You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Celebrim]

story momentum" and "purpose" as equivalent. I was not treating them as such. I was not suggesting that GMs are running their desert and hiring scenes without purpose. I was suggesting, rather, that purposes other than player interest or story momentum are not purposes I'm interested in.

I've already expressed the opinion that your description of your play is at odds with this statement. You have expressed in your recounting of play complex calculations about what you thought would make the most interesting choice and have discussed at some length world exploration issues and conformity to the expectations of your setting (to say nothing about how your bottom up approach is creating setting as you go). Yet, "player interest" and "story momentum" are so vague as to be definable however you wish for the purposes of this discussion or how you approach your GMing as a paradigm. Whatever you do you can describe as "player interest or story momentum". Whatever I do can be described as "player interest or story momentum". It's a wonderfully abstract concept that doesn't really tie you down to anything. "Yeah, I did that because I thought it would increase player interest." Ok. What's the opposite of that, "I did that because I thought it would disinterest players?" And to me you seem to be attempting to prove rhetorical points that have little to do with your own play in practice, since your own play in practice does not seem to be nearly as inflexible with regards to style paradigm and decision making as you would make it here. The outlines of your play from your story sessions bear minimal traces of this paradigm you are pushing, and could as I said have been produced by groups 20 years ago with no formal concept of what you are talking about. They are typical results of anyone who does medium to heavy improv. You seem to pick up on mechanical differences (a wandering encounter table) as being 'proof' of great difference in our approaches, without the slightest consideration for how wandering encounter tables might be used in practice (generous DM fiat is almost always used with regard to wandering monsters in play).

Anyway, your story discussions are filled with statements like this: "They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures). That was another metagame-driven decision." Is that or is that not being driven by "player interest"? I can't tell, but it seems that 'metagame driven' is rather different than 'player interest". Likewise, other than the mechanics unique to 4e, I can't see any way that your methodology differs from mine. I also would allow skills to be used to befriend and tame the bear, and also would award full XP for turning a bear into a permenent ally as opposed to killing it.

Then you say something like, "Here we see that, while mechanics are important, engagment with the fiction is permeating the whole episode and shaping the way that mechanical resources are deployed and that deployment adjudicated." Ok....yeah. What I saw was the plausible creative excercise of player abilities leading to the DM giving the player benefit of the doubt and allowing a skill check (fortune) where success indicated the player's desired outcome and failure indicated the contrary. That's pretty darn standard DMing.

You also stated how you would handle the purchasing of the horse

I haven't stated "how I would handle the purchasing of a horse". I stated about 5 different ways I would handle the purchasing of the horse depending on circumstances. And for the record, I have stated that the operative way I have in fact been handling the purchasing of horses has been entirely off screen with at most 1 roll to determine sell price.

, and determination of whether or not it is lame.

No, I haven't done that at all. The concept was 'a lame horse' was brought up by someone other than me in an attempt to prove that I would always rule on minutia, and I flatly rejected that assertion by saying I had no interest in ruling on whether horses go lame and would not roll for it. I have provided no coherent system for determining whether a horse would lame and have flatly stated that it would never be checked unless the fitness of a horse was important to the story.

I said above that what you described is different from what I would do, and what I would want in a game.

You ... ahhh nevermind. What's the point.

Likewise your description of how you would handle the desert scenario.

I believe once Hussar provided context it was established that I would skip the "desert" (for the record, it's not actually a desert, it's an abysmal expanse of decaying flesh broken up by groves of bone like projections resembling ribs, and there is no city either. It's a crumbling cathedral, at least the first stop.), because it added nothing to the story (then again, I also suggested I might skip the whole scenario unless the PC's were evil because I thought it had too little tie in to player goals and motivations to make the scenario compelling). And I further added that I'd only consider not skipping it if I could find a way to make it add to the story.

 

[Manbearcat]

I figured that should give him a fair bit of insight into the hiring process.

I would figure the same. I would also figure that he would have accrued techniques and a network of contacts to facilitate such a thing.

