You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Celebrim]

I believe Hussar is speaking from the position of the players having gotten their butts beat by the Grell, thus their immediate goal is to get revenge and kill it.

I understand that much about Hussar's position. But that's a player position, not a character position. Moreover, as a player position its predicated I think on some very particular assumptions. Let's back up a second. The PC's have just barged into the home of a Grell, who then procedes to defend himself from their intrusion with intent to kill and plunder. He is successful in this regard, and drives the brigands off. By what right would they desire to seek revenge? It would take a very particular sort of character personality to view this as emotional issue rather than as an unfortunate set back. So think for a second about what sort of personality it would be for the player to properly see the character as being motivated by revenge because they have been bested by a grell whom they provoked in the first place?

Now, likewise, what motivates a player to see this is as something requiring revenge? Because at no point has Hussar suggested that the characters want revenge. It's actually Hussar's emotions that are being projected here. But why does Hussar who is in the real world want revenge on a thing that exists in the in game world. I really doubt that it is because the Grell has become such personified NPC through regular interaction with the NPC that Hussar has taken an emotional stake in the NPC. It's not like the Grell is a reoccuring villain who has killed the PC's dog and generally made himself an emotionally effective villain. No, Hussar is clear about what is emotionally at stake for him as a player. He believes that this is a challenge presented to him by the DM, and he has been bested by it. This can't stand. He's emotionally invested not in the particulars of defeating a Grell, but in overcoming the DM's challenges. It's unthinkable that he might not get a return crack at the Grell, not because he's emotionally invested in the Grell particular and therefore can't stand that the 'Grell won', but that he is emotionally invested in besting the DM and can't let it stand that the DM 'won'.

You can simulate the reality of a situation all you want, but a player expecting to get vengeance is usually going to be angered or at least indignant not to get it.

This is the heart of it. I expect a player to be able to distinguish between his character's emotions and his own emotions. The character may or may not feel thwarted from obtaining vengeance, but as I suggested it would take a rather particular sort of personality of character to see this as something to emotionally invest in. We aren't talking about Captain Ahab losing his leg to the white whale, or the Grell having killed the PC's loved ones. We're talking about just having been whipped into a retreat after provoked a monster by entering its lair. It's not even clear that every character that loses a leg in that situation is going to be motivated by vengeance, much less just having had his ego bruised.

So now you would have the player desiring vengeance and the player becoming indignant and angry. But what has the Grell done to the player? No, the player's emotions aren't directed at the Grell. It's the player desiring vengeance on the DM, and the player becoming angry at the DM and the player becoming indignant at the DM. But what has the DM done? The DM hasn't cheated. The DM has played fairly. The DM is merely animating the NPC's in ways that are realistic and reasonable. By what right does the player think he needs to take vengeance on the DM if he loses an encounter? By what right does the player get angry and indignant at the DM for simply playing NPC's in a manner that accords with the creatures intelligence and standard guidelines for play?

This requires having a mentality that the DM put the Grell there to 'challenge' you. It's again envisioning play as revolving around this contest between the DM and the players which has all these elaborate unspoken table rules about what is fair and fun. Things like, "Don't offer me a challenge unless I want it, and withdraw it if I signal I'm not interested." or "If I signal that I'm interested, don't withdraw the challenge." It comes down to this, even if we were using the exact same rules, we aren't playing even remotely the same game.

At my table with the sort of players that I've played with, the overwhelming assumption - even by the more gamist power-gamer types - would be that if the Grell isn't there and has fled, though this might be frustrating to the character and even to some extent frustrating to the player to the extent that he can identify with the character, the DM has done exactly what he was supposed to do right down to being chapter and verse of the guidelines in the DMG. The DM isn't responcible here for frustating the character or the player. The circumstances are frustating because often things are frustrating. But then again, now the way isn't blocked by a grell. What could have been a potentially lethal fight has been at least for the moment won, for the foe has been driven off for now and the way forward is open. On with the quest. And who knows, maybe the Grell is just out hunting or will turn up later.

Although it is not immediately clear why the characters would consider that remotely desirable.

And so the situation begs a question: Which is more important: The players, or the simulation?

