D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't know anything about your GM other than this report - but as you report it, it sounds like bad GMing (framing a PC into a situation that can't be meaningfully resolved by that PC); and also illusionism - the GM "had to make up something later". That is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about upthread when I referred to manipulation of the backstory so as to undo the effects of resolving an encounter.

My Pathfinder GM is exceptionally by-the-book. (Part of me suspects that by-the-book procedural type players gravitate toward Pathfinder.) He was just playing the AP as it was written. I blame the designers for presenting this encounter in these terms.

Why? If the dice would dictate an unexpected thing happens, why not just have the GM decide that an unexpected thing happens?

It's about perception. If the GM decides than an unexpected thing happens, then it feels contrived; if the dice decide that an unexpected thing happens, then it feels fortuitous.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In 1st ed AD&D, mercenary hirelings could include officer-types: sergeants (1st level), lieutenants (2nd-3rd level) and captains (4th-7th level). These NPCs had the abilities of a fighter of their level, but were stated to be unable to gain levels.

This is just one of the factors that makes me think of gaining levels in AD&D as a PC-oriented, "winning/losing" thing (as you have characterised it). It was not primarily about modelling a person's development of skill.

Interesting point, I hadn't even thought of it as PRIMARILY a measure of player skill, but I guess it could be. That would be a very purely 'gamist' sort of interpretation I guess. I'm sure that there was at least somewhat of a veneer of narrative cover for this even in the prototypal games of D&D though.

OTOH 1e had the 'player rating factor' which was used to multiply the amount of time and GP required to train to the next level once you achieved the requisite XP. IIRC it varies from 1 to 4, so it is a pretty LARGE factor (given the very hefty GP cost of this training these ratings hold a lot of weight). Since it rated the PLAYER, not the character, it was both utterly subjective and very certainly getting a low rating was a 'mark of excellence' (though to be honest I never played with a group that seriously attempted to enforce this rule, we just assumed a '1' for every player, lest there be howls of outrage and favoritism).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My Pathfinder GM is exceptionally by-the-book. (Part of me suspects that by-the-book procedural type players gravitate toward Pathfinder.) He was just playing the AP as it was written. I blame the designers for presenting this encounter in these terms.

It's about perception. If the GM decides than an unexpected thing happens, then it feels contrived; if the dice decide that an unexpected thing happens, then it feels fortuitous.

I will reiterate essentially what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said though, this is the classic result of the "spec everything up front and never vary it" approach which you espouse. The adventure writer could not foresee the players splitting up, there are just too many different variables, especially with high level play. In fact he may well have just assumed that a high level optimized PF caster wouldn't NEED the rest of the party to dust off a demon. In any event, there will always be these unforeseen situations, which are then of course 'patched up' by the DM. Obviously we espouse a style of play in which this just doesn't happen to start with.

 

[Manbearcat]

Since GM Force and Illusionism are, at their heart, questions about the nature of agency at the table, I'd be curious what folks think about the various types of player agency out there. In another post in the 5e forums I posted the below. Check out the bolded bit. Agreed on those two types of player agency? Any other types of player agency that I didn't capture?

I'm not really sure how we go from my post (which is specifically about GM subordinating player agency through the application of force) to your post (which asserts the trivially obvious; that GMs are inevitably going to have an impact on the trajectory of play due to all that goes into being a Games Master - reading players', hopefully, telegraphed cues of their thematic interests, framing of conflicts, playing the PCs' adversity, sorting out the fallout, making rulings in corner cases, etc) as a rebuttal. I mean no one would disagree with that general position. But just because GMs will inevitably have an impact on the trajectory of what emerges at the table, it doesn't mean that one can't qualitatively assess the immediate, and potential, impact of force upon player agency.

There are two main types of player agency as I see it. The type that @ExploderWizard is advocating for and is present in all games of D&D. This is strategic/tactical player agency. The right to make informed strategic and tactical decisions and have play outcomes authentically be driven by them.

