Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

show me a passage form the book where the player is called on to speak (as opposed to the character) and I'm ready to concede.

Well, I quoted this from the Codex (orignially in the Adventure Burner):

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.​

That requires the player to offer an invocation. Not to describe his/her PC offering one.

I also mentioned Rapier Wit (Gold p 343; I haven't checked the Revised Character Burner citation) and Rhyme of Rules (Gold p 148; again, I haven't checked the Revised page number):

In a Duel of Wits, if the player can interject a searing bon mot while his opponent is speaking, he gains +2D to his next verbal action.

Rhyme of Rules is . . . the only spell song that can be used as a FoRK . . . for any skill song test . . . for whch the player can recite a clever bit of folklore obliquely pertinent to the situation​

The player creates the prayer... and that determines it's number of words.

<snip>

I could just as easily, if the table agrees, state "My character Bethren says the prayer of the Weeping Moon beseeching divine alertness during the hours of the night" (Italicized portion is the prayer which is roughly 16 syllables)

The italicised bit is a description of the prayer. It is not the actual prayer, and hence doesn't tell us how long the prayer takes to speak (and hence how many volleys).

The prayer has to be something like "O Weeping Moon, I beseech your divine aid, that I may remain alert during these night hours", or something similar. That is a prayer, not just a description of one, and hence allows adjudication of the time taken (23 syllables, or 24 if you count hours as two; so three volleys); it also allows the table (and most importantly the GM) to affirm that the task suits the intent: because, if it is not, then (per the Codex/Adventure Burner), 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.

Of course BW is not the only RPG to require speaking certain words (in character) as part of establishing the fictional positioning for an action declaration and to adjudicate the time required the action in question. AD&D requires this for casting a Wish or Limited Wish spell, and it determines the casting time of that spell (AD&D PHB, pp 88, 94): "Casting time is the actual number of seconds - at six per segment - to phrase the limited wish."

The idea that there is something unorthodox or even objectionable about actually requiring the player to state words in order to establish fictional positioning for action declaration is (I think) an idea that has more recent origins in the RPGing hobby.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Further to this.

Here is The Forge's definition of illusionism - and in case the relevance of this definition is contested, well, that's where the term comes from:

A family of Techniques in which a GM, usually in the interests of story creation, story creation, exerts Force over player-character decisions, in which he or she has authority over resolution-outcomes, and in which the players do not necessarily recognize these features.​

Here is the definition that I wrote when composing this post, before Googling up the above:

Illusionism refers to a GMing technique (or maybe a family of techniques) whereby the GM covertly manipulates the resolution mechanics and/or the fiction to ensure that certain outcomes occur within the shared fiction, regardless of the players' action declaration.​

So I'm pretty confident that my understanding is on the same page as that of The Forge.

Now, in the example of the GM not establishing, as part of the fiction, the motivation of an NPC until some appropriate moment of framing or adjudication: how is that illusionism, or anything like it? No control is being asserted over outcomes. Nothing is being done covertly. All the GM is doing is either framing - which is overt - or narrating a consequence in accordance with the procedures of the game in question - which is overt.

What is the supposed resemblance?

Haven't had much time to engage this thread, as responses take a lot of time and thought, but this one's been percolating for a few days, so i can take a quick crack at it:

So, this is a bit challenging, so stick with it and keep an open mind. Nothing here is meant to denigrate story now games or anyone's preferred style, it's just a frank look at how story now games actually work and how their core design goal does create Illusionism. This isn't a bad thing, I've enjoyed a few forays into well run story now games. It's not my preferred style to run, but I'm agnostic to system when it comes to enjoying a game (unless the system actively fights the game style).

Story Now games are inherently built on Illusionism. While the standard definition (which I'm keeping) points to specific instances, and works well, Story Now games actually incorporate illusionism in their basic premise: make the game about the characters. If the entire game pivots around the characters, to the point that even failures are supposed to be directly tied to player intents, then the game, it's concepts and mechanics, are forcing an outcome where the player intentions are the only thing that matters. When that happens, there's a loss of agency, but a cunning, sneaky loss. If every one of my declared intents matter, and nothing else does, then do they really matter? Can I say that it's my intent as a player matters when nothing but my intent can matter? This is a subtle issue, somewhat related to the 'when everyone is special' chestnut.

