You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

Wow, after I have been accused of constructing strawmen, I wonder why the same criticism doesn't apply here.

I would not consider asking the GM to take suggestions controversial. But Hussar is not asking, nor suggesting. He has indicated the only acceptable action on the part of the GM is to provide him with six ready for combat mercenaries at the price list he considers appropriate (I assume there was a price established somewhere) who will carry out his wishes, engage in deadly combat, then walk away, never to be seen again. No other action is acceptable, and no distraction between this immediate hiring and the combat with the Grell is tolerable. If the GM were imposing similar restrictions on Hussar as a player, how do you think would that be received?

Umm, no? What I am suggesting is that adding in a bunch of completely irrelavent material is not something I want.

Hussar wanted to hire mercenaries and the GM framed a “hiring mercenaries” scene. Hussar wants this, and the centipede, scenes to play out exactly in accordance of his preconception of how things should go. How is it any more acceptable for a player to demand absolute control over the scene than for a GM to demand absolute control over the scene?

Umm, no? I want the centipede scene not to consist of an endless string of pointless skill checks that have no relevance to achieving our goal. All the rest of it, you added in later.

I have yet to read any statement by Hussar regarding the other players in the scene, other than (I believe) a comment that, when he offered to “give up the spotlight” to cut the scene, their indication that there was no need to do so. That doesn’t strike me as the other players having a similar desire to skip the scene.

And I keep telling you that it doesn't matter. Unless you favor your fun over someone at the table expressly stating that they are not enjoying what you are doing. At which time I can excuse myself from the table.

/snip

I am still waiting for Hussar to tell us how he knew the wasteland was an irrelevant distraction before the characters even set foot in it. To recap, he decided he did not want to be bothered with crossing the desert. He proposed the “summon centipede” solution to avoid encountering that scene at all. So how does he know the scene would have been an irrelevant distraction? The GM didn’t force him to play it out, but accepted the centipede solution, so maybe that indicates the GM agreed it was an irrelevant distraction best resolved quickly, and was happy for the ability to do so. However, if the GM were to describe a frenetic trip on centipedeback through part of the wasteland, interrupted with an encounter the centipede did not permit be readily avoided, I don’t see how Hussar would immediately know this encounter is irrelevant, not to mention whether it was a pre-existing planned encounter or was modified or cut from whole cloth simply to frustrate the success of his brilliant plan, to allow him to dismiss the scene, sight unseen, as “bad Gming”.

Like him, you seem to have had some bad experiences with GM styles you disliked, and you project this on every real or hypothetical scenario presented.

Perhaps. However, what difference does it make, even if I'm wrong. You keep ignoring the fact that we had a goal here. What's wrong with wanting to cut to the goal? Actually, scratch that question. I WANT TO CUT TO THE GOAL. Can I state that any clearer? Is there any room for misunderstanding there.

Now, you would find that not fun at your table. Totally groovy. It's only a playstyle difference. But, for me? I DO NOT WANT TO PLAY OUT A BUNCH OF EXTRANEOUS STUFF.

I’m not in favour of GM fiat being the sole determinant. Neither, however, am I in favour of one player’s fiat being the sole determinant, and that is what I perceive when any suggestion that the results of any player’s plan should be perfectly as he envisions them, with no possibility of complications that prevent the scene he has in his mind playing out as he has scripted it.

Yeah, and this would be the crux of the strawman. If I was doing this every scene? Sure, I'm a problem. But, when every single suggestion, every single player initiated action, leads to endless strings of play that I do not enjoy? Yeah, it's time for me to leave the table. And, yes, discussing the life stories of random hirelings for forty minutes would be not fun for me. I don't want to do it. Nor do I want every time I hire mercenaries to be Russian Roulette of which NPC is going to screw me this time?

It seems to me that a game focused on compartmentalized scenes (nothing is permitted to intrude on our GrellQuest until we have wreaked our vengeance; we want to get to City B, so no scene short of arrival at City B should be considered) would be very episodic in nature, more so than even the previously noted "play from one published module to the next" campaigns many gamers have experienced. Is that episodic structure more consistent with what you're looking for, @Hussar ? It strikes me as having the potential to be viewed as a series of smaller campaigns with recurring characters, such that the completion of each scenario could be viewed as "closure", avoiding that "it just trailed off and never got the payoff" feeling you have expressed disappointment with.