Then there is thematic player agency. The right of a player to advocate for their PC's thematic interests/protagonism, whatever flavor that might take, and to make decisions/answer the bell when those thematic interests/that protganism is challenged during play...and have relevant play outcomes emerge authentically as a result of the player advocating for their PC.

In either case, if the system's play procedures mandate that some form of fortune resolution is required to derive the outcome, then it is handled without force/manipulation. This ensures that the player's strategic/tactical/thematic agency in that particular situation is intact. That whatever immediate fallout, and latent knock-on fallout down the line, accrues (good or bad) is driven/earned by the player's capacity/will to act (rather than the GM's suspension of that capacity/will and imposition of their own in its place).

Again, back to my example of my Dungeon World game. If the system was less transparent from a play procedure persoective and/or had the GM rolling some of the dice, I could have covertly subordinated the player's agency to my own desires (for whatever reason). I could have turned their earned "dragon as ally" into "dragon as enemy". That application of force would have triggered immediate fallout (now you're fighting an ancient dragon and maybe dieing or securing its hoard!) and that immediate fallout (driven by my overwriting of player agency with "my script") would have rippled, dynamically and potently, throughout the rest of foreseeable play. A certain part of the signal of their future agency (if it wasn't removed because they're now dead!) would be irrevocably impacted by the noise of my application of force in that one situation.

Any other "player agency-neutral" role that I might play as GM isn't of my concern in this specific situation.


Quick relevant aside (because it was brought up). In sports, the issue of team/player agency is an enormous one. For instance, 3rd and 15 and the defense gets off the field forcing a punt. But wait! Flag on the field! The refs have just called a brutally tickey tack/questionable illegal contact, maybe even away from the play (yay!) on a receiver right at 5 yards (or perhaps the receiver may have initiated the contact). Boom. 1st down + field position + defense still on the field and demoralized + other team maintains momentum. There is no getting around it. That is a huge, huge, huge call in that game after the defense (and their fans surely!) feels that they rightly earned the ball back for their offense. Same thing goes for "hit on a defenseless receiver", "roughing the QB", or the ridiculously nebuluos "make a football move" garbage that was written in the rules after they screwed up the Calvin Johnson catch a few years back (and then went on to screw others such as the Dez Bryant catch these last playoffs). Of course this is where the "let them play (!)" meme comes from. It is all about players/teams/fans decrying the subordination of the teams' on-the-field efforts to a referees (mis) judgement (specifically where nebulous rules are involved)...and having outcomes infected by it or outright derived from it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

For me I think this ties back into the idea of a naturalistic world and how to maintain that while still allowing players to have agency (making informed decisions that affect the outcome of the game).

Which will be the case the overwhelming majority of the time.

Why? and how?

Because, just like real life, most decisions are formed based on context. So, the players make choices based on information they possess or make up about their characters (my character dislikes the taste of alcohol, for example).

So, for example, a large portion of my last session:[sblock]The PCs started in the largest city in a particular nation under the watch of the noble house that one of the PC's belonged to. He had traveled here because of word that his mother was gravely ill, and had arrived a week too late. She had left him a letter telling him how she felt about him and asking him to perform a couple specific tasks (including finding a good woman), but the PC was more interested in her cause of death.

This PC (R) had two older brothers who had been with their mother before she passed on. They were both magicians, and had detected that the illness had been initially brought about by magic. Since R had received information that his birth mother (not his adopted mother, who had just passed) had also died to a magically inflicted illness by one of his enemies, he suspected that the same thing had happened.

Based on this assumption, he convinced the other two PCs (one of which is secretly his father) and his two brothers to accompany him to investigate. He also asked for the blessing from the duchess of his house, and she went beyond that and gave him a letter saying he could acquire up to 225 soldiers to look into this (since R suspected it was a powerful necromancer who had cursed his mother, and she might have between 75 and 200 subjects of her own).