To bring this to a sharper focus, let's look at the motivation of the skulker discussion. Skipping the parts about authoring and fiction (I'm in the Schrodinger's Motivation camp, but that's not an inherent negative), when the players first see the skulker there's one overriding fact about the skulker's motivation: it will hinge on what the players have declared as their intents. When that will resolve isn't set, but when it does resolve, when we do find out the skulker's motivation, it will always, always bear on a declared intent by one or more of the players. This is a force that manipulates the outcome of the fiction without regard to the player's action declaration -- no matter what the player actually declares, the fiction will be retroactively set according to their declaration. While the definition is primarily aimed at the specific instance (in this instance, the DM overruled a player declaration to have a set outcome occur), in Story Now games it's the whole game that does it. It's not a single, concrete instance, it's the overruling design principle -- always make everything about the players.

Now, that's not necessarily bad (or even a little be bad), but it does invoke Illusionism because, from the player side, it appears as if your decisions matter. But, the thing is, the specific decision you made doesn't really matter -- no matter what you decided, the outcome will still be about you. The game creates an illusion of agency when the reality is that it doesn't really matter what you choose, the game will still be about that. I may be able to risk my character, but I cannot ever risk the game -- it will always be about me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I quoted this from the Codex (orignially in the Adventure Burner):

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.​

That requires the player to offer an invocation. Not to describe his/her PC offering one.

I also mentioned Rapier Wit (Gold p 343; I haven't checked the Revised Character Burner citation) and Rhyme of Rules (Gold p 148; again, I haven't checked the Revised page number):

In a Duel of Wits, if the player can interject a searing bon mot while his opponent is speaking, he gains +2D to his next verbal action.

Rhyme of Rules is . . . the only spell song that can be used as a FoRK . . . for any skill song test . . . for whch the player can recite a clever bit of folklore obliquely pertinent to the situation​

The italicised bit is a description of the prayer. It is not the actual prayer, and hence doesn't tell us how long the prayer takes to speak (and hence how many volleys).

The prayer has to be something like "O Weeping Moon, I beseech your divine aid, that I may remain alert during these night hours", or something similar. That is a prayer, not just a description of one, and hence allows adjudication of the time taken (23 syllables, or 24 if you count hours as two; so three volleys); it also allows the table (and most importantly the GM) to affirm that the task suits the intent: because, if it is not, then (per the Codex/Adventure Burner), 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.

Of course BW is not the only RPG to require speaking certain words (in character) as part of establishing the fictional positioning for an action declaration and to adjudicate the time required the action in question. AD&D requires this for casting a Wish or Limited Wish spell, and it determines the casting time of that spell (AD&D PHB, pp 88, 94): "Casting time is the actual number of seconds - at six per segment - to phrase the limited wish."

The idea that there is something unorthodox or even objectionable about actually requiring the player to state words in order to establish fictional positioning for action declaration is (I think) an idea that has more recent origins in the RPGing hobby.

If you're correct, that's a horrible mechanic. I should never be forced to perform my character's actions to see them realized in game. This is akin to making the player of the fighter stand up and act out their attack routine before resolving it. The actual resolution doesn't require the precise words, spoken by the player -- the DM and the player can quickly negotiate a length to match the intent of the prayer/song/whatever and move on. The mechanics should never force playacting.

 

[pemerton]

If you're correct, that's a horrible mechanic. I should never be forced to perform my character's actions to see them realized in game.

<snip>

The mechanics should never force playacting.

Why not?

I'm about to start playing a BW campaign. I posted some details of my PC upthread - he is Faithful and hence I will have to be speaking prayers. I don't see it as horrible. I'm looking forward to it.

In conceptual terms, I relate this to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s remarks upthread about authenticity and "Walled Off Gardens". There is something more demanding about being obliged to speak my character's prayers. I am expecting it to intensify the experience of play, and to make me more intimately inhabit my faithful character. (I had a similar experience, many many years ago now, playing a religious character in a Cthulhu freeform.)

(In social contexts in all the RPGs I GM (4e, BW, Cortex/MHRP) I generally expect the players to say what it is their PCs are saying, or at least to give me a pretty close third-person paraphrase. Otherwise how can one adjudicate?)

 

[Nagol]

Why not?

I'm about to start playing a BW campaign. I posted some details of my PC upthread - he is Faithful and hence I will have to be speaking prayers. I don't see it as horrible. I'm looking forward to it.

