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

[Maxperson]

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

Nah. Buy it out of the money you get for that mental gymnastic gold.

 

[Manbearcat]

As DM how do you not introduce obstacles that are your preconception of how things should maybe turn out? If the PC is free to write their own story (via dice), his story-arc might end within the next session or two. That would leave him twiddling his thumbs for the rest of the campaign arc.

I'm going to talk about this using Dungeon World and I'm going to use the example that was discussed upthread about searching for a hidden door.

So here is the sblocked version of a Dungeon World scenario handling a secret door via a Discern Realities move:

[sblock]You have to reflect back upon the game's Agenda and the GMing Principles. What applies here is:

* Play to find out what happens

* Draw maps, leave blanks

* Ask questions and use the answers

* Begin and end with the fiction

So here is the likely course of events with a Dungeon World GM and a burned out tavern where the players hoping to find survivors or signs of what happened here.

1) GM may have a rough idea of maybe 2-3 things that may have happened here but they aren't sure (because they're playing to find out).

2) The player says something like "Inns have cellars for dry goods, spirits and the like. Maybe someone hid in there and locked it when whatever went down. I move all of the debris from behind the bar and look for some kind of pull or something on the seared floorboards."

3) This is basically an "ask questions and use the answers" moment (but sort of inverted).

4) The GM will not have anything nearing a blueprint (if they have anything at all and aren't just ad-libbing it) of the inn; "leave blanks."

5) "Begin and end with the fiction" comes up here as the GM is using that input from the player and thinking yeah, the "begin with the fiction" proposition of a spirit/dry goods basement behind the bar makes sense in multiple ways.

6) Is something at stake? Yeah. Survivors. The possible answer to whatever happened here (intel). Possible assets (maybe a use of Adventuring Gear/Rations/Poutlice or a Cohort in this group of people since they owe the PCs their lives). So we don't "say yes" we "roll the dice."

7) What are we rolling the dice for? To find out if there is this secret door/tavern cellar and what is in there.

So, by a collection of proxies, a player is basically being afforded the opportunity to stipulate fiction with a successful Discern Realities move.[/sblock]

So let us say the player's Discern Realities move in Dungeon World was a 6-. How do I not introduce an obstacle that isn't preconceived prior to play?

* The game tells me that it will fight me if I try to conceive plot prior to play. And its right (due to the brutal transparency and the nature of the mechanics, application of GM Force in PBtA games is exceptionally difficult...and not worth the hassle, in part because...)

* The game tells me it will be more fun if I play to find out what happens (and it turns out its correct!)...

* The game tells me (a) how to play to find out what happens and (b) how the game will help me to do so (in organizing a low overhead, focused-ethos approach to GMing and in helping to distill my responses to the ongoing play conversation in a hyper-functional and gamestate-coherent way).


So the player has failed. I know I need to:

* make a hard move that has immediate consequences or a soft move (which portends immediate negative consequences if not acted upon) if that fits the situation better...

* that move needs:

1 - follow from the prior fiction

2 - to have the context of "be a fan of the characters" (in Dungeon World, this means referencing and testing their specific protagonism)

3- to be dangerous and fill the PCs lives with adventure

So back to the fiction.

Most times, Discern Realities failure is going to warrant a soft move. But lets say in the above scenario, I've already made a soft move with the prior description of the scene:

"Viscous pink skid-marks on the floor cut a jagged path in the floorboards to the area behind the bar where the ceiling has collapsed as a pair of load-bearing pillars have been upended. Desperate scratches and a pair of fingernails ripped from their bed accompany the disgusting trail of soupy ichor which appears to be blood and some other, thicker, clear substance."

So now there is something...what-we-don't-know-at-this-point...amiss.

So maybe one of the characters is a holy warrior with the Alignment statement of "save a lost soul from itself." Maybe this ruined tavern used to be a way-station for slave-trade and a mother had to watch her child starve to death before she succumbed herself. Her afterlife wrath ruined this place, and ever since she manifests as an angry poltergeist to murder squatters, bandits, and hapless travelers seeking momentary respite from the elements alike.

So when that Discern Realities fails, the poltergeists manifests with all of its wild wrath and someone is taking damage d10 (ignores armor).

Its on!

Or it could be any number of other things that does the above 3 things.

---

Now Torchbearer (if you're familiar with the video game Darkest Dungeon, it is 100 % inspired by Torchbearer) is a game that entails "The Utility of No" and would handle this entirely differently. Spending a Turn searching for a secret door means (a) the condition clock ticks and (b) light source(s) tick(s). Time is the most fundamental resource that must be carefully managed in Torchbearer. As you spend Turns on actions in the Adventure phase, the gloom slowly threatens to swallow your crew as you tread an inexorable path of weariness/exhaustion/sickness that ends often in death...sometimes in glory.