With that, they left south, and arrived at a city where they could acquire said troops. On arrival, beggars approached, but one adolescent girl was more persistent than the others. She begged and begged for the arriving lords (R and his two brothers) to save her, and promised that she was willing to work. When she reached for R, he pulled back, as a thought struck him: his noble house was particularly known for being close to the common folk, and he knew that his mother had visited family in this city just before coming home and becoming ill. He asked the gate guards about it, and they remembered (with a check; but many of these things had checks involved) this woman and four others arriving to give a care package (some bread and other cheap food) to R's mother before she left in return for the kindness she had shown them in-town.

The players hypothesized that the care package may have been the carrier of the curse, either diseased itself or cursed to disease her at a certain point. R and his brothers asked the guards to round up the five beggars, and then R went to the local baroness to ask for her help (who promised R the troops as soon as a patrol arrived two days from now). R went to go see the captain of the city watch, but had to wait (again, checks for this, etc.).

When the captain was available, he revealed that he had been busy rounding up the suspects and questioning them. Of the five beggars, four were alive and detained, but the fifth had died to exposure on the streets a few weeks ago. This was odd, because the noble house that ruled the city gave shelter to the homeless when the temperature demanded it. So, the captain wanted to look into that. Also, all four beggars said that they got the care package from a local baker, who wanted to give something back to the noble house anonymously, since they had recently helped her out. This pointed to the baker being involved. Investigation revealed that her name matched a nearby serf from the farmland around the city, which seemed legal, but it was unclear how she got the silver required to open a shop in the large city.

A day of investigation by the players and the guards took place. The baker seemed legitimate, but it was still unclear how she got her silver. Also, the adolescent girl was apparently newly homeless, after the fifth beggar (the one dead from exposure) had bribed her struggling family (he gave them 100 silver to feed their five other children if they promised to kick out the 13-year-old girl). His motives were unclear, and nobody knew how the beggar got his hands on the 100 silver necessary to bribe the family.

With a lot of mysterious money appearing but no names, the only link left was the baker. They approached her and brought her back to the garrison for questioning, sending guards back to tend to her oven. While questioning her (and finding out that she was hiding something), a guard burst in, yelling that there was a magic user at the bakery attacking guards. All the PCs were alerted, and ran to the bakery (leaving one of the brothers and the guard captain to continue questioning the baker in a more hurried manner).

On arrival, the fight was over. The woman had tried attacking the guards that had come into the bakery, but they had apparently killed her. The bakery was searched, and a secret cache was found with about 100 silver, a magic starmetal sword (both very rare in the setting), and a pocket of gems used purely for necromantic purposes. These were all gathered and brought back to the garrison.

On arrival, the captain had found out some information from the baker. She had apparently been blackmailed and threatened by the necromancer, who had paid for her shop and was using her as a front of sorts. She had been living and hiding in the shop, and it was her who had provided the care package to the baker, who had then passed it on to the beggars. The PCs assumed that it was the necromancer who had provided the 100 silver to the beggar for him to bribe the family (and later killed him for some reason), but had no proof.

Afterwards, they dealt with the body (and after finding out she was still alive, struck a secret deal with the baroness and smuggled her out of the city). They then made their way back to the city where they had started the session.[/sblock]
Now, at every decision point, the players have context in what they're basing their decisions on. Information revealed (from investigation or from NPC tips [which may or may not be true]), knowledge of the setting (how this noble house generally treats the common people, how certain NPCs might act), facts about PCs (R values honor and justice, which is why he argued with his sister that he must personally see to this task, instead of entrusting it to the military; also, he said that if he wasn't willing to risk his own life, how could he ask other soldiers to?).

All of these decisions are made with the context of what's led them up to this point. That's why PC histories are required (and why I have two different mechanics to help flesh those out), so that even at the beginning of a campaign, you know where you're coming from, you have personality traits picked out (mechanically, even), and so on.

