I think there's a big difference between having a GM inherently determine outcomes, and a GM framing a situation based on the character's fictional position, setting, cultural dynamics, and interrelationships with the other in-world participants. If, as a GM, I've framed a situation where a particular noble A) has clearly made it known through edict, "Wanted" posters, direct communication through underlings, etc., that he doesn't want anything to do with the PCs, and B) will instruct people under his influence to arrest the PCs on sight, then I don't think it's unreasonable to forcefully apply the effects of that fictional positioning should the PCs attempt to enter a location directly under the influence of that noble.
If the PCs simply roll into town without any thought given to what will happen, then yeah, they don't deserve to "interact with their player mechanics" when the bulk of the town guard descends on them to arrest them.
hidden backstory is also essential. If the players don't get the sense that there's a real world out there somewhere, if they get the sense that they're being spoon-fed a specific scenario as opposed to participating in a dynamic living world, they're likely to get bored and quit.
I think innerdude's example shows that there is no special connection between a "real world" that is "dynamic and living" and "hidden backstory". The whole point of innerdude's example is that the backstory is known to the players, as part of the framing of the situation which they are engaging via their PCs.
But as to whether innerdude's situation precludes social action by the PCs - I don't see how it does. Can't the players have their PCs try to intimidate the soldiers sent to arrest them? Or even persuade one (via bribery, seduction or whatever else) to change sides?
if the situation arises where a player wants to use Diplomacy on an NPC, an the DM doesn't think a check is warranted, the DM wins.
I am, however, stating that in any discussion of this game in this public space, we should assume that the above text is how the game works.
What you state is not the rule for 4e, and I don't see why, when discussing the next edition of D&D in a public space I should assume that 3E rather than 4e rules apply (after all, there is a reason I play 4e and do not play 3E).
The following passages are from the 4e PHB (pp 179, 183) and the 4e DMG (pp 73-75):
Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . .
Make a Diplomacy check to change opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron, to demonstrate proper etiquette and decorum, or to negotiate a deal in good faith.
A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you (friendly or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC. Diplomacy is usually used in a skill challenge that requires a number of successes, but the DM might call for a Diplomacy check in other situations.
When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this . . . skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . .
Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. Stay on your toes, and let whatever improvised skill uses they come up with guide the rewards and penalties you apply afterward. Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun. . .
Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . .
In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . .
However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . . Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.
The 4e GM has overall authority over fictional positioning, and hence whether or not a Diplomacy check "makes sense" within the fictional context. And s/he is in charge of setting the DC for that check. But s/he has no general authority to decide that a Diplomacy check is "not warranted" and hence fails automatically, or cannot be attempted.
The DM is in charge of everything not because he is always right, but because having someone be in charge enables the game to run quickly and smoothly.
Nothing in my RPGing experience bears this out. For the game to run quickly and smoothly it helps for participants to be on the same page, genre-wise, and to be working with the same ruleset. Neither of these conditions requires that the GM be in charge of everything.
Have a few details that the players don't know, and then they start thinking, and fleshing out innumerable other aspects of the world in their own heads. The power of imagination is much more important than the power of game rules.
The force of innerdude's example depends upon the players knowing why the noble and his/her soldiers are opposing the PCs. If the players just walk into town and are attacked by soldiers, but don't know that the noble has it in for them, they might "start fleshing out innumerable other aspects of the world in their heads", but I don't see particularly how that relates to playing the game. It is like speculating about whodunit when reading a novel.
When I play an RPG I am not setting out to learn what the GM had in mind.
Tolkien was the king of hidden backstory.
What do you have in mind? I've just reread LotR - very little is hidden from the reader. Whatever its virtues, suspense is not really one of them.
Bad faith? What the heck are you talking about with bad faith?
For me, the "bad faith" came up in the context of "the PCs simply roll[ing] into town without any thought given to what will happen". That's not an experience I've ever had in my many years of GMing - the players are generally very keen to engage the fictional situation in which the PCs find themselves. So I find [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]'s characterisation of those players rather out of touch with my own experiences.
Whereas the ingame situation that he describes strikes me as completely typical. But not an example of the players having no prospect of successful social actions for their PCs.
What if the player's attempts are actually irrelevant?
And why is it wrong for the DM to have pre-defined results in mind?
My view on this is that the players' action declarations for their PCs are, by definition, never irrelevant. If the GM has framed the PCs into a scene (eg the one that innerdude describes) then the most relevant thing is the players' action declarations for their PCs.
And the reason why it is wrong for the GM to have a pre-defined result in mind, for me, is the same as the one that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has stated: it substitutes GM narration for playing the game.