What is going on here is an implicity or explicit OOC appeal to alter the in game world to suit the desires of the player. You are presenting a false choice. I choose neither or both, because the interests of the players is in the game, and the interests of the game is in the players. The simulation is happening because I thought that was the game everyone wanted to play. If the player insists that the simulation follow their whim, there is no more game. If the player insists that we have some sort of competition, let's play a game that puts everyone on a level playing field and is about competition. How about some Munchkin or Call of Duty shall we? There is no reason why they should keep playing a game that makes them angry, and no reason why I should keep playing a part better played by a computer program.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Your point was that because it replicated a spell in a particular way, that it would thus replicate the spell's allowance of a save. That is the part that is wrong.

You're kidding, right? I point you directly at the rule which demonstrates that you're wrong and your response is, "LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"?

Let's look at the Deck of Illusions. It says that throwing a card produces a major image of a creature as determined by the card. No save is listed though. Is it reasonable to conclude the item has a save associated with it by virtue of it replicating the spell? I would argue no...

And you would obviously be wrong.

The DMG clearly states that magic items which produce spells grant saving throws and gives you the formula for calculating the DC of that save. You acknowledge that the deck of illusions produces a major image.

And that's it: You've just acknowledged that, according to the DMG, a deck of illusions grants a saving throw.

But I suppose we can debate that further.

Not really. There's nothing to debate here.

 

[Celebrim]

Ahh, but, we're not talking about whether or not my plan is good. That's a separate issue.

No it's not. Because you've expressed frustration over the fact that you wasted time on the plan. Well, arguably all bad plans are a waste of time. The issue here is that you thought you had a good plan, but in the game that actually happened and in the game that I'm proposing, the plan didn't work out how you liked - so you are here complaining about it.

Which part of revenge didn't you understand? Plus, we actually did need to get past that grell which commanded a choke point in the dungeon.

The part that is relevant to the situation. But, let's keep in mind what the real goal, the real challenge as you think of it was - get past the choke point in the dungeon that the Grell commanded. That's going to be intensely relevant later.

Nope. But, considering it killed one of us and drove the rest off, why would it leave?

Maybe because it knows that if humans escape, they - like Tuskan Raiders - tend to come back in greater numbers. Which is of course what is actually going to happen and what actually happens in 99% of these situations in every campaign that has ever transpired, so its not like its an unreasable assumption. It's the standard trope of humans. "An Imperial Probe team. It's a good bet the humans know we are here now." Or maybe because it just doesn't like being disturbed. Maybe the Grell was just a sage among its kind looking for a place where it could have a bit of peace and quiet. Remember, you yourself suggest that its perfectly fine for it to set up defenses and the like so its not like you are suggesting its wrong to react, you just don't like how it reacts.

Oh, that's right, because the only "realistic" response is the one that screws over the players the most?

Right. Because completely removing the threat represented by the Grell and allow access deeper into the dungeon is the response that screws over the players the most? By what standard? I think it's really instructive to consider what you consider 'screwing over the players' is actually arguably the thing that above all else makes things immediately easier for them. It screws over the players how?

I think I prefer it when the DM isn't out to screw over the players every chance he has....Antagonistic DMing has a long and storied tradition. It's just not MY approach to gaming. And, having seen way too many players come out of antagonistic DMing tables and have all the creativity beaten out of them, I don't really enjoy that sort of thing anymore.

Let's get this really straight once and for all. It has been your consistant stance all through out this thread that D&D is about a contest between the DM and the players. It has been your consistant stance that the DM presents the players with challenges and the players try to overcome those challenges, and one side or the other 'wins' and then the losing side tries to 'win the next time'. Antagonism is the very thing you are advocating. It's nothing at all to do with my game. In my game I'm rooting for the players and I want them to do awesome and it rocks when they do cool things and no one suffers PC's death more harshly than I do as a DM. It hurts me when PC's die. I love it when players triumph using some cool trick. Moreover, I'm rarely trying 'challenge' my players. NPC's don't gain levels in reponse to players getting more powerful. The guards in the bad guys lair stay the same level regardless of what level the PC's are. You'll never find guardposts of 10th level fighters in my game because I need them to challenge the players. Challenge is created by player's stepping up to new problems or goals. There is always challenge to find somewhere in any sort of varied and rich fantasy world. But really its up to the players to decide whether 'challenge' is one of their goals.

