effects.

conclusion: it’s nothing to do with the mechanics but our individual differences.

Manbearcat · Jul 18, 2019

FrogReaver said:
But you are looking on the individual level and saying those mechanics help you role play. Im looking at an individual level and saying those mechanics hinder my roleplaying

The mechanics are the same but we get two different reports of their effects.

conclusion: it’s nothing to do with the mechanics but our individual differences.

My posts on this subject over the years (and in this thread) involve pretty intensive analysis on why resolution procedure/GMing technique/reward cycle/play ethos/PC build setup (a) objectively provides a different experience than(b) in many different areas (from table handling time to distribution of authority to intraparty balance to party: obstacle balance to cognitive workload and on and on).

I think you’re rather short-shrifting all of that with a single heuristic.

How about this?

Do you think it’s possible to systematize the experience of reading letters from a loved one and the fallout you incur while you’re in the field (a tour of duty of some kind...something dangerous and emotionally/physically demanding)?

If not...why?

And if you’ve never played in systems that try...why are you sure?

Umbran · Jul 18, 2019

pemerton said:
In one of my recent posts I referred to violations of genre, fictional positioning and system logic. In the Burning Wheel rulebooks Luke Crane makes the point by saying (something like) "no roll for beam weaponry in the duke's toilet".

But that is all about vetoing or refusing to entertain certain action declarations. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] was positing a successful outcome.

I did say it was in jest. But, if you want to be a bit more pedantic about it - not all games give the GM a whole lot of space to choose when/what they can veto. And not all GMs are experienced, and know when to veto. And if the GM thinks they always know all implications of things at the time they are decided, and make a good choice on what to veto every time, they are kidding themselves.

As [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has posted, this seems to assume that the fiction has a content that is independent of the players. But why would, or should, that be so?

There was a time just a few years back, pemerton, when someone would ask, "This seems to assume that the fiction has content that the players create. But, why would, or should, that be so?" Aren't you glad that One True Way didn't hold up?

The reason that this would, or should, be so is that not all GMs are you, and not all groups and games are precisely like yours. People have differing needs. So, if you are talking about your own table, you may choose to be absolute. When speaking about more broad audiences, flexibility is called for. In general, play will not be confined to narrow channels, so our ways of dealing with it ought to be flexible.

Why would the GM know any better than the players what is good for the fiction?

You've already allowed that the GM gets to veto action declarations based on genre and fictional positioning. In this, they have effectively been given oversight of the overall health of the fiction. It is now their job. You gave it to them. The individual players are now freed up to focus more on their individual desires, and weaving and managing those together is the GM's bailiwick.

Which means there will be times when the GM should know what is best for the fiction, as it is their job to know.

Why does a successful check also have to be a vehicle for this? What control are the players entitled to have over the fiction?

Are folks here actually interested in thinking of games as sets of entitlements? Play is collaborative teamwork, not contract negotiation.

In many games, the player is entitled to very little control over the fiction. In other games, there is no GM at all, and all power over fiction is distributed (sometimes in strange ways) to the players.

Couldn't the GM do this before the action declaration is framed?

Could'a, would'a, should'a. As if people don't think of things three seconds too late from time to time?

And why can the players not make this point to the GM - they declare an action different from what the GM thought they might, thereby pointing out that there's more than one way to achieve the same end! Why does the GM's view of what might be interesting fiction take priority?

Why does the player's? I mean, they are both people who are supposed to be having fun, right?

It seems to me that this isn't an absolute, for all cases. Nobody *always* takes priority. So, don't get in a twist over it. This isn't about power, or stepping on entitlements. It is about practical management.