Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

Sadras said:

The way I see it, is, that every action declaration a PC comes up with isn't necessarily novel that should justify a roll just like any opinion made by a self-entitled youngster is not precious, insightful or helpful. That is the link I made, yes it is crude, but to be clear this is not an attack on your's or Pemerton's character. I'm also not saying players are youngsters.

Click to expand...

Here is the way I see it: You are missing the point. In fact, you are even doubling-down here on the objectionable problem in your "clarification" here. I did not construe it as an attack on a poster's character nor did I think that you were saying that players are youngsters. The problem is your crass characterization of an entire generation of people. Let me spell this out for you then so you will not repeat this mistake.

Sadras said:

I liken [1] that perspective to [2] the new generation of sensitive youngsters where everybody is special, talented and and...

Click to expand...

In your clarification above you seem to be under the false impression that my main issue with your statement quoted here is that element [1] gets compared to the decidedly negative element [2]; however, I don't even care about [1]. My problem is that element [2] alone is utter unsubstantiated crap that needs to be removed from not only the discussion but also from the thinking of your hopefully moral person. Trying to mischaracterize these "youngsters" as overly sensitive and?or holding a belief "where everybody is special, talent..." is discriminatory, fallacious garbage meant to malign an entire generation. And it is to this garbage perspective that I responded earlier (and now reiterate with greater confidence):

Aldarc said:

Normally, I would liken this perspective to bullcrap. However, the critical difference is that bovine manure has material substance and a value for agriculture whereas this perspective has neither substance nor value.

Click to expand...

Sadras said:

You disagree, fine. You dislike by DM adjudication, cool. I'm even ok with the impartiality aspect, that is basic human nature. Posters disagree daily on these boards. I just find it peculiar that some will blow up like popcorn kernels at the mention that a TTRPG is just a boardgame, but XP another who declares another TTRPG is not even a game, but hey...we have a ton of excuses under the sun why that might be. C'est la vie.

Click to expand...

If Pemerton bestowing XP to this other person really perturbs you that much then this forum graciously affords you the liberty to ask him about it yourself like a functioning adult would without dragging others into it.

Manbearcat said:

1) The issue I personally have with the anti-competition social dynamic you’re referring to is a few-fold.

A - Humans stratify their peer groups and greater social arrangements via the establishment of dominance hierarchies. This is done via competition. It is a fundamental part of our evolved psychology and there is strong evidence that it persisted before we came down from the trees 300 k years ago.

B - So even children inherently understand competition and will engage in behaviors that facilitate this peer stratification...no matter what silly social engineering adults attempt.

C - On social engineering via brief removal of competition incentives (everyone gets a trophy)...it’s completely ignorant to believe that thousands and thousands of years of evolved psychology (and the attendant biology) is going to be undone by removing competition incentives in the brief moments where adults are supervising childrens’ play.

Click to expand...

OK, this all makes sense...

- In TTRPGs, peer network stratification via intraparty competition in a team based social game seems like an input to play that is begging for table dysfunction to arise. Even old school Skilled Play (which I engage in regularly) is “team vs obstacle.” That mode is an input that engenders good table results (assuming a referee understands their actual role, their constraints, and doesn’t assume an adversarial, “I’m competing against the players” dysfunctional position.

Click to expand...

...so what's wrong with this? If we're engineered to compete, as you posit above, then why should competition automatically lead to dysfunctional RPGing?

And the answer, of course, is that it doesn't always. It can and does sometimes, to be sure, but that can be said of many things.

2 - Your point above always vexes me when I see it for many reasons:

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the GM role as guardian/parent/overseer.

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the players’ roles as that of children.

- In TTRPGs, I perceive social engineering as a dysfunctional play priority.

Click to expand...

Guardian-parent no, but overseer yes; as part of the referee function. And nor do the players equate to children...most of the time. And trying to social-engineer through RPG play is a fool's errand, and liable to generate pushback if-when anyone realizes it's occurring.

