That's what I was thinking intially, too - but @
N'raac introduced the idea of the PCs also being competent to hunt down non-juvenile dragons
I raised the question specifically in response to your statement that any player group should be able to succeed in getting past the Chamberlain to see the King, but that this same “any group can succeed” methodology should not extend to defeating enemies in combat. I find that inconsistent.
Some games can reduce or remove the inconsistency – typically games which are not designed on a “zero to hero” model, so games which lack character levels through which the characters become steadily and markedly more powerful as the game progresses. Maybe the other Indie examples are not focused on substantial power gains as the characters gain experience.
And even in success, they had to make choices which change the fiction - for instance, outing the king and the chamberlain as weak, and potentially also deceptive. That sort of thing matters, at least in my experience. It sets important context and material for the framing and the resolution of future situations.
Or it contradicts the setting backstory (backstory we don’t, because we are dealing out of context, have). When the party arrived, I perceived them seeking the blessing of the good and noble king for their quest. When that scene ended, do they still even want that blessing? Their quest seems to have vanished as an element of play with all the new issues raised, diverting them from a quest I hope would have been relevant to that time.
The players previously had no idea dragons/drakes are ever seen in the city, but now we find they routinely visit the King to collect tribute (including, apparently, his subjects). It’s unreasonable that the players don’t know in advance whether they have any chance, or whether it is likely, to get an audience with the King, but it’s perfectly reasonable that the kingdom they perceive as noble, righteous and secure is actually routinely trading, in a heavily populated area, with dragons they must appease at any cost.
Could it be an awesome game? Sure. Is this somehow superior from discovering the obstinate Chamberlain will not let us see the king, and needing to regroup to plan how to deal with that issue? Not automatically. That could also be an awesome game.
Again, what I really saw from that example was “shared storytelling”. The scene either created or modified substantial backstory and set up challenges very different than those the players began the scene focused on (ie their Quest). The Ranger scene was a step along the way through a broader storyline (and a setback rather than a success, but that’s all part of the story).
How might matters have unfolded if the ranger had missed? @
Manbearcat doesn't tell us, but one possibility could have been that the drake leaps past the ranger and chows down on the chamberlain! It seems likely that the players would still have succeeded at the challenge overall, routing the drakes and meeting the king, but getting to meet the king, and getting him to agree to provide aid, over the body of the dead chamberlain would be very different, in the fiction, from what actually happened.
Very different from “the Chamberlain points to the King to deal with it – he’s out of here”? Either way, the Chamberlain seems much less a player than he was at the start of the scene. My vision saw the Chamberlain as an important NPC, and one who starts out as an adversary. The Chamberlain we received was a bit part. His elimination wouldn’t seem to mean much.
And here we observe another playstyle difference. I want a game in which the mechanics ensure that the best way for me, as player, to impact the scene via my PC - which is what I take you to mean by "tactically best choice" - is a way that will give voice and expression to my character's personality.
Let us assume that the “tactically best choice” in further negotiations with the King is to offer him a way to just sweep the whole “commiserating with dragons” thing under the rug, or even to allow it to continue – that’s the best way to get what we want to continue with our quest. Is it good role playing for the Paladin to take that route, or would good role playing see him take a more difficult approach, or perhaps even forego the King’s blessing rather than compromise his beliefs?
I personally would never play in the way you described upthread about the wizard who casts the Wall of Iron despite the player knowing there is no mechanical threat; or the fighter who looks into the eyes of the umber hulk; and I would never expect my players to do so. I am always looking for ways to use my resources, as a player, to maximise my ability to impact the scene, and want mechanics that ensure that doing this will express the distinctive personality of my PC.
And this is where I see “tactics override personality”. I want a game where PC’s can have strengths and weaknesses, where they may well make suboptimal choices tactically because that is where their personalities would lead them, and where the game play is capable of accommodating this.
You can see another instance if you look at the PC sheet I posted. The character has strong Intimidate and Diplomacy but comparatively weak Insight. He is overbearing but lacks empathy and understanding of the motives, particularly the more subtle motives, of others. For that to come out in play, all I have to do is play him off the sheet!, deploying the resources it gives me. And that is a deliberate design choice on my part in building this character - I think issues of nobility vs humility are at the core of playing a paladin (they're not all that's at that core, but they're definitely there).
