Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[hawkeyefan]

I do not view this distinction as pedantry. The way we think and talk about these things matter. In the moment of play we can disclaim decision making and make decisions for our characters as if we were them. We can choose to advocate for them, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of the real impact those decisions have on real players sitting at a real table playing a real game. In my preferred mode of play we follow the fiction where it leads, but we should be cognizant that we are making that choice and respond to player inquiries with empathy and compassion - not defensiveness. I was following the fiction - not I didn't do that.

Disclaiming decision making in the moment is one thing. Disclaiming responsibility for the decisions we make is another thing altogether.

I don't disagree with what you say above....I think what you've described is a thoughtful approach to play and to discussion of play.

But I don't think it applies to the specific example. I don't think that anyone should need to clarify that the "game world reacting to the players" actually means "the game world, as determined by the GM, reacting to the players". Pointing out that the game world, as a fictional construct, does not actually react to anyone.....what point does that serve?

I have to agree that pointing out such a distinction is pedantic, and distracts from the discussion rather than adds to it. Now, I could be wrong and perhaps there was a compelling reason for the distinction, but none was offered....and the original point being made was never directly addressed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do not view this distinction as pedantry. The way we think and talk about these things matter. In the moment of play we can disclaim decision making and make decisions for our characters as if we were them. We can choose to advocate for them, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of the real impact those decisions have on real players sitting at a real table playing a real game. In my preferred mode of play we follow the fiction where it leads, but we should be cognizant that we are making that choice and respond to player inquiries with empathy and compassion - not defensiveness. I was following the fiction - not I didn't do that.

Disclaiming decision making in the moment is one thing. Disclaiming responsibility for the decisions we make is another thing altogether.

No one's avoiding responsibility, though, they're using a shorthand to define the viewpoint being used to create the fiction. To that end, reducing the conversation to having to be explicit about this every time or having a lack of explicitness be used to dismiss your argument is pedantry. If responsibility starts being an issue in the discussion, then, yes, that distinction will be relevant.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]

There are some fairly substantial differences in mechanics between AD&D and B/X play, but the largest differences in play according to the text come from the ethos of GMing. B/X is predicated on a spirit of fair play, only stepping outside the rules when absolutely required, and genuinely considering the impact of player decision making. Gygaxian skilled play differs quite dramatically. Your players are conniving so you need to be just as conniving. The rules are your plaything. You should try to be somewhat fair, but if you can find an interpretation of player decision making that makes things more difficult for them go ahead and do so. It is a far more adversarial relationship. In B/X you match your wits against the Dungeon. In AD&D you match your wits against the DM.

Then there's Ravenloft and Dragonlance and they money they brought that fundamentally shaped the way AD&D modules would be presented.

 

[darkbard]

I don't really feel like you're addressing my point mainly how is this tool leveraged by the DM in order for his NPC's to proactively and with their complete capabilities represented to enact change on the fiction... and no raising a DC or adding an extra roll is not the same as bringing a specific power or ability to bear. This is why I'm glad SC;s aren't the resolution system for 4e.

EDIT: I'll concede my original post was a simplification but not by much. A SC is DM sets DC, and DM sets number of times DC must be beaten. That in a nutshell is the skeleton of a SC. What it doesn't do is say hey this advisor has a Charisma of 20 so set the DC based on his Charisma or the advisor has a power that causes one creature he talks to for a round to be charmed by him... allow him to use this in the SC. That's what I mean by capabilities.

Well, of course 4E does have other resolution mechanics besides the SC, as you point out. But I thought we were discussing the specific context of the SC in pemerton's 4E example (or, for that matter, a similar resolution system in BW from the original example, lo those many posts ago).

But, sure, the DM could frame a scene wherein the advisor uses powers, skills, etc. against the PCs, but then we're moving into a combat encounter or some other framework.

Or the DM could model such within the framework of the SC system by, say, describing how the advisor augments his slick words with a subtle charm, thus setting that particular skill check by the PC as a hard DC (Arcana) or something similar.

In these--any many other, I'm sure--examples, the DM uses the framework of the system to represent NPC actions and adjudicate outcomes of these actions in response to what the PCs do rather than relying solely upon her judgment, which, without such mechanics and to return to the original point of this post, sets up the possibility of railroading.

 

[TwoSix]

See, that's the sort of thing that makes for a great game. The PCs try something that should have worked, but didn't. That gets them thinking, "What happened? There must be something going on here that we don't know about.". They then start digging for that information, find out about the niece and rescue her. At that time the baron would be exceedingly grateful to the PCs(no damage to the rep, but rather an increase) and be out for blood against the advisor(rebounded against him nicely).

You lose out on a ton by being so against hidden backstory.

I'm pretty much certain that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is aware of the trade-offs involved in choosing his playstyle over your more traditional playstyle and is comfortable with his choices.