"Game world consistency" is the biggest overstated argument I am aware of.
<snip>
Nine times out of ten decisions made to support the consistency of the gameworld do so at the expense of the believability of the game world as well as at the expense of the fun everyone is having.
This is so true that I've quoted it twice! The idea that the GM must veto players' declared actions for their PCs, or rule those actions automatic failures, in order to preserve consistency, strikes me as misguided. The players' conception of the ingame situation, and hence of what is possible within it, is as important as the GM's. Part of the GM's job is to translate that into mechanical framing, using the resources that the game provides.
Railroading implies taking choices (or apparent choices) away from players through restriction or subversion, which you can't do if they never had (or reasonably believed they had) those choices to begin with.
That's one of the reasons I picked the whole audience with the king example in the first place. A reasonable player would not expect success from this action (barring some extraordinary circumstances; it's a generic example), so he's not being railroaded if he tries something like that and quite predictably fails.
the whole point of the example was to show something that is obviously an inappropriate request from the player.
If the prospect of failure is so self-evident, then why is the scene even being framed? Why bring the king into the ingame situation at all if the players can't meaningfully declare PC actions in relation to him?Tell the players in advance so they can do something else worthwhile with their play time.
But in fact I don't see why no reasonable player would expect to be able to meet and influence a king. Gandalf and Aragorn do so, repeatedly, in LotR. Conan does so, repeatedly, in the REH stories. And these are the ostensible models for our RPGing. I don't think it's at all inappropriate for players to want their PCs to engage in similar sorts of adventures.
Most of the fiction that inspires D&D fiction isn't much fun. LotR certainly isn't. Nor is Lovecraft. Conan, maybe.
I've just recently re-read LotR, following a re-watching of the movies. Both experiences were a pleasure. (If I didn't enjoy them, I wouldn't watch/read them.) I want RPGing to be comparably pleasurable.
Deciding that some avenues are closed off doesn't make the game a railroad
It's getting pretty close for my taste. Once the closing off of those avenues is determined by reference to hidden backstory to which the players don't have access, my personal line has been crossed.
But how are 5 and 6 (guaranteed "no") any more or less railroad-y than 1 or 2 (guaranteed "yes")?
For me, there is a pretty clear difference. The players getting what they want by the GM saying yes is not a railroad. It's letting the players steer the engine.
If the players wanted a big fight, and instead the GM just "says yes", that's a problem: the players wanted drama and got anti-climax. I think it's a different sort of problem from railroading though, and at least for me less toxic to the RPGing experience.
If we go back to the other example way above (the one that pemerton gives about resolving a hostile encounter through a skill challenge rather than attack rolls and combat actions), that isn't a call that I would have made. It's probably one that I would have objected to as a player, even if it may have benefited me. I don't think it was the right decision (based on the limited information that was provided), and I don't particularly like the underlying mechanics that allow such an uncertain situation.
The situation in question was not a "hostile encounter". The 11th level PCs, in the course of defeating a small force of 20-odd hobgoblins and hangers on, had captured and tamed the behemoth. They then drove it over a cliff to provide meat for the villagers whom they had saved from the hobgoblins.
The benefit the players got from resolving it as a skill challenge was (i) it took up less time at the table then invoking the combat mechanics would take, and (ii) we didn't have to worry about how the falling mechanics might have to be adjusted to handle behemoths rather than roughly human-sized humanoids.
Whether or not you like the game system, I don't possibly see how you can be saying you don't think it was the right decision. I'm not sure what the normative framework is that you're using, but I don't see any in the neighbourhood that can yield that conclusion. At the worst, it could be a case of "saying yes" that led to anti-climax, but as someone who was there I can say that no anti-climax ensued.
Everything is due to the DM. If you're the players, you're either tracking your own internal goals, or your success is manifest in part through your ability to achieve the DMs vision, and in part through your ability to persuade him of the merits of yours.
To put it another way, the idea of a success that is manifest in the game world and is contrary to the DM's vision is nonsensical.
This bears basically no resemblance to how I GM RPGs, nor to what I am looking for when I play an RPG. It is not inherent to RPGing. Nor is it inherent to D&D. For instance, there is nothing in the core 4e rulebooks that supports this conception of playing D&D, nor in Gygax's AD&D books. It strike me as peculiar to 2nd ed AD&D and a certain sort of approach (far from uniform, I would say) to 3E.
One thing I learned from some players was that if I don't say no authoritatively and frequently, they'll behave like rampaging psychopaths (their characters will too).
I have not had this experience. Perhaps it is more localised than you think.
