Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[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.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Why isn't he? Outside of pre-established social contract forbidding it... why can't the DM narrate an NPC's limb being lopped off as part of hit point damage? Why can't the player narrate their limb being lopped off as part of hit point damage if they want and stick to it in the fiction the same way your Raven Queen paladin slept standing up?

 

[Imaro]

[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.

Ok that makes things clearer... but how does setting these stakes beforehand not lead to some constraint on creativity.

 

[Imaro]

[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.

Ok that makes things clearer, I wasn't aware the stakes were set with total transparency... but how does setting these stakes beforehand like this not lead to some constraint on creativity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[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!"

Sure, I get the concern about Illusionism in that sense.

What I am saying is that the mutability of backstory and story elements is along the lines of Illusionism (not that it must be Illusionism, although it can be) in the sense that it allows the GM leeway to go in multiple directions based on what the GM decides is best for the game by working in an area unknown to the players. I know that such leeway need not be about blocking the players' actions in some way.

I'm not ascribing any negativity to this technique....I think it's fine, generally (as always, table expectations and desires play a role here). I just see a similarity in the GM having the ability to decide things on the fly. Whether that happens to be what's at the end of the left fork in a tunnel, or the affiliations and goals of an NPC....the GM is free to alter what is true until some point of commitment.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

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.

These two statements seem to be contradictory. In the first you are implying that the fiction cannot write itself (which is something a great many authors have said is what often happens), and in the second you are saying the fiction is already written and we cannot change it.

So is the fiction "fixed" (that is, not being changed) and we are just discovering it, in which case we are not authoring it, or are we authoring it, in which case the fiction is not "fixed."

When I talk of fiction authoring itself, I think it's a combination of the author, and the conditions previously set forth in the fiction. So when you create a new NPC who has motivations, and then consider (without additional authors) how that NPC goes about achieving those motivations in relation to the rest of the fiction (NPCs, events, plots, etc.), it sort of writes its own story. Yes, somebody else might come to different conclusions, but the perception is that it's "writing itself."

I've experienced that sort of circumstance both in writing and in music. Is it really writing itself? I don't really care. Because it's writing itself without conscious input by myself.

As far as something in the fiction not being fixed (that is, cannot be changed) until authored, that's a classic example of Schroedinger's Cat. The secret door is present/not present until the check determines whether it is or not. That's the objection that a lot of people have. Whether a player or DM, some people just don't like that concept.

I don't share that objection 100%. When you improvise, roll randomly, or even change something on the fly it's the same effect as saying "authoring some bit of fiction does not change the fiction." But the reality is that isn't not being changed, because it didn't exist in the first place.

This doesn't exclude the possibility of the "fiction writing itself" of which random generation is one way for it to write itself.

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.

My issue is not the drama. My issue is the logic and continuity. Does a secret door belong here? Like traps, secret doors and passages are built for specific reasons. One is to allow somebody to stealthily come and go as they please. While those seem to be fairly prevalent in fantasy RPGs, I think that the more common types of a secret passage is as an escape route.

Regardless, it's not a random inclusion or placement. I don't mind determining if there is a secret door there until later, but by doing it based on a skill check would sometimes give me cause to override such a roll if the placement made it impossible.

In your case, you probably haven't designed the entire castle. OK. But I think if you design by skill check you'll have a very oddly designed and entirely ineffective castle. I get it, you're going to interact with that castle for a period of time when it's relevant to this adventure. But in my case it's going to potentially exist for the next 30 years of my campaign.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So GM cognitive workload and mental overhead comes down to two primary evaluations IME:

1) Desirous vs Tedious

Do I enjoy the game's expectant or necessary {GMing tasks}?

That's a spectrum so clearly subjective, I'm tempted to ignore it. But, I'm also bothered by it, because if you evaluate a game that way, you can make a system that requires a lot of work from the GM seem desirable over one that doesn't for those DMs that like doing the work - but, the thing is, you could probably put in a lot of whatever kind of work you enjoy even with a system that doesn't actually require it, too.

