D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[The Crimson Binome]

I understand that "neutrality" is the leading goal here. What I do not understand is what the added value of this is. What does it bring to the game table that any DM picking something plausible without consulting a table but instead focussing on what is the players/PCs clear story focus does not?

Authenticity? As a player, I find it disrespectful for the DM to alter events within the game world based on stuff that doesn't exist within the game world - stuff like player opinions, or wanting to make things more exciting. The reason I play an RPG is so I can pretend to be this character in this world, so when the DM brings in that other stuff, it really reminds me that this is just a story in a game and none of it's real. I mean it is just a story in a game, but the fun (for me) is in imagining that it could be real.

So you have a table with 20 different scenes for entering a city and number 17 is a fallen cart of hay with hidden weapons. You roll a d20 and 17 comes up. What is different from just picking 17 without rolling but knowing - based on your knowledge about the players taste, their PC constructs and backstory etc. - that this result will be interesting to them while number 2 (guards controlling travellers with not much going on) will not?

Counter-question: What's the difference between the DM rolling a d20 to hit you, or just deciding that a 17 will be more interesting? Or the DM decides that the Big Bad has a 17 on a saving throw against one of your spells, causing her to fail by 1 point? (Success or failure by 1 point is always the most exciting outcome, after all.)

It just feels like cheating. Whenever the DM decides that something unlikely happens, it feels hollow and contrived. Whenever the dice determine that something unlikely happens, it feels fun and exciting.

 

[LostSoul]

On a couple of levels this puzzles me.

1) I can't easily see what possible "skill challenge" might lead to the PCs coincidentally turning up at the city gate as a chance revelation of a situation of which they had no inkling played out. How would they possibly set about contriving that within the fiction? They are being taken to come accross the scene by happenstance, not by some conscious decision of their own, or even by some design of another (although that might be an intriguing possibility!)

2) How does "agency" enter into it? In the sense that the players have the freedom to act, that is true in either case (they can remain in ignorance and go about their business or they can choose what to do about the revealed weapons and the fleeing driver). But if we are talking about "agency" in the sense of "freedom to act so as to either precipitate this specific encounter or avoid it" then they have none, either way. "Freedom to act" on something of which you are completely unaware is utterly nonsensical - you lack the capacity to act because part of such capacity is some possibility of incentive, which requires knowledge.

As to the incorporation of "rumours" - how is it any different to decide that, by happenstance, the PCs come accross rumours than it is to decide that they come accross the "accidental discovery" event playing out?

I was thinking that something else in the game led to this scene.

1) I was thinking of something along the lines of a skill challenge to get to the town before the plot to attack it has taken place. Or perhaps interrogating a prisoner - does he tell them that there is a plot afoot? and if so, does he drop a red herring along the way that slows them down?

2) If the scene is an outgrowth of their previous choices then I'd say it was the player's agency that led them to the scene.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, in the interests of discussion, I've kind of skated past this whole part of the discussion. I think @pemerton and @Manbearcat kinda did too, but I don't claim to speak for them... The whole thing seems very arbitrary and IMHO really amounts to "the DM does what the DM feels like doing" vs the DM trying to serve the player's agenda. Of course it then sounds rather uncharitable and further discussion breaks down, which is why I left off that aspect of things and have simply taken @Saelorn's assertion that his selections are neutral and fit some sort of definable naturalistic agenda that can be distinguished from the narrativist one I would follow (at a more meaningful level than just "different results happened").

I can grasp, and once pursued, this sort of goal. The problem with it, fundamentally, is it simply cannot be achieved in any meaningful way. The DM is simply, IMHO, decreeing whatever events he feels like decreeing for whatever reasons he has. He may have some limits to how far he'll go with that, and he may well respect player agency within certain bounds, but he'd be just as well off to include player agency and dramatic considerations in there as not, it won't make his decisions any 'less realistic' because there is no measurable degree of realism in an RPG to begin with, at least in this sense.

I was involved in at at the beginning (2.5 weeks ago to be exact) with this post on (at least) 4 cognitive biases that pervade any table and any GM aiming at the "naturalistic" approach. Posted others back and forth with Saelorn a bit but I'm so firmly in @Balesir's camp, and I've already posted on it, so I don't have much more to say. Suffice to say that (a) I believe it is all cost (GM-overhead and time consuming prep) and no benefit. The "no benefit" portion being because each party's cognitive and perception bias drift in real life...with their own 1st person conception...creates a mental model of any given situation that diverges, sometimes radically and/or in significant ways, from others around them. Consider that reality, then remove the 1st person conception and replace it with "GM as proxy/conduit/filter" (regardless of how good the GM is)...you get the picture.