The scenario we've been talking about (the fork) could hypothetically happen, sure. But the overwhelming majority of the time, who have this naturalistic world (how NPCs act and react to events, random events, etc.) where the players retain great player agency ("making informed decisions that affect the outcome of the game"). That was basically my entire last session (and the session before it, and before it, etc...).

Does that make sense?

 

[JamesonCourage]

So is the hypothetical you are inviting us to consider this one?

1. The GM tells the players they come to a left/right "fork". The players choose one or the other. Whichever they choose, the GM tells them that their PCs come upon the cultists about to sacrifice the prisoners.​

Or is it this one?

2. The GM tells the players they come to a left/right "fork". If the players choose the right, their PCs will come upon the cultists about to sacrifice the prisoners. If they choose the left, their PCs will come upon something else (let's say, the office/library); and if, following that, the PCs then go down the right path, they will come upon the cultists about to sacrifice the prisoners.​

​

I mainly meant (1), but (2) works just as well.

My view of (1) is that the whole thing looks like poor GMing (with a possible exception - see below).

This seems like "bad adventure design," which -as I said- I don't care about discussing. So I'm snipping your comments on that and replying to the rest.

(2), on the other hand, is completely standard for a wide range of play approaches.

And?

Adventure paths have "freeze frame" rooms or situations.

And? What about it?

For the reasons I've set out at length upthread, mostly in conversation with @Saelorn, I think it would completely deprotagonise the players, who are searching for the prisoners, to have the prisoners killed off-screen.

I don't think it necessarily would, but it would be a big blow to them (as protagonists). But either way, I understand wanting the stakes to still be high and thus framing the scene so that the prisoners are still alive (and probably threatened).

And if I wanted to make time a factor, there are plenty of ways of incorporating that (eg via skill challenge) which would mean that the deaths didn't happen in a way disconnected from the players' knowing participation in the process of action resolution.

And?

I don't get what you're aiming at with these statements. Are you defending it as fun? I said I do it in my superhero one-shots, and my group finds that fun. Are you saying that it's not railroading? Because, by my definition, it is (as I've shown). Are you trying to show me that people play this way? Of course they do (and I think I've said as much, not that I'd need to if we're having this discussion).

What is the point, exactly?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I will reiterate essentially what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said though, this is the classic result of the "spec everything up front and never vary it" approach which you espouse. The adventure writer could not foresee the players splitting up, there are just too many different variables, especially with high level play. In fact he may well have just assumed that a high level optimized PF caster wouldn't NEED the rest of the party to dust off a demon. In any event, there will always be these unforeseen situations, which are then of course 'patched up' by the DM. Obviously we espouse a style of play in which this just doesn't happen to start with.

I'm confused here. This demon scenario would never occur in the style I use. It was a freeze frame, triggered by the presence of the PCs, and my style (mostly) ignores the existence of the PCs when determining what would happen. By necessity, my style also tends to not rely on mandatory scenes with a required outcome that can be failed if the PCs aren't in exactly the right place at the right time.

The closest thing I've seen to my own style, in print, was an old Shadowrun module that I tried running in the nineties. The whole thing took place over the course of a week, and there was a timeline for important things that were supposed to happen each day, which the PCs could either stumble into randomly or learn about in advance with sufficient recon. If there was a problem with that style, it's that there wasn't enough advice given for how to adjust the pre-determined schedule based on how the PCs interfere with events.

 

[pemerton]

This seems like "bad adventure design"

I characterised it as poor GMing. Given that you're the one who raised it, I thought you might have some views on it also.

And?

I was setting out my take on the hypothetical in question.

Are you saying that it's not railroading?

