Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

Umbran said:

But the contrast should still be valuable within each domain. And, from there, you have some point where the contrast is still valid in aggregate

Click to expand...

I don't find the aggregation very helpful - my feet being freezing and my head being boiling might aggregate to a cozy warm body, but that is misleading at best.

But I agree with you that there can be useful contrasts in each domain, though I think descriptive contrasts are more useful than evaluative contrasts (which I think puts me in agreement with [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] upthread).

I think [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] likes a high degree of player authority over scene-framing (though he probably wouldn't use that language) - the players choose what they encounter, via scouting, divining, and clever play. (As Gygax describes in the concluding pages of his PHB.)

I prefer GM authority over scene-framing, because for my preferred style the players have a conflict of interest if they set their own challenges, because they have an incentive to minimise the challenge, which goes contrary to the aesthetic demands of dramatic play.

I don't think it's really of interest to anyone but me or ExploderWizard which approach one or the other of us prefers - that's just biographical data. What's interesting for others, I think, is idenifying what sort of play you can or can't achieve by adopting different techniques. (I think this also puts me in agreement with TwoSix.)

Ahnehnois said:

Well, it is invoking a rule (Rule Zero), so there's a contradiction there.

Or you can look at it another way and simply have the DM rationalize every move using the rules. After all, he has control over so many things that it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be done by the book. Who says the NPC didn't have Death Ward on him? Nothing prevents a DM from adding on things like that at the last minute. Contingent spells? Handy healing potions? A convenient +10 circumstance bonus for [insert made-up reason]? Is it any less "fiat-y" if the DM makes something up using mechanics than not using them? There's no reason why some deity watching over the situation couldn't just use his at-will wish spells to force any outcome the DM wants (the literal deus ex machina), while avoiding your literal definition. And that isn't even unreasonable for a some styles of campaign; one could argue that the mythological Hercules pretty much had this going on all the time.

Personally, I'd rather be a little more subtle.

Click to expand...

Good post and it echoes what I posted much earlier in the thread. Ultimately, unless the rules are going to dictate and constrain my decisions to the point where there might as well not be a DM, all the rules are going to do (if I as DM want to control the story) is create a few more hoops for me to jump through to "justify" how the outcome or story I wanted ended up coming about. In fact I would argue most DM's wouldn't even need to change things on the fly, when I ran a 4e game, I was familiar enough with my player's character's capabilities that if I wanted to I could manipulate the story and outcomes by manipulating the math of the game.

In fact as an example... Passive perception basically demanded that you either be ignorant of the character's abilities or you decide while assigning the DC whether they would definitely find something or not (talk about deciding the outcome). So yeah... I've yet to see anyone explain how, even when using the mechanics of any version of the game, the DM is in any way reigned in from instituting his will upon the story and outcomes if that's what he wants to take place. in other words no amount of rules is going to fix bad DMíng... unless it eliminates the DM from the equation.

pemerton said:

I think @ExploderWizard likes a high degree of player authority over scene-framing (though he probably wouldn't use that language) - the players choose what they encounter, via scouting, divining, and clever play. (As Gygax describes in the concluding pages of his PHB.)

I prefer GM authority over scene-framing, because for my preferred style the players have a conflict of interest if they set their own challenges, because they have an incentive to minimise the challenge, which goes contrary to the aesthetic demands of dramatic play.

Click to expand...

To clarify the player agency regarding choosing challenges, the reward (treasure/ bulk of XP) generally increases with challenge difficulty. Piddly challenges result in piddly rewards. The desire for the "good stuff" usually keeps players reaching for the most they can handle.

Ahnehnois said:

Maybe the DM prepares one set of encounters, and reality will place them in whichever direction the players go because he doesn't have time to prepare things and not use them.

Click to expand...

Perhaps some DMs would do such a thing but that isn't something I'm into. I try and make sure choices are real or simply don't offer any. Actual player agency, not merely the illusion of such, is very important to me as a DM. Sometimes players will choose their way into a situation where there IS no good choice to be made. The important bit is that THEY got themselves there.

Ahnehnois said:

Maybe there are subtle sensory cues that suggest one way is better than the other. Maybe there is a riddle or bit of symbolism embedded in the choice. Maybe there is information out there but the PCs have to search for it. Maybe whatever information the PCs receive is conflicting. Maybe it's wrong.

There are tons of choices the player may make, and tons of outcomes in the game world, and very complex interactions between the two. I find that the level of influence the players have over their characters' fates is something that needs to be carefully titrated in order to convey the appropriate tone of game the DM is trying to run.

Click to expand...

I have found that the amount of control the players have over their character's fates is somewhat proportional to the interest they have in the campaign. The less power they have to control what happens to them the closer the 'who cares' attitude sets in. It is a natural reaction to feeling powerless.

ExploderWizard said:

I have found that the amount of control the players have over their character's fates is somewhat proportional to the interest they have in the campaign. The less power they have to control what happens to them the closer the 'who cares' attitude sets in. It is a natural reaction to feeling powerless.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Horror gaming is very informative in that regard. A horror PC rarely if ever, makes meaningful choices and often has very little knowledge about what's going on. And even outside of that genre, players don't always care about their own influence.