** Edit: Curiously enough, this is the best part of 5e thus far; Background Traits. There are base narrative assumptions (just such as this) built into backgrounds (like Caravan Guard) that give you player-authority to make just such a purchase automatic; hand-waved + narrative authority to describe. Making these explicit (like Backgrounds, Themes and Paragon Paths in 4e) is very advantageous to my preferred playstyle.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm quite sure there are more complex ideas people are trying to put out than can be adequately expressed well enough to fully be conveyed to another.

 

[Manbearcat]

This seems to imply that a game adjudicated on the basis of "say yes or roll the dice" - ie only focus on those challenges that are built up around player cues and player-driven story momentum - must necessarily be middle-of-the-road. I don't agree with that.

To put it another way: if I can think of a million and one challenges and complications that relate to player cues, that I know will engage the players via their express PC goals (such as investigating things in City B, or wreaking vengeance on the grell), why would I detour play through an hour or more of stuff that is irrelevant to all that? It's not like in the game where I resolve the desert, or the hiring, in a few minutes of free narration is going to have any lesser density of challenge per unit of play time, nor per unit of PC advancement. It's just that all the challenges will be ones that are centred around the signals sent by the players.

I can't xp but this is pretty much the crux of it. Great post. Just because you aren't dealing with every possible micro-adversity that someone would deal with in a real-world simulation doesn't mean that you aren't constantly pressuring the PCs with genre-relevant macro-pressures.

 

[Celebrim]

Did say that my games prioritize pacing and I'm going to stand by that one.

Yes, and I already agreed that they do, and that I preferred a somewhat slower pace. My caution to you was that you said you prefered a faster pacing because you wished to reach a end/climax/ephinany sort of moment rather than have a campaign simply pitter out in the middle, and I said that that was perfectly understandable but there is a danger that if you rush the pacing the climax will be anti-climatic.

Again, I'll stand by that on the evidence in this thread that every single interpretation of the rules is never in favor of the players. Lame horse, missed resources, lame mercenaries who will murder me in my sleep, NPC's who are immune to diplomacy? Yeah, I'm thinking that's not in favor of the players.

Well, that's your reading. I have described at least as many examples of things that would be in the players favor (buying a 'masterwork' horse or sword for a normal price, extra resources, exceptional aid, hirelings that work for free, hirelings that attach themselves as devoted henchmen, etc. etc. etc.). However, whenever I suggest that there exists the possibility of failure, you've taken this to mean that the possibility is 100%. Moreover, you've repeatedly argued that everything, including things that make things easier for the players, is 'not in their favor'. And, I stand by my evidence in this thread that that is a bunch of hooey. A neutral or referee stance is not antagonistic, and your insistance that it is does not do you any favors.

 

[Hussar]

Let's wander back to the hiring the mercenaries example for a moment and see how it plays out.

Ok, the setup is that we want to hire 6 mercenaries (1st level warriors/commoners - keep it 3e) and 10 applicants have shown up. Let's not get into how the hiring was done, it's not really a big issue. There's many ways that could be handled, and that's more or less up to the table. So, on with hiring. Let's say the group does the right thing. They interview each prospective troop and pick the six they like. Takes about 40 minutes of table time. Reasonable?

Now, they fail to find the criminal. They hire him unwittingly, despite everything, they still get this NPC. Then, they go to outfit the NPC's, playing through the equipping process because they want to be sure that the spears they are buying aren't warped or brittle and going to break on the first hit. Takes another ten minutes. Again, am I building straw men here?

On the way back to the lair, they are spotted and the authorities are called in to apprehend the wanted criminal. The party surrenders, not wanting to start a fight with the authorities and have no real loyalty to this NPC whom they've just met. The party is taken into custody for questioning as well. They get questioned, the authorities buy their story and they are sent on their merry way. Takes another twenty minutes of table time. I think this one might be the least likely since players never surrender, but, I digress.

So, we have just spent about an hour and a half on scenes that have nothing to do with our goal. Nor do they further our approach of our goals in the slightest.

This is the kind of thing that I hate with a passion. I loathe this kind of thing in games. And, I really do see this style of play as really stifling creativity. What do you think would be the odds that this group would ever try to hire someone again?

