You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[N'raac]

Well, Umbran, I'm not really sure, since I've always, always maintained that this is an exceptional event that should hopefully never happen in a campaign since it means that whatever complication the DM has put forward is completely disengaging from at least one player at the table, so much so that the player is willing to try to veto the situation.

You also started us off with the statement that

See, I tend to get a bit... shirty when DM's start doing this.

, which suggests it happens with enough frequency for you to evaluate your tendencies when it arises.

Well, I'd say too often would be, "What the table decides." For your table, it would be zero. For mine, it would be, "As often as the DM screwed up and dropped uninteresting complications."

Yet immediately above, you say it should pretty much never happen. And I keep coming back to the desert "completely disengaging" you just at its merest mention.

As to the second, one. AFAIC. It only takes one. I refuse to play at a table where one player outright hating what's going on gets thrown under the bus because two other players are perfectly happy. No thanks. That just means that this is a dysfunctional group.

What if those two players are quite unhappy - let us say, disengaged - if we do NOT play out this scene. Your reasoning for the desert being totally disengaging is that you are fcused exclusivel on the city scene and the desert is in the way. What happens if one player, on arrival at the scene you have pinned all your enjoyment on, says "really not feeling it - can we just skip ahead past this city crap?"

It seems like you assume fun can only be spoiled by playing out undesired scenes. If we refuse to present any esired scenes, could that not also jeopardize someone's enjoyment? Should that not also be addressed?

Umm, what's the difference between the two? You have an entire group with single goals, goals which are nicely tied into the campaign as a whole. Perfectly acceptable group templates AFAIC. Much better than the group where one player has a nebulous "exploration" goal and two of the players have "Stuff to do at home" goals which are completely contradictory and the exploration goal isn't actually linked to the campaign.

And if the reason for those goals is tied to the respective players' vision of the characters an enjoyment of the game, what now? Are you willing to play an "exploration" character next game if the Wizard brings in a "Focused on Activity here at Home" character for this one? Or is this just sacrificing one player's fun for an entire campaign, rather than a single scene?

If everyone had "exploration" or "stuff to do at home" then the whole wizard with a Tardis example never happens and the campaign doesn't go wahoonie shaped and fall apart because the characters have no reason to adventure together.

But you have told us that your agenda might very well accommodate desert exploration or NPC interaction next time, just not this time, so that seems to indicate your goals mutate pretty rapidly. How is the GM supposed to assess whether this is the day you might want what you bitterly rejected last week?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Okay, so - if it only happens once in a blue moon, do we really need 80+ pages of discussion covering how we should change overall approach to play to avoid it in the future? We should undertake an overhaul of how we approach games and frame events for a rare event that can be talked though in a few minutes by mature adults?

No. If it is truly an exceptional event, it should be treated as an exception, a one-off situation. I don't need a system or gaming paradigm for dealing with a player who has a one-time issue.

It started off with "surprising the DM." Asking (or by some interpretations in this thread, telling) the DM to handwave something, even if it rarely happens, is something that needs to be resolved. And it's such a request that it can really screw up a game (and players), so it's potentially worthwhile to discuss ways to work with such a request while not being too disruptive.

 

[Hussar]

You also started us off with the statement that , which suggests it happens with enough frequency for you to evaluate your tendencies when it arises.

Yes, DM roadblocking is a common occurance with many DM's. The fact that several DM's in this thread alone have advocated roadblocking bears that out.

Yet immediately above, you say it should pretty much never happen. And I keep coming back to the desert "completely disengaging" you just at its merest mention.

Actually, it was the whole, "Let's detail out the minutia of how you ride the centipede" that I found completely disengaging. But, yeah, the desert isn't particularly interesting either since we have zero investment in the desert and 100% investment in the goal.

What if those two players are quite unhappy - let us say, disengaged - if we do NOT play out this scene. Your reasoning for the desert being totally disengaging is that you are fcused exclusivel on the city scene and the desert is in the way. What happens if one player, on arrival at the scene you have pinned all your enjoyment on, says "really not feeling it - can we just skip ahead past this city crap?"