Yup. No problems whatsoever with this style of game. This would make me pretty happy. I thought we'd actually covered this some time back. But, yeah, far more episodic in nature.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Ok, let's go back to the hiring the mercenaries example. We hire the criminal and don't get caught. We get into the grell, dispatch the grell and the mercenaries go on their merry way.

Okay, with you so far. Good job, you killed the grell!

So, is the DM going to simply let all this go?

Yes.

All that "interesting NPC background" just gets left out and we carry on?

Yes.

After all, since the players don't actually know any of this, they don't care. So, again, why did we bother spending all that time talking to the NPC's?

Fun. Interaction with a "real" world. Makin contacts that you might use later.

Somehow I highly, highly doubt that any DM that is going to go through all the trouble developing this level of background is going to just let it go because the players decided not to pick up on it. It's far more likely, IMO, that the DM is going to force the players to interact with this stuff.

"IMO", or "IME"? Because, if it's "IMO" then I disagree, and if it's "IME", then "ME" differs.

Really, you seem to think the GM is out to get you. Don't worry, I'm not. I'm just using NPCs with motivations, like real people have. And that grell will have a reason to be where it is. And the town will have a real reason to hire you. And so on. It's just a style of game, not an all-out assault on players. I'm not out to ruin the fun my players want; I'm here to have fun and enhance their fun.

You don't like that kind of game, which is fine. But, why try to take shots at people who do? The whole "the GM will force people to do this" thing is totally unnecessary. If you feel you've been misrepresented or attacked in this thread, are you just doing it to other people out of some need to take shots back? I don't know, man. The whole "the GM will make the game unfun" thing is getting old. The GMs you say that to seem to be saying that good things and bad things can happen, and you seem to be saying "then bad things will always happen." No, they won't. They will sometimes, though. But hey, that's a lot of fun for some groups to explore. Why put it in the worst possible light? As always, play what you like

On "railroading", for me at least the key is not the role of GM force in framing, but GM force in resolution.

I agree with this. In my "Running a Game" chapter of my RPG, I describe railroading as "when your players arrive at the same destination regardless of the choices they make." That's not how you set up challenges in your game, from what I've read of them, or my understanding of them. I do describe that as "heavy-handed GMing", however, but I definitely don't use the negative terms that I use for railroading (my RPG says "Heavy-handed GMing forces decisions").

You can be very heavy-handed (by my book's definition) without railroading the players. And, you'd probably need to, if you're going to attempt your "all drama / tension, all the time" play style. I played a non-RPG game, one night, with my friends, where we sat around, and I presented a problem, and they would come to the "best" way to deal with it. As soon as they did, I'd introduce a new complication, and they'd "solve" it again. Then I'd introduce a new complication, etc. It was fun (and more fun with dice and a setting, in my opinion).

and it's player choice in combination with the action resolution mechanics (and I'm guessing in Manbearcat's game that all dice are rolled out on the table) that will play a key role in determining where things end up.

I think this is mostly true, though my understanding of his table is certain things are a little more "scripted" beforehand. Not anywhere near completely, but a player will tell manbearcat that he's interested in doing, say, a fall-and-redemption story in this campaign / story arc / whatever, and they'll work that in. I do agree with your statement, just wanted to clarify in the thread that, as far as I know, his style is a little more than that (though hopefully he'll correct me if I'm off). As always, play what you like

 

[MaliceX]

As a long time dm/gm, i would like to point out that using dust like that on a basilisk would greatly amuse me. Battle tactics would require a grapple attack and hold as in battle no one is actually standing still "waiting for their initiative order" (unless caught flat-footed). I always tend to give players enough rope, they usually end up using it on themselves anyways. But good role-playing should not just be rewarded, but encouraged. As a player I notice a lot of other gm's with "control" issues. I am one of the those fortunate enough to have spent a month to put together an adventure ( maps, script, npc's, unique treasures, main villian, the works), and sat back and watched the party destroy it all with in an hour. lol. But, that is why we as gm's do it. Let go of the "control" is all I am saying. We make the monsters, give out the treasures, pick the rules, and use our own house rules. I like to make a good story out of a gaming session, but, I need the input of the actors so I can be a better director. I hope this helps, and good gaming! MaliceX.

