D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

The Crimson Binome · Apr 18, 2015

Balesir said:
Scene framing is a resolution, but not one that concerns the actions of PCs. It concerns tha actions of NPCs. In almost all cases, for all the myriad NPCs in the game world, you do not use randomised resolution mechanisms to resolve the results of their actions. But for this particular set of circumstances you seem to claim it to be mandatory - for what reason?

Because it matters. Off-screen, there are enough NPCs engaging in enough actions that the sheer volume of them will approximate the statistical likelihood of events. On-screen, it matters whether these NPCs are part of the 15% who fall into a certain quality of action, so we have to check it.

JamesonCourage · Apr 18, 2015

pemerton said:
In which case, I don't understand how preparing a freeze-frame room/scene is saying "the PCs will encounter this, no matter the choice".

I know you don't.

pemerton said:
The only person who appears to have run a game in that style, in this thread, is @Saelorn's PF GM, who had the PCs encounter the corpse-eating demon "no matter what".

I agree that the description of play (and "freeze-framing" in general) was a railroad.

pemerton said:
In a scene-framing style, the PC's only encounter the freeze-frame scene if the GM frames them into it - which, in that style, is a response to player choices/signals.

This is still railroading. It's just players being okay with the rails. Which is fine.

pemerton · Apr 18, 2015

Saelorn said:
In the third situation, the GM has decided that something unlikely will happen.

<snip>

In the first situation, the PCs are treated just like any NPCs in the situation.

In the third situation the PCs and NPCs are also treated the same, in the sense that they see the same things, have the same ingame opportunity to stop the fleeing wagon-driver, impede the guards, etc.

Saelorn said:
The third case is the clear outlier here. That's the situation which is more of a railroad than the other two.

How is it a railroad? What player choice has been blocked/negated?

Saelorn said:
Yes, the second situation is a product of (indirect) player agency. Anything that happens after that is an extension of player agency.

In the third situation, anything that happens is a direct result of the GM's imposition of the unlikely scenario.

I don't really follow this. In the the second situation, the context within which the players can declare actions for their PCs depends upon the GM's direct imposition of a timeline. In the third situation, the context within which the players can declare actions depends upon the GM's direct imposition of the overturned cart.

And in either case, anything that happens is a result of the players' engagement with the GM's "imposed" fiction.

Saelorn said:
If an average of 5% of each day at the Garden Gate is spent with an overturned wagon full of weapons, but you've contrived that 100% of the time that the party arrives at the gate involves this happening, then this encounter is not reflective of the reality of the world.

As I described it, this is the first time the PCs arrive at the gate. That is an event that happens once. So, in the third scenario 100% of the first arrivals of the PCs at the gate (ie all one of those events!) involve an unlikely thing occurring.

Saelorn said:
I would say that a GM preference for interesting, if it biases the occurrence of events in the game, is a form of railroading.

In that case, why is a GM preference for pedestrian events, which biases the occurrence of such events in the game, not equally a form of railroading? They are both instances of GM decisions about content introduction.

Saelorn said:
Whenever the DM decides that something unlikely happens, it feels hollow and contrived.

The GM also decided the timeline. And the GM also wrote the setting description. (In the first two GM-prep scenarios of the three that I outlined.) That was part of the point of my post - in all three scenarios the GM is making decisions as to what happens in the fiction.

Saelorn said:
The situation where a PC encounters a powerful demon eating a corpse is entirely something that could happen in a game I run.

How? Can you describe how such a scene might occur in your game?

Saelorn said:
The naturalistic GM decides that the events which happen will be the events that would otherwise occur if the world was a real place, conforming to known details of that world (not subject to narrative causality). Imagine what's going on in the world, on a typical day. Like every other aspect of being a good GM, some people are better than others at this. Practice helps.

An easy tip for making the world feel more realistic (less story-y) is to avoid all unlikely events.

Once again we return to the Spartan world. For me, a Spartan world is not remotely realistic or verisimilitudinous. Every day things occur to me that are not more than 5% likely to occur on a given day!

On a typical day, the rebels could have their wagon overturn and their weapons hence be discovered. Such events really do happen in the world. A world in which nothing like that ever happens seems, to me, a robotic one, not one I woud want to roleplay in.

(Furthermore, how often do wars occur in fantasy RPGs compare to their prevalence in the everyday life of the campaign world? Or invasions by demons, zombies or dragons?)

Saelorn said:
What's the difference between the DM rolling a d20 to hit you, or just deciding that a 17 will be more interesting?