This is why you have a group template. The group's goals are such that the city should not be disengaging since the city is a group goal. But, y'know what? I still have no problems with another player saying, "Let's skip this". But more on that later.

It seems like you assume fun can only be spoiled by playing out undesired scenes. If we refuse to present any esired scenes, could that not also jeopardize someone's enjoyment? Should that not also be addressed?

Well, yes. If you, the DM fail to present any desired scenes, I'm thinking that might be a problem. But, again, more on that at the bottom.

And if the reason for those goals is tied to the respective players' vision of the characters an enjoyment of the game, what now? Are you willing to play an "exploration" character next game if the Wizard brings in a "Focused on Activity here at Home" character for this one? Or is this just sacrificing one player's fun for an entire campaign, rather than a single scene?

Certainly I'm willing to play an "exploration" character in the next game. Exploration characters are a blast. I'm more than willing to play in either campaign. What I'm not willing to play in is both campaigns at once. Thus, the whole "Let's have focused campaigns" thing I've been harping about.

But you have told us that your agenda might very well accommodate desert exploration or NPC interaction next time, just not this time, so that seems to indicate your goals mutate pretty rapidly. How is the GM supposed to assess whether this is the day you might want what you bitterly rejected last week?

He shouldn't. Why should he? I'm willing to play things out most of the time, so, it's usually not a problem. Just as it shouldn't be a problem when, that one time, I don't want to. Again, no obligation either way.

Now, here's the bit at the bottom I mentioned above:

If you have five players and you present five scenarios and each scenario is rejected by a different player each time, your table has WAY larger issues than a veto. This is a dysfunctional table and will implode anyway. If the only thing keeping the table from imploding is some bizarre sense of obligation to the DM, I cannot see how this would actually be a fun table to sit at.

If people are veto'ing scenes regularly, again, there's some pretty serious issues at that table. Instead of simply blaming the player, why would we not sit back and try to assess where the real issue is? After all, in the Desert Crossing scenario, it's not that I'm skipping the desert that's the real issue. The real issue is how much should we enforce process simulation at the table. How important is the simulation to the group? If it's very, very important, then the player trying to veto is probably a bad fit for the group and this is a pretty good sign that something needs to change. If it's not very important, then what's the issue with skipping the scene since skipping the scene is perfectly acceptable if the party has the proper in game resources? There must be some other issue at work.

 

[Hussar]

It started off with "surprising the DM." Asking (or by some interpretations in this thread, telling) the DM to handwave something, even if it rarely happens, is something that needs to be resolved. And it's such a request that it can really screw up a game (and players), so it's potentially worthwhile to discuss ways to work with such a request while not being too disruptive.

Considering some of the earlier responses were the DM walking out of the game, or the player being ejected, I'd say it's a pretty touchy subject for some people.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

If it's not very important, then what's the issue with skipping the scene since skipping the scene is perfectly acceptable if the party has the proper in game resources? There must be some other issue at work.

Just noting that during this thread there have been some questions whether it should work for a party that doesn't quite have the resources to do it. I can see that happening sometimes, especially if someone thought something worked but upon further examination of the rules realized it didn't. Then they're in the pickle of wanting to get past the scene but the rules won't let them. The DM/group might let it slide though, especially if it's pretty obvious that the player(s) will find a certain situation pretty much unbearable.

Considering some of the earlier responses were the DM walking out of the game, or the player being ejected, I'd say it's a pretty touchy subject for some people.

Touchy subjects are probably the ones that need to be discussed the most, assuming the participants are mature enough to do so. I'm reminded of how massage helps muscle pain and stiffness, but ignoring it will tend to make it worse. Such things need to be addressed and recognized so that they don't turn into something worse.

 

[Hussar]

JackinthGreen, I agree. This is something that needs to be discussed at tables before play begins. My previous bad experiences came from the fact that this sort of thing wasn't discussed at the outset. I would further say that the reason things like this weren't discussed is because of the fairly strong reactions that it brings out.