 

[Hussar]

Okay, with you so far. Good job, you killed the grell!

Yes.

Yes.

Fun. Interaction with a "real" world. Makin contacts that you might use later.

But, see, this last part? DON'T CARE. I don't want to. That's something that keeps getting left out of the discussion. I don't want to do this. And, before the strawmen start coming out, by "this" I mean this particular scene. I do not want to talk to these people. I would not interact with these NPC's in any way, if I didn't have to. Learning their life story is not part of anything. I simply do not care.

"IMO", or "IME"? Because, if it's "IMO" then I disagree, and if it's "IME", then "ME" differs.

Both actually. I've never seen a DM who creates 50 pages of desert backstory then be perfectly fine leaving it on the floor if the players choose to ignore it. After all, I was told some pages ago that this was a perfectly good reason for the DM to force me to interact with the desert/wasteland. So, why is that a good reason, but this isn't?

Really, you seem to think the GM is out to get you. Don't worry, I'm not. I'm just using NPCs with motivations, like real people have. And that grell will have a reason to be where it is. And the town will have a real reason to hire you. And so on. It's just a style of game, not an all-out assault on players. I'm not out to ruin the fun my players want; I'm here to have fun and enhance their fun.

Fair enough. But, why are you forcing me into play that I don't want? Why are you adding complications when there are already things to do in the game? If I was just hiring camp guards and then bringing them along for an extended period? Ok, fine. There's all sorts of ways to add in the interactions. But, in this specific example, they are there for a specific reason. Why add in a bunch of extraneous stuff when it's not needed, and, if the players have their way, will never actually come up in play?

You don't like that kind of game, which is fine. But, why try to take shots at people who do? The whole "the GM will force people to do this" thing is totally unnecessary. If you feel you've been misrepresented or attacked in this thread, are you just doing it to other people out of some need to take shots back? I don't know, man. The whole "the GM will make the game unfun" thing is getting old. The GMs you say that to seem to be saying that good things and bad things can happen, and you seem to be saying "then bad things will always happen." No, they won't. They will sometimes, though. But hey, that's a lot of fun for some groups to explore. Why put it in the worst possible light? As always, play what you like

Yes, they will. Because, over a long enough span of time, "sometimes" becomes always. Not every time, of course. But, it will happen.

Which means that the players have to treat every time as "this" time. Because, if they don't, then the sometimes will come up and bite them on the ass. Say that a bad thing will happen sometimes. The first three times we hire hirelings, nothing bad happens. So, we don't check. We don't bother playing through a bunch of pointless interactions, because the last three times we did, it was pointless because there was nothing to find. Then the fourth time, we miss the doppleganger and the entire party dies in their sleep. Or the thief steals our stuff. Or the spy reports on us. Whatever. The point is, unless we treat EVERY situation as the "sometimes" situation, we're going to have problems.

So, play grinds to a crawl because we have to treat every situation as being potentially hostile. At some point, the players are simply going to stop bothering trying things like this because they get tired of playing pixelbitching games with the DM where they have to "find the complication".

So, yes, this is why I feel that the GM is forcing people to do this. And nothing in this thread has convinced me of anything different. When GM's interpret "best" as hiring someone who will kill me in my sleep? Yeah, that's about as antagonistic as it gets. When I get a lame horse if I don't play through buying a horse? Even if I buy five horses no problem, I still have to play through every single time, because I have no idea when the "lame horse" complication is going to happen. When I am going to miss necessary resources if I don't mine every scene, despite having no actual connection to or interest in the scene? Because if I don't mine every scene, I'm going to have to come back later and do it anyway.

Do you really consider this to be good DMing advice?

 

[Hussar]

A later thought. ((Maybe I'm thinking too much about this thread. ))

Take the example of hiring the hirelings and getting a wanted criminal. Now, the DM adds in the complication of the wanted criminal. But, this complication is completely separate from the players' stated goals. In fact, this complication does nothing to further these goals whatsoever and can only serve to delay or distract from their goals. At best it's a wash and the players don't interact with it. At worst, significant table time is spent on a sidebar complication that is not relevant.

