D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Poor GMing implies OneTrueWay. See my sig for my thoughts on that.

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

Okay?

Absolutely it's not railroading.

I literally didn't read the rest. Yes, it is. And I don't think we're going to get anywhere discussing it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yup. I wonder if there are any pitfalls to be aware of here. Maybe just basic DM stuff like "have NPCs act appropriately" and "make interesting settings for the PCs to explore".

Yes, very basic things suddenly become very important. AbdulAlhazred mentions this style being "very open to the temptations" just a few posts back, and that's also true. But if you're sticking to this style, it's very important to not give into those temptations. It's important to stay fairly hands-off with the players, yet also inform them of things that their PCs might know about the setting (often with various checks); if you get too involved, the players stop being the driving force of the game (as you -as GM- are not pushing a plot).

Lots of other little things, I'm sure. Pitfalls for every style.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's a huge difference between an RPG and a movie. An RPG is an interactive medium. In that way, it's a lot more like reality than like a novel.

In an RPG you're sitting down and enduring only a very minor risk of injury or death, in that way - and most other ways - it's a lot more like a movie about some heroes in a fantasy world, than the reality of being an adventurer. Also, like a movie, an RPG should make a little bit of sense. Reality feels no such obligation.

But, mostly, playing an RPG is a lot more like playing a game than it is like watching a movie or like reality - because it is, in fact, actually playing a game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think that this tends to lead to a very GM-dominated game.

It's very GM-involved, not dominated.

For instance, a PC tries to persuade an NPC to abandon his/her post because s/he is serving an evil cause. Or tries to persuade an NPC to turn on his/her spouse or lover. In real life, these sorts of things happen. In fiction, these sorts of things happen. In RPG adjudication based on the GM's conception of what is appropriate for the NPC, not so much.

This would be based on the Negotiation check of the character. It would factor the risk vs reward of such a swap (including the reward of virtue, if that's something this NPC valued), and factor in your relationship to the guard (if you're an enemy, it'll be harder than if you're a friend). If you want to know what the NPC values, there are charts that you can roll on to determine personality traits within the system itself (broad personality traits, what drives the NPC to act, a character flaw, and something he questions).

So, I think you're blatantly wrong, here.

Once you introduce mechanical systems that allow the player to have an influence (say, AD&D's loyalty system, influenced by the PC's CHA) or some sort of system of social skill resolution, then a further question arises: why are the players (via choices around PC build, action declaration etc) allowed to influence these pivotal plot events, but not others (eg whether or not they arrive in the nick of time).

Because one is expressed through their character and takes context of the setting into account, while the other ignores the character and rewrites the setting.

And so then one looks to have action resolution mechanics to resolve other pivotal events (like the idea, mentioned multiple times upthread, of a skill challenge to manage time pressures).

Which is also included in my system.

Alternatively, the GM can also set a date and time, and just keep track of time and actions (and tell players how long certain actions will take).

 

[innerdude]

"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.

I'm a bit torn on this idea (recognizing that you're quoting it from a second-hand source, @pemerton). On the one hand, I see the justification for avoiding "boring" scenes by bringing on adversity/conflict to have the PCs engage with. On the other hand, as a GM, I'd feel like I had failed on my part of the bargain if I hadn't set the stakes high enough in the framing material such that those in opposition to the PCs goals are actively generating that conflict as a natural outgrowth.

I would also be uncomfortable with it in an instance where I've framed a scene, in accordance with the PCs expressed goals and prior outcomes, but the players play the characters inconsistently. Suddenly those conflicts and natural outgrowths of prior scenes become moot, or lessened in impact. Am I just supposed to toss aside the "framing" information that governs the stakes? I'd feel like I'm betraying the consistency of the NPC motivations at that point.....and that's wholly unsatisfying. I ultimately don't care how the events play out, but if pieces of scene frames are being ignored, I feel like it's my job as the GM to play out the consequences. If that happens to not play into the PC's "dramatic conflicts," tough luck; those consequences still play out.