No one wants to be "that guy" who is piddling in everyone's corn flakes. Of course not. No one, or at least no one I actually want to game with, is sitting down at the table with the deliberate aim of disrupting the table. Granted, I've played with that guy too over the years, so, I can see where N'raac is coming from.

And, to be honest, I wasn't trying to be "that guy". I wasn't trying to disrupt the table. I honestly feel that my contribution led to a better game. But, I've also realized that things like this have to be laid out very clearly outside of the game, precisely to avoid this sort of problem.

But, I will say this. I've gotten a number of players over the years who have come from tables where fairly strict adherence to the simulation is the norm and in my experience, these players are very gunshy about trying anything that is not specifically allowed by the rules. And, I believe that reticence is a direct result of strict adherence to the simulation. Any time they tried to be creative and try things that are not specifically allowed by the rules, their DM's would spend considerable table time futzing about with what the player considered minutia and basically any "cool" idea was generally far more trouble than it was worth.

That has been my experience anyway.

 

[pemerton]

"Don't hand the group clear cut goals and then expect to roadblock them enough that you will have time to prepare that goal." This is, IMO, the worst reason to throw in complications. "I don't have X prepared, but I do have Y prepared, so, dammit, you're going to do Y until such time as I can prepare X".

If you have clear goals, PREP THOSE FIRST. The stuff in between? That comes second.

Agreed.

After all, in the Desert Crossing scenario, it's not that I'm skipping the desert that's the real issue. The real issue is how much should we enforce process simulation at the table.

Good observation.

Yes, DM roadblocking is a common occurance with many DM's. The fact that several DM's in this thread alone have advocated roadblocking bears that out.

I've gotten a number of players over the years who have come from tables where fairly strict adherence to the simulation is the norm and in my experience, these players are very gunshy about trying anything that is not specifically allowed by the rules. And, I believe that reticence is a direct result of strict adherence to the simulation. Any time they tried to be creative and try things that are not specifically allowed by the rules, their DM's would spend considerable table time futzing about with what the player considered minutia and basically any "cool" idea was generally far more trouble than it was worth.

I agree with you that these sorts of GMing approaches are not terribly uncommon, and that we can even see evidence of them in posts on these boards from time to time.

One of my players, for instance, frames nearly every action declaration not in terms of "I do X" or "[PC name] does X", but as a request: "Can [PC] name do X". But he wasn't born with an innate belief that action declaration - making a move in the fiction with your PC - requires GM permission. He learned that somewhere!

I find a similar outlook to be present in the suggestion that's been made that leveraging the siege to help them with the city would require the players to get the GM's permission, and so is fundamentally no different from waiting for the nomad encounter - as if I can't just declare 'When the next bombardment starts, I find a place on the walls that all the guards have run from and start climbing."

If the only thing keeping the table from imploding is some bizarre sense of obligation to the DM, I cannot see how this would actually be a fun table to sit at.

More agreement from me. Slightly related, I take it as a good sign whenever it is my players who are taking the active steps to schedule our next session. I want them to be keen to play and take charge of organisation outside the game; and to do the same thing when playing the game!

 

[pemerton]

There is a very big difference between asserting, "I will be king someday", and asserting, "I'm the king now."

No doubt. In the sentence, "I am the true king of this land" the word "true" is doing the bridging work. A pretty common useage of "true" that is more-or-less synonymous: "I'm sure my true love is out there somewhere" - someone can be my "true love" in this sense even though I've never met them, may never meet them, and certainly am not currently in a loving relationship with them.

Anyway, in the case of true kingship you could read it as "I am the destined king", perhaps, or "By the lights of the law of nature, I am the king". And I'm sure there are other readings. Whether the possible differences of nuance between these reading matters can't be known before play starts.

For instance, you don't need to know exactly which interpretation (if any) the player has is in mind to know how to respond when s/he declares as his/her PC's action "I walk the streets explaining to anyone who cares to listen, plus plenty who don't, that "King" Tyrannus is an imposter, a traitor, a usurper, and that the true king must be one of the people, not above them. Someone like me!" Bring on the hostile NPCs, and start rolling the dice.

I don't think I would subvert a player's backstory without player permission.

