Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

if it's a good game, why does it matter how it came to be so?

This doesn't make sense, does it? It matters to the play of a game of chess who makes the moves. Given that playing a game is an activity, its goodness can't be divorced from the process of playing it.

Assuming the DM is unwise enough to reveal whatever decision-making process is being used at a given time

<snip>

I just say (again in more flowery terms) "here's my game, here's the rules and system, here's the game world - check it out then either sit down and play or get up and leave".

There seems to be a tension here - you say that you tell people what your system is, but you also seem to be implying that you keep your system secret. I'm not sure how both those things can be the case.

 

[Imaro]

I hadn't realised that you were talking about narration as mere colour, without it actually establishing fictional positioning that matters to resolution.

Personally I don't put a very high premium on that dimension of creativity in RPGing.

So then are you speaking of differentiation through mechanics?? Because that's what matters to resolution in the way you seem to be pointing to... The examples you gave were all specific mechanics with a mechanical effect that affected gameplay... Not fictional positioning which can be established without a specific mechanic to represent it and does matter to resolution in what descriptions can follow and flwo from it... if the fiction is being respected.

EDIT: As a fan of 4e , where one of it's highest praises was how easily mechanics were reskinned with different fiction, I find it interesting that you don't put a high premium on this dimension of creativity.

 

[pemerton]

When I make contributions to the fiction in a role playing game I have the expectation that the other people sitting at the table will be actively interested, have regard for what I am saying, and build upon it rather than negate it. My efforts to describe a given character's actions are not meaningful if there is no expectation that the other people sitting at the table will take that into account when making their own contributions to the fiction. If my efforts to establish fictional positioning can be freely disregarded according to the assumed social contract than playing the game loses all meaning to me. When playing my bard and I use Vicious Mockery and the rules say the words cut my expectation is that the actual words I speak for my character affected that character beyond the mechanical impact of losing 1d4 hp and getting disadvantage on the next attack. In turn I am socially obliged to actually speak words that should cut.

I think this relates to the idea of "authenticity".

To me, it also relates to this post I made upthread:

Faith, in BW, is bound by "intent and task". The task is speaking a prayer: so, at the table, the player has to speak the prayer his/her PC is making. The intent is the deisred (mechanically defined) outcome, which also determines the difficulty of the check, although (as per Revised p 231; Gold p 523) "Outlandish intents are a fine cause for massively increased obstacles and a little divine wrath." Having to actually speak your prayer puts the player of the faithful character in quite a different position from the player of the D&D cleric: there is no "hiding" behind spell slots and V, S, M/F components. You have to give voice to your faith.

In my 4e Dark Sun game, I have been inviting the bard player to speak the words that, in the fiction, correspond to his PC's powers (Vicious Mockery, Majestic Word). It makes a difference to play. And (I think quite obviously) it makes the player more vulnerable (eg, at a minimum, to contributing something to the fiction that others are not all that excited by).

Obviously 4e has weaker teeth in this respect than BW - but I think I prefer it to the more traditional V,S,M approach, which through its sheer ubiquity of verbal components doesn't really require the player to speak anything at all. This is one of those cases where I find that 4e opens up a nice space for engagement with fictional positioning even though often (not always) it doesn't force that.

Rereading your (Campbelll's) post and thinking about this reply also prompted another thought in response to [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]'s post about pre-written event-style modules: it seems to me that one function of pre-written modules is to provide a type of "safety harness" to ensure that authenticity doesn't lead to failure. So rather than require anyone to engage with consequences, the sequence of events is spelled out in advance so that no one has to stake the occurence of the "story" on his/her own efforts of play. It's as if the plot/story itself is in a "Walled Off Garden".

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro

I think this goes back to my own concerns about group creativity over individual creative expression. When I make contributions to the fiction in a role playing game I have the expectation that the other people sitting at the table will be actively interested, have regard for what I am saying, and build upon it rather than negate it. My efforts to describe a given character's actions are not meaningful if there is no expectation that the other people sitting at the table will take that into account when making their own contributions to the fiction. If my efforts to establish fictional positioning can be freely disregarded according to the assumed social contract than playing the game loses all meaning to me. When playing my bard and I use Vicious Mockery and the rules say the words cut my expectation is that the actual words I speak for my character affected that character beyond the mechanical impact of losing 1d4 hp and getting disadvantage on the next attack. In turn I am socially obliged to actually speak words that should cut.

This is in part what I was speaking to when I said many mainstream games are played with Walled Off Gardens between players where we are only allowed to interact with each others stuff in ways that are explicitly approved. When we are socially free to disregard contributions to the fiction other players make and there is no need to actually establish appropriate fictional positioning to mechanically affect the play space there is no shared fiction - there are individual fictions that we sometimes allow others to impact when and where we choose.