My advice to DM's is, don't do this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding in complications. But, do so with the goals of the players in mind.

Compare the two desert city examples - the city is under siege and there are desert bandits. Now, in the city siege example, the DM has added a complication that is directly related to our goals. Obviously we cannot simply walk into a city under siege. Additionally, if the siege is successful, maybe our goals will be lost - thus adding a nice, possible, time pressure. As an added bonus, the siege might actually be turned into a resource - the PC's could potentially join the siege and help break into the city in order to reach their goal. It's possible and presents the players with a broad range of choices for achieving their goals. Great.

Now take the desert nomads example with a prisoner. In order for this to become relevant to the players, they must first interact with the nomads, presumably defeating them in some manner in order to secure the release of a prisoner they don't even know exists and then finally interact with that prisoner in such a way that he reveals that he has resources that will help the players. In other words, there is no relevance to this complication for the players until the very end of things. The players are very much disconnected from the entire scenario until the very last.

I don't know about you, but, I find that incredibly frustrating as a player. Note, also, that the desert nomads example can go seriously badly. If the prisoner is killed, if the players choose not to interact with the nomads, if the players interact with the nomads for some time and then give up and go on - all of these invalidate any relevance the scenario has for the players.

I've been asked repeatedly how I know that the desert isn't relevant. It's not relevant because there is nothing prepared beforehand to make it relevant. All of the relevance is invested in the goal - the city. Why would I interact with the nomads? I have no particular reason for doing so. At best, again, it's a distraction and a delay. Adding in a Macguffin at the end of the scenario in an attempt to retroactively add relevance rarely works IMO. Instead you have signficant time spent in frustration followed by a very brief, "Oh, that's why we did that." moment.

My advice to DM's. If it's not relevant and by relevant I mean relevant to the players, don't do it.

 

[pemerton]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding in complications. But, do so with the goals of the players in mind.

Compare the two desert city examples - the city is under siege and there are desert bandits. Now, in the city siege example, the DM has added a complication that is directly related to our goals. Obviously we cannot simply walk into a city under siege. Additionally, if the siege is successful, maybe our goals will be lost - thus adding a nice, possible, time pressure. As an added bonus, the siege might actually be turned into a resource - the PC's could potentially join the siege and help break into the city in order to reach their goal. It's possible and presents the players with a broad range of choices for achieving their goals. Great.

Now take the desert nomads example with a prisoner. In order for this to become relevant to the players, they must first interact with the nomads, presumably defeating them in some manner in order to secure the release of a prisoner they don't even know exists and then finally interact with that prisoner in such a way that he reveals that he has resources that will help the players. In other words, there is no relevance to this complication for the players until the very end of things. The players are very much disconnected from the entire scenario until the very last.

I don't know about you, but, I find that incredibly frustrating as a player. Note, also, that the desert nomads example can go seriously badly. If the prisoner is killed, if the players choose not to interact with the nomads, if the players interact with the nomads for some time and then give up and go on - all of these invalidate any relevance the scenario has for the players.

I've been asked repeatedly how I know that the desert isn't relevant. It's not relevant because there is nothing prepared beforehand to make it relevant.

<snip>

My advice to DM's. If it's not relevant and by relevant I mean relevant to the players, don't do it.

This is excellent GMing advice, which in my own case I had to work out myself because when I started GMing there was no one writing this sort of stuff in GM manuals, and many published adventures and published advice seemed to go the other way.

It also provides [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] a clearer explanation than I've apparently been able to give of the contrast between the siege and the desert as complications in the journey to City B.

 

[Hussar]

This is excellent GMing advice, which in my own case I had to work out myself because when I started GMing there was no one writing this sort of stuff in GM manuals, and many published adventures and published advice seemed to go the other way.

It also provides [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] a clearer explanation than I've apparently been able to give of the contrast between the siege and the desert as complications in the journey to City B.

