D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[Tony Vargas]

It's the difference between deciding that a PC gets impaled on a spear trap, and a PC getting impaled on a spear trap because of a failed Perception check combined with a successful attack roll.

In either case, the spear trap only exists because the DM decided on it. In the latter case, you were unlucky. In the former case, the DM is just a jerk.

What if the example were an enemy caster instead of a trap, and the damage magic missiles instead of a spear. Neither DM fiat nor the system call for an attack roll. In 4e, no damage roll either. Which approach disappeared with the die rolls?

 

[TheFindus]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]:
Just wanted to thank you for your reply. I get your view, even though the results of that session would not have been satisfying for me or the people I play with. But since I share the notion of your signature, this does not really matter, as long as you have fun playing this way. What matters regarding this thread is that I have a better understanding now about the way you play your game. Thank you for that. And happy gaming

 

[JamesonCourage]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]:
Just wanted to thank you for your reply. I get your view, even though the results of that session would not have been satisfying for me or the people I play with. But since I share the notion of your signature, this does not really matter, as long as you have fun playing this way. What matters regarding this thread is that I have a better understanding now about the way you play your game. Thank you for that. And happy gaming

Thanks, fellow gamer! It really is about what you like. I'm not trying to say my way is best; I've even described my RPG as niche within a niche hobby, and I feel my play style is, as well. But it's fun for us, and I have reasons for doing it.

I'm glad you have fun with your methods (and I even use some in my other games), and know what works for you and your group! Keep having fun with your gaming, too

 

[Balesir]

It's the difference between deciding that a PC gets impaled on a spear trap, and a PC getting impaled on a spear trap because of a failed Perception check combined with a successful attack roll.

I think you are mixing up scene framing (or specification) with resolution mechanics again.

In either case, the spear trap only exists because the DM decided on it.

Right - that's the scene framing bit. The GM decided that, for whatever aesthetic reason, the trap should be just here in the game world.

In the latter case, you were unlucky.

Or you made an unfortunate decision for your character - depending on what information you had this might be either careless or unlucky.

In the former case, the DM is just a jerk.

Agreed - because the resolution mechanics are being ignored/bypassed in order to get a predetermined outcome of a scene involving a player character. This has nothing to do with scene framing (or scene selection or scene specification or however you prefer to think of it), though. Scene resolution involves (an) informed player choice(s) and possible PC ability use; scene framing involves only the actions of NPCs - of which the PCs are unaware - around the vector of the PCs' announced actions.

 

[LostSoul]

This does not explain why the dice rolls are necessary. It just describes which conflicts the DM thinks are relevant to the players. Which any DM will know if the conflict is played out at the table because he can see the reactions of the players/their PCs, knows their backgrounds and at least some of their motives etc.

Oh, yeah, I see it now (I think). I feel that without those dice rolls I am going to be determining if the PCs succeed or not. I don't want that responsibility. I make wandering monster checks as the mechanics dictate not because I think it's adding to the verisimilitude of the game or the plausibility of the setting - though good tables can do that - but mainly because I don't want to have to decide when and how many encounters the PCs face.

I make those rolls because I think these things are too important to the success or failure of the PCs to leave up to my judgement, which is full of bias - especially when done behind the screen.

As far as I understand this, by "personal level" you mean that the DM is playing the NPCs and the players the PCs, is this correct? If yes, then this is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the simple fact that the DM (and not the players) chooses to make all rolls for his NPCs. I am talking about the players influencing the outcome of the conflict through the use of their PCs abilities (the obvious being social skills, but maybe the use of force as well or other things). Now, there are situations in which PCs cannot influence the outcomes of NPC/NPC-conflicts.
But again, the question remains why a die roll is necessary to find out a plausible or believable result on a DM table. The roll could end up with any result on that table so why not just pick one without rolling? Why not mak something up on the fly that fits the development and the reactions of the PCs in this particular situation best? Why the need for more mechanics and tables, preptime and dicerolls when a narrative that takes the PC's involvement into account would do?

So let us say that there is a conflict between two NPCs that the PCs can only watch, have a vital interest in but cannot engage with because (just as one plausible example) they must not be detected at all costs (they are hiding somewhere to find out about this conflict). The conflict is resolved not through force but negotiation. I imagine you playstyle to go through with this as follows: a) you have a table that you roll on who wins the argument. Or b) you use an existing mechanism (just as one possible example: Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy, the higher result wins). The result does not matter to you, so you roll and narrate the result accordingly. Is my understanding correct?
If so: why not just pick a result from the table in a) or pick a winner in your head in b)? What is the added value? All I am seeing is more preptime with a) (and maybe b) because you would probably have to stat out the NPC) and more dice rolling a) and b).

On a personal level: I think you've got what I'm saying correct. It's not because I think there would be some great problem with having one of the players run a battle between NPC allies and foes that's "off-screen", but because I want to focus on the actions of the characters. Hmm... that's not right... I don't mind abstract actions (like hunting). I always ask "What are you doing?" (where "you" refers to the PC). It would seem odd to either not ask that question or to ask that question about something that's not right in the face of the PC. I'm not sure I understand or have explored my own preferences here, so that's a good question!

As to your other questions - does the first part of my post answer them? If not I can reply in more depth.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Agreed - because the resolution mechanics are being ignored/bypassed in order to get a predetermined outcome of a scene involving a player character.