Imaro said:

You have continually fail to address that even within the most clearly stated guidelines there is still by the systems inability to give an example for everything the room for the GM's own biases, preferences, etc to affect the setting of the DC.

Click to expand...

It seems fairly obvious that a GM's beliefs and perhaps preferences will affect the setting of a DC. That's why we call it GM judgement.

I don't see what that has to do with the difference between using system rules and mechanics to frame a check, and the GM unilaterally deciding the content of the fiction.

Imaro said:

Again a system like PbtA stops them a system like 4e doesn't do this to any greater degree than 5e.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that 5e has a set of guidelines similar to the ones I quoted upthread from the 4e Rules Compendium. (The Basic PDF certainly doesn't.)

PbtA obviously doesn't invovle DCs. It engages GM judgement in other ways, such as the "hardness" of the move on a failure.

Neither 4e (as I run it, which to me seems consistent with the system design and advice), nor BW, nor DW - just to pick three systems that have come up in discussion - suggests that resolution should take place by the GM unilaterally deciding what happens.

Imaro said:

The biggest determining factor (at least in these two examples) seems to be systems you like vs. those you don't

Click to expand...

No. The difference is between systems in which the GM unilaterally decides what happens, and systems in which s/he doesn't. I happen to dislike the latter sort of system.

Sadras said:

Pemerton decided to XP a poster that had said twice that traditional-styled games are not games. Do you disagree with Pemerton on this issue?

Click to expand...

You'll have also noted, then, that I expressly stated my lack of consensus on that poster's account of OSR gaming.

But the bigger point came up a year or two ago in a discussion between [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn (I think my tagging won't work here because Saelorn has me blocked). Saelorn ran a line similar to [MENTION=6931283]Alexander Kalinowski[/MENTION], that all the players ever do in the context of a RPG is to make suggestions to the GM about how the fiction might change, and the GM actually makes all such decisions.

chaochou's response to this was that, in a literal sense, it meant that only the GM actually played the game (ie made decisions that affect the state of the game, which in the context of a RPG is the content of the shared fiction). Other participants were simply advisers or kibitzers.

I take [MENTION=6985982]Enthusiastic Grog[/MENTION] to have been making a similar point - if everything about the shared fiction is the GM's unilateral decision, then only the GM is actually playing the game.

I guess it would be possible to recharacterise the nature of the game - eg for non-GM participants, playing the game means making suggestions to the GM which s/he may have regard to in deciding how the fiction changes. But that would seem to reinforce the thought that we're talking about a "Mother may I" style of play, I think.

The most obvious way to rebut that thought is to show how the players, too, are playing the game in the sense of having the power to change the content of the shared fiction. This is why I think the difference between GM unilaterally decides and GM, as referee, sets a difficulty for a throw is one of night and day.

pemerton said:

It seems fairly obvious that a GM's beliefs and perhaps preferences will affect the setting of a DC. That's why we call it GM judgement.

I don't see what that has to do with the difference between using system rules and mechanics to frame a check, and the GM unilaterally deciding the content of the fiction.

I don't believe that 5e has a set of guidelines similar to the ones I quoted upthread from the 4e Rules Compendium. (The Basic PDF certainly doesn't.)

PbtA obviously doesn't invovle DCs. It engages GM judgement in other ways, such as the "hardness" of the move on a failure.

Neither 4e (as I run it, which to me seems consistent with the system design and advice), nor BW, nor DW - just to pick three systems that have come up in discussion - suggests that resolution should take place by the GM unilaterally deciding what happens.

No. The difference is between systems in which the GM unilaterally decides what happens, and systems in which s/he doesn't. I happen to dislike the latter sort of system.

Click to expand...

You keep failing to engage the question of degrees. You were asked earlier if the GM/DM setting a 1% chance (or even a 0% chance) is in practice any different from him deciding the outcome "unilaterly" (and if he can say yes to anything he feels should auto-succeed is that in any way different from deciding unilateraly what the outcome is?)... and yet you continue to dance around that point. Could you answer that question which has been posed numerous times by myself and @Sadras instead of arguing against something neither of us have claimed? Mainly that unilateral decision making on the part of the DM/GM is the EXACT same as setting a DC.