In conceptual terms, I relate this to @Campbell's remarks upthread about authenticity and "Walled Off Gardens". There is something more demanding about being obliged to speak my character's prayers. I am expecting it to intensify the experience of play, and to make me more intimately inhabit my faithful character. (I had a similar experience, many many years ago now, playing a religious character in a Cthulhu freeform.)

(In social contexts in all the RPGs I GM (4e, BW, Cortex/MHRP) I generally expect the players to say what it is their PCs are saying, or at least to give me a pretty close third-person paraphrase. Otherwise how can one adjudicate?)

Because it prevents players like me from ever using those mechanics. I will say what I intend my character to convey. I will provide a basic strategy which the character can be viewed as acting. But, I know I am not particularly articulate *edit* and social cues are somewhat beyond me */edit*. If a GM forces my skills into a game I usually tell them I plan to force their skills into my next game like using an axe for 15 minutes or running 100 yards in less than 15 seconds before their intent can be adjudicated in-game (actually I typically just leave the game though I really wanted to see one GM dance a minuet after he tried to force me to perform jumping jacks in Paranoia).

 

[pemerton]

If the entire game pivots around the characters, to the point that even failures are supposed to be directly tied to player intents, then the game, it's concepts and mechanics, are forcing an outcome where the player intentions are the only thing that matters. When that happens, there's a loss of agency, but a cunning, sneaky loss. If every one of my declared intents matter, and nothing else does, then do they really matter? Can I say that it's my intent as a player matters when nothing but my intent can matter?

<snip>

the specific decision you made doesn't really matter -- no matter what you decided, the outcome will still be about you. The game creates an illusion of agency when the reality is that it doesn't really matter what you choose, the game will still be about that.

(1) It's not true to say that the specific decision doesn't really matter.

The players decide that their PCs travel to a city beseiged by hobgoblins, and involve themselves in the local politics. The baron becomes salient, The skulker (it turns out) is the baron's chief advisor.

Had the players made a different decision, the outcomes would almost certainly have been quite different.

(2) If everything in the game somehow relates to choices the players make (in build and play of their PCs), then there's no illusion in that - it says it right on the tin.

(3) There's no loss of agency that I can see, in either (1) or (2). The player's choice to play a Raven Queen devotee means that, as GM, I narrate an attack upon the baron by Orcus cultists. Had the player chosen to build and play a different PC, different situations would have been framed. Where is the player losing agency?

 

[pemerton]

Because it prevents players like me from ever using those mechanics.

That means that you wouldn't like that sort of game. But I don't see why that makes it a horrible mechanic.

I am pretty bad at tactical wargaming. Does that mean that tactical resolution systems in RPGs are "horrible mechanics" and that non-tactical systems like HeroWars/Quest simple contests are the only acceptable ones?

I know some people who are bad at probability and hence can't really use complex dice mechanics effectively. Does that make those "horrible mechanics".

And outside the RPG context, I'm terrible at bluffing and lack the patience necessary, and so am a ridiculously easy mark playing poker. Does that make poker a horrible game, or just one to which I'm not well suited?

I guess my feeling is that different games invoke different skills and inclinations, and it's not the measure of a "horrible mechanic: that it's not universally enjoyed.

 

[Nagol]

That means that you wouldn't like that sort of game. But I don't see why that makes it a horrible mechanic.

I am pretty bad at tactical wargaming. Does that mean that tactical resolution systems in RPGs are "horrible mechanics" and that non-tactical systems like HeroWars/Quest simple contests are the only acceptable ones?

I know some people who are bad at probability and hence can't really use complex dice mechanics effectively. Does that make those "horrible mechanics".

And outside the RPG context, I'm terrible at bluffing and lack the patience necessary, and so am a ridiculously easy mark playing poker. Does that make poker a horrible game, or just one to which I'm not well suited?

I guess my feeling is that different games invoke different skills and inclinations, and it's not the measure of a "horrible mechanic: that it's not universally enjoyed.

The difference in most of your counter examples is the play described in both inherent and obvious up-front as part of the game. Tactical play in a tactical war game. Bluffing in poker. If you know you don't like certain things you know to stay away from those activities that feature those things. Complex probabilities I do think are bad overall though. Most humans do not grok the how the probabilities will work either in a particular instance or over a longer term.

BW does not signal this form of play in integral or featured. Including this ruling for some small subset whilst ignoring similar adjudication in similar situations is a sign of bad rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why not?