This presumption that the mechanisms are meaningfully independent of the fiction and that one player's fiction is independent of another player's fiction results in play I have zero interest in. Furthermore it results in the sort of experience where in order for something to really have an impact it must be represented by mechanics. There can be no fruitful voids where we have fictional positioning that impacts play without going to the mechanisms.

What I Want

Fiction -> Mechanics -> Fiction -> Fiction -> Mechanics -> Fiction -> Fiction->Mechanics->Fiction
Fiction -> Fiction-> Fiction​

What I Do Not Want

Mechanics -> Mechanics-> Mechanics
<Fiction> <Fiction> <Fiction>

Colors are used to show different contributors. Diagrams are not perfect. In reality for the sort of play I am interested in the Fiction and the Mechanics are meaningfully shared by all participants at all times. The reason I enjoy doing this thing we do is because we play in a dynamic shared collaborative fiction that belongs to us all equally - where we are creative peers.

@Lanefan pretty much summed up my feelings on this... but I'd like to add to his reply a little further... in what game are you forced to respect the fictional positioning (if you don't want to) of something like Vicious Mockery having an effect on your character beyond the mechanical effect? And I am not speaking to a social contract among players here because that can be had with any group around any game and is independent of traditional vs. indie system (at least as you seem to be explaining it above). I want to know what system forces you to do such a thing without tying a mechanic to it because otherwise it's simply a matter of group preference.

EDIT: And while I can understand you preference for a player's character to say mean things to another player's character to bring a game more in line with said preferences... I doubt I'd want some kind of rule where that's necessary to the play of the game. I just wouldn't find that appealing when playing with my nephews or in a game with younger children. If that is what is meant by authenticity then I'll pass and keep it something optional as a group contract as opposed to an official part of gameplay.

 

[pemerton]

So then are you speaking of differentiation through mechanics?? Because that's what matters to resolution in the way you seem to be pointing to

I'm talking about fiction that matters to resolution. This can happen in two main ways:

(1) It engages a particular mechanic: this is how PbtA "moves" work, and is a factor in some of the systems I GM (eg in BW, if the GM isn't saying "yes" to an action declaration then s/he has to connect this to an appropriate ability - from the long list that is part of the system - for resolution purposes).

(2) It shapes the resolution of some other action declaration: eg in 4e combat resolution location is an element of fictional positioning that (via the range/reach rules, the forced movement rules etc) matters to resolution.​

The examples you gave don't fall under either (1) or (2) - eg describing the 5 hp damage as a wound, as depleted morale, as dropping the weapon and having to pick it up, as wrongfooting that doesn't actual amount to changing the "square" in which the character is located. They are just colour.

fictional positioning which can be established without a specific mechanic to represent it and does matter to resolution in what descriptions can follow and flwo from it... if the fiction is being respected.

But this isn't fictional positioning: it doesn't matter to resolution.

All you've got is that, at time 1, the player describes the 5 hp loss as a wound, and so - down the track at time 2 - the GM has to describe the NPC as wounded rather than (say) winded. But it's got no teeth at all. For instance, there's not any rule that connects the player's narration to a requirement to (say) mark off a bandage on an equipment list - let alone anything like a wound penalty, or a constraint on future action declarations.

Contrast (say) this from Dungeon World (pp 23, 28):

Damage is dealt based on the fiction. Moves that deal damage, like hack and slash, are just a special case of this: the move establishes that damage is being dealt in the fiction. Damage can be assigned even when no move is made, if it follows from the fiction.

HP loss is often only part of the effect. If the harm is generalized, like falling into a pit, losing the HP is probably all there is to it. When the harm is specific, like an orc pulling your arm from its socket, HP should be part of the effect but not the entirety of it. The bigger issue is dealing with the newly busted arm: how do you swing a sword or cast a spell? Likewise having your head chopped off is not HP damage, it’s just you being dead. . . .

Losing HP is a general thing, it’s getting tired, bruised, cut, and so on. Some wounds are deeper though. These are debilities. . . .

Debilities don’t replace descriptions and using the established fiction. When someone loses an arm that doesn’t mean they’re Weak, it means they have one less arm.​

This is not just colour: this is the fiction establishing the parameters for action declarations and resolution. The sort of "creativity" you described in relation to D&D, by way of contrast, doesn't establish this sort of fiction. It is just colour.

 

[pemerton]

@Lanefan pretty much summed up my feelings on this... but I'd like to add to his reply a little further... in what game are you forced to respect the fictional positioning (if you don't want to) of something like Vicious Mockery having an effect on your character beyond the mechanical effect?

I already posted an example upthread (I think in reply to a post of yours): Faith in Burning Wheel.