Fundamentally what you are asking for destroys the enjoyment of a game. If you keep breaking emersion like that, if the Grell always stays behind waiting to get killed by the PC's renewed assault, then there is no value to your success. There is no achievement. There is no triumph. Because you know that the DM is just arranging things to let you 'win' by your own definitions of win every time. If you collapse what you call the simulation and I call the in game world so that it works according to a bunch of metarules about player desires and such, there is no game left. There is no exploration under that circumstances. There is no challenges under those circumstance. I guess there is potentially a narrative, but you don't need any sort of simulation rules to participate in the creation of that narrative because you've fundamentally thrown the simulation out the window. So what do you need combat rules for, "the players are first"? What do you need hit points for? What do you need any of this rules for simulating things if simulation isn't important? What I see is your stance of "The players are first, and the simulation is unimportant" is cover for wanting to be presented with the illusion of a simulation, and the illusion of challenge, but really just wanting the DM to rubber stamp and validate all the signals you keep talking about.

I'm perfectly happy being 'surprised' by the players. It appears that 'the players' arent' happy being 'surprised' by the DM. Though, again, I maintain all these things are as old as dirt. Any DM surprised by using dust of disappearance to negate a gaze attack, a tactic so common that it was coded into video games of the early 80's as an expected usage of invisibility magic, or a player suprised by a monster that runs away haven't been playing very much.

 

[Hussar]

Fundamentally what you are asking for destroys the enjoyment of a game.

Not quite. It destroys the enjoyment of your game where the simulation only ever reacts in the most negative way possible.

I look at it like this. Let's roll the situation forward with the grell staying put, and the grell running away.

Grell Stays Put:

The party, having been soundly defeated and losing one of their members, returns above ground and rounds up a posse. They martial themselves, head back and into the lair of the beast. They confront the beast and, after an epic fight, manage to kill it. They then move on.

Grell Leaves:

The party, having been soundly defeated and losing one of their members, returns above ground and rounds up a posse. They martial themselves, head back and into the lair of the beast. They enter the lair, only to find it empty. The hour or so of game time they just widdled down the toilet was a complete waste of time. Total and complete anti-climax.

The same thing goes for every single example in this thread. The players summon up a mount to cross the desert Fremen style only to have it turned into Keystone Kops as the cleric and fighter fall off the mount every few hundred feet.

On and on. Every time the players try to take control of the situation, they get the rug pulled out from under them and the "simulation" thwarts them.

Hey, look, I realize you are a good DM Celebrim. You obviously put a lot of work into your game. Fair enough. I would loathe your game. Not because I'm a bad player or a power gamer or immature or any of the other insults you'd care to pile onto me, but because your game is simply not to my taste. It's far too much anti-climax and nowhere near enough climax for me. Again, FOR ME.

So, again, would it really kill you to back off on the badwrongfun posts? I mean, naked hostility is fun and all, but, realizing that we have very different tastes in gaming does not mean that one of us has to be wrong. It's simply different tastes. For me, your game would be endlessly frustrating. For you, you'd probably hate the lack of ... I dunno ... setting elements? I really don't see that attraction of what you are advocating, so, I would definitely not run a game to your taste.

 

[Celebrim]

Not quite. It destroys the enjoyment of your game where the simulation only ever reacts in the most negative way possible.

What makes you think that the simulation is reacting in 'the most negative way possible'? The most negative way possible is that there are actually multiple Grells living in the area, and when you go back to town to get reinforcements the Grell goes and seeks out his allies and gets reinforcments. Hey, now there are two grells... three grells.... grandapa grell the psionic sage. If I just wanted to screw players over, believe me I could do so. But I have no interest in screwing players over. What you are seeing as 'the most negative way possible'... I don't even know how to respond to that. It's ludicrous.

The party, having been soundly defeated and losing one of their members, returns above ground and rounds up a posse.

Maybe. It's not clear to me that lots of people back in the village are going to be clamoring for the oppurtunity to sacrifice themselves to the tentacles of he Grell. Let's play out how you convince people to do that. And in any event, if you go into bars looking for likely candidates and hiring criers and what not it is going to take you 2d4 days to find candidates which is a lot of game time, and could involve additional encounters (maybe those assassins that have been hunting for you catch up with you because of the advertising you are doing), maybe the bad guys launch a plan of their own, maybe one of the people you recruit is working for the evil cult, will you catch this before he has a chance to stab you in the back at the worst moment, etc. Heck, if 'back in town' means a small town of 1000 people, there is a good chance no body is particularly interested. Time to make use of the diplomacy skill. There also might be book keeping during that time. Maybe a player wants to use the 5 or 6 days of 'down time' to create a new magic wand, and in any event, after all of this is settled - even if by handwaving much of it - its clear I would think that your time lines are falling behind and you have no reasonable expectation that what exists in the dungeon is what existed there 120+ hours ago.