Long story short. I am a damn good GM. And I can do a hell of a job running scenarios with process-sim-intensive, "naturalistic" temporal and spatial considerations (and mechanics that support them). But that doesn't improve my players tactical/strategic agency over something like 4e, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, or Dogs. Their opinion as well as my own. What's more, the former absolutely is not as strong as thematic player agency (by intent). This is because "narrative causality" (as @Saelorn has put it) is anathema to the agenda...and consistent, proper consideration/testing of a protagonist's thematic material requires "narrative causality" as a primary input when a GM is considering the aspects (stakes, dimensions, form of antagonism, etc) of a conflict-charged scene opener and, further, its post-resolution fallout.

I'd be really curious if Saelorn would examine my short DW play example above and scrutinize it for (a) player agency and (b) content generation...especially the generation of the conflict in the half-frozen bog.

 

[LostSoul]

Which is a perfectly fine and (IME) normal reason. But it seems tangential to the question, which was "Why is this bouncyness necessary for the PCs to ride in to save the day?" (my emphasis), not "Why might you be interested in adding rolls to see how NPC interactions work out?"

I want to make it difficult for NPCs to resolve their own conflicts. It helps the game revolve around the choices the players make.

Plus, it makes it difficult to "win" by recruiting NPCs and having them do everything for you.

I still do not see the use in rolling a die in this way and for this reason: if a conflict between two NPCs is relevant to the players/PCs than I would rather let them influence the outcome *because* the conflict is relevant to them. If the outcome of the conflict is not relevant to the players/the PCs then the conflict is only color and the DM can just choose any plausible outcome without having to consult a table (which needs to be made beforehand, which requires preptime etc.). Also, why waste valuable playtime on the resolution of a conflict that the players/PCs are not interested in in the first place? Why spend much time on such a conflict at all? A conflict whose outcome can be randomized in the way you describe does not seem to be worth the word "conflict" in my opinion.

A few points:

1. I don't want to have the responsibility to have to determine which NPC-NPC conflicts are relevant to the players. If the PCs are there then those conflicts are obviously relevant; if they're not, then I make a few rolls and let the NPCs soak up the consequences.

2. Sometimes the NPCs are PC resources (hirelings). Those NPC-NPC conflicts are always relevant to the PCs.

3. I could have the PCs use their own skills or abilities in an NPC-NPC conflict but I want to keep action resolution on a more personal level.

 

[TheFindus]

Authenticity? As a player, I find it disrespectful for the DM to alter events within the game world based on stuff that doesn't exist within the game world - stuff like player opinions, or wanting to make things more exciting. The reason I play an RPG is so I can pretend to be this character in this world, so when the DM brings in that other stuff, it really reminds me that this is just a story in a game and none of it's real. I mean it is just a story in a game, but the fun (for me) is in imagining that it could be real.

But player opinions always play a role in the game. In session 0,, everybody at the table regularily discusses likes and dislikes, genre, the game world etc. "I would like to play a demon hunter" shows the DM that the player wants to hunt demons. If the game ends up not being about demon hunting at all, there is a big chance that that player will not like that game, don't you agree? And all of this information frames the content of game world and the scenarios that happen in it. Also, different players find different stuff believable or plausible and the DM needs to take this into account. So do the the players btw. It is information on a metalevel that influences what the game will be about. It is this "other stuff" which already plays a big part in any RPG really. Is it therefore not too much to ask for it not to play any role?
As far as I understand you, you want to uphold the very illusion that this is not the case. You want to play a game but pretend you are not?

Counter-question: What's the difference between the DM rolling a d20 to hit you, or just deciding that a 17 will be more interesting? Or the DM decides that the Big Bad has a 17 on a saving throw against one of your spells, causing her to fail by 1 point? (Success or failure by 1 point is always the most exciting outcome, after all.)

It just feels like cheating. Whenever the DM decides that something unlikely happens, it feels hollow and contrived. Whenever the dice determine that something unlikely happens, it feels fun and exciting.

This is fudging (cheating) because it deviates from a set mechanic for *action* resolution, here combat or saving throws.
What we are talking about is scene content, which is a totally different matter. We are talking about whether a die roll on a DM constructed table is actually necessary to find out what the content of a situation has to be in order to feel plausible and/or takes away player agency. This is a different thing, apples and oranges.
That said, there are RPGs in which the DM does not roll any dice to find out if a monster hit (Dungeon World for which [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] gave an example upthread) or what the damage of a hit is (minions in 4E or all monsters in 13th Age).

 

[Balesir]

I was thinking that something else in the game led to this scene.

OK - I was assuming this was a way to introduce the "uprising" setting element/plot/situation to the players. I think, oddly, if it wasn't then the coincidence of a discovered smuggler's cache at the gate would seem somewhat cheesy, because "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action".