I'm about to start playing a BW campaign. I posted some details of my PC upthread - he is Faithful and hence I will have to be speaking prayers. I don't see it as horrible. I'm looking forward to it.

In conceptual terms, I relate this to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s remarks upthread about authenticity and "Walled Off Gardens". There is something more demanding about being obliged to speak my character's prayers. I am expecting it to intensify the experience of play, and to make me more intimately inhabit my faithful character. (I had a similar experience, many many years ago now, playing a religious character in a Cthulhu freeform.)

(In social contexts in all the RPGs I GM (4e, BW, Cortex/MHRP) I generally expect the players to say what it is their PCs are saying, or at least to give me a pretty close third-person paraphrase. Otherwise how can one adjudicate?)

It'e entirely okay if YOU choose to speak your character's prayers aloud. This isn't a matter of you looking forward to getting to play-act your character. And I use play-act intentionally and separately from role-playing, which doesn't require play-acting. A mechanic in a role-playing game that forces play-acting is actively uninviting to an entire swath of potential players. That you don't find it so really isn't an argument.

 

[Imaro]

Well, I quoted this from the Codex (orignially in the Adventure Burner):

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.​

That requires the player to offer an invocation. Not to describe his/her PC offering one.

This is still ambiguous you can offer the prayer (that the player creates) to the GM without speaking it. You write it down and hand it to him.

I also mentioned Rapier Wit (Gold p 343; I haven't checked the Revised Character Burner citation) and Rhyme of Rules (Gold p 148; again, I haven't checked the Revised page number):

In a Duel of Wits, if the player can interject a searing bon mot while his opponent is speaking, he gains +2D to his next verbal action.​

Well this is optional it grants an incentive for speaking out loud by the player but it doesn't force you to.

Rhyme of Rules is . . . the only spell song that can be used as a FoRK . . . for any skill song test . . . for which the player can recite a clever bit of folklore obliquely pertinent to the situation

Yep this one does seem to blur the line between player and character... though I'm wondering if this takes place in the game or does the player himself have to create the lore and it serve more as knowledge his character possess... Honestly I'm finding this game kind of obtuse when it comes to clearly explaining things.

The italicised bit is a description of the prayer. It is not the actual prayer, and hence doesn't tell us how long the prayer takes to speak (and hence how many volleys).

Okay assume the same situation where I hand the GM the prayer for assessment... or I speak it but not in character. Are these options in BW?

The prayer has to be something like "O Weeping Moon, I beseech your divine aid, that I may remain alert during these night hours", or something similar. That is a prayer, not just a description of one, and hence allows adjudication of the time taken (23 syllables, or 24 if you count hours as two; so three volleys); it also allows the table (and most importantly the GM) to affirm that the task suits the intent: because, if it is not, then (per the Codex/Adventure Burner), 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.

Again, I'm failing to see how this has to be spoken. It could just as easily be written down.

Of course BW is not the only RPG to require speaking certain words (in character) as part of establishing the fictional positioning for an action declaration and to adjudicate the time required the action in question. AD&D requires this for casting a Wish or Limited Wish spell, and it determines the casting time of that spell (AD&D PHB, pp 88, 94): "Casting time is the actual number of seconds - at six per segment - to phrase the limited wish."

You could write the wish down, and given the advice around subverting AD&D wishes that was pretty popular probably should. That's what i am getting at you keep inferring things have to be spoken (and in character at that) when they don't necessarily have to be and there is no actual passage in BW (at least so far) that states these things must be spoken in character by the player.

The idea that there is something unorthodox or even objectionable about actually requiring the player to state words in order to establish fictional positioning for action declaration is (I think) an idea that has more recent origins in the RPGing hobby.

I think forcing this type of thing would definitely limit the appeal of your game (the actor play style and it's forms of fun/pleasure are not necessarily enjoyed by all and making this mandatory means anyone who doesn't enjoy it can't choose to opt out)... and I'm not sure I see it as objectively more authentic or helpful in getting into the mindset of your character... it's just a preference.

My players and I often speak in character during the game when conversations between PC's and NPC's (or even PC's and PC's) take place but when it comes to action declarations... acting it out isn't enforced unless someone wants to pantomime something and then it's usually done in a humorous way (or because we've had a little too much to drink) as opposed to it being something that's judged to complete said task by the GM.