 

[Imaro]

Well, of course 4E does have other resolution mechanics besides the SC, as you point out. But I thought we were discussing the specific context of the SC in pemerton's 4E example (or, for that matter, a similar resolution system in BW from the original example, lo those many posts ago).

We are I was just making the point as I did earlier with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s post that SC's aren't the only way to mechanically resolve something in 4e.

But, sure, the DM could frame a scene wherein the advisor uses powers, skills, etc. against the PCs, but then we're moving into a combat encounter or some other framework.

I don't think individual skill use or the use of powers necessitates us moving into a combat encounter and of course it's another framework since it's not a SC which I agre is a very specific framework.

Or the DM could model such within the framework of the SC system by, say, describing how the advisor augments his slick words with a subtle charm, thus setting that particular skill check by the PC as a hard DC (Arcana) or something similar.

But if that's not what the power actually does the DM isn't in fact leveraging the abilities of the character... and furthermore the issue is that your typical SC's DC's are based on character level and have little if anything to do with the actual opposition they are facing.

In these--any many other, I'm sure--examples, the DM uses the framework of the system to represent NPC actions and adjudicate outcomes of these actions in response to what the PCs do rather than relying solely upon her judgment, which, without such mechanics and to return to the original point of this post, sets up the possibility of railroading.

Yes but in a totally different way than the PC's do. In other words as I said earlier the same mechanics are not being leveraged in the same way for NPC's as they are for PC's in SC's.

An NPC never makes a single roll in SC's... the DC's of a SC aren't typically based on the NPC's abilities or scores, but instead are typically based on level of the characters with wriggle room for the DM to adjust it up or down... complexity is set based on how many successes the DM wants the PC's to have to garner but again is not tied to the NPC in any way and advantages are based on the complexity of the SC and stopping the math from resulting in an auto-failure... but again not on any abilties or qualities of the NPC.

 

[Imaro]

I'm pretty much certain that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is aware of the trade-offs involved in choosing his playstyle over your more traditional playstyle and is comfortable with his choices.

Are you sure because when asked about the drawbacks of his "player-driven" playstyle he couldn't list any?

Moreso then what exactly are we discussing? If everyone is aware of the tradeoffs of their styles and are comfortable with their choices what are we discussing them for? Unless you are suggesting only pemerton possesses this awareness for some reason, and even if that is the case couldn't pointing them out be beneficial to others reading the thread?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, of course 4E does have other resolution mechanics besides the SC, as you point out. But I thought we were discussing the specific context of the SC in pemerton's 4E example (or, for that matter, a similar resolution system in BW from the original example, lo those many posts ago).

That's the context I recall, yes. Just a little point-scoring going on there, I think.

But, sure, the DM could frame a scene wherein the advisor uses powers, skills, etc. against the PCs, but then we're moving into a combat encounter or some other framework.

Thanks to the wonder of 'exception-based design' (in context, 4e's much more constrained nod to DM Empowerment) the DM could give an NPC powers or traits that directly interact with a Skill Challenge. There aren't precedents for that (that I recall atm, anyway), but you don't need precedents.

I think the point is, rather, that the abilities of the NPC should figure into the skill challenge, as that paints the challenge more vividly and makes it more interesting. The basic SC mechanism - n successes before 3 failures, at DCs determined by the level of the Skill Challenge (not the party) - does not have a lot of space for an opposing NPC. The opposition (or just involvement) of an NPC might determine the level of the challenge and influence the difficulty of checks & number of successes required.

That's fine as far as it goes, but I've taken it further with the above option of giving an NPCs powers that directly affect a Skill Challenge. It'd've been nice if Skill Challenges had had more than a couple of years to develop and evolve, though.

 

[TwoSix]

Are you sure because when asked about the drawbacks of his "player-driven" playstyle he couldn't list any?

Moreso then what exactly are we discussing? If everyone is aware of the tradeoffs of their styles and are comfortable with their choices what are we discussing them for? Unless you are suggesting only pemerton possesses this awareness for some reason, and even if that is the case couldn't pointing them out be beneficial to others reading the thread?

<shrug> Got me. I'm mostly following along because [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has had some interesting insights.

 

[Imaro]

I think the point is, rather, that the abilities of the NPC should figure into the skill challenge, as that paints the challenge more vividly and makes it more interesting. The basic SC mechanism - n successes before 3 failures, at DCs determined by the level of the Skill Challenge (not the party) - does not have a lot of space for an opposing NPC. The opposition (or just involvement) of an NPC might determine the level of the challenge and influence the difficulty of checks & number of successes required.

Just wanted to correct this but the last iteration of skill challenge rules, found in the Essentials rulebooks, clearly states the typical SC is based on party level. Now no one is saying the DM can't do what he wants but it's made clear that the default standard SC will use character level as it's default for setting DC's.