A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Bedrockgames]

Wher I disagree with pemerton is in his insistence that the casual comparison was actually a criticism of other methods rather than simply someone stating a preference.

I do want to be clear. The casual comparison I made that the OP quotes, was not in any way a criticism of other methods. It was merely making the comparison to express why I didn't think it was Mother May I.

 

[pemerton]

I think your comment on causality and the timing of the decision is indeed the crux of it. Without delving into quantum cats and the like, the location of a thing being determined prior to the results of the search for it seems to be the default expectation for many. Is this because that’s the long standing form of RPG play?

Just on this the long standing form of RPG play - in AD&D, Gygax posits that a successful saving throw tells us that there was a place (eg a crevice in the rock face) to take shelter from the dragon's flaming breath; in Classic Traveller, the rules for a Streetwise check don't distinguish between failure = no contact to find and failure = there is a contact, but they reject the approach - it's left for the table to work out; Tunnels & Trolls has a Luck stat, against which saving throws are sometimes made, and I'd be shocked if no one ever adjudicated a Luck saving throw in fortuen-in-the-middle terms, back in the day.

A long standing form of RPG play, sure - and Runequest is the earliest unrelenting application of this form of play. The long standing form of RPG play, no, for the reasons just given.

 

[pemerton]

if it was Casablanca at games week in and week out, it would cease to be drama and become, "Oh, look. Yet another dilemma ::"

Really? When Casablanca was released, eople went to the cinema week after week and didn't complain about it being too dramatic. There are TV shows that people tune into week after week and they're not hanging out for the episodes where Castle and Becket do nothing but take an uneventful trip to the laundrette.

Also, not all pressure is a dilemma. Not all hard choices are dilemmas. That's your narrow framing, not mine.

Yes they are MEAT. I know the values of my PC. I know what will challenge him, even when the DM doesn't. Situations come up that I decide will be a challenge to the PC's values and they have every bit as much pressure as if the DM puts it on me.

Please explain where the pressure comes from. For instance, if you decide that your PC goes to a library to research his/her family tree to find out if s/he is destined to be king, where is the pressure coming from? What hard decision is forced upon you there?

Suppose that you decide to go and raid the Caves of Chaos instead, what are you (as player and PC) giving up?

Perhaps you need your hand to be held by the DM to get your MEAT.

I'm fairly well known on these boards as a proponent of the Czege principle, that it's not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. What you describe seems even less exciting, because there's no conflict. There's just a player with an idea about what s/he might want his/her PC to do.

You've never gone to the library to do reasearch on something?

I've never gone to the library to research whether or not I will become king - so that's not normal, as I said.

I spend a good part of my waking hours doing library research. It can sometimes be interesting but is rarely exciting. I wouldn't recommend it as the stuff of RPGing. (You find another article whose title is promising but which seems to rely on a doubtful methodology. What do you do?)

And if you think that there is no risk in just walking up to a local lord and interacting with him, you don't know much about nobility.

I don't have much familiarity with nobility - although I live in a monarchy, my monarch lives in another country and spends most of her time there, so I've never had the opportunity to meet her. I do have a friend who was once invited to dine with a (continental European) Prince, but I don't think she was at much risk other than perhaps of heartburn from overly-rich food.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I never said "at my game." If you assumed that, and you were in error. The general social contract for RPGs across the world is "don't be an asshat." I can sit down at a random convention game and it will be in force. In the highly unlikely event that I encounter that very rare bad DM, then yes, I would leave, but that's not a matter of finding someone who meets some personal expectations that I have with regards to my PC's goals. It's that people don't like to play with asshats who violate the social contract.

I was unaware that you had the authority to dictate the social contract terms for everyone, Max. And, let's not forget, you defined "be an asshat" as thwarting your desire to have your own kingdom in game. That's an odd definition of "asshat" and not one, I'm sure, that' universally accepted.

I haven't excused anything. You really need to stop with the assumptions.

You're down to quibbling about word choice. Substitute "expounded," if that's your sticking point.

There was a chance he might have decided to go there. He didn't. I missed that roll. Him not being there is as objective as the cult members not being at the tea house when the roll is missed. Both are at that point 100%.

No, there was no chance at all. He was either there or not there. Again, this is an error in thinking about probability. It's not a measure of how likely something is, it's a measure of our uncertainty about if something is true or not. The "chance" was not that your friend would actually be there -- that's fixed -- but in the weight you assigned to your own uncertainty about where your friend was.

It's really not unique to you, there's a huge chunk of otherwise educated people that make this mistake.

The game world when run organically moves on even when the DM and players aren't thinking about it. Those cultists go to the tea house or don't, and have been since they got to town. Until I actually think about it, though, it's just not relevant. Just as in the real world, mafia members could have been going to the local Shakey's Pizza since they got to town and I wouldn't know about it. Similarly, it's not relevant to me until I think about it. Then I can decide to go down and look for them and see if one is there.