Now, like Moldvay Basic (the game is a love-letter to Moldvay Basic and a mash-up of it and Burning Wheel), there will be a map that is created by the GM (through an inspired codified sequence like Lifepaths in Traveller) and secret doors will be preconcieved. When a test is made to locate a secret thing, a Scout Test occurs vs an Obstacle rating. If the player fails (and they can use a Trait against themselves which will earn them a "Check" which helps the group in different phases of the game or helps that character advance), then a Condition is imposed or a Twist (which can be stock or be rolled on...most people either have some flash cards of possible Twists for an area and just blindly draw one or they roll on a Table for the particular area) occurs and a Conflict will likely arise as a result of that Twist. Like in Dungeon World, these Twists will be themed for (a) the particular dungeon setting and/or (b) to conflict with a character's Nature or Beliefs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Again, Max, you've said that if the DM doesn't allow your attempts, they're a jerk and you won't play with them. This conflicts with your prior statements that the DM can (and maybe should) block attempts to find the cultists in the tea house because it would be "realistic" (ie, your thinking about the imaginary world says something) that this is unlikely. You previously sidestepped when I asked if you'd call your DM an asshat and quit playing if they found your quest to be ruler of your own kingdom unlikely and at odds with their conception about their setting. Now, you're trying to make it about "society" defending your opinion.

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.

And those probabilities define your uncertainty about where they are, not where they actually are.

I get it, you've been exposed to probability as a mathemagical wand that does things. Struggle a bit here and try to grasp that it isn't. Or, don't, and continue to insist that probabilities define reality so that you can maintain your statement about your imaginary gameworld having probabilities and therefore is like reality. If I have to bet, you'll do the latter. I'd rate my uncertainty about this outcome about a .85.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nah. Buy it out of the money you get for that mental gymnastic gold.

Sigh. Last time:

1. Imagination is not the real world.
2. Your game is entirely imagination.
3. If you define 'realism' as 'mirroring the real world', your imagination cannot, because 1 and 2.
4. If you define 'realism' as 'my imagination tries to be internally consistent and coherent and believable to other people' then, yes, you can do this.*

Which part requires mental gymnastics?

On your side, you've advanced that you can have realism (definition 3) in your game because imagination exists in the real world, your imagination continues to run when you're not imagining it, and that probabilities are a feature of the real world and your imagination therefore probabilities are realism.

I rest my case. Continue if you wish, I'm really not sure how you could make a larger fool of yourself, but I'll not bet against you.


*It's worth noting that I use 4. for my games and it works swimmingly. I don't confuse myself that adding what I think the real world is like is actually useful in and of itself, but make choices as to what best improves my games.

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh. Last time:

1. Imagination is not the real world.
2. Your game is entirely imagination.
3. If you define 'realism' as 'mirroring the real world', your imagination cannot, because 1 and 2.
4. If you define 'realism' as 'my imagination tries to be internally consistent and coherent and believable to other people' then, yes, you can do this.*

Which part requires mental gymnastics?

On your side, you've advanced that you can have realism (definition 3) in your game because imagination exists in the real world, your imagination continues to run when you're not imagining it, and that probabilities are a feature of the real world and your imagination therefore probabilities are realism.

I rest my case. Continue if you wish, I'm really not sure how you could make a larger fool of yourself, but I'll not bet against you.


*It's worth noting that I use 4. for my games and it works swimmingly. I don't confuse myself that adding what I think the real world is like is actually useful in and of itself, but make choices as to what best improves my games.

I know you aren't dumb, so getting number 3 wrong for the umpteenth time after I have corrected you on it at LEAST 5 times in this thread, probably closer to 10 is nothing but bad faith. If you want me to respond again, try with what I am saying, not your alterations.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know you aren't dumb, so getting number 3 wrong for the umpteenth time after I have corrected you on it at LEAST 5 times in this thread, probably closer to 10 is nothing but bad faith. If you want me to respond again, try with what I am saying, not your alterations.

Fix it then, define "realism".

 

[Manbearcat]

Perhaps you need your hand to be held by the DM to get your MEAT. Maybe your players need you to hold their hands in order for them to get their MEAT. I've grown past that need as a player, though. I am fully capable of getting my own MEAT,

Lol. I'm sorry. Call me 5 years old. I don't care.

But this is bloody hysterical. I've read it like 5 times and just cackled.

"I DON'T NEED YOU HOLDING MY HAND. I CAN GET MY MEAT BY MYSELF OK?!"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An edit: what would count as good situation to engage I will rule my own kingdom will depend (obviously) on all the details and nuance of the particular table and its players inclinations. But just to kick things of, and thinking of two examples from fantasy literature - Aragorn and Conan - it might well make sense to start with a kingdom whose rulership is under some sort of pressure or doubt. And present that pressure or doubt in a way that makes things hard for the player.

Eg Aragorn: How can I take over the kingdom while honouring my obligations to family, ancestry and the stewards who have faithfully ruled in my stead?[/I

Conan: Can I, a barbarian, gain acceptance as the ruler of the most civilised kingdom around?

And in relation to these, or similar, possibilities, a game that starts with Keep on the Borderlands in its standard version would be NON-MEAT, even though the player might try and have his/her PC made Castellan of the Keep; and might even connive to that end (eg by helping the existing Castallen meet an unhappy end at the hands of the evil priest).