I can totally agree with the gaming advice bit. This is about as far from Gygaxian D&D as you can get. Honestly, and I'm not trying to start anything resembling an edition war here, I think this is why the 4e DMG resonates with me. The advice like, "skip over the gate guards" makes perfect sense to me. But, looking at this thread, I can see why it annoyed the crap out of others.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to have to break this up into multiple posts as its just too much stuff and I don't have the time to type this all out this evening. I will try to find the time tomorrow evening to fully scribe the entirety of the "idol, chase, gorge" scene. If I can do it tomorrow, I will fully detail each aspect/technique/mechanical resolution/narrative rendering with respect to the below definitions that I'm working off of. You guys can then pick it apart as you see fit. Fully canvassed play examples help clarity I suppose. To the definition cave:


Agency - Authority or control over characters' thematically-significant content and (meaningful) decisions and the mechanical resolution of those (meaningful) decisions.

Force - The Technique of assuming control over characters' thematically-significant (meaningful) decisions and the mechanical resolution of those (meaningful) decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. Significant application of this by a GM will lead to Railroading (below).

Railroading - A technique of scene, setting, and/or story design/preparation in which the GM has prepared a rising conflict/climax and maneuvers or otherwise determines that character activity inexorably leads to this scenario.

Conflict resolution (orthodox Forge +) - A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on the thematic context, stakes and aggregate components of a macro-conflict or challenge a hand, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.

Example: In a test of riding a horse in a chase scene, you aren’t just testing the component acumen of “riding (a horse)”. You may be testing (i) galloping full bore on a horse through the adrenaline fog of a life or death scenario, while simultaneously (ii) trying to keep an eye out for obscured/scant trail-markers to choose the correct path to freedom, (iii) navigating treacherous (uneven, craggy, rock-filled tundra) terrain, (iv) trying to dodge artillery, (v) trying to keep track of the status of your allies, (vi) all with the heavy stakes at hand that if you don’t get a proffered idol to a village so a ritual can be performed, hundreds of innocent men, women and children will die. Any one of 1 – 5 can be “causal mechanisms” for Failing Forward or having Success with Complications until the conflict mechanically resolves itself. What’s more, every stage of the conflict should be framed within the context of 6; the stakes at hand…the reason for the non-combat conflict resolution.

Task resolution (orthodox Forge + ) - A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Neither thematic context, stakes, nor interplay with the multi-variable components of a conflict frame the resolution of this micro-action. Contrast with Conflict resolution.

Example: You mechanically resolve (if character assets dictate a check is required) a singular test such as "riding a horse". Success or failure will be narrowly framed as a derivative of the singular component acumen of "riding".


One thing to note is that my table does not hold "Agency" as an all or nothing premise. 100 % agency in 9 out of 10 framed circumstances (90 % of the time) does not translate to 0 % agency. The GM liberty to frame a scenario (as in the MHRP advice I quoted upthread) that does not impinge upon a player's thematic content (eg don't frame a master infiltrator as a caught amateur) to begin a scene is not "Agency-adverse". Now, anything resembling regular application of GM force to (i) misrepresent a player's thematic content while framing, or encroach upon a player's autonomy in their thematically-significant decisions and mechanical resolution of those decisions is VERY "Agency-adverse". I've consulted with my 3 players and they all stridently agree on this interpretation; and it doesn't happen at my table.

Second to last thing of note; my table is somewhat unorthodox in the way I handle narrative rendering of conflict resolution. Again, I'll go to MHRP as it depicts precisely how I (and everyone else I'm sure) handle things in the orthodox fashion and then it touches upon the unorthodox technique of enlisting players to author their own outcomes (failing forwards or success with complications) or allowing them authorial control over framing the ultimate outcome to the conflict. This is very unorthodox (and controversial), I'm certainly aware, but my players enjoy it when I grant them that authority now and again and I enjoy being put on the spot in framing the transition and the next scene with respect to the continuity they have imposed upon the narrative.

MHRP OM 38 and 39

Typically, the Scene itself ends in one of two ways. Either the heroes stop the villains, avert disaster, and claim victory over the challenge, or the alternative happens. In either case, the situation is resolved, even if it's not how the players might like! The Watcher summarizes the action so far, touches base with each player to note where his or her hero ended up, and then frames the next Scene (Transition or Action).