Wow. So much weird to unpack, here. You say that the imaginary world continues to do things even when it's not being imagined (we'll leave aside the fact that imaginations can actually do things, it's the imaginers that are the operative force), but that whatever happens while the imaginary world is doing it's own thing doesn't matter until you think about it and, what? Discover what the imginations did on their own or imagine yourself what happened? Only the former fits with the imaginary world continuing whilst not being imagined, but that's treading into mental disorder land (please, seek help if this is true and your imagination are talking to you). The latter means that the imaginary world didn't do anything at all until you get around to it and backfill in the imaginings. It's all very confused -- not confusing, though it's that, too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. The level mental gymnastics being engaged in by some posters here in order to avoid having to say that D&D has some realism or that it can be greater or lesser, is astounding.

:spittake: <coughing> Man, that's a new keyboard you owe me.

 

[pemerton]

Here's some stuff about monsters and monster stats, from the Burning Wheel Monster Burner (pp 63-64), under the heading "Peer Review":

The final and most important step to monster burning is showing your peers you work. This is the rule: A monster cannot be brought to the table for play unless he has been reviewd and agreed upon by the current GM and the current players.

This rule is in place so that monsters are acceptable to the standards of individual groups. . . .

For peer review we look at three ways a monster might be used in game . . . Each has its own peer review process.

GM's Monsters
The GM is not obligated to reveal his secrets to the players. What fun would that be? However, he must, upon request, tell his players in public the totals of his latest creation's stat, trait and skill points. Players can then complain by comparing those totals vs their own character's.

Burning Wheel believes in the ability of a GM to fairly test his players and respects his right to inject monstrous elements as he sees fit. I know that Gms will be fair and judicious, nd take the protests of their players into account when fielding the latest creations from the pit. A particularly good GM, however, will submit his creatures to the review for Player Designed Monsters described below. . . .

Player-Designed Monsters
If a player designs a monster to be used in game as a characger, there is a two-step review process.

1. Players Get First Look
The players as a grou may approve the monster and pass it to the GM. If they find it too powerful, they may do one of the following: [details of minor mechanical tweaks follow].

2. GM Gets Second Look
The GM may [make various more significant mechanical tweaks]. Lastly, the GM may mae strong suggestions regarding the monster's Beliefs and Instincts. Use these suggestions to better integrate the monster into play.

No on may alter the monster concept, but all should offer suggestions on how to better incorporate the monster into the game. . . .

If all the other players and the GM deem a creature to be unsuitable for their game, then they may veto the creature in its entirety. . . If your creature is vetoed, I advise you to discuss and negotiate with the group . . . Figure out what is best for the other players in your game. . . .

Character Stock Monsters
These monsters [ie written up with full Lifepath details for use in the full character generation system] undergo the same review process as for player-designed monsters. However, be sure to review the beast twic in this case. Once before [writing up the Lifepaths], and once after. It keeps players honest.

When designing monsters to be used as character stoc, the GM is just another player - he gets no special privileges. Another player should be nominted to act as GM for the purposes of Peer Review.

Responsibility
Peer Review is in place to ensure that monsters which are brought to your table are acceptable to the standards of your group. The responsibiity for ensuring this rests firmly on the shoulders of the players involved in the REview. Do not hestitate to make changes or raise objections if you think a monster is going to be disruptive to play. In the end, we all want an enjoyable experience.​

I have no idea how frequently BW tables follow the precise details of this review process. What I think is interesting is the general ethos and approach to establishing gameworld content that it exemplifies. It's very different from the GM just deciding to use a Death Knight that happens to be immune to fear.

 

[Lanefan]

No, they're not MEAT.

None of them forces a hard decision. None of them puts your values - PC or player - to the test. None generates any pressure here and now.

Though all of them could well be things that can help generate pressure later when looking at something other than the immediate or short term.

This is obviously wrong. Watch Casablanca - drama is the norm. Rick has to make hard decisions (about whether to help the young couple; about whether to support the Nazis; about whether to go with Ilsa; etc). That doesn't make it not dramatic - Casablanca is one of the great dramas of all time!

Yes, and it's a) only about two hours long and b) has a pre-set amount of story that has to be fit within that time.

RPGs are open-ended in length, thus there's no need whatsoever to cram story in (whether player or GM generated, doesn't matter for this point) in a rush to make it fit within a real-world timeframe.

Of course real life isn't terribly dramatic for many of us much of the time. But RPGs are fictions, and the ones I play are adventure fictions where exciting and challenging and dramatic things are the norm.

Except that when everything's dramatic, nothing is.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] asked how one would handle separated groups other than by precise tracing of times - this play report provides an example of an alternative approach, based on GM's sense of pacing/narrative imperatives.)

Haven't read it yet, will get to it later.

Why normal stuff? And what is "normal stuff" in the context of an adventure-oriented RPG?

Going to the library and do research on items that can make me a king doesn't seem very normal to me. Nor does going to the local lord and try to ingratiate myself with him to gain status. The difference between those things, and what I described, is that - on the face of it - those things are safe because nothing is really at stake. It's all maybe and in due course. Which is precisely what I'm saying it has not MEAT.