They martial themselves, head back and into the lair of the beast. They confront the beast and, after an epic fight, manage to kill it.

Maybe. Or maybe they get thier butts handed to them again.

The party, having been soundly defeated and losing one of their members, returns above ground and rounds up a posse. They martial themselves, head back and into the lair of the beast. They enter the lair, only to find it empty. The hour or so of game time they just widdled down the toilet was a complete waste of time. Total and complete anti-climax.

Yes, it is anti-climatic, but its hardly unexpected after you get your butts handed to you that triumphs are not immediately around the corner. But in this case, the Grell is gone, the way foward is open, and you have reinforcements which will be usable for facing any further monsters you might happen to find on your way to whatever. It may not be the outcome you were hoping for, but really, can you expect to recieve every outcome you hope for? Plus, if the DM was any good at all, you don't regret the last hour or two or four of play anyway, because the process of rounding up allies was challenging, exciting, comedic, and interesting in and of itself.

The same thing goes for every single example in this thread. The players summon up a mount to cross the desert Fremen style only to have it turned into Keystone Kops as the cleric and fighter fall off the mount every few hundred feet.

Who said anything about every few hundred feet? Riding a mount requires no check provided you don't do anything fanc, and I've already suggested that I wouldn't expect terrain complications to arise more than every few miles and that those would usually be of the form "Do you want to do something that provokes a ride check, find away around the obstacle, or think up a new plan?". I've already provided sample narration of how I'd handle it. There is no need to guess, must less slander. And tying the fighter and the cleric to the back of the beast is perfectly reasonable and let them bounce along like luggage, but that may present a complication in the event the centipede trapses across the lair of a giant tarantula and is pulled into the beast's lair. I'm not trying to thwart a plan, merely establish how difficulties are handled.

On and on. Every time the players try to take control of the situation, they get the rug pulled out from under them and the "simulation" thwarts them.

That's not true, and my players would attest that it isn't true. However, the players who wish to take control of the situation do have to account for the situation. They can't alter the situation so that the plan fits it. They have to devise plans that actually work in the situation that they are in and which over come the obstacles that they are faced by. Hey, I've got 'use rope', I can rig up a make shift riding harness successfully. Hey, those 6 ranks in ride are useful now. And those 'Create Water' spells you laughed about me taking, well this is like the 15th time they've saved the party major hardship. And so on and so forth. The difference is you offer up a plan filled with pitfalls and complain that its the DMs fault if you take a pratfall, because the DM forced you to play through the plan rather than giving you the immediate win you think you are entitled to when you signal you aren't interested in the possibility of failure. You want all the difficulties abstracted away, hand waved away, and made easy for you.

Then you have the gall to claim my game anti-climatic? Seriously?

 

[nijineko]

so....

back to the op: i love being surprised by my players. that is how i, as the dm, get to "play" the game. i get to be creative, to explore new directions, and to figure out clever new ways to challenge the pcs. furthermore, i like the pcs to know that they have made an impact on the universe, and can see the results of their actions.

nothing more fun than to see the look on a players face when some bard in an inn is singing a song, or some peasants are grumbling about their crops getting ruined by this combat that took place at this one field, and the player realizes that it is about some exploit of the party's from 4 levels back. ^^

 

[Jackinthegreen]

You're kidding, right? I point you directly at the rule which demonstrates that you're wrong and your response is, "LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"?

And you would obviously be wrong.

The DMG clearly states that magic items which produce spells grant saving throws and gives you the formula for calculating the DC of that save. You acknowledge that the deck of illusions produces a major image.

And that's it: You've just acknowledged that, according to the DMG, a deck of illusions grants a saving throw.
Not really. There's nothing to debate here.

If a Deck of Illusions had a save listed there in its description, that's what the save would be. There is no save listed in the item's description. That is the crux of the argument. The vast, overwhelming majority of wondrous items that do replicate spells specifically list the save, even if it wouldn't have been necessary to because of the rules on page 214. The Deck and Dust do not list any saving throw. Why is that? Is it a misprint? If so, such things would surely have gotten an errata entry to include a save. They do not. It seems entirely plausible that the designers intended the items not to have a saving throw despite being based off or even using a spell that normally does grant one. Is it such a stretch to say that they can make exceptions? No.

To quote a paragraph from the magic item save section:

Most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various effects, particularly when the effect has no exact spell equivalent (making its level otherwise difficult to determine quickly).