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.

On the whole I agree with this----but with the major caveat being that I've never, ever played or GM'd a game where these kinds of "meaningful" choices and character expressions arose where the players didn't have some degree of care and interest FOR the GM's backstory. It doesn't have to be wholesale interest in the GM's 150-page campaign backstory treatise. But it at least has to be enough for the player to say, "Hmmm, that sounds like an interesting point of conflict. Based on what the GM is telling me, I would choose to insert my character THERE. if I really want to get to the 'meaty' choices and conflicts, I have to have some sense of the how and why my PC is making those choices."

On some level this mandates the players having an understanding of what the GM is doing "naturalistically" with the game world. How do events flow around and through the PCs? What existing responsibilities and passions are the PCs invested in to justify their involvement with the "scene frames" they're interacting with? This has been a real problem in a number of campaigns I've played/run. A player creates a decent character concept, but comes up with no way that the character they've chosen would feasibly be involved in the campaign as constructed. I've then had to backfill events (usually hamfistedly and unsuccessfully) to try and keep the character involved somehow.

 

[pemerton]

Absolutely it's not railroading.

Yes, it is.

"It" here is freeze-frame rooms (or similar situations).

In your game, I assume that sometimes the PCs come across NPCs. And you describe those NPCs as doing something - standing around, hoeing the fields, fighting a battle, or whatever else. How do you determine what the NPCs are doing?

Freeze-frame is a decision to have the NPCs doing something that is likely to be interesting/engaging and provoke a response from the players. So instead of just describing the peasants hoeing, you describe one of the peasants complaining that her hoe has just broken on something solid buried in the ground - the thought being that the players (and their PCs) might be curious whether the peasant has just discovered a chest, or a body, or . . .

If it is not railroading to describe the peasant hoeing, why is it railroading to describe the peasant striking something solid in the ground with her hoe?

if it is railroading to describe the peasant hoeing, then how do you introduce NPCs into your game and determine what actions you describe them as performing at the moment the PCs encounter them?

 

[pemerton]

This would be based on the Negotiation check of the character.

<snip>

So, I think you're blatantly wrong, here.

If it's based on a check then the determination is not being made by "what the GM thinks appropriate". It's an example of the mechanical resolution that I went on to describe.

 

[pemerton]

In my game I want the players to be able to determine whether or not they arrive in the nick of time based on time-related choices, e.g. rest, level up, carouse/study/pray, work, research, or adventure. I want the players to make choices related to how they use time as a resource. I don't want it to be part of a skill challenge or action resolution in the way I think you are proposing because, I think, I want to add a more strategic? level of play.

I'm not sure about the "strategic" level. It looks to me like a lot of "say yes" moments, presumably with a few "say no" moments thrown in as well.

A bit like in D&D spending gp is mostly "say yes" as far as the fiction is concerned (and hence just about resource management), whereas in d20 modern or Burning Wheel buying things engages the system of mechanical action resolution.

 

[pemerton]

On freeze-frame vs timelines (which [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] have been discussing above) vs simple setting description, consider the following three instances of GM prep.

The GM preps setting
The GM's setting notes say "On a typical morning at the Garden Gate of the city, wagons, visitors, the odd mercenary etc line up to enter the city. . . [goes on with more detailed description].

The GM preps timeline
The GM's timeline sets out a projected sequence of events in the absence of player interference via their PCs: On day 1 the weapons are smuggled into the city via the Garden Gate; on day 2 the insurrection breaks out; on day 3 the baron's militia takes control of the neighbouring villages; and so on for as many days as the GM thinks are worthwhile to plan for.

The GM preps freeze-frame
The GM's notes say "When/if the PCs come to the Garden Gate, they see an accident - a wagon has tipped over, and the hay spilling out of it has revealed unlawful weapons underneath. Half-a-dozen guards are coming out of the barbican gates as the driver of the wagon tries to blend into the crowd."​

Now, consider an episode of play in which the PCs approach the city in question for the first time, travelling along the road that leads to the Garden Gate.

