Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Aenghus]

I'll explain the analogy as you seem to have taken it literally.

As it happens I'm on the autism spectrum and prone to taking thing literally. But I had a different motivation in my comment.

The earth is the PCs. The sun is the game world. The game world is always bigger than the PCs.

I just thought it ironic that the analogy is far less appropriate to RPGs than in most other fields. And I am literal minded.

I know, and I'm railing against it as poor to awful design as all it does is make the PCs into special snowflakes, which if left unchecked and-or without the perfect group to play it leads to overentitled players and doormat or processor-unit DMs.

I disagree, as there are no perfect groups, just us flawed fallible humans, who are permitted to pursue happiness. This may involve player expectations and styles of RPG play you disagree with but even so work for other people.

Assuming the DM is unwise enough to reveal whatever decision-making process is being used at a given time, then yes. I know that my answer if asked about this as a DM would usually boil down to a polite version of "none of your business" which would get less polite each successive time I was asked.

I've been a referee for decades and I'm not that precious about my decision making (I may or may not provide some explanation but I'm certainly not annoyed or irritated by appropriate polite requests as I understand them and their motivations). Many players will want some model of the referee's decision making process, especially how and when it deviates from the agreed on system and mechanics, to aid in their own decision making.

Back in the bad old days I asked refereees lots of question and sometimes got a response similar to your "none of your business" above. Sometimes I was browbeaten into silence by such responses from referees, which didn't make for an enjoyable game for me, as I need lots of information to make decisions and avoid analysis paralysis. In some cases I should have left the game as not suiting me. In others the referee got better at his job, or an alternate referee replaced them.

I don't sign social contracts. 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 are always social contracts, the unwritten ones just tend to be fuzzier and less well defined.

 

[Nagol]

Whereas I as player harbour no preconceived expectations at all as to how my contributions to the fiction and entertainment will be received - though my ego would obviously like it to be well-received I've no right to automatically expect such, and nor should I.

I say what I say and I do what I do and - just like in real life! - it's completely up to the listeners to determine what they think of it and-or how (or if) they're going to react to it and-or interact with it. They're free to run with it, build on it, or support it and are equally as free to ignore it, be bored by it, or negate it.

It's their call.

I think you are communicating at cross purposes here. A negation would be "You didn't do that/that doesn't happen" as opposed to doing something to undo your action.

If you opened a door, the door is now open with all the necessary fictional dependencies accomplished (you touched the handle, turned the knob and moved the door in its new position). Someone else can decide to close the door, but no one has the right to say "No you didn't" other than through interruption of the fiction by introducing new information "As you grab the handle..." as you acknowledge in the next section.

By the same token, though, it's my call as to what I do with the fiction presented to me by the DM and-or other players.

As DM I have a right to somewhat more expectation that they're at least going to pay attention, but that's as far as it goes.

The DM has to take your actions into account. The other players have to account for them but don't by any means have to agree with or support or build on them if they (in character) don't want to.

And if I'm the target I have the right to completely ignore said Bard (or pretend to, I'm still eating that d4 damage), or laugh at said Bard, or loudly tell said Bard to sod off, or attack said Bard (at disadvantage, grumble), or simply turn and walk away with my head held high.

The shared fiction is the sum of its parts, which are the individual fictions plus the overall fiction as a whole e.g. metaplot and adventure logs. It sometimes can't even be fully seen until viewed in hindsight.

The individual fictions cannot remain independent when they impact another character (e.g. your Bard Vicious-Wording my Fighter just got your fiction all up in my fiction) or the overall game (my Fighter just took down that orc which means it's dead to you too). But when my Fighter spins a grandly entertaining tale of derring-do in the highlands your Bard is still free to tell me exactly what I'm full of and then say "no, this is how it really went"...or just walk out.

Here I agree; we don't need mechanics for everything.

Lanefan

So you do have the right for your contributions to be acknowledged in how they affect the world and for them not to be negated.

Some of the games we're discussing have given the option to transfer some mechanical expression from the GM to the player while leaving the fictional expression of that mechanism with the GM. The GM may decide to give the player a choice of "pay me now or go for double or nothing". If the player chooses the double-or-nothing option, the GM is supposed to alter the scene to reflect the new danger level rather than negating the choice by keeping the danger the same or lower.

The GM is surrendering some control over the situation by granting the mechanical choice to the player, but is retaining (and arguably increasing) his creativity by maintaining sole control over the fictional representation.

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and anyone else running a BW/DW type of system, a question:

Secret doors. How in your system can - or is it even possible - the following occur: someone rolls a check to find a secret door and fails when in fact there is a secret door right there which might be found on a later check by someone else and-or remains to be used by the enemy?