This was answered upthread by [MENTION=75791]TheFindus[/MENTION]. One is action resolution, the other content introduction. They are different elements of game play.

When the GM writes a timeline or draws a dungeon map or writes a setting cosmology, this is also content introduction, and it is not done by rolling d20s and damage dice.

Saelorn said:
In terms of player agency, though, an RPG is a lot like real life - your only agency is what you can causally affect within the world

I don't follow. When I play an RPG my agency consists mostly in choosing to say one thing rather than another to the other people at the table.

You seem to be talking about the imaginary agency of some imaginary people (the PCs). When I talk about player agency I am talking about the actual agency of some really existing people - the players of an RPG.

JamesonCourage · Apr 18, 2015

Balesir said:
I thought the meaning of "meaningful" in the context was pretty clear.

I know you did.

Balesir said:
"informed" covers a rather small part of what it means, and is almost completely useless as a replacement term.

It's not a replacement term.

Balesir said:
"Meaningful" in the context also covers "of interest to the player", "of (imagined) emotional meaning to the character" and "pertinent to the focus of play so far established".

Which can be described in other ways than how I defined "meaningful" when I quoted the dictionary (when you accused me of arguing semantics).

Balesir said:
We could, of course, write out all that stuff (or however we might wish to phrase it - I'm sure others could do it better than me) every time we wanted to talk about such decisions, but that would tedious both to type and to read. Hence the need for "jargon".

You're just using bad jargon.

Balesir said:
OK, then stick with the bald situation as originally described. Just because there is "poor GMing" does not in any way imply that there are not several possible ways to do "good GMing".

"Good" here is purely subjective. As is "poor." I don't think it's worth going down the rabbit hole of what is "good" or "poor" or "right" or "wrong" when it comes to a preferred play style. So I'm done with that part of our discussion, because trying to quantify "good" for something so subjective is really pointless.

Balesir said:
thus your argument fails

Lol. Seriously.

Balesir said:
What I read was that you define this:

...as railroading, because:

At first I was puzzled as to what "the actions" referred to, but it seems to be essentially "anything you decide it to be". Actions the players have their characters make in ignorance count:

...but actions the NPCs might make don't:

Expand on what you think is going on with NPCs, here?

Balesir said:
Given this, it looks like the scene must be framed according to the aesthetic you have set out or it is "railroading". That is what I would call, as you put it, a "dick move".

Again, I'm going to ignore you redefining what I'm doing. That's not a discussion. That's a dick move.

You can call my style whatever you want. You can repaint it however you'd like. But you rewording something I've explicitly defined to try to paint me in a bad light? That is a dick move, and I don't mind calling you out on it.

Balesir · Apr 18, 2015

LostSoul said:
I am not sure why it's not an answer to the original question (why is "bouncyness" necessary for the PCs to ride in and save the day). I don't mean to say that this mechanic the only way to make the game revolve around the choices the players make, it's just what I chose to go with. Maybe I'm missing something here?

I don't understand. It would be easier for me to say that, yes, but I think the players would feel cheated if they recruited NPCs to do something and they always failed. Maybe I'm missing the point?

I think you were maybe missing something, but you gave a better answer here:

LostSoul said:
Oh, yeah, I see it now (I think). I feel that without those dice rolls I am going to be determining if the PCs succeed or not. I don't want that responsibility. I make wandering monster checks as the mechanics dictate not because I think it's adding to the verisimilitude of the game or the plausibility of the setting - though good tables can do that - but mainly because I don't want to have to decide when and how many encounters the PCs face.

I make those rolls because I think these things are too important to the success or failure of the PCs to leave up to my judgement, which is full of bias - especially when done behind the screen.

I still don't think it says why it is neccessary to have the dice rolls in order for the PCs to "save the day", but it does explain why you feel the neccessity to make the rolls if the PCs are to save the day (so that you don't feel that you were responsible for facilitating their day-saving achievements, if I understand correctly). Which is close enough, I suppose.

Balesir · Apr 18, 2015

Saelorn said:
Because it matters. Off-screen, there are enough NPCs engaging in enough actions that the sheer volume of them will approximate the statistical likelihood of events. On-screen, it matters whether these NPCs are part of the 15% who fall into a certain quality of action, so we have to check it.

What do you intend to mean by "on-screen", here? The actions I am talking about are happening prior to the scene, not during it, and are thus "off-screen", as I see it. As soon as the PCs are aware of the situation caused by the NPC actions we move into the "scene", and resolution mechanics become required.