Absolutely it's not railroading. Freeze-frame rooms aren't railroading. The room has to be in some state or other: inhabited or uninhabited; a sacrifice taking place or not taking place; the gaoler present feeding the prisoners, or not; the torturer warming up the irons, or not; the room inhabitant using the chamber pot, or not. All that distinguishes a freeze-frame room is that the default state is one that is more interesting, and more particular, to a narrow-span of time:

So rather than just standing around (which might happen over minutes or hours), the torturer is about to interrogate the victim (which is an event that occurs over only a few seconds);

Rather than just standing around guarding the prisoners (which might happen over hours or days), the gnolls are preparing to sacrifice them (which is an event that occurs over a period of minutes);

etc]​

There is nothing more rail-roady about the second description than the first - they are just different alternatives for narrating the state of the room when the PCs enter it.

If the players have declared some prior action that might affect the gnolls, or the torturer, or the existence of irons, or the availability of coal to heat them, then there may be issue of railroading (outcomes that occur regardless of player choices); but nothing of that sort is at play in the typical freeze-frame room.

It's about perception. If the GM decides than an unexpected thing happens, then it feels contrived; if the dice decide that an unexpected thing happens, then it feels fortuitous.

This is one reason why, in the old modules, as well as freeze-frame rooms you get rooms with a % chance to have this NPC, or that monster, in them when the PCs arrive. (It's not the only reason; another reason for that sort of randomisation is that it puts another challenge in the path of the players, because they can't reconnoitre with certainty.)

My personal view is that if a piece of fictional content is OK to introduce on the basis of a random roll (eg not unbalanced, destructive of verisimilitude, etc) then it is OK to introduce it by fiat. That means it important to know when your random rolls are contributing to mechanical balance (say, in making wandering monster rolls, rolling reactions, etc) and when they are not (typically, deciding which inn the mysterious stranger is staying at, what her hair colour is, etc). Gygax gestures towards this in his DMG, when he disavows fudging to make the PCs win a combat but gives the nod to fudging to allow the PCs to discover a secret door that will lead to a particular sub-level. In the latter case, he is assuming that this is not an issue of balance but simply of introducing content into the game. In a campaign that involved a lot of player vs player competition (like [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has been describing upthread) then letting one group of players find the secret door by fiat rather than roll would be unbalancing, and hence the GM shouldn't do it.

My Pathfinder GM is exceptionally by-the-book. (Part of me suspects that by-the-book procedural type players gravitate toward Pathfinder.) He was just playing the AP as it was written. I blame the designers for presenting this encounter in these terms.

This demon scenario would never occur in the style I use. It was a freeze frame, triggered by the presence of the PCs, and my style (mostly) ignores the existence of the PCs when determining what would happen. By necessity, my style also tends to not rely on mandatory scenes with a required outcome that can be failed if the PCs aren't in exactly the right place at the right time.

I don't know anything about the module other than what you've said. If it's an AP, with "mandatory scenes with required outcomes" then it sounds like a pretty standard railroad.

From my point of view, there is no such thing as a "mandatory scene" or a "required outcome"[/url]. My goal as GM is interesting scenes, and the outcomes are what they are. The best pieces of advice I've seen that articulate these principles come from Ron Edwards and Paul Czege:

Edwards, replying to another forum member
I was working with a relationship map, not with a plot in mind. I had a bunch of NPCs. Whatever happened, I'd play them, which is to say, I'd decide what they did and said. You should see that I simply gave up the reins of "how the story will go" (plot authority) entirely. I'm pretty sure that you're reluctant to give up those reins despite experience, in your play-history, that lets you know that they don't work very well.

I think [your problem] has nothing at all to do with distributed authority, but rather with the group members' shared trust that situational authority is going to get exerted for maximal enjoyment among everyone. If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . . It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the [shared fiction] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.

Czege, also replying to another forum member
I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​

I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. . . .when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

Both of them point to the importance of the fiction into which the GM frames the PCs being interesting and engaging for the players. Both point to the role of GM-decision-making in this process (ie it is intentional, and needs to be responsive to the players). Czege points out the absence of secret backstory: from the players' point of view, the main goal of play is not to discover the GM's secret backstory, but rather to make meaningful decisions for their PCs ("meaningful" in the sense of expressing something about the character that is important to the player) which then create the context in which new scenes can be framed.