That can be interpreted one of two (or maybe more, but I've only identified two) ways. First, "most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various effects..." can mean that most item descriptions have DCs listed, but some do not, and it's intentionally that way because the item simply doesn't have a save. Second, them saying "most item descriptions give saving throw DCs for various effects" could mean that they built themselves and escape clause which would allow them or the DM to fudge things. It would be like saying "we've included a save for most things, so you can fill in the rest." I don't buy this second one personally, mostly because I just don't see WotC being quite that odd when it comes to their rules.

As for whether there is nothing to debate here, keep in mind debates only occur when two sides feel they're right but they are somehow in disagreement. Clearly there is a debate, if an informal version, because I feel that the right interpretation is that there are no saves on those two items because none are listed in their descriptions, whereas you feel it is right for them to have saves because magic items have saves according to the general magic item save rules, despite the fact that no saves are in the specific descriptions.

Replying to the DM style topic: Does the game break down when a DM allows players/characters to do certain whims with little to no involvement from the DM? If so, how much does it break down? Are there times where it would be appropriate for the DM to be "hands-off?" Are there times where it might be expected for the DM to take a back seat, and should the DM do so? Is it still a game if the DM is a little less involved here and there, or otherwise caters a bit more to the players/characters?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Of course you get to make a save as you look at it and throw the dust, if you close you eyes, 50% misses.

If you're still talking about the basilisk, the gaze rules only specify that the characters not look at the creature's face (or wherever the gaze attack comes from). They can still look at its body and not suffer a 50% miss chance, though they do still have the 50% chance to see the gaze. There are a few other ways to get around the gaze such as a certain shield enhancement I can't remember the name of, but the saving throw we're talking about is not part of the gaze attack. The saving throw originally being discussed is whether the Dust of Disappearance has a saving throw.

 

[pemerton]

Dust of Disappearance's rules are as follows:



The first sentence isn't pertinent to this discussion.

The second sentence spells out the creature or object touched becomes invisible as per greater invisibility.

<snip>

What happens if a save isn't mentioned though? So far I'm seeing all magic items that allow a save explicitly say what the save is.

<snip>

The item's cost also plays a factor in this because paying 3,500g for a greater invisibility effect that has the potential to only last 2 rounds is quite high unless the item doesn't allow a save. Then it's still high, but at least it's reliable enough that it's worth making and using in the first place.

Of course, one might read the lack of save as an oversight on the part of WotC. They might have assumed it would only be used on a willing subject. Can we reasonably assume they would have added a save on an unwilling subject? Maybe. But then one still has to wonder what the save would have been in the first place. Then again, perhaps they wanted it to always be useful and reliable in actually producing its effect, thus they decided there would be no save. My thoughts are it's somewhat difficult to make assumptions about their intent.

The third sentence describes what can't see through it

<snip>

The fourth sentence is an exception to the third.

<snip>

The fifth sentence seems to reinforce the idea that standard or magically-enhanced sight can't be used to detect something under the effect of DoD.

The sixth sentence says that the effect's duration is 2d6 rounds, which can be thought of as a further exception to the second sentence, or it can be clarifying it if one read the second sentence as "this item only replicates the invisibility effect of greater invisibility." I suppose "how long will it work?" is more interesting than "will it work at all?"

The seventh sentence states that the creature doesn't know when it will become visible, so it can't plan on doing something at a certain time. This ties in with the above point of "how long will it work?" being interesting.

Basically, it seems preposterous to think that Dust of Disappearance does have a save simply because it lists greater invisibility as an effect.

That can be interpreted one of two (or maybe more, but I've only identified two) ways.

These two posts are in my view excellent pieces of interpretation. This is about the first time I remember seeing a question of rules interpretation on ENworld being tackled with the sort of sophistication the characterises interpretation in other disciplines (and I'm thinking particularly of legal interpretation).

That's not to say that I regard the conlcusions as proven beyond all doubt. But the argument provided for them is undeniably strong.

 

[pemerton]

It has been your consistant stance all through out this thread that D&D is about a contest between the DM and the players. It has been your consistant stance that the DM presents the players with challenges and the players try to overcome those challenges, and one side or the other 'wins' and then the losing side tries to 'win the next time'. Antagonism is the very thing you are advocating.

I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is advocating antagonism between participants at all. He seems to be advocating a form of gamism. It's local form, here, is "The grell won first time. Now we want revenge." It's general form, of which this local occurence is an instance, is "The GM frames challenges. The players overcome them. The action resolution rules are the medium of the struggle, constrained by (i) encounter building rules on the GM side, and (ii) PC building rules on the player side."