Balesir · Apr 18, 2015

JamesonCourage said:
Expand on what you think is going on with NPCs, here?

From exactly the post you originally got abusive about:

Balesir said:
What is this "process" exacly? In both cases, it starts off with "the GM brainstorms ideas about what might or could happen". Then some selection mechanism is used to pick one of the possibilities. In one case the GM tries to take inspiration from the players concerning what might happen, in the other case they may take inspiration from a randomised table or something. In either case, the vast majority of possible events will be missed out simply due to the limitations of the human imagination under time pressure.

Take the "prisoners are sacrificed" example. Maybe the evil guy's plans will all go smoothly and the prisoners will be dead before ever the PCs arrive at the dungeon. Perhaps there will be some minor delays with the troublesome one, and the sacrifice will be imminent when the PCs arrive. Possibly a spy will arrive from town just before the PCs to inform the evil guy about the PCs sniffing about, or about some action they took (maybe all-unknowing) in town, and the interview will delay the sacrifices until the PCs arrive. It could be that the evil guy loses his sacrificial knife and has a screaming fit at his henchman, whom he blames for the blade being misplaced, delaying the sacrifice until the PCs have scouted out the complex warily and then burst into the sacrificial chamber. Or maybe an alarm in the "office" itself delays the sacrifice as steps are taken to bolster the guards while the sacrifice takes place, since there are intruders about. It may even be...

You get the idea. There are literally millions of things that might happen. A choice by the GM that one of them does not happen is just as much a choice as deciding that it does. The idea is that the "naturalistic" GM decides that events happen (or not) based on random tables or some sort of "common sense", but the fact is that the decision for the vast majority of these "potential events" is made by arbitrary selection. So, the difference we are talking about is the difference between selecting because one possible chain of events sounds like fun to play, and selecting based on - what? - what habitually comes to mind for the GM based on their conception of how things "ought to" happen? So, if they think things "ought to" happen dramatically or in a fun way, the second is identical to the first? Whereas if they have some personal (but as far as I can see rather ill-defined) aesthetic guiding what "ought to" happen then different possibilities will be assumed and an "aesthetic appropriate" selection method will be used to choose between them? Is that the difference we are really coming down to?

Plus others since in this thread, mainly in reply to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION].

Let me put it another way - what possible methodology for encounter specification do you think would avoid your definition of "railroading" that does not use your precise aesthetic for scene selection? If you want to call me on my definition, fine - explain what alternative proves my summation wrong? It's quite possible that I have missed a possibility, but I'm not seeing it.

Incidentally, I'm also a bit mystified about where I have "called your style"? I am interested to get to grips with what is really at the root of "naturalistic" or "simulationist" or whatever name might suit gaming, but I want to do so on the basis of a no-frills, de-mystified assessment. I'm pretty sure that there must be something there worth finding, though, on the basis that there is generally "no smoke without fire" (i.e. with so many people* keen to "get it right" there must be something fun at the centre).

I also have no desire to "paint you in a bad light" - I just think your definition of a highly emotive and loaded term is so narrow and separate from its usual usage as to be both exclusionary and biased. One poorly formed piece of jargon does not an anathema make.

*: including me!

pemerton · Apr 18, 2015

LostSoul said:
I think a lot depends on how the DM decides to frame the situation in option 3. If it was the result of choices the players made previously - in a skill challenge, let's say - then I think the case can be made that the players had agency. If it's out of the blue then I think you're leaning more towards railroading - I think it'd be better to have a scene that leads into the situation at the gate, even if it's just some rumours from an NPC.

Can you explain why it is railroading?

Suppose I had, as GM, written up a "Garden Gate" encounter chart: on a 1 the PCs encounter a grumpy guard, on a 2 a merchant, on a 3 a beggar etc. And on (say) a 12, the chart tells me to roll on the "special events" sub-chart, which includes options like "a merchant is bribing a guard to look the other way in respect of contraband; a wagon overturns and something illegal is revealed under the hay; etc".

If, as the PCs arrive at the Garden Gate, I roll on the encounter chart, get a 12, go to the specials sub-chart, roll again, and get the "overturned wagon" result. And suppose that, in the game, rumours insurrection, or dissatisfaction with tax rates, or something similar, have already come up, so I decide that the illegal thing under the hay is a bundle of weapons. Hence I describe to the players a scene at the gate as in my scenario 3 upthread.

Would that be railroading? If so, the implication seems to be that virtually all content generation is railroading - even the random tables that are the stock-in-trade of classic D&D.