All action in BW is intent and task. The task, for Faith, is the prayer - which the player must speak. The table (with the GM as ultimate arbiter) has to be satisfied that the task is suitable for the intent.

 

[Imaro]

I'm talking about fiction that matters to resolution. This can happen in two main ways:

(1) It engages a particular mechanic: this is how PbtA "moves" work, and is a factor in some of the systems I GM (eg in BW, if the GM isn't saying "yes" to an action declaration then s/he has to connect this to an appropriate ability - from the long list that is part of the system - for resolution purposes).​

So mechanics that effect the resolution...D&D 5e has a multitude of these from feats to spells to skills to class abilites, to ad-hoc moves under the discretiong of the DM and so on that can be used and/or reskinned... Did you expect me to list everyone of them out? I don't have the inclination or that type of time since it's fairly clear they exist to anyone who has played or ran 5e.

(2) It shapes the resolution of some other action declaration: eg in 4e combat resolution location is an element of fictional positioning that (via the range/reach rules, the forced movement rules etc) matters to resolution.

So again mechanics (ranges, reach, moving between attacks, dash, etc.) that D&D 5e has. But again we'd have to go alot more specific than the examples you threw up in the previous post. Is being prone a component of the success... it depends on the stated action of the player, the build of the character, the rulings of the DM and so on.

The examples you gave don't fall under either (1) or (2) - eg describing the 5 hp damage as a wound, as depleted morale, as dropping the weapon and having to pick it up, as wrongfooting that doesn't actual amount to changing the "square" in which the character is located. They are just colour.

Well that's because there were no specifics and I believed we were talking to fiction as opposed to mechanics... which clearly isn't the case. we are really talking mechanics here.

But this isn't fictional positioning: it doesn't matter to resolution.

All you've got is that, at time 1, the player describes the 5 hp loss as a wound, and so - down the track at time 2 - the GM has to describe the NPC as wounded rather than (say) winded. But it's got no teeth at all. For instance, there's not any rule that connects the player's narration to a requirement to (say) mark off a bandage on an equipment list - let alone anything like a wound penalty, or a constraint on future action declarations.

Sure it does... it can affect how the next player or the DM decide to describe what happens next. what you really mean is that beyond hit point loss it has no mechanical resolution.

Contrast (say) this from Dungeon World (pp 23, 28):

Damage is dealt based on the fiction. Moves that deal damage, like hack and slash, are just a special case of this: the move establishes that damage is being dealt in the fiction. Damage can be assigned even when no move is made, if it follows from the fiction.

HP loss is often only part of the effect. If the harm is generalized, like falling into a pit, losing the HP is probably all there is to it. When the harm is specific, like an orc pulling your arm from its socket, HP should be part of the effect but not the entirety of it. The bigger issue is dealing with the newly busted arm: how do you swing a sword or cast a spell? Likewise having your head chopped off is not HP damage, it’s just you being dead. . . .​

So in DW your character would no longer have an arm in this instance??... even though the mechanical effect is take damage?? Or are you claiming someone can chose to play their character like his arm is gone... because if so that's no different than him choosing to do the same in D&D. What in DW forces a player to go beyond just writing the damage down and moving on with play? Moreso how is this different from having a condition or a specific type of damage applied in D&D. A vorpal sword will do the same thing... right?

Losing HP is a general thing, it’s getting tired, bruised, cut, and so on. Some wounds are deeper though. These are debilities. . . .

Debilities don’t replace descriptions and using the established fiction. When someone loses an arm that doesn’t mean they’re Weak, it means they have one less arm.

This is not just colour: this is the fiction establishing the parameters for action declarations and resolution. The sort of "creativity" you described in relation to D&D, by way of contrast, doesn't establish this sort of fiction. It is just colour.

Again you are speaking to mechanics not fiction. There's no way in DW you're going to get a result of hit point damage on me as a player but then, because it was an Orc, tell me my arm got ripped off, not unless there's a specific ability or move for you to accomplish such. Now I may choose to roleplay my arm being busted up... but I could do the same thing in D&D.​

 

[Imaro]

I already posted an example upthread (I think in reply to a post of yours): Faith in Burning Wheel.

All action in BW is intent and task. The task, for Faith, is the prayer - which the player must speak. The table (with the GM as ultimate arbiter) has to be satisfied that the task is suitable for the intent.

There is nothing in the BW Gold rules that state this. It refers to the player's character not the player... just like D&D.

PRAY
A faithful character may pray for divine intervention. the prayer must be announced and spoken. Hew must chant his sutras or invoke his god in order for the power to be made manifest. The player creates the prayer on the fly and states his desired outcome. then he tests his Faith. There is no tax and no "prayer failure" chart.