I will contrast this with some examples of what DID happen in the campaign where my dwarf had a goal of ruling his own kingdom:

There was no presentation of any situations which would provide this as a pathway. The DM ran the Phandelver module, and located it in an area of a long-established campaign world that was at the edge of an existing kingdom. While this kingdom has been having a rulership crisis (in pre-existing metaplot from former campaigns set there) nothing about that was set as an opportunity for my character, in any sense. I was going to have to carve something out purely by creating a situation by dint of the character's actions. So he claimed the ruined bugbear castle from the module. From there the questions were really purely logistical and political.

This is OK, but it didn't seem terribly dramatic. The character set out to create ways to get stuff into the area, blaze a trail into a richer area of land beyond it which could serve as a trade route, etc. There were threats, but he was never confronted with questions like "you can either build your castle or serve your family" or something like that.

Later, after I had established the castle and some stuff around it, the DM's response was to take it away. Basically I came back from a trip one day and someone else had moved in! Start over from scratch. There's nothing wrong with losing something, but it was pretty much not a dramatic kind of loss at all, it was literally just "the DM giveth, the DM taketh away". Generously the scenario was structured as "take big risks to get your stuff back, or give up." Again, this isn't BAD, and might even be a way of putting pressure on the whole idea, but it definitely seemed like a more frustrating way of doing it than other ways might have been. I would have preferred to have had a choice to stake my castle on something and then deal with the consequences of losing it vs feeling like I was just back to ground zero and trying to get a castle all over again.

Anyway, this is not to complain about how that game went, it was fun, but just to contrast with what might be done in a less DM-centered story-telling mechanics. That is to say, in -say- BW I expect that there is an actual rule that the GM doesn't take away the player's goodies unless they're staked somehow. This illustrates how integrating story oriented mechanics more deeply into games can provide better results. Likewise, DW would probably not lead to this sort of turn, the PC in question would be practically guaranteed to have at least some sort of 'defy danger' or something (I guess technically DW doesn't explicitly preclude this stuff, but the referee is supposed to be an advocate of the players, so it probably wouldn't IMHO).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I truly attempt to steer my game hard in the sandbox tent where I'm willing to sacrifice large meta-plot arcs and storylines in favour of letting the PC pursue their desires. Of course the obstacles I introduce in my game are because of some underlying preconception of how things should turn out, given that I am the primary author of the fiction.

Well, obviously part of my answer is I would advise approaching games which feature at least some mix as being more-or-less equal partnerships. Its OK to have ideas and themes you as DM want to explore, that's only fair! I'm not sure about the 'primary author' part. I mean, in a lot of story games the GM is still primary author, maybe even sole authority on what is really possible within the 'box' of the particular game world/genre. I would just say that the game should also be equally about what the players are interested in it being about.

The question I ask is, how was that different for you in 4e?
For instance, we have a PC at my table with a backstory (all his by the way):
A restitched soul of the player's previous dead PC (Bard), but now different/altered/evolved into a being serving Kelemvor (Cleric). He has memories/fragments of his past, but his personality is changed, more solemn and grave. His sole purpose is to track down and kill a psychopathic NPC who intends to revive A'tar whom the NPC believes is the true deity of the sun, the harsh and merciless goddess, as opposed to the feeble and fake gods Amaunator and Lathander. Kelemvor, the deity of the Dead, firmly believes that A'tar must remain dead for the good of the cosmos and so his faithful servqnt, the PC, does his bidding.

As DM how do you not introduce obstacles that are your preconception of how things should maybe turn out? If the PC is free to write their own story (via dice), his story-arc might end within the next session or two. That would leave him twiddling his thumbs for the rest of the campaign arc.

Well, this is an interesting topic. I mean, GMs are generally going to be framing scenes in a way that puts pressure on the PCs beliefs, goals, etc. It is quite possible this pressure can take forms which are part of the GM's own agenda. It is only really necessary that they DO exist in the story for purposes of pushing the drama related to the PCs 'stuff' which the player has invented.

As for the PC in your example... You don't quite cast the belief in terms of the PC, but attribute it to the god, Kelemvor. Is it the PC's belief? Is the PC's belief that he should serve Kelemvor? Is he serving because he has some OTHER belief/goal/interest which makes him want to do that?

Pressure could be put on this PC via stressing his relationship with his deity. It coule be done by bringing back elements of his previous life. Maybe he still feels something about the people and whatever who were in that life. Maybe the 'reawakening of his soul' causes conflict within himself. You could do a ton of stuff with this. Obviously the goal of tracking down the psychopathic NPC could also be used for all sorts of pressure. What is their relationship?

 

[Maxperson]

Lol. I'm sorry. Call me 5 years old. I don't care.

But this is bloody hysterical. I've read it like 5 times and just cackled.

"I DON'T NEED YOU HOLDING MY HAND. I CAN GET MY MEAT BY MYSELF OK?!"

LOL @pemerton likes to have people use HIS terminology. As I was writing that, my mind went there, too. No judgment!