If not, why is it different if the same outcome is determined by GM decision at the point of the encounter, rather than by rolling on a table that the GM wrote up a week ago? How was player agency blocked or overridden in one case but not the other?

JamesonCourage said:
I know you don't.

I was hoping that you might explain your reasons.

JamesonCourage said:
I agree that the description of play (and "freeze-framing" in general) was a railroad.

How do the players have more agency if the GM rolls on a random table rather than making a choice?

What is the difference, from the point of view of GM influence on play, between the GM writing up a table and then rolling on it, and the GM just choosing?

And to both [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], who seem to think that rolling on a table makes a difference to whether or not an episode of content-introduction is railroading, would it make any difference if the GM wrote up the encounter table and sub-table on the spot and then rolled on it? Or is the important thing that the GM write up the table in comparitive ignorance of what is likely to matter to those participating in the game at the actual point of content-introduction?

If the answer to that last question is "yes", that is an interesting aesthetic preference; but what exactly does it have to do with player agency?

AbdulAlhazred · Apr 18, 2015

Balesir said:
I still don't think it says why it is neccessary to have the dice rolls in order for the PCs to "save the day", but it does explain why you feel the neccessity to make the rolls if the PCs are to save the day (so that you don't feel that you were responsible for facilitating their day-saving achievements, if I understand correctly). Which is close enough, I suppose.

Which I think is the 'beating heart' of what [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], and possibly [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] are motivated by. They don't want to present the players with any opportunities except those of their own making. Again, this stems right back to the earliest days of D&D where it would be a 'dick move' to put 4 orcs and a bunch of treasure right in front the PCs when you know that's exactly as many as they can probably handle, and not for any other reason. Its like saying to the players "I'm going to go easy on you, you're never going to be put in an unwinnable situation where all you can do is run for your life." OTOH it would clearly, by any of our standards, be a dick move for the DM to put 20 orcs there and wipe the party with them. By consulting the 'random encounter table' and the 'number appearing' entry the DM is simply absolving himself of responsibility, he's just a neutral arbiter.

Again, this sort of does work in the very limited and heavily keyed dungeon crawl environment where the rules can practically cover a wide variety of situations. It still OFTEN does break down, like as soon as the thief decides to vault over the tops of the orc's heads and disappear down the corridor beyond them, the rules (up through 2e at least) don't have a way to resolve this. Its now a DM judgment call. Obviously once the game extends much past a very controlled and contrived environment all bets are off 90% of the time.

pemerton · Apr 18, 2015

LostSoul said:
I was thinking that something else in the game led to this scene.

1) I was thinking of something along the lines of a skill challenge to get to the town before the plot to attack it has taken place.

I didn't have anything like that in mind. I was assuming that the PCs were coming to the town for the first time, let's say having finished an encounter and now coming to town (to sell loot, find new adventure leads, whatever) as part of a transition between dramatic events.

Obviously if the GM frames scenes regardless of the outcome of previous action resolution (eg a skill challenge) that is railroading. But what makes you think that that is what I am describing?

If you want more imaginary context to my three scenarios, that locates in an ongoing context of action resolution rather than in a transition context, here is some:

The players have had their PCs investigating rumours of a pending tax revolt. They have interrogated prisoners, noticed the decrease in the output of ploughshares and horseshoes from local village smithies, etc. And they are now heading to town to find out what is happening at the locus of events. This whole episode is being resoled as a skill challenge (perhaps with little sub-challenges - interrogations, investigations, perhaps even some fisticuffs - taking place within it to contribute successes/failures to the over-arching one.)

Let's suppose that the skill challenge is ongoing, but the Nature check (or Streetwise check, or however it was resolved) to get to town expeditiously was a fail - so the GM wants to narrate a complication in relation to that failure that will both (i) reflect the fact that it was a failure and not a success - so the PCs haven't arrived as expeditiously as they would like, and (ii) will leave the overall resolution of the challenge open, given that there are more checks still to be declared and resolved.

In the situation I've described, it seems to me that Scenario 1 would be poor GMing: narrating the Garden Gate is per the GM's setting notes doesn't seem to give any narrative weight to the failed check.

If the GM has adopted Scenario 2, perhaps s/he narrates Day 3 of the timeline - the PCs were delayed in their journey, and so by the time they arrive at the town the insurrection is underway.

Alternatively, the GM - who had prepped up the freeze-frame in anticipation of some sort of eventuality like this - narrates that. Why would that be railroady?