Scene framing is a mechanical resolution, is what I'm saying. It's a resolution of whatever process is used to select the scenario. That the PCs aren't involved in the mechanic does not somehow absolve the DM of the responsibility to resolve it fairly (without bias).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, I think I made a comment about that earlier too, that if the PCs were say given some foreshadowing or if they actually specifically went through an SC to find out when there was likely to be a weapons shipment, etc. then nothing about this is contrived at all, and beyond that its a better scenario all around. The players will have ALREADY decided if they are going to take the plot hook, and then scenario 3 is the logical consequence of them doing so. If they decline, then perhaps the scene still plays out, but presumably the players don't involve themselves, its just color at that point. Maybe a clever DM spins some entirely different story in around the edges of it that the players ARE more interested in, the cart horse tramples a beggar woman and the characters rescue the baby or some such thing, there could be endless possibilities. Its often nice to weave these kinds of things together, as it gives the world depth.

 

[pemerton]

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

I thought the "it" here was meant to refer to freeze-frame rooms/scenes.

In which case, I don't understand how preparing a freeze-frame room/scene is saying "the PCs will encounter this, no matter the choice". The only person who appears to have run a game in that style, in this thread, is [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s PF GM, who had the PCs encounter the corpse-eating demon "no matter what".

In classic dungeon design, of the c 1980 variety, the PCs only encounter the freeze-frame room if they go to the relevant dungeon door (as noted on the GM's map and key) and open it.

In a scene-framing style, the PC's only encounter the freeze-frame scene if the GM frames them into it - which, in that style, is a response to player choices/signals. For instance, in my 4e game I had notes on a situation involving a githzerai dojo on the Elemental Chaos. I framed the dwarf PC into it when he tried to jump from a flying carpet onto Ygorl, the Slaad Lord of Entropy, while pursuing the latter across the Elemental Chaos, and failed.

In [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s style (and perhaps yours?) rather than pulling out "one I prepared earlier", I should roll on a "what do you find at the bottom of a fall through the Elemental Chaos" table to find out where the dwarf lands (presumably with a chance, on the table, that he just keeps falling for ever through the infinite plane).

Whatever the merits of choosing vs rolling, I'm still not seeing how one involves railroading and the other doesn't.

 

[Balesir]

I used to term "uninformed" over and over again. I said that in this hypothetical, the players were uninformed. I was commenting on whether or not their choice is meaningful (in that it has a significant effect on the fiction and/or game).

You're completely correct that I'm talking about the definition of "meaningful" in our conversation.

I thought the meaning of "meaningful" in the context was pretty clear. "informed" covers a rather small part of what it means, and is almost completely useless as a replacement term. "Meaningful" in the context also covers "of interest to the player", "of (imagined) emotional meaning to the character" and "pertinent to the focus of play so far established". We could, of course, write out all that stuff (or however we might wish to phrase it - I'm sure others could do it better than me) every time we wanted to talk about such decisions, but that would tedious both to type and to read. Hence the need for "jargon".

RPG play is nothing like football. What a terrible comparison.

OK, then stick with the bald situation as originally described. Just because there is "poor GMing" does not in any way imply that there are not several possible ways to do "good GMing". Your implied premise that the existence of "poor GMing" would imply the existence of only one method of "good GMing" is not true, thus your argument fails.

If you don't want to read what I wrote, you don't have to. But I'm not going to give my thoughts on something when you're purposefully trying to restate what I've written very clearly. That's just a dick move.

What I read was that you define this:

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.

...as railroading, because:

Railroading, as I define it in the GM chapter of my RPG, is "ending with the GM's desired outcome, no matter the actions that take place."

At first I was puzzled as to what "the actions" referred to, but it seems to be essentially "anything you decide it to be". Actions the players have their characters make in ignorance count:

What is the result of the players turning left or right? The end result (or consequence) is that they reach the ritual as it is in progress.

...but actions the NPCs might make don't:

The railroading is only enough to start the scene, yes. But it's railroaded to open it, since the outcome of their decision (at the fork, in this scenario) is entirely decided by the GM's whim. It's exactly the GM's desired outcome.

Given this, it looks like the scene must be framed according to the aesthetic you have set out or it is "railroading". That is what I would call, as you put it, a "dick move".

 

[Balesir]

Scene framing is a mechanical resolution, is what I'm saying. It's a resolution of whatever process is used to select the scenario.

Scene framing is a resolution, but not one that concerns the actions of PCs. It concerns tha actions of NPCs. In almost all cases, for all the myriad NPCs in the game world, you do not use randomised resolution mechanisms to resolve the results of their actions. But for this particular set of circumstances you seem to claim it to be mandatory - for what reason?

That the PCs aren't involved in the mechanic does not somehow absolve the DM of the responsibility to resolve it fairly (without bias).

"Fairly" could only be relevant if competition was involved, which you claim it's not, so maybe you meant "neutrally"? I'll take that as broadly the same as "without bias", but bias is universal and inevitable, and is present regardless of the mechanisms used (even random selection involves selecting those cases that are deemed worthy of being on the table). And, as I already said, no randomised mechanism is used for the vast majority of NPC actions in the world - only a computer would be capable of processing that volume of randomised resolution in a reasonable time.