A Beilef is not a statement about backstory. It's role, in play, is future-oriented.

"I'm the king now." when you aren't is already unhinged. Likewise there is a very big difference between leaving up in the air whether the character will in the course of play obtain the throne, and leaving up in the air whether the basic facts of the characters backstory are actually dangerous delusions.

<snip>

I'm rather skeptical that players even of BW are open eyed accepting of the idea that everything in their backstory is in an indeterminate state and could in fact be a delusion

The Belief "I am the true king" is not, in the first instance, nor perhaps at all, a statement about backstory. It's an attempt to shape the plot trajectory - "This campaign is going to be about, among other things, whether or not this guy is the true king".

What true kingship requires, and entails, can't be settled ahead of time. Otherwise there'd be nothing for play to do. The game would be over before it started.

If, in the course of play, it turns out that true kingship requires royal bloodline, it may be that - in the trait vote - the other players vote this particular PC the "Born to be King" trait (this trait can be acquired by starting with the Prince of the Blood lifepath, but that is not the only way to acquire it). Everything else being equal, this might well be a sign that this particular campaign is reaching its climax. But maybe not. Traits can be voted off, too - and maybe if it turns out in play that this PC is not really the true king after all, the trait gets voted off.

There is a very big difference between asserting that the answer to the question of a beliefs factuality could be 'true' or it could 'false', and asserting that it must always be 'null'.

You are missing the relevance of temporality. When the goal-oriented Belief is first framed by the player, it's truth value is not known. By the rules of the game it's truth value can't be known. In particular, a GM who predetermined it's truth value (say via secret backstory), or who in the course of play set out to reveal it as true or as false, would not be doing the job that a BW GM is called up on to do.

Over the course of play the truth value of the Belief may come to be known. When it is known, that may be a sign to swap it out; or even that the campaign is finished (as per Eero Tuovinen, "The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.")

Or perhaps the campaign continues, and the Belief stays, but it no longer serves as a goal but as a "Fate mine" - every time the PC does something which expresses his Belief that he is the true king (eg perhaps the PC, having become king, diligently dispenses justice in his realm), the player earns a Fate point.

I believe a player which creates a peasant with the false belief "I am the rightful king", is wasting everyone's time if thinks that the resulting game is going to be inherently about affirming the truth of his false belief. Either we need to establish in his backstory that he is the rightful king, or at least has reasonable claim to it, or else the player needs to understand that the delusional belief is ridiculous in a peasant.

Once again, this remark evinces a failure to understand the role of the Belief in gameplay. It's not a statement about backstory. It's a future-oriented statement with the function of shaping the content of play (its story content, its thematic content).

Which also illustrates the relationship between No Myth techniques and this sort of narrativist play. For this particular BW campaign to work, there has to be at least one "fact" about the shared fiction which is not established when play starts, and that is open to being established in the course of play - namely, whether or not this PC really is the true king of the land. If that was already authored - already established as true or false within the fiction - then the game would not be playable.

A true king disposed of his throne may claim a right to redress this injustice, both for his own benefit and for the sake of his people. Even so, the rightful king could still be a figure of horror despite having legitimate grounds for his belief. A peasant who is not the true king, who attempts to redress the imagined injustice on the basis of his delusional rights is always an object of horror.

Forming this sort of moral or political judgement in advance is also at odds with BW and BW-style GMing.

In my 4e game, the wizard-invoker cultist of the Raven Queen and Erathis has a pathological hatred of hobgolins, orcs and the like. This is because the PC's home city was razed by humanoid hordes. In one episode of play, the PCs were fighting some hobgoblins who had attacked a refugee camp, where the human victims of hobgoblin raids had gathered. The fighting took place on either side of a low rise - and while the rest of the PCs went over the rise in pursuit of the main hobgoblin force, this one PC stayed on the camp side, to deal with the handful of hobgoblins who had grabbed children and were running off with them. The PC used a Colour Spray to knock the hogoblins unconscious without harming the children. He then - to the surprise and horror of those in the fiction who saw it, and to the surprise of everyone at the table too - drew a sword from one of the hobgoblin's scabbards and used it to slit the hobgoblins' throats.