I ask because in reading what's been posted here a failed check seems to hard-write into the fiction that no secret door is present (and the DM isn't allowed to predetermine there is one and just stick with that), where realism would say instead that all that gets written into the fiction at that point is that an unsuccessful search was made and in fact it yet remains uncertain whether there's a secret door present at that location or not.

Lan-"waiter - check, please"-efan

BW (as I understand it; my copy is the first edition and it is much more of a fantasy heartbreaker than a narrative game) and DW are different is this regard. DW has the "make maps but leave blanks" principle so it entirely possible there is a secret door and the PCs fail to spot it. The "leave banks" means there may not be a secret door on the map originally, but the idea was deemed so appropriate, the GM adds it on the spot in reaction to player action.

 

[pemerton]

So in DW your character would no longer have an arm in this instance??... even though the mechanical effect is take damage??

<snip>

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.

The passage isn't ambiguous. It is talking about the character having his/her arm "busted" or otherwise losing an arm. And what "forces" the player to go along with this is nothing different from what "forces" the player, in a D&D game, to accept that - after being Thunderwaved - his/her PC is at place X (say, next to the pit) rather than place Y (say, next to his/her friend). It's an expectation in these games that once accepts the fiction that is established by application of the mechanics.

(The actual move on the GM's part would, I think, be "deal damage" (p 168): "When you deal damage, choose one source of damage that’s fictionally threatening a character and apply it. . . . The amount of damage is decided by the source. . . . Most damage is based on a die roll." Though one would need to keep in mind (p 23) that "Damage can be assigned even when no move is made, if it follows from the fiction.")

The basic principle is no different in BW than in DW, though the mechanics are different. If an action is declared "I chop his arm off!", and the resolution is successful (say, an Ob 4 Sword test) then the intent is realised and the victim's arm is chopped off.

And I don't really see how a vorpal sword is that relevant: yes, that generates fiction that has teeth, but it's not as if a GM is free to creatively narrate vorpal effects at will. So it's hardly an illustration of D&D being more creative with respect to the creation of fiction-with-teeth than is BW.

I believed we were talking to fiction as opposed to mechanics... which clearly isn't the case. we are really talking mechanics here.

Well, as I posted upthread, I didn't realise that when you said "The GM can be more creative in D&D" you were referring to mere colour that has no teeth as far as resolution is concerned. And it's not clear why you think that the DW GM can't do the same - eg when announcing the increased danger, also introduce whatever additional toothless colour you think is open to the D&D GM?

 

[pemerton]

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.

The example of "reskinning" in the 4e PHB - from memory, Magic Missile as howling skulls - is relatively uninteresting. It's just colour.

Using the stats of Black Star entities (from the E1 module) as Torog's shrivers - which I did - would count as an instance of reskinning as well. But that wasn't mere colour. The fact that these were shrivers mattered to the resolution - eg when they were defeated, Torog lost control of the flow of souls in his Soul Abattoir.

In general, colour becomes interesting when it goes beyond being mere colour and actually establishes fictional positioning. As I said, I'm not very excited by the idea that, because a player narrated a wound, everyone else is bound by that narration, but nothing in the actual resolution of any action reflects the occurence or existence of that wound. (No medical supplies consumed, no disease/infection checks, no wound penalties, etc.)

The player of the paladin in my Raven Queen established, from the beginning of the campaign, that his character sleeps standing up (he'll lie on his back when he's dead). That's not mere colour - one time when the PCs were ambushed while sleeping, that character didn't need to spend an action standing from prone.

When the PCs fought a Chained Cambion (p 25), it "radiate[d] pain, rage, and frustration" and "scream[ed] its despair within the minds ofnearby foes" (MM3 p 25). The casual reader might mistake this for mere colour, but it's not. The Chained Cambion has the following ability:

Mind Shackles (psychic) Recharge when first bloodied
Effect: Two enemies adjacent to each other in a close burst 5 are psychically shackled (save ends; each enemy makes a separate saving throw against this effect). While psychically shackled, an enemy takes 10 psychic damage at the start and the end of its turn if it isn't adjacent to the other creature that was affected by this power. Aftereffect: The effect persists, and the damage decreases to 5 (save ends).​

This ability causes rage and frustration in the players: first because their PCs have to stay adjacent to avoid the ongoing damage; and then because, when one has saved, the other is still afflicted and so the one who saved doesn't get the benefit of that!

That's way beyond just colour: it's one of the most impressive bits of RPG design I've encountered.