Applying this to the module example: if a GM is using a module that has an interesting freeze-frame, and mishandles it, that's on the GM. The GM's role (by my lights) is not to run "mandatory scenes" forcing towards "required outcomes" and then, as in the episode of play you mentioned, illusionistically manipulate the backstory to get things "back on track" when the players depart from the script.

That's not a reason for module writers not to write freeze-frames, though. Anyone can come up with the idea of an empty room where nothing ever happens! It's coming up with interesting and engaging ideas that's hard!

The 3E module Speaker in Dreams has a "freeze-frame": when the PCs go to a certain part of town, a certain sort of attack will take place (strange aberrant worms breaking up through the street). When I used elements of that module in my 4e game, I ignore that freeze-frame because it seemed to me that it provided nothing I that would be interesting to me or my players. But when the PCs assaulted the cultists' lair, I did use the module's description for who was where. Those are, in a sense, freeze-frames also (none of the NPCs was tied up, glued to the floor, etc), although not as interesting as the more noteworthy ones.

 

[pemerton]

Interesting point, I hadn't even thought of it as PRIMARILY a measure of player skill, but I guess it could be. That would be a very purely 'gamist' sort of interpretation I guess. I'm sure that there was at least somewhat of a veneer of narrative cover for this even in the prototypal games of D&D though.

Sure, but I think the veneer sometimes gets pretty thin!

NPCs have levels, in the sense of having a measure of power. But in classic D&D I don't think we're really supposed to imagine them having "earned" those levels through clever dungeoneering. We just assume that the causal processes that operate in the world bring it about that, over time, some people (but not all people) get better at the stuff they do.

1e had the 'player rating factor' which was used to multiply the amount of time and GP required to train to the next level once you achieved the requisite XP. IIRC it varies from 1 to 4, so it is a pretty LARGE factor (given the very hefty GP cost of this training these ratings hold a lot of weight). Since it rated the PLAYER, not the character, it was both utterly subjective and very certainly getting a low rating was a 'mark of excellence' (though to be honest I never played with a group that seriously attempted to enforce this rule, we just assumed a '1' for every player, lest there be howls of outrage and favoritism).

We likewise assumed a "1", for the same reasons!

I don't know if Gygax ever used this system or not. I posted about it a while ago in a thread debating about whether or not pre-4e editions of D&D had "roles" related to character classes. I think it is strong evidence that, at least as written, AD&D classes did have expected roles.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm confused here. This demon scenario would never occur in the style I use. It was a freeze frame, triggered by the presence of the PCs, and my style (mostly) ignores the existence of the PCs when determining what would happen. By necessity, my style also tends to not rely on mandatory scenes with a required outcome that can be failed if the PCs aren't in exactly the right place at the right time.

The closest thing I've seen to my own style, in print, was an old Shadowrun module that I tried running in the nineties. The whole thing took place over the course of a week, and there was a timeline for important things that were supposed to happen each day, which the PCs could either stumble into randomly or learn about in advance with sufficient recon. If there was a problem with that style, it's that there wasn't enough advice given for how to adjust the pre-determined schedule based on how the PCs interfere with events.

Yeah, as I said way back about 50 or 100 pages ago, my opinion of complex timelines is that they generally fall apart pretty soon due to the complexity of interactions of the PCs with the events in the timeline. I'm sure its quite possible to construct adventures where this isn't an issue. OTOH I do think you're equally giving up a lot. Presumably in your style of play there can't be much impact to whether the PCs rescue the person from the demon or not, since clearly there's no way to determine what will happen. This particular scene can thus only offer 'soft' impacts on the plot, if the PCs rescue the person they gain some advantage later on, but the course of events proceeds roughly as before and they could succeed either way. The alternative of course being that you write 2 very different scenarios and only use one of them.