GIven the places I've seen secret doors in published modules, I'm not sure what would count as a bare stone wall in a D&D-style dungeon or fortress where it would be illogical for a secret door to appear!
What you say here is (in my view) absolutely correct for Cortex+ Heroic, 4e, HeroQuest revised, or any other system in which DCs are "subjective" ie based on pacing and similar considerations.
In the context of an "objective" DC system (eg Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, I think 5e by deffault), the players do have an incentive to identify an approach with a low DC. Relating this to [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]'s question above, if a secret door seems unlikely in some place, that would increase the DC.
I'm certainly not insisting on this. Many many posts (over 1000) upthread, this was discussed at some length.
From my point of view, it doesn't meaningfully change the distribution of agency over the content of the shared fiction for the chance of success to depend on the GM "allowing" the check to have a chance of success.
A lot of what you describe here seems to involve the players learning what the GM has decided (either in advance, or on the spot) exists in the gameworld.
First, I don’t subscribe to the general approach that many adventure designers go about their business. I often disagree with their approach to placement of secret doors for the same logical reason I’m questioning the ability of a Story Now approach to take into account. Many adventures, etc. are designed from a “game” approach, where the nature of what the designer might be cool takes precedence over what might logically apply. As I’ve stated before, I prefer to approach it from a more objective, world-building approach asking why a secret door would be someplace. Who built it and why, basically, not just because I think it would fit, or I want to make the dungeon less linear, or that it would work well here for the story of the PCs rather than the story of whoever built the place.
I feel the same way about the design and placement of most traps, and definitely in regards to puzzles.
I say “seemingly” because you state that you don’t insist, but then immediately respond with two paragraphs that say exactly what I’m saying you seem to insist.
I disagree with both statements. Because again, until the play occurs at the table, the placement of a secret door remains in question. The only real difference is that I’m leaning toward consistency and an internal logic within the setting vs. leaning towards something that might stretch the bounds of believability a bit (or a lot) for the sake of a dramatic moment. A sort of quality control that hopefully maintains an internal consistency. Not necessarily to inject my ideas, although that will happen as well.
The reality is that I do both. Where I believe we differ is that I believe that both have value within the context of the game, and as the GM I start from a place of impartial observer and prefer to let the drama take care of itself, driven by the players and their characters and their interactions, which will include interactions with the world around them. Where you seem to eschew the less dramatic, more mundane things, the in-between things, with the focus of the GM on ensuring that more drama happens. That is, if drama isn’t happening, then it’s the job of the GM to find the drama and make it happen.
From my perspective, it’s once again a question of goals. While I’d like to think that any game system can support both, it continues to appear that a Story Now approach does not or at least discourages it. Perhaps strongly.
During the course of the game, I prefer to limit my dramatic input to the really big moments. Something that really dramatically alters the character’s situation. They might be predetermined secrets or something that occurs in the moment, a reaction to the PCs at that point in time.
Outside of those moments, I like to allow the players and the game drive the dramatic moments.
I’d equate it to many TV dramas where most episodes are typical adventures. For example, the Mentalist where an episode is usually exploring the day-to-day aspects of their lives, mostly in regards to their profession, where the drama is between the PCs and their reaction to the world and events within. These I would see as more player driven, with a GM hook to point things in a direction. Otherwise, the setting provides the framework where the action takes place (such as a dungeon), the current goals may be defined by a minor episode-specific villain, but just as often in the game, it’s the dungeon itself. The process of generating that setting/dungeon can vary. That is, it doesn’t have to be pre-authored, and there may be things that occur that do relate to the driving motivations of the characters, but most of the time they serve as interesting stories and fleshing out the setting along with establishing their place within the setting, and ideally developing the characters and their relationships to each other. The tomb was this sort of situation. They decided they wanted to explore it, so they did.
Then there are episodes where I interject something (Red John) that specifically plays to one of the character’s driving motivations. These are points where I can take a stronger role is writing the story, because through whatever conflicts or other manipulation I interject, I’m actually driving the plot, or at least a higher percentage of it. Most of the time it’s using a similar approach to such TV shows, where answers may raise more questions (and I don’t necessarily know where those questions will lead).
Again, pre-authored vs improv, the process is not really relevant. In both cases, I can alter pre-authored material or not, take a greater control of the current events in the story, reveal secrets (previously known or unknown to me), whatever. The control over the story is fluid, although there are still rough boundaries of the type of content the players can introduce vs the GM. (This seems similar to what you describe regarding the bowl in the room, in that instead of declaring there was a bowl in the room, they asked if there was one and relied on you, the GM, to make that decision, whether by pre-authored material, random determination, or adding it on the fly, with none of those being exclusive.
I prefer to take as little control of the plot as possible, working by throwing out hooks to see what they choose as important. I don’t assume I know what they think is important, even if they’ve told me. All too often what I think and they think is important differs for various reasons.
Then when they engage with something, I provide the counterpoint, from as objective and logical approach as possible. They discover a smuggling ring and decide to try to interfere with it. Does the ring find out? What would they find out? How would they react? If this is a large operation, then they’d have some enforcers that might target the PCs. As the interference by the PCs increases, the response will too. If it continues long enough, it might escalate to a Valentine’s Day Massacre.
Boy, I would love to see that scenario play out with the PCs as the victims. Would they figure it out in time?
While that might seem like me driving the story (even a railroad), the reality is that under similar circumstances, things might escalate to that point naturally. In other words, the scenario at play is an assassination attempt against the party.
More importantly, while the scenario would be very difficult, I would only know the plan ahead of time, not the results. Most likely the PCs would foil the attempt before it even got that far. Regardless, they would have the opportunity to do so.
The objection that I think some others are making is the idea that the GM should be driving the plot via activities like introducing conflict, getting to where the action is, etc. I think those are important aspects of GMing and do have their place, and I do use them. But I don’t think they should be the primary approach, nor do I want the expectation that it is my responsibility to drive the dramatic story arc. I think they are valuable tools to be used along with many other tools to provide the best experience I can. Just like preparing something in advance to be used as is. Another tool to aid in producing a better experience.
Actually, producing is a term I like. In the music business you have some very hands-on producers, who actively shape the sound, and sometimes even the music of the band. In other cases, you have producers who view their job as simply to capture the sound and essence of what the band is doing. Not to be involved in the process of writing the music,
But to capture that music in the best way possible.
Both are valid approaches, and what works for one band won’t work for another. The tools available to them remain the same. And the amount of creative input between the band and the producer is fluid. The ratio of control over the music fluctuates, often through the course
Of a single song. Sometimes the ratio is more fixed.