EDIT: The point mostly being that when you give the DM the ability to determine DC's using his own judgement (which both 4e and Traveler do, not sure about BW) you are in fact, for all intents and purposes, giving him the power to decide unilaterally whether something is possible or not (though the DM/GM doesn't necessarily have to invoke said power)... the difference as I see it being one is justified through manipulation/granularity of mechanics vs outright denial/acceptance (and even this gets a little shaky with stuff like say yes).

Note: We are not speaking to how you in particular run a game...we are speaking to what the rules of said game allow. You keep making this point about 4e but if I assume as has been argued by many of it's proponents that we use the challenge to set DC's and the DM has unilateral control over what challenges are presented to the players... how do the mechanics of 4e not allow for the situation posted above (mainly an impossible DC or a DC so trivially easy you can;t help but pass)?

Imaro said:

You keep failing to engage the question of degrees.

[...]

Note: We are not speaking to how you in particular run a game...we are speaking to what the rules of said game allow. You keep making this point about 4e but if I assume as has been argued by many of it's proponents that we use the challenge to set DC's and the DM has unilateral control over what challenges are presented to the players... how do the mechanics of 4e not allow for the situation posted above (mainly an impossible DC or a DC so trivially easy you can;t help but pass)?

Click to expand...

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], you claim this, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has engaged this directly upthread:

pemerton said:

From the 4e Rules Compendium (pp 126-27):

The following definitions help the Dungeon Master determine which of the three DCs is appropriate for a particular check. The goal is to pick a DC that is an appropriate challenge for a particular scenario or encounter.

Easy: An easy DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that do not have training in a particular skill. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting an easy DC of their level. An easy DC is a minimal challenge for a creature that has training in the skill, and it is almost a guaranteed success for one that also has a high bonus with the skill. In group checks (page 128) or when every adventurer in a party is expected to attempt a given skill check, particularly when no one necessarily has training, an easy DC is the standard choice for the scenario.

Moderate: A moderate DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that have training in a particular skill as well as for creatures that don’t have training but do have a high score (18 or higher) in the skill’s key ability. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting a moderate DC of their level. In a skill challenge (page 157), a moderate DC is the standard choice for a skill check that a single creature is expected to make.

Hard: A hard DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that have training in a particular skill and also have a high score (18 or higher) in the skill’s key ability. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting a hard DC of their level. A hard DC is the standard choice for a skill check that only an expert is expected to succeed at consistently.​

This text appears beneath a chart of DCs by level. No GM who sets DCs following these guidelines is going to have trouble setting an appropriate DC (which is going to be well above a 1% chance of success).

Click to expand...

The procedures of the game address setting DCs; yes, GM judgment is involved; no one is denying that. But the difference between your proposed GM fiat and built-in mechanics is that (1) the math of the mechanics is out of the GM's hands--it is what the math of the game requires; (2) various player build options (chosen skill training, various interrupt and reroll powers, etc.) give players significant input in the PCs' ability to meet the descriptors of the set DCs; (3) the descriptors of Easy, Moderate, and Hard DC guide the GM in implementing their judgment; it is not left to whim in the moment. (Yes, a poor GM might misapply those descriptors to any given situation, but we are operating under the assumption of principled play here, no?)

darkbard said:

@Imaro, you claim this, but @pemerton has engaged this directly upthread:




The procedures of the game address setting DCs; yes, GM judgment is involved; no one is denying that. But the difference between your proposed GM fiat and built-in mechanics is that (1) the math of the mechanics is out of the GM's hands--it is what the math of the game requires; (2) various player build options (chosen skill training, various interrupt and reroll powers, etc.) give players significant input in the PCs' ability to meet the descriptors of the set DCs; (3) the descriptors of Easy, Moderate, and Hard DC guide the GM in implementing their judgment; it is not left to whim in the moment. (Yes, a poor GM might misapply those descriptors to any given situation, but we are operating under the assumption of principled play here, no?)