So, alternatively, what about a spectrum of discretionary vs necessary? On the far left, the GM can put in only the work he enjoys, to the degree he enjoys it, on the far right, there is a great deal of mandatory workload/mental-overhead, even if it's still entirely possible a given GM might enjoy all of it.

2) Utility vs Cost

How much efficient... function does this responsibility provide and does it negatively impact my attention elsewhere?

This sounds more like a function than a spectrum, but I suppose it could be a continuum of the net results, ie: with the Utility end of the spectrum having no net cost (all cost returns corresponding utility) and Cost end no net utility (cost overwhelms any utility it may provide)?

However...the elegance, coherency, predictability, and intuitiveness of the system's machinery (components by themselves, with respect to each other, and with respect to the games' agenda in full) is an enormous mitigating factor here.

If those can mitigate, I suppose, say 'familiarity' could, as well. If the burden imposed by the system is predictable and intuitive, that makes it easier to work with, but if it's familiar & mastered to the point of being second nature, it'll be just as much easier to work with, too.
I suppose that could be thought of as sunk cost or investment, as well.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The skulker is seen doing things in the distance a few times before the party really interact with him, right? So, if nobody knows his motivation at that time why is he doing what he's doing? His motivation for doing those things has to come from somewhere...in this case, the DM...and thus DM speculation becomes for the moment hidden DM fact. And the players can then speculate as they wish.

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.

And I still don't see what the illusion is. On whom has it been perpetrated? I mean, I as GM had some conjecture as to whom the skulker might be. When the big reveal comes out it turns out that my initial conjecture was false - the skulker is someone else. Who has been deceived? What's the illusion? All I can see is authorship.

The skulker is someone else, as in not the same individual at all? There's two yellow-robed guys? Is that what you mean?

If they are the same person, however, then the later "authoring" does in fact overwrite whatever was driving his actions when he was seen earlier. Nothing wrong with this as long as his "new" self would have done the same things seen earlier...but to claim there's no change from what he was previously based on is false. There is a change. Thing is, only you as DM know this.

First, what is the meaning of "in place"? If you mean the fiction is already established, then that is not what I am talking about and has no bearing on the example of the skulker. If you mean the GM has a conjecture about some bit of the fiction then what does it mean to say that the idea is "in place"?

Because as I just said, once the skulker attracts the party's attention by flying around in the distance, DM conjecture known only to the DM becomes DM fact known only to the DM. The idea is in place and being reflected in the fiction by the skulker doing whatever he's doing when the party see him.

Assuming the second understanding - which is what I have been talking about, and is the example I provided - who is being tricked? Not the GM. Not the players. Not any of the fictional inhabitants of the gameworld.

Nobody is really being tricked here, in that the skulker's earlier actions are innocuous enough that retconning a different set of motivations onto him makes little real difference. EXCEPT, you have to ask yourself this: if the skulker had been operating under these "new" motivations all along would the party have seen him doing anything different than what they in fact saw? If yes, then both the players and their PCs have been (more or less) tricked or deceived.

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?

There's quite a difference. Passwall doesn't care if there's a secret door there - it just makes an obvious way through by temporarily changing the architecture - where the Architecture check is based on what's been constructed into the building as noted on the DM's map (or bloody well should be - this idea of Schroedingers Secret Door just doesn't fly with me). Charm Person is the brute-force approach to diplomacy and information gathering (and not available to everyone).

suppose that a player declares a Perception check to look for a secret door at a dead end. And s/he declares that s/he (in character) is searching carefully (so as to get a bonus die). And the check fails, meaning that the GM is licensed to introduce a significant time-based complication: so the GM might narrate, "As you are carefully tapping the wall, listening for hollow places, you hear boots coming along the corridor - it sounds like the iron-shod boots of goblins! And then the wall in front of you opens - there is a secret door, with goblins on the other side of it. It looks like you're just in time for a rendezvous of forces!"

As I said, a failure to find X can be for any number of reasons other than the absence of X. Upthread, for instance, I noted that a possible failure for a check to find a vessel to catch blood in might be that the character notices the vessel just in time to see it knocked to the ground by the other struggling characters, and smash on the floor.

It depends on the context and significance of the check (and the GM's imagination, obviously).