This brings up an aspect I didn't mention earlier, but I think factors into "plausible drama", for want of a better term. Having occasional unlikely events that bring up situations/setting elements of interest I think are generally fine. What seems "unnatural" is having too many coincidences - which are defined (as above) as "double-dipped" unlikely events in the same scene/situation, or concerning the same "plot element". Basically, dropping the odd "hook" is fine, but plugging away when the first is ignored is cheesy.

1) I was thinking of something along the lines of a skill challenge to get to the town before the plot to attack it has taken place. Or perhaps interrogating a prisoner - does he tell them that there is a plot afoot? and if so, does he drop a red herring along the way that slows them down?

If the players knew of the plot before the city gates, I would make the skill challenge a requirement to catch the smuggler (and cut the "accident"), for sure. But there would absolutely be a smuggler there to be caught, if the players took the "bait".

I would not, on the other hand, give both the rumours/clues up-front AND the "chance encounter" at the gate.

2) If the scene is an outgrowth of their previous choices then I'd say it was the player's agency that led them to the scene.

If their previous choices were simply "we're going to the city to shop", I really don't see how. They have not "acted" in the context of the uprising plot or the smugglers. They are not even aware of them. To try to make us, every one, responsible for the happenstances that surround us every moment of our lives seems, frankly, bizarre. An action without intent (which requires knowledge) is not "agency" - it is mere happenstance. You are holding people accountable for things they do not know they are accountable for - in fact, for things that they cannot know that they have any accountability for by any means. That does not strike me as a reasonable position.

 

[Balesir]

I want to make it difficult for NPCs to resolve their own conflicts. It helps the game revolve around the choices the players make.

A reasonable answer to the second question, again - but still not an answer to the original one (i.e. the first one in the bit you quoted).

Plus, it makes it difficult to "win" by recruiting NPCs and having them do everything for you.

Not as difficult as saying "the NPCs fail" every time would, surely?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But player opinions always play a role in the game. In session 0,, everybody at the table regularily discusses likes and dislikes, genre, the game world etc. "I would like to play a demon hunter" shows the DM that the player wants to hunt demons. If the game ends up not being about demon hunting at all, there is a big chance that that player will not like that game, don't you agree?

I'm just picturing demons not even existing in the world. The other PCs just tell him the bad guys are possessed.....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But player opinions always play a role in the game. In session 0,, everybody at the table regularily discusses likes and dislikes, genre, the game world etc. "I would like to play a demon hunter" shows the DM that the player wants to hunt demons. If the game ends up not being about demon hunting at all, there is a big chance that that player will not like that game, don't you agree?

Session 0 isn't part of the game. It's entirely external to the game. If the game can be compared to a novel with multiple authors in a complex power-sharing arrangement, then session 0 is standing in the book store and reading the back blurb in order to decide which book to buy. Nothing within the story is influenced by your decision to get this book instead of that book.

 

[LostSoul]

OK - I was assuming this was a way to introduce the "uprising" setting element/plot/situation to the players. I think, oddly, if it wasn't then the coincidence of a discovered smuggler's cache at the gate would seem somewhat cheesy, because "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action".

This brings up an aspect I didn't mention earlier, but I think factors into "plausible drama", for want of a better term. Having occasional unlikely events that bring up situations/setting elements of interest I think are generally fine. What seems "unnatural" is having too many coincidences - which are defined (as above) as "double-dipped" unlikely events in the same scene/situation, or concerning the same "plot element". Basically, dropping the odd "hook" is fine, but plugging away when the first is ignored is cheesy.

Agreed.

If the players knew of the plot before the city gates, I would make the skill challenge a requirement to catch the smuggler (and cut the "accident"), for sure. But there would absolutely be a smuggler there to be caught, if the players took the "bait".

I would not, on the other hand, give both the rumours/clues up-front AND the "chance encounter" at the gate.

I was thinking that the player's decision to go to the town after hearing the rumours would indicate to the DM that they're interested in that scene.

If their previous choices were simply "we're going to the city to shop", I really don't see how. They have not "acted" in the context of the uprising plot or the smugglers. They are not even aware of them. To try to make us, every one, responsible for the happenstances that surround us every moment of our lives seems, frankly, bizarre. An action without intent (which requires knowledge) is not "agency" - it is mere happenstance. You are holding people accountable for things they do not know they are accountable for - in fact, for things that they cannot know that they have any accountability for by any means. That does not strike me as a reasonable position.

I agree. I wasn't thinking about such a simple choice, I was picturing it in the overall course of game play: goblins are breeding in the mountains and worshipping some alien creature but there's a plot afoot in town, so what should we deal with? Something like that.