However, whenever I suggest that there exists the possibility of failure, you've taken this to mean that the possibility is 100%

Because, IME, it is 100%. Maybe not 100% of the time. But, the odds that its going to happen is pretty close to 100%. And, it's not just you in this thread Celebrim. Look at N'raac's responses. Or Nagol's. Nagol's idea of a "best" person to hire includes someone who is going to kill me in my sleep because I didn't define "best". I mean, can you get any more antagonistic than that?

 

[Celebrim]

I'm curious, does anyone feel that there is player entitlement or players not earning their spoils there?

No, reading through your framing, I don't really have any problems with that. In fact, I'm seeing very little player proactivity, and that might be closer to my worry.

As DM, my bigggest concern on that is that I'd be afraid that the player would see the particular implementation - let's handwave what you are good at and by fiat force you to face something you aren't - as railroady. I'd be afraid of doing things that way without some OOC negotiation with the player, and I'd be afraid that OOC negotiation like that would be a time sink as well as detract from the experience of play. But, if you had high player consent from your players, then I suppose your fine.

As a player, my biggest concern is that it all feels just a little cheesy and gamey to me. I mean granted, this is just a summary of play, but things like the sinkhole swallowing me up at that exact moment would just blow my suspension of disbelief and also cause me to feel (together with the inescapable bang that start this all) that I really had no control over my character or the setting. It feels very much like a game that occurs inside a DM's wacky dream, and not really in a shared narrative space. I'd feel a bit jerked around by DM whim. But that's just a matter of taste I suppose, and it might not be true of how I'd actually experience your session.

Should I have just played out 1 and hoped that they were unsuccessful in their "sweet spot" SOP and that maybe a chase might manifest?

Maybe. I would like to have seen a more natural chase develop, perhaps by giving the players a something that they wanted and make them chase it, or perhaps just avoid narrating the (as far as I can tell from this angle) entirely irrelevant temple robbery entirely and instead put them into a situation where they choose to escalate conflict on the basis of belief ("I will always rescue a damsel in distress."), followed by escalating by narrating, "Now you are in over your head in some form." Some of the chase scene development in say "Raiders of the Lost Arc" might inform this.

Should I have had an extra random encounter during 5?

Not really. Unless the forest had been previously framed as "The Deadly Fire Swamp, from which no man escapes", or "The Haunted Forest" and the player was entering it 'eyes open', or there was something particular to forests that I thought I could tie to the overall adventure arc or a particular player's interest. But generally speaking, if a journey doesn't serve a purpose there isn't a lot of point in dwelling on it. Typically what I do here is check for wandering encounters, if there is roll for wandering encounters, and then decide quickly whether to actually have the wandering encounter based on whether I think it will be interesting for the players at this time. Wandering encounters serve a lot of different purposes, but one of the more usual ones is simply an aid to DM imagination.

 

[Celebrim]

Again, am I building straw men here?

To a certain extent yes, because I'm not sure that my game ever plays out like you describe and you aren't describing the game that actually happened. For one thing for example, I've already made it clear I'm not really interested in playing out shopping expeditions in this circumstance. You want to buy 6 spears. That's 30 seconds of game play. If you cue that you are interested in buying a masterwork spears, that might take a bit longer because now you want to get something other than ordinary resources. But even then, we're talking adding maybe two or three dice rolls to the resolution, and not lots of RP with shop keepers.

As for the 10 applicants, I suppose 40 minutes of table time is reasonable but I find your description of this as "Doing the right thing" sort of humorous. Where I really have a problem is this:

On the way back to the lair, they are spotted and the authorities are called in to apprehend the wanted criminal.