There's nothing in this about the player having to chant or say anything (only the character), though just like in D&D it's cool if they want to. It's establishing that in the fiction the prayer has a prominent vocal component that is spoken by the character (not the player) in the same way many D&D spells do as well. The player only has to create the prayer and state his desired outcome. At which point he or she tests faith to see if it succeeds.

 

[pemerton]

There is nothing in the BW Gold rules that state this. It refers to the player's character not the player... just like D&D.

What's weird about this is that you've highlighted the bit that says "player".

From Revised, p 231 (the identical text is in BW Gold, p 523):

A Faithful character may pray for divine intervention. The prayer must be announced and spoken. . . . The player creates the prayer on the fly and states his desired outcome.​

The player has to create the prayer. It has to be stated - in Fight!, prayer is a tandem action and is measured in syllables, which (perforce) have to be spoken.

The topic is elaborated upon in the Adventure Burner (pp 344-45; the same text is found in the Codex, pp 221-22):

The prayer or invocation of the player is the prime part of the task. . . . The player must offer an invocation appropriate to the moment and his idiom. If he doesn't, the GM can and should inform him that his task is inappropriate to his intent and stop the Faith dice before they hit the table. . . .

How often can you pray? Each prayer must be a complete idea spoken, sung or invoked in the proper idiom. The spoken prayer is part of the task of this test! If the task is inappropriate to the intent, disallow the test. Since only a few words can be spoken in each volley, most prayers should take two volleys. More elaborate prayers can take three to six volleys.​

There's nothing in this about the player having to chant or say anything (only the character), though just like in D&D it's cool if they want to. It's establishing that in the fiction the prayer has a prominent vocal component that is spoken by the character (not the player) in the same way many D&D spells do as well. The player only has to create the prayer and state his desired outcome. At which point he or she tests faith to see if it succeeds.

I don't know what you think "create the prayer" means; and I don't know how you think the number of volleys required to state the prayer is determined. But it's clear what the designers think and intended: it means that the player has to state the prayer!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you may have misunderstood.

The skulker's motivation is concrete in the fiction. It's just not yet been authored, and so - at the table - no one (not GM, not players) knows what it is - although all may have some conjectures.

I am insisting on a very strong distinction between the fiction and the real world here, because I find without that distinction being clearly drawn we get strange claims that seem to imply that the fiction writes itself, or exercises causal power over people in the real world.

I am insisting on disregarding such a distinction. Not because the fiction writes itself. But the fiction can certainly exercise causal power over people in the real world. Of course it does....that's how the game works. The players take input from the fiction and then decide how their characters would act. Interaction between the players and the fiction happens all the time.

I would say your view is more along the lines of the fiction writing itself because it ignores the GM's involvement. The GM introduces the NPC in question. The GM chooses to either commit to a motivation, or to leave it open.

Now, I am not against keeping NPC motivations open. Leaving things vague enough so that I can take it in several directions. But I do think a change is taking place.

If the NPC has no motivation when introduced....he's up to something, but it is unknown by everyone, including the GM, then that's fine. But it is what it is. I don't care that a motivation can be introduced later on and within the fictional world it can be justified. There is no motivation, then there is. That is a change.

But nothing is being changed. To author some bit of the fiction is not to change some bit of the fiction. It is to establish it.

I disagree. Now, this disagreement is very likely largely due to the approaches in question...I favor the GM being heavily involved in the story of the game and driving the game, while you prefer the approach of all players and hte GM establishing the fiction as they play.

How is finding a secret door by way of a successful Architecture check less dramatic than (say) casting a Passwall spell? Or, for that matter, how is bumping into your cousin and smoothing things over less dramatic than casting a Charm Person spell?

You're clearly seeing some distinction here, but I'm missing what it is.

Well, from a fictional standpoint, the Passwall spell as a solution to a problem is something that comes from within the character. It's a choice made by the player for his character to have that ability because it may help in certain situations.

The secret door, from a fictional standpoint, is something outside that kind of shows up out of the blue just to help the characters out of a jam.

So, from a fictional standpoint, I think one is a bit more satisfying than the other. Meaning that if I was reading a story, chances are I would prefer a character solving his own problem rather than some outside element solving it for him. Not always....such random occurrences can be interesting....but generally I would consider one favorable to the other.

From a gaming standpoint, I'm not as sure of the distinction. This is because I am not familiar with this gaming style, so there could be restrictions or caveats of some sort that limit how such information comes into play. But for me, looking at it simply as part of our discussion, the PCs being trapped in some way, and one of them using Passwall seems to be a PC using an ability chosen by the player for exactly this type of situation. A player instead using a character skill of some sort to establish the presence of a secret door is likely some level of player skill....but it's using the elements of the fictional world in a way that is far less constrained, so to me it feels easier.