This is such a typical way of playing RPGs that I'm a bit surprised you find it surprising.

I understand that much about Hussar's position. But that's a player position, not a character position.

<snip>

But why does Hussar who is in the real world want revenge on a thing that exists in the in game world.

<snip>

Hussar is clear about what is emotionally at stake for him as a player. He believes that this is a challenge presented to him by the DM, and he has been bested by it. This can't stand. He's emotionally invested not in the particulars of defeating a Grell, but in overcoming the DM's challenges.

<snip>

I expect a player to be able to distinguish between his character's emotions and his own emotions.

What is emotionally at stake for Hussar, the player, as I read it is that having been bested by the challenge the first time, he wants another crack at it. This is compounded with his playing of his PC - "That aberrant monster killed our boon companion, and we - with the aid of our newl-recruited valiant spearman - will have our revenge upon it!"

So it seems to me that Hussar is emotionally invested both in defeating the grell, and in overcoming the GM's challenge. His PC is emotionally invested in defeating the grell.

From what's been said, we can't tell how much of this is actor stance and how much author stance. It may be that Hussar has been taking a method-acting approach to playing his PC, and has so internalised his PC's emotional response to the grell's slaying of a boon companion that he can't see the ingame situation any other way. Or it may be that Hussar cares about having lost the fight through bad mechanical play, wants a rematch and is consequently playing his PC as wanting vengeance upon the grell for killing a boon companion.

In my personal experience, both as a player and a GM, these two different approaches can be hard to distinguish both in oneself and in others, and may well bleed together, particularly when we keep in mind that many people in the real world cultivate certain emotional responses - "author themeselves" - in order to make themselves closer to the idea that they would like to be.

So I don't always expect a player to distinguish his/her emotions from those of his/her PC - and some of the most visceral, immersive play comes about when they run together.

What is going on here is an implicity or explicit OOC appeal to alter the in game world to suit the desires of the player.

Which in my view is not remotely objectionable. I change the ingame world to suit the desires of my players all the time. That is the point of scene-framing play.

You contention that it makes challenges impossible is not correct, however. You seem not to be distinguishing between the rules that govern encounter building and the rules that govern action resolution - which, as I noted above, are the "medium of the struggle".

Even within action reolution there are interesting subtlties, where action resolution blends into the framing of the next scene. For instance, in a "fail forward" system like (say) Buring Wheel, even failed checks will be narrated by the GM with an eye to what the player desires. In BW, for instance, a player declares "intent and task" before the dice are rolled. On success, the PC achieves the declared task with the declared intent. On failure, the GM narrates the consequences but is encouraged to focus on intent rather than task. An example given (from memory) in the Adventure Burner involves a roll to determine whether or not the PC successfully knifes a personage at a masquerade ball without being spotted as the killer. On a failed roll, the GM is expected to narrate the situation in such a way as to maximise the interest, for those at the table, of the ensuign debacle - with options including things like "As you draw your knife, a nearby noblewoman notices the glint of steel and shrieks in horror" to "As you withdraw your knife the body crumples at your feet, and before you can step away the Baron's gaze falls upon you with your bloody knife in your hand" to "Your knife strikes true, and you step away before anyone see that it was you who wielded the blade - but your companion Ivan catches the falling body, and blood stains his clothes, and now the crowd is drawing his knife from his belt and noting the bloodstains on it, ignoring his protestations that they re from an earlier altercation outside the ballroom."

A related example is this - should the assassin, or perhaps his friend Ivan, end up in prison, then of course it should be their sowrm enemy who comes to gloat over them, and offer to secure their freedom if only they will . . . <insert key demand on which the PC has, up until this point, refused to yield to his/her sworn enemy>.

All of this is about changing and evolving the ingame situation to fit and respond to the players' desires, but it doesn't mean that the players (and their PCs) are never challenged: sitations (like the ballroom where the assassination is to be attempted) are framed, player plans concocted, difficulties assigned, dice pools constructed drawing on relevant skills, talents, preparations, help, external advantages, etc, and then the dice are rolled and success or failure determined.

The simulation is happening because I thought that was the game everyone wanted to play.

Hussar stated upthread that he's not a simulationist GM (nor, by implication of that comment plus his later posts, is he a simulationist player). So why would you want or expect his game to satsify constraints that only make sense for simulationinst play? My guess is that Hussar is looking for a game run in something like the way that the Burning Wheel books talk about.