Click to expand...

5e has all of this as well... and it was specifically called out as a game whose mechanics are not robust enough while 4e, Traveller and BW are... so again where is the line? To get more specific what makes 4e's Easy/Moderate/Hard, math, player bennies, etc. any different from those in 5e... again it seems arbitrarily based around game I like vs. game I don't like or are we claiming some games will be DM'd without principled play vs others that will... If so why? Finally if a GM/DM is deciding unilaterally but is driven by principles outside his own desired outcomes... is that still MMI? Is a pre-created world MMI? See for me @pemerton tries to make this black and white when I and I think other posters see it as gray especially outside white room analysis. This, at least IMO, is where the interesting discussion takes place not in examining platonic gameplay at extremes.

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - you seem obsessed by 1% chances. I posted guidelines and rules from mulitple systems upthread (Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller, 4e D&D, and maybe BW as well but I can't remember that one exactly), and talked about the odds that they establish, and I even made the point that Admin in Classic Traveller, with its base 1 in 6 chance for untrained and 5 in 6 chance for trained is probably sailing pretty close to meaningful limits here.

Imaro said:

when you give the DM the ability to determine DC's using his own judgement (which both 4e and Traveler do, not sure about BW) you are in fact, for all intents and purposes, giving him the power to decide unilaterally whether something is possible or not

Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming here that the GM will ignore the rules for setting difficulties, and/or will apply them in arbitrary ways that depart from the system rules and guidelines.

I don't think it's in dispute that a GM who ignores the system principles may produce a bad play experience - or, in other words, system rules and guidelines are often not arbitrary, but rather are aimed at a particular play experience. The systems that I use are not an exception in this respect.

Imaro said:

5e has all of this as well

Click to expand...

5e has no guidelines - at least in the Basic PDF, but no one has pointed out any found elsewhere - on setting DCs in a way that correlate to particular odds. If you get the same play experience out of 5e that I get out of the systems I play, well done! But most posters who post about 5e make a point of how it differs in play experience from the systems and approach I prefer - and I tend to take that testimony, in combination with my own inferences from readinf the system, as good evidence that 5e differs from my preferences.

Imaro said:

outside white room analysis. This, at least IMO, is where the interesting discussion takes place not in examining platonic gameplay at extremes

Click to expand...

You may be approaching this in "white room" terms. I'm not. I'm approaching this based on my own play experience plus other posters' reports of their experiences.

Bedrockgames said:

The issue is, if you are using mother may I to describe a method of play where the GM decides whether the sect members are at the tea house, without necessarily using a mechanic, then I think the term is little more than an insult rather than a useful gaming label. At best it is being used a very rough analogy that, like I said previously, doesn't really reflect what it feels like to play in such a campaign. It describes more of a worst case scenario by invoking a children's game. Sort of like the term magic tea party.

Click to expand...

Mother May I... Magic Tea Party...

I like "Semi-Free Kriegsspiel" better.

pemerton said:

You seem to be assuming here that the GM will ignore the rules for setting difficulties, and/or will apply them in arbitrary ways that depart from the system rules and guidelines.

I don't think it's in dispute that a GM who ignores the system principles may produce a bad play experience - or, in other words, system rules and guidelines are often not arbitrary, but rather are aimed at a particular play experience. The systems that I use are not an exception in this respect.

Click to expand...

I guess it's a question of whether a GM is allowed to - or should be encouraged to - shove the system guidelines out of the way if that's what it takes to produce the game she and her players want using the system she happens to have available at the time.

Not everybody is going to go out and buy and-or learn a new system every time they want to change up their game, and nor should anyone be expected to. Instead they'll mash the system they have into doing what they want it to do, intent of the original designers be damned. The results won't always be perfect, but the costs both financial (don't need to buy a new set of books) and effort-wise (it's easier to tweak a known thing than to learn something entirely new) will be much much less.