So when a situation arises where the better tactic is to seek an understanding and accommodation, does your Paladin still (in a tactically poor approach) use his typical overbearing approach, or does a hand on his shoulder and a cautionary word from another party member cause him to override his personality and shut up for the scene so those with better Insight can bring the best tactical approach to success?
The goal of the scene was not "Defeat the drakes". It was "Meet the king and get him to give aid." Or, as @
Manbearcat put it, "The entirety of the Skill Challenge will be to get to and convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings in their effort to hunt and defeat the dragon."
The successful Intimidate check against the drakes is a means to that goal. It doesn't achieve some other goal.
The goal of the specific roll in question, which succeeded, was to avoid retribution on the city (or at least that is how it was presented in context). It succeeded. “You can’t fail by succeeding, full stop” and “a greater threat to the city brought by the Drake” seem inconsistent. The latter seems like great gaming but contradicts what I believe @
TwoSix indicated to be a hard and fast rule of Indie style.
You said, as I understand it, that you are happy to run a scene in which the players cannot change the Chamberlain's mind, but can only acquire backstory that the GM dispenses to them. Your idea, as I understand it, is to frame a scene in which the fictional positioning that underpins the PCs' actions (as declared by their players) is basically secret, and they might uncover it in the course of finding out why their actions fail - or, perhaps, learn from their actions failing that they need to uncover it, and then go off and do that.
Yes, I am fine (as both a GM and a player) with a scene of that nature. I am much happier with that than the GM saying “Your fictional positioning means you cannot succeed – I will not run a scene with the Chamberlain”. As I think on it, however, both come to the same result – we must determine how to alter our fictional positioning to enable success in such a challenge. However, I want to learn of the issues as a player through the actions and experiences of my character.
An example from play – the group was told flat out by the GM that the swamp we are about to pass through is ruled by a Dragon we can’t hope to defeat, so guys, please don’t go there. The player response was that his character (and the rest of our characters) have no way of knowing that the dragon is there, or that we can’t possibly defeat it (I forget which – it has been a lot of years), so he needs an in-character reason. Result: the character (a multiclass character) experienced a vision from his deity that night, reflecting ill omens should the party proceed through the swamp. In character reason given so we can move on.
This is like "Schroedinger's NPCs" discussed above after I quoted Paul Czege about keeping NPC personalities somewhat unfixed prior to play, so as to be able to realise them in play in the course of pushing and pulling at the players.
It seems incongruous to me that, after our wily rogue gathered info on the town and the kingdom, let us assume successfully, that no indication of these Drakes came to light, that the King is viewed as good and righteous, and that his vigilence means we all sleep securely in our beds. That secret backstory would seem jarring to me in a non-Indie game. It seems no less jarring because a player, rather than the GM, threw this new development in. It seems far more jarring than “No, the Chamberlain will not arrange a meeting with the King”.
I have had posters on earlier threads dealing with these sorts of issues tell me that they wouldn't like playing in this sort of way because the world is "not real" - it's all just "paper scenery". I can't recall if you've expressed a view on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you had that view.
That’s a decent summary.
But I think reasonably liberal use of no myth techniques is pretty mainstream in "indie" play, precisely because it lets you establish a rich backstory without the risk of deprotagonisation resulting from adjudication via GM reference to secret backstory.
I don’t find it any more conducive to a good game whether created by the GM or a player.
I used the verb "thespianise", to describe the opportunities open to players playing their PCs in a situation - like your version of the obdurate chamberlain - in which they cannot actually change the fiction via the play of their PCs. If you think there are opportunities in this scene that don't involve mere "thespianising" - that don't involve funny voices and shoe sizes - then please tell me (and others) what those opportunities are. It's not my style - so I might well have missed them!
How your characters react to failure is as relevant to their personalities as how they pursue, or react to, success. I mentioned way upthread that the manner in which the Chamberlain is treated in this scene could well influence results when the impediment preventing his co-operation is removed.