Please define MEAT. I'm assuming that because it's all-caps here it means something other than what comes from a butchered animal, but I don't know what.

EDIT: I read this post by AbdulAlhazred:

The idea of a narrative centred on a PC goal, and offering the possbility of ambition and taking great risks, seems pretty close to my take on MEAT.

Asking the GM about what the books in the library say, and roleplaying interactions with NPCs whom the GM has established with no particular dramatic orientation towards my PC, doesn't seem to involve either of those things. Nor the real risk of failure.

This points to what I mention above: that things done now can set up pressure application later.

Of course there's (quite likely) not much risk involved in doing the library research...which might be exactly why the player/PC chose to take that angle - low risk but potentially decent reward, where the reward is useful information that might help reduce or mitigate the risks later when he puts this research to practical use and actually tries to take over the kingdom. So, low-to-no pressure now could lead to reduced pressure later.

Why take great risks until and unless you have to? And why not do whatever you can to turn those great risks into moderate risks?

Sure it might be less dramatic, but - wait for it! - it's what a rational character would do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just on this the long standing form of RPG play - in AD&D, Gygax posits that a successful saving throw tells us that there was a place (eg a crevice in the rock face) to take shelter from the dragon's flaming breath; in Classic Traveller, the rules for a Streetwise check don't distinguish between failure = no contact to find and failure = there is a contact, but they reject the approach - it's left for the table to work out; Tunnels & Trolls has a Luck stat, against which saving throws are sometimes made, and I'd be shocked if no one ever adjudicated a Luck saving throw in fortuen-in-the-middle terms, back in the day.

A long standing form of RPG play, sure - and Runequest is the earliest unrelenting application of this form of play. The long standing form of RPG play, no, for the reasons just given.

Perhaps “widely accepted” or “most commonly used” would have been better than “long standing”? Was my point unclear?

 

[Maxperson]

Really? When Casablanca was released, eople went to the cinema week after week and didn't complain about it being too dramatic. There are TV shows that people tune into week after week and they're not hanging out for the episodes where Castle and Becket do nothing but take an uneventful trip to the laundrette.

Also, not all pressure is a dilemma. Not all hard choices are dilemmas. That's your narrow framing, not mine.

Hey. Some people like drama to be so common that it's no longer really drama. I get that. Have fun with it. Me, I'm not one of them. I want some drama. I want some comedy. I want some stuff that doesn't have to do with my PC, so that the world feels more realistic.

Please explain where the pressure comes from. For instance, if you decide that your PC goes to a library to research his/her family tree to find out if s/he is destined to be king, where is the pressure coming from? What hard decision is forced upon you there?

The pressure comes from me and/or the personality that I set up for my character. Have you never set a goal for yourself in real life where there was a limit of some sort? Did you not feel pressure to get it done before that limit expired? You don't need someone else to pressure you, or at least not everyone does. Some people just won't do anything unless someone else is riding them. I'm not one of those people.

Suppose that you decide to go and raid the Caves of Chaos instead, what are you (as player and PC) giving up?

The Caves of Chaos are murder on mounts. I had to give up the mount I have treasured for the last 5 years. It was very difficult.

I'm fairly well known on these boards as a proponent of the Czege principle, that it's not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. What you describe seems even less exciting, because there's no conflict. There's just a player with an idea about what s/he might want his/her PC to do.

I'm not always introducing the conflict. I'm often recognizing something the DM is unaware might even be a conflict as a conflict, and resolving it. Sometimes, however, I do initiate the conflict, because it's necessary for my PC to do so, even if it's a difficult resolution. I find it exciting and fun anyway.

I don't have much familiarity with nobility - although I live in a monarchy, my monarch lives in another country and spends most of her time there, so I've never had the opportunity to meet her. I do have a friend who was once invited to dine with a (continental European) Prince, but I don't think she was at much risk other than perhaps of heartburn from overly-rich food.

And these kinds of seriously disingenuous responses are why a lot of people find it frustrating(or just don't do it) to talk to you. Your monarch barely deserves the title. She's a figurehead. You know damn well that I'm discussing the medieval nobles who actually had the power of life and death over people, often at a whim.

 

[Maxperson]

I was unaware that you had the authority to dictate the social contract terms for everyone, Max. And, let's not forget, you defined "be an asshat" as thwarting your desire to have your own kingdom in game. That's an odd definition of "asshat" and not one, I'm sure, that' universally accepted.

So first, society dictates that when playing a game you don't be an asshat, not me. Second, I didn't use that definition of asshat. Nice try. Now your going to go dig up where I said that unless a DM is an asshat, I will eventually be able to succeed. That doesn't give you my definition of asshat, though. That's just more assumption on your part.

No, there was no chance at all. He was either there or not there. Again, this is an error in thinking about probability. It's not a measure of how likely something is, it's a measure of our uncertainty about if something is true or not. The "chance" was not that your friend would actually be there -- that's fixed -- but in the weight you assigned to your own uncertainty about where your friend was.

If you get someone's regular weekly schedule down, you can set the probabilities of him being at any given place at any given time.