Now, my best published work is on the ethics of warfare. I have strong, well-developed and (I like to think) deep views on the matter; and also on the matter of punishment. (Given board rules, I won't share them.) But as a GM in the BW-style (though GMing a different system, 4e) it is not my job to pass judgement on this action by the PC. By all means I can use story elements to place pressure on the PC, and the player - narrate the horror of some, perhaps the nods of others, and so on. And the other players can play their PCs as they see fit. But for instance, to have the Raven Queen or Erathis turn up and express a view one way or the other - in particular, say, to have them turn up and condemn the PC as a murderer - would be a GMing error by my lights. It would be to foreclose the very issue that the player, by playing this PC in this way, is putting forward as something to be worked out by and in the course of play.

This is a big part of what I was trying to get at in post 826 upthread, as well as some similar posts that preceded it. This is the heart of my narrativist play.

 

[Libramarian]

As is often the case, much depends on the details of play and context.

Upthread, for instance, @N'raac suggested that if the desert is going to be handwaved, it may as well be a pleasant meadow. My reply is that sometimes we want a desert as colour, but don't want to muck around with all the mechanical resolution that a desert could entail, because the desert is not the point: it's a backdrop to something else. Now here are 3 options: (1) include the backdrop that we all want; (2) include play focused only on what we're all interested in; (3) resolve, in mechanical detail, all actions that, by the lights of the game's action resolution mechanics, have a chance of failure that is procedurally consequential (eg risk of death or injury, noticeable resource depletion, etc).

How do different games and styles deliver on these options? As @Libramarian and I discussed on another fairly recent thread, very trad dungeon-crawling D&D delivers on all 3, by including as backdrop only whacky underworlds or mad wildernesses where every path the PCs might take will deliver over-the-top Gygaxian action.

But loosen up your constraints on backdrop - eg allow deserts, or oceans, or cities - and the pressures change. You can only get all 3, at that point, if (2) - the things we're all interested in as a focus of play - is expanded to encompass any procedural challenge the PCs might confront. As best I understand @N'raac 's position in this thread, it is that this understanding of (2) is the default way of playing D&D, or perhaps all RPGs, and is perhaps (? I'm less confident here in interpreting N'raac's posts) the only tenable way of RPGing.

@Umbran 's idea of "meaningful choices" defined in more-or-less procedural terms also seems to take a similar view of (2).

"Say yes" play becomes relevant when (1) - the backdrop - is loosened up, so the gameworld is not gerrymandered into "adventureland" in trad dungeon crawling fashion, while (2) is narrowed, so that "the things we're all interested in as the focus of play" is not just "whatever happens, as determined by action resolution procedures appied and adjudicated by the GM", but something much more specific. "Say yes" reconciles the latent tension between (1) and (2) by providing a methodology for dispensing with (3). (On its own it's probably not enough. For instance, BW combines it with "Let it Ride" and "Intent and Task"; 4e is a bit different from BW, but has very scene-focused resolution and consequence mechanics. RM is unhelpful for this approach because even if the GM wants to say yes, the resolution and consequence mechanics keep telling you "You can't just say yes, because that would not pay sufficient regard to all the mechancial consequences that are flowing from that previous episode of resolution".)

Really nice post here pemerton Makes a lot of sense to me. The fact that trad dungeoncrawling does all 3 is one of my favourite things about it. When I tell people I like sandboxing in the future I will be sure to make clear that I'm talking about "adventureland" sandboxing, not simulationist sandboxing. That's an important distinction.

 

[Nagol]

Considering some of the earlier responses were the DM walking out of the game, or the player being ejected, I'd say it's a pretty touchy subject for some people.

I disagree. Most of those are examples of quick diagnoses of dysfunction and taking swift action to deal with it. "That guy" can destabilize and break apart otherwise solid groups or tank a game the rest are having fun with. If "that guy" is the DM, he should recognize it and leave as quickly as possible. If "that guy" is a player he should be quarantined from the group play as quickly as possible.