This is just terrible scene framing on all sorts of levels. If the criminal is so easy to spot and recognize, why does everyone wait until he's with the PC's to spot him? If I do want to do a reveal on the criminals background, why do it at the least interesting moment? I mean that's like a 1 in a 1000 coincidence or something. Why use DM fiat to create a coincidence that doesn't provide for an interesting story development or interesting player choices? I can think of like a dozen better ways to do that reveal. For example, the criminal may confess he's a criminal and provide a sympathetic story, and then beg the PC's for mercy or to help him hide from the authorities. The PC's can now decide, turn the criminal in for a reward of resources (100 g.p. reward maybe), or decide to trust the criminal and risk angering the authorities? And either way, now we have put aside some plot points for future story lines. Or perhaps the criminal isn't noticed by authorities (again, it's really wierd they only spot him now), and so it isn't revealed that he's a criminal until some later dramatic point - like after the party has acquired a large treasure (he tries to steal it), or after the party encounters bandits (where his presence leads to the option to avoid the encounter because they are friends of his). Or perhaps the criminal simply 'does his job' and proves a trustworthy fellow, and then after dismissing the guy and returning to town they see a wanted poster for the guy with a reward of 10,000 gold peices. And now I'm like, "Do you want to be interested in this story". And again, I can think of dozens of more interesting ways to play this complication.

And then the resolution you provide is so railroady. Ok, so why did the authorities take everyone in? Did the party not get a bluff or diplomacy check to tell the entirely reasonable story they'd just met the man and had no idea he was a wanted criminal to avoid this complication? Could not a PC party potentially intimidate a group of mere town watchmen into letting them go after they turn over the hireling? Could the party not have seen the danger coming and evaded it before the confrontation was immediate? It doesn't seem like this resolution should necessarily lead to complexities or that it necessarily should involve 20 minutes of table time, and if its does then it shouldn't boil down to, "You are given a stern talking to and then released.", because I could play that out a lot faster than that. And if I wasn't going to use the criminal to do anything, why did I introduce him in the first place. That just violates Chekov's rule.

So, we have just spent about an hour and a half on scenes that have nothing to do with our goal. Nor do they further our approach of our goals in the slightest.

You keep trying to treat 'killing the Grell' as your goal. It makes it seem like you are playing 'Orc and Pie' and killing the Orc is your goal. What is your goal actually here? Why did you fight the Grell in the first place? I mean, I know you've turned this into a personal vendeta because there are dead PC's, but before that happened what were you trying to do? Without knowing things like that I can't tell you how I'd try to tie the recruiting of mercenaries to your goals. And frankly, if the players don't have something more intersting to offer in terms of goals than 'we want to kill the grell', I'm going to get bored in a hurry.

What do you think would be the odds that this group would ever try to hire someone again?

I don't know. I know what the odds you would try to hire someone again is, but I'm not sure about groups in general. I hope to God I'm not as incompotent as the DM of your imagination when it comes to providing hooks for play.

Because, IME, it is 100%. Maybe not 100% of the time. But, the odds that its going to happen is pretty close to 100%. And, it's not just you in this thread Celebrim. Look at N'raac's responses. Or Nagol's. Nagol's idea of a "best" person to hire includes someone who is going to kill me in my sleep because I didn't define "best". I mean, can you get any more antagonistic than that?

I don't see it. I think you are taking ludicrously negative interpretations of things that people are saying. Nagol didn't remotely say what you claim he's saying.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

As DM, my bigggest concern on that is that I'd be afraid that the player would see the particular implementation - let's handwave what you are good at and by fiat force you to face something you aren't - as railroady. I'd be afraid of doing things that way without some OOC negotiation with the player, and I'd be afraid that OOC negotiation like that would be a time sink as well as detract from the experience of play. But, if you had high player consent from your players, then I suppose your fine.

As a player, my biggest concern is that it all feels just a little cheesy and gamey to me. I mean granted, this is just a summary of play, but things like the sinkhole swallowing me up at that exact moment would just blow my suspension of disbelief and also cause me to feel (together with the inescapable bang that start this all) that I really had no control over my character or the setting. It feels very much like a game that occurs inside a DM's wacky dream, and not really in a shared narrative space. I'd feel a bit jerked around by DM whim. But that's just a matter of taste I suppose, and it might not be true of how I'd actually experience your session.

I think I might have a way for you and Hussar to relate, if I might use that bit of text.