The first GM describes the scene, reading from his/her setting notes: "You see wagons, visitors, the odd mercenary etc lining up to enter the city . . ."

The second GM looks up the entry on the timeline relevant to the current day of play. So if it's day 1, the GM describes the scene much as the first GM would, though with a mental note that if any PC says they're searching a wagon there is a 50% chance they'll see weapons under the hay. If it's day 3, the GM describes the smoke coming from inside the walls of the city, the baron's militia blockading the Garden Gate from the outside, etc.

The third GM reads from his/her freeze-frame description: "As you approach the gate, you see that a wagon has tipped over on the rough road. There's some sort of commotion, and as you look again you can see why: the hay spilling out of the wagon has revealed weapons hidden underneath it! Half-a-dozen guards are coming out of the barbican gates as you see the driver of the wagon try to run into the crowd. What do you do?"

How is one of these more of a railroad than the other? In each case, the GM is framing the PCs into some fiction. No outcome has been determined. On the face of it, none of them looks like a railroad to me.

Is any of these more conducive to player agency than the other? In the abstract that is hard to answer, but I think everything else being equal perhaps Day 3 of the timeline, or the freeze-frame, is more likely to engage the players and lead to some interesting action declarations than is the description read by the first GM, or Day 1 as read by the second GM.

Is any of them more or less verisimilitudinous? On the face of things, not that I can see.

What is the difference between them, in terms of prep and play experience? To me, it looks like GM 1 has written a boring freeze-frame, and GM 2 is going to give you that boring freeze-frame, or a more interesting one, depending on what day it is on the campaign calendar. GM 3 is going to give you an interesting freeze-frame no matter what.

That is why I said, upthread, the difference between a freeze-frame room and a non-freeze frame room isn't that one has an event occurring and the other doesn't, but rather is that one has an engaging event occurring that probably doesn't extend over a long period (and hence is perhaps more coincidental to stumble upon) whereas the other has a more mundane event occurring that probably extends over a longer period.

To give another example, compare: "the goblins are sitting in the guardroom playing dice" - not freeze-frame - with "the goblins have been playing dice in the guardroom, and a fight has just broken out over who is entitled to the stakes" - freeze-frame. But the difference between the two isn't that something is happening in one but not the other, but that something relatively mundane and extended is happening in one, whereas something interesting and immediate is happening in the other.

My preference as GM is to err on the side of interesting. That has no connection to railroading.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"It" here is freeze-frame rooms (or similar situations).

In your game, I assume that sometimes the PCs come across NPCs. And you describe those NPCs as doing something - standing around, hoeing the fields, fighting a battle, or whatever else. How do you determine what the NPCs are doing?

Generally speaking, I roll for it. "Is so and so available?" Roll d%, set result based on likelihood.

Freeze-frame is a decision to have the NPCs doing something that is likely to be interesting/engaging and provoke a response from the players. So instead of just describing the peasants hoeing, you describe one of the peasants complaining that her hoe has just broken on something solid buried in the ground - the thought being that the players (and their PCs) might be curious whether the peasant has just discovered a chest, or a body, or . . .

It's saying "the PCs will encounter this, no matter their choice. That fits my definition of railroading.

If it is not railroading to describe the peasant hoeing, why is it railroading to describe the peasant striking something solid in the ground with her hoe?

It's not, necessarily?

if it is railroading to describe the peasant hoeing, then how do you introduce NPCs into your game and determine what actions you describe them as performing at the moment the PCs encounter them?

Generally speaking, I roll for it, starting with the most likely avon for their life within the context of where they currently are. If it assigns on my first roll, fine. If not, I start asking questions to narrow it down or inquire about obvious second tasks, if any. Sometimes I'll roll on a couple abstract charts for inspiration, as well.