That doesn't answer my question.

Can, in your system, an existing secret door simply be missed on a search? It's not about an absence of anything, it's about the presence of it being flat-out missed by the searcher (with or without possible consequences then or later).

Can there in fact be a blood-catching vessel in the room that the searcher just doesn't notice even though it might be in plain sight (we've all done this in real life!)?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

This is what makes it story now. The aspiration is that every moment of play is a story, in the sense that something is happening that matters to the dramatic needs of these characters; and that this is achieved by the players playing the characters they have built and the GM framing scenes and adjudicating action declarations[ made by the players for their PCs. If the GM is framing scenes (eg moments of haggling, or marauding wolves) that don't speak to anyone character's dramatic needs, then we don't have story now. If the GM is adjudicating results not by reference to action declarations that express dramatic need, but rather by reference to secret backstory, then we don't have story now.

Then you (and maybe these guys you're quoting) are horribly mis-using the word "story".

The story is what happens in the game fiction. Period. No matter what it may consist of.

Marauding wolves or haggling with merchants is every bit as much a part of the story as finding out someone's brother is bent.

Every time a character says or does something, every time the game-world either reacts or proacts with the characters, every time the DM narrates the result of a die roll (with very few exceptions, no matter what the roll is for) - that's all story; and it's all story now.

Later, if you're the sort of crew that does such things, it gets beaten down into a game log which then becomes The Story. (or, "story then").

You have misquoted Eero Tuovinen. He doesn't say that "the story is nothing but choices made by playing the character". He says that "from the player’s viewpoint . . . he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character." That is, the player doesn't have to make any effort to create a story other than by playing his/her PC.

And the GM doesn't have to make any effort to create a story other than by framing the PCs into scenes that speak to dramatic need. (Eg the GM doesn't need a whole lot of notes such as one might find in a typical "event-driven" module.)

This makes a bunch of very broad (and IMO very poor) assumptions: that the PCs are the centre of everything, that the game world is never bigger than the PCs and how dare its story interrupt theirs, that there's never anything happening that the PCs either aren't involved in or only observe from a distance, and so on.

In the "standard narrativistic model", the "players [establish] concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes". As part of this, the players inform the GM what the dramatic needs of the PCs are. The GM is then obliged to frame a scene that speaks to this.

The last sentence is where I fall off the bus. As DM I'm not obliged to frame anything specific to anyone. I frame a game world, a setting, some history, some ongiong stuff, and the PCs can fit themselves in however they like...and in so doing they can sort out their own dramatics, again however they like.

In other words, I give them a stage and maybe a bare-bones plot. It's up to them to write the script (which may or may not stick to the plot I suggested) and then insert their own dramatics as they act it out.

No one is in control of the story. It emerges from the process of situation -> choices -> action declarations -> consequences -> new situation -> etc - until, as he says, "all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end". It is the players who decide what those outstanding issues are. This is why I describe this sort of RPGing as "player-driven".

You say "no-one is in control of the story" and then almost immediately say the players are in control via their decision of both what the outstanding issues are and what choices they make in order to deal with them. Make up yer mind.

Lan-"the DM, however, somewhat ironically seems to be not in control of the story she's then expected to DM"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Chess is a poor comparison in that both participants (and there's only two) are in theory equal. RPGs have two different types of participant - DM and player - and the number of one of those (player) can be quite variable. A further variable in RPGs is that both DM and players are operating in a fiction and reality at the same time.

That said, if I'm playing chess and my opponent makes a move, it's not my place to ask what thought processes went into said move. I've just got to deal with what the move is and what it means for my position.*

Same with a player-DM situation: it's not the player's place to ask what thought (or mechanical) processes went into whatever the DM just did. The player/character just has to deal with it and what it means to them.*

* - I'm ignoring illegal chess moves and obviously-bad-faith DM moves here for the sake of simplicity.

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.

Game version and edition - is the game going to be 5e, or 1e, or DCC, or CoC - and player-side houserules thereto; those are what I mean by "system".

My behind-the-screen stuff, other than being consistent with said system, is my own.

Lanefan