Heck, the last session (of CoC) that I ran, I warned a player in advance that it might be a while before his character was introduced, and I ended up cutting him out of the entire session. Not even a hint of this character's existence or relevance. And he thought it was a great session. Which tells me that a) I have good players, and b) participation isn't sine qua non.

However, in general, I agree that the players expect to make a meaningful impact on the game.

But, if they get the sense that nothing ever happens to them without without them having a choice in the matter, that they aren't subject to the whims of fate, they quickly become megalomaniacal and start running rampant. That's why there needs to be a balance. The players need to feel like they matter, but not like they're in control. The DMing actions needed to achieve that have to be customized to the individual gaming table. Thus, the DM is given blanket authority, but asked to use discretion.

TwoSix said:

Excellent metaphor. And kudos as to the concise post, which I know can be an effort.

I would think, considering @Mercurius 's own posts, that he would consider FitM mechanics to create more space for creativity, as they map less to a described reality and allow for greater imposition of one's own interpretation. I guess I'll invoke my standard of Wall of Thorns example. Go read that spell in the 3.5 SRD, and tell me whether you think its design ethos is imagination expanding or imagination contracting.

Click to expand...

A brutal effort indeed And I would agree with you with respect to forecasting that, in line with Mercurius's thesis, FitM mechanics should expand imagination.

TwoSix said:

Interesting. I wonder if that's illustrative. Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences. I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.

Click to expand...

I agree here and I'm sure its true.

I've said more than once that I don't like muddled genre. If I go into the theater to see a new Western and I'm anticipating the Coen Brother's version of True Grit, 3:10 to Yuma, or The Unforgiven and I end up getting Silverado, I'm going to be disappointed. The inverse is also true. I love both subgenres (and all four of those movies) but I have expectations of those subgenres and a muddled composition grates on me considerably.

I want John McClain, Indiana Jones and James Bond as protagonists whose scenes demand Big Damn Heroes that rally against impossible odds that would fell lesser folk. They need to always come out on top even if reality would scoff at the silliness.

Along those same lines, I want Rooster Cogburn, William Money Out of Missouri, and a small-time rancher Dan Evans to be flawed, fail as much as they succeed, and maybe even die (heroically).

I can play D&D with both of these paradigms and thematic material (and have many-a-times) but I want the resolution tools and genre conceits to be in lockstep. It is quite clear however, that some folks are outright averse to varying genres being central to the D&D experience. Or, put another way, you can extrapolate which sorts of heroes they expect to emerge out of their D&D play and which sort of genre conceits (and concurrent system tools and mechanical defaults) that should naturally support their archetypes and subvert their interests. Deviation from the aesthetic preference (as you put it) is certainly an issue at the heart of the edition wars (amongst plenty of others).

Manbearcat said:

It is quite clear however, that some folks are outright averse to varying genres being central to the D&D experience.

Click to expand...

I'm not. I've done zero-to-hero epics, procedural detective dramas, farcical comedy, gladiator fighting, dungeon crawls, and that's just with D&D. The thing that made each game different was the DM; the underlying rules system was always the same.

The primacy of the DM is a really useful attribute of D&D.

Ahnehnois said:

I'm not. I've done zero-to-hero epics, procedural detective dramas, farcical comedy, gladiator fighting, dungeon crawls, and that's just with D&D. The thing that made each game different was the DM; the underlying rules system was always the same.

The primacy of the DM is a really useful attribute of D&D.

Click to expand...

This... simply by adjusting (Using DM fiat??) the DC's necessary for success, starting level, opponents faced, etc. one can achieve a wide multitude of D&D "genres" without the actual hardcoding of one sub-genre into the rules over another. I think perhaps the difference is that some enjoy that generalized tool which they can then customize to their tastes (again using DM fiat) while others would rather have a game with a sub-genre (Big gonzo action heroes!!!) already hardcoded into the game... which of course by necessity makes the game narrower in it's appeal and applications. If anything I would say it's those that want the a specific genre hardcoded into the game that are outright adverse to varying genres being central to the D&D experience.

Ahnehnois said:

How many D&D games have a DM who is the final arbiter of all matters within the game? All of them.

Click to expand...

Except mine.

And I don't think my game is radically divergent, either within the sphere of 4e play or the sphere of D&D play more generally. (And certainly not divergent within the sphere of RPG play.)

TwoSix said:

Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences. I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] once referred to "literary criticism written by (and for) engineers". I think this is a distinctive approach to fantasy fiction, which is big enough to create its own genre, where world creation and world consistency figures very highly. My feeling is that those who take this approach to fiction probably prefer simulationinst play; I don't think I have the same intuition that the reverse is true, however.

Ahnehnois said:

Heck, the last session (of CoC) that I ran, I warned a player in advance that it might be a while before his character was introduced, and I ended up cutting him out of the entire session. Not even a hint of this character's existence or relevance. And he thought it was a great session. Which tells me that a) I have good players, and b) participation isn't sine qua non.

Click to expand...

Yea, but isn't your group fairly young? I could deal with that when I was in my early 20s and played every week. But now I get in maybe 15 sessions a year with my main group, and I have to schedule around 3 kids to get a Friday free. If I showed up at a session and didn't get in the game, I'd be (I feel legitimately) angry.

I think it shows how important understanding social contract is to seeing what sort of game will work for everyone at the table. Your actions obviously aren't wrong for your table, but could easily be soon as wrong at a table with a different set of expectations.