<On success> ...the heroes are looking good and the villains are on the ropes, ask the players how they want to wrap it up. Ask questions just like you do t the beginning of a Scene. If a major villain's involved, present a tough choice to the heroes, though make it clear that they've won something even if the villain's presence colors it somewhat.

​

"Baron Strucker's clutching his side and hurling insults at you as his forces disperse. You can capture him, or you can stop his troops from getting away with the crime syndicate leader. What do you do?"

<On failure>...the Scene is going against the heroes, or they're struggling against insurmountable odds, you can bring the Scene to a close and invite the players to describe how they lost or what they had to sacrifice.

"The crime syndicate leader has escaped and the Hydra forces have all scattered. The steak house is on fire and collapsing all around you. How did you get out of there, and what else did it cost you?"

Bringing the players in on this underscores how important they are as the writer/artist of their heroes <advocating for their protagonist>.

Last thing of note; a few rambling issues that I have with ardent process-simulation and adherence to methodical task resolution:

1 - No matter how good the "simulator" (the GM interpreting the task resolution and the system mechanically resolving it), it is limited in its introduction of one of the (if not the) most potent forces of everyday life and of Action Adventure genre specifically; Entropy or Murphy's Law. This is because the "causal logic" behind many phenomenon is so intensely steeped in 2nd and 3rd order (borderline unknowable and undetectable) functions. Strict process simulation cannot produce a man jogging on the beach and getting hit by prop plane. It does not bring about a man in Bradenton, Florida, laying his head down to sleep and the floor under his bedroom opening up and swallowing him causing him to never be heard/seen from again. Neither the "jogging" nor the “laying down to sleep” task resolution functionality cause the prop plan loss of control and "perfect" trajectory with the runner nor the sinkhole manifestation. Nor could any other action that either of those men undertake in those circumstances. Pilot error + catastrophic mechanical breakdown (and possible downburst) caused this. The slow deterioration of the bedrock limestone/sand bedrock beneath the property due to prolonged exposure to moisture and natural earth movement caused this. They just happened to have been there and committed the last human “recorded action” that took place before Murphy showed up.

2 - It doesn't reliably reproduce the genre stories/tropes and thus provide consistent content to address the premises that my groups' collective creative agenda seeks to engage with.

 

[pemerton]

I can totally agree with the gaming advice bit. This is about as far from Gygaxian D&D as you can get. Honestly, and I'm not trying to start anything resembling an edition war here, I think this is why the 4e DMG resonates with me. The advice like, "skip over the gate guards" makes perfect sense to me. But, looking at this thread, I can see why it annoyed the crap out of others.

Likewise to all of that in my own case. I quickly discovered that I didn't enjoy Gygaxian D&D and (whether because of that or independently) wasn't particularly good at running it. For me Oriental Adventures in 1986 started to make clear an alternative pathway.

I've made some comments upthread about the GMs who did the desert stuff and the hireling stuff you've complained about perhaps being influenced by mid-to-late 80s style advice along the lines of "combat bad, GM narration and "immersion" good and the key to "true" RPGing". Do you think there's any plausibility in my diagnosis?

 

[Manbearcat]

I think this is mostly true, though my understanding of his table is certain things are a little more "scripted" beforehand. Not anywhere near completely, but a player will tell manbearcat that he's interested in doing, say, a fall-and-redemption story in this campaign / story arc / whatever, and they'll work that in. I do agree with your statement, just wanted to clarify in the thread that, as far as I know, his style is a little more than that (though hopefully he'll correct me if I'm off). As always, play what you like

That's as good an encapsulation as any I suppose. Nothing too controversial I don't think. I just try to make sure that we've coordinated enough regarding each player's thematic content such that I can challenge it appropriately and address their premise coherently. I'm sure most folks do something similar to one degree or another; pemerton for his campaign asked his players to have a cosmological hook (I think?) and to have a reason to fight goblins. I'm sure you do generally the same thing. It seems you tend to like your players (or perhaps it is better put to say they like it themselves) to have some eccentricity or something that sets them apart that you can challenge and that they can explore. Same deal.