In his eyes, he's not particularly keen on doing the life story of those mercs. And due to lack of wanting to interact on that level, it's possible or even probable that he'd be bad at hiring them due to lack of interest (and possibly presence of annoyance). To him, that's railroady since, among other things, he's almost certainly going to be better at the combat than the RP because he's far and away more interested in the combat. While it's not handwaving the stuff he's good at, it's certainly delaying it. Likewise, he could feel jerked around by DM whim by unknowingly hiring a criminal and then getting arrested and interrogated. Sure, it could have happened, but the chances that it's going to happen to him and his party are surely such that they shouldn't have to worry about it randomly happening. It feels gamey to him that it happened in the first place. If he wants to control his character such that the desert isn't a problem (and has the potential to do so) then he somewhat expects that he'll be able to do it.

Admittedly there are some differences, but there's similarities. Most of your quibbles are about losing control of your character. One of your primary mode of fun is that you can still keep control of your character. Hussar, however, seems to have more quibbles with the way things happen in the game both for his character and for him on a meta level. He wants to know that the choices he makes can and will be seen through to whatever destination. And sometimes those choices are "I choose to ignore/fast forward this" much like skipping pages in a book. You don't want your character to be tied down by "the game", and he doesn't want himself to be tied down by the game seemingly not being able to handle the scene shift he'd like. See the patterns and relations?

Is that an accurate statement for both of you, Celebrim and Hussar? Is there anything one of you might change or clarify about how I've characterized you? I apologize if I haven't represented you accurately.

I don't see it. I think you are taking ludicrously negative interpretations of things that people are saying. Nagol didn't remotely say what you claim he's saying.

To Hussar, the fact that the DM acknowledges "there could be this circumstance" means there's a good chance it's going to come up. The reasoning behind that, as far as I can tell, is by acknowledging it the DM is more likely to grow attached to it and then decide to try it out. Call it a "pet project" or something similar. And as is often seen, when one person gets a pet project going they can become blind to opposition to it before implementation, and then when it's finally revealed there's a lot of butting heads.

I think one of the things Hussar doesn't like about simulationist games is that they can often become pet projects which the DM isn't willing to let go of or change. Is that accurate to your opinions, @Hussar ? I kind of have the same worries too at times.

 

[Hussar]

You keep trying to treat 'killing the Grell' as your goal. It makes it seem like you are playing 'Orc and Pie' and killing the Orc is your goal. What is your goal actually here? Why did you fight the Grell in the first place? I mean, I know you've turned this into a personal vendeta because there are dead PC's, but before that happened what were you trying to do? Without knowing things like that I can't tell you how I'd try to tie the recruiting of mercenaries to your goals. And frankly, if the players don't have something more intersting to offer in terms of goals than 'we want to kill the grell', I'm going to get bored in a hurry.

And, again, totally fine. But, that's what we want. So, obviously, you're not the right DM for this group. Which is what I've been saying all the way along. Not that your way is wrong. But, that we want different things out of the game. We have a clearly defined goal - kill the grell for killing one of ours. It's not exactly Shakespeare, but, then again, there's a whole lot of stories out there that are based on exactly this.

I've already clearly stated what I want the mercenaries for. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just one job and they're done. That's it.

But, now, apparently, I'm hiring Hannibal Lechter who's going to eat my kidneys, because the DM thinks that would be more interesting. Which is completely missing the point of why I wanted the guys in the first place.

Is it really too much to ask to get what I ask for? Is it really that difficult to just say yes?

Like I said, in my games, you would hire the mercenaries, and the next scene would be outside the grell's lair. The NPC's would all be warrior 1's and pretty much completely under your control. Done.

To him, that's railroady since, among other things, he's almost certainly going to be better at the combat than the RP because he's far and away more interested in the combat. Likewise, he could feel jerked around by DM whim by unknowingly hiring a criminal and then getting arrested and interrogated.

I would take exception to this part since it's not actually combat that I'm all that interested in. In this specific case, sure, it's the combat I'm interested in. But, not generally. I mean, heck, in the other cases, I'm skipping combat to get to the next part. After all, I'm skipping all those encounters with bandits on the way to the city, most of which are likely going to be combat oriented.

It just happens that combat is the goal in this specific case.