 

[pemerton]

BW (as I understand it; my copy is the first edition and it is much more of a fantasy heartbreaker than a narrative game) and DW are different is this regard. DW has the "make maps but leave blanks" principle so it entirely possible there is a secret door and the PCs fail to spot it. The "leave banks" means there may not be a secret door on the map originally, but the idea was deemed so appropriate, the GM adds it on the spot in reaction to player action.

I don't know DW as well as BW, but I think this might fall under Discern Realities: "What here is useful to me", and the GM might answer "A secret door!"

But I don't think DW has anything quite comparable to Wises or similar checks in BW (eg the Perception check mentioned in the OP), which permit the player to state as an intent the discovery or realisation of something that has not yet been established as part of the fiction, such that - if the check succeeds - the intent, and hence the desired fiction, is established.

 

[Nagol]

I don't know DW as well as BW, but I think this might fall under Discern Realities: "What here is useful to me", and the GM might answer "A secret door!"

But I don't think DW has anything quite comparable to Wises or similar checks in BW (eg the Perception check mentioned in the OP), which permit the player to state as an intent the discovery or realisation of something that has not yet been established as part of the fiction, such that - if the check succeeds - the intent, and hence the desired fiction, is established.

FATE has something similar. Any player who is an acknowledged expert in a field may make a statement that will add an aspect to the environment with a relatively simple roll. DW has preconceived mapping and decisions. The "leave blanks" principle is designed for the GM to be able to adjust the design in response to player input / play direction.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] , quick clarification on Illusionism and mutable backstory.

If a GM uses unfixed backstory in order to block a player move after they declare an action, that would be a case of Illusionism. A classical case of this would be "is there warding againstTeleportation/Scrying magic in location x?" GM left this unfixed. But now because the Wizards powerful magic will render an important (perceived to the GM) obstacle innert, the GM initiates the post-hoc block.

That would be a case of mutable setting/backstory leveraged for Illusionism. Basically the GM wants to "say no" and needs justification.

This is why "say yes or roll the dice" is a fundamental principle in games with low resolution setting/unfixed backstory. It protects the social relationship and game integrity against such (perceived or real) "bad faith blocks)...while also allowing the GM to "play to find out!"

 

[Imaro]

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.

Creating could just as easily mean writing it down, especially if he'll be using it again. The character is who speaks it, not the player and your quote above supports that.

In FIGHT! this is the relevant passage...

Speech, Song and Prayer
Characters may speak a few words in each volley they are not hesitating.
(That's up to 8 syllables for the pedants)

Song, Howls and Prayer
Elven songs, Great Wolf howls and prayers using faith do not cost an action to perform. they may be performed at the same time as any other action.

Again the word characters as opposed to players is used. All this passage does is establish how long in combat a particular prayer takes to cast. It doesn't state anything about the player saying it aloud or singing it or anything else along those lines.

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.​

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!

Create the prayer means just that... create it, just like the example ones written down in the book. Sure you could read it or sing it or whatever out loud if you want... but you could just as easily hand it to the GM to review after creating it while stating my character sings aloud a prayer of consecration... In other words nowhere in the rules does it state the player must sing or chant the prayer only that the character must. They even have shortened one word names for the example ones in the book.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] , regarding your conversation with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] on DW. Few clarifying elements for you.

1) DW adjudicates by reference to fictional triggers and genre logic.

2) DW makes liberal use of Tags for shorthand of effects.

3) Stakes, when not implicit, need to be made clear to players so they can make informed decisions.

4) DW GMs are expected to convey and telegraph relevant info related to the fiction, Tags, and stakes.


Integrating the above together, you'll get the following two scenarios in play.

A) A deep canyon is a straight up lethal drop. A PC is being pushed and wants to jump it with its horse. The GM says "...alright, no problem...but on a 6 or less, you're 'stuff on the rocks...'. Straight dead." A smaller fall may be nearly lethal best of 2d12+5.

B) "The bloodthirsty Orc Savage grabs the gate guard by the neck and lifts him from his feet like a rag doll. With a sickening crunch and grotesque spurt of blood, he ends the life of the poor man. The mans head falls from his shoulders with no spinal column to support it. A spray of blood washes over the Orcs face as he grins and looks beyond the ruined corpse at you."

"Messy tag!"

So if you engage that Orc in melee, you know that he is extremely dangerous. A 7-9 on an exchange may yield a damaged weapon or shield (maybe take -1 ongoing to Hack & Slash or Defend. Armor down by 1 or ruined.) A 6- on a grapple and, yeah you may come away missing something or a Con/Wis debility + damage.

A dragon with Messy? Yeah. Much worse.