"Illusionism" and "GM force" in RPGing

[Manbearcat]

You're putting very hard demands on the system here - completely abandoning the "ecology simulation" aspect you identified upthread.

The "ecology simulation" aspect is only relevant insofar as players have a substrate to make inference. If the wing is cleared, (a) we're simply simulating a collapsed ecology and (b) no more inferences should need be made for delving in that wing!

Also, turning off as a blanket rule then gives licence to the players to play carelessly on their trek through the defeated wing of the dungeon. It's only a party that is "doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination" (DMG p 9) that is entitled to relief from excessive wandering monsters.

Torchbearer has a very simple, elegant, and well-integrated answer to this:

1) The Light clock and "The Grind" (the Condition clock) are Turn-centered.

2) A Turn is either a Conflict or a Test so they're dynamic time-wise; they can be a 10 minute navigation of an obstacle, a brief skirmish, or a night's watch.

Failure in a Test or Conflict results in either (a) Success but an accrued Condition or (b) a Twist (this is Torchbearer's analogue to Wandering Monsters).

Twists can be Monster, Wilderness, Dungeon, Talking, Personal, Magic, Prayer. Basic and AD&D (if necessary) can easily use this tech in the stead of Wandering Monsters (in the case where "the wing has been cleared"), just take the Monster and Talking tables and the appropriate locale (Wilderness or Dungeon) off of the list and roll like you would a random encounter when an Exploration Turn results in some kind of mishap.

One feature of the DMG is that p 9 promises a section on wandering monsters that will explain two reasons why they are a part of the game; but I'm pretty sure there is no such section. And the only other discussion of relief from wandering monsters I found is this, on p 38:

On occasion, a party may wish to cease movement and "hole up" for a long period, perhaps overnight, resting and recuperating or recovering spells. This does not exempt them from occasional checks for wandering monsters, though the frequency may be moderated somewhat, depending on conditions.​

Torchbearer would just handle this as a Night's Watch conflict with relevant Twist or Success w/ Condition at the end.

A similar approach might help for the party travelling quickly and quietly through a known area - reduced frequency at least reduces the likelihood of breakdown between system purpose and system consequence, though can't eliminate it in all cases.

This is never going to be a practical issue for me - the likelihood of me ever running a dungeoneering game where this issue might come up is near enough to zero to be rounded down to that. What I think is interesting is how Gygax struggles to make his design fully coherent, even though - on the face of things - it looks OK (I mean, how often in other threads here and elsewhere do we see discussion of the importance of wandering monsters as clock? It comes up all the time.)

The issue might be solved by substituting a completely different resolution system - eg a DW-style "move" for travelling through known-and-cleared dungeon precincts which is modified by precautions taken and so preserves the roll of skill while protecting against the slim chance of brutal hosing. But that would be so far away from the rest of the wargaming mechanics of the system that it would create a different sort of coherence problem. Zoinks unless one were to adapt the wilderness evasion rules to this end. Though they're a bit half-baked as they stand (eg having a ranger doesn't help though it obviously should).

It's probably not a surprise that thinking about one weakness in the classic D&D design turns up another.

In all of these, the answer is like the above. Just make an Exploration Turn a dynamic thing temporally w/ either a Test or a Conflict w/ relevant Twist or Success w/ Condition at the end.

Torchbearer just flat solved all of these problems through well-integrated systemization and extremely clear GMing. D&D (whether its Moldvay Basic, AD&D, or 5e) could just reverse engineer them and integrate them into their system architecture.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

I didn't get as clear an answer in the other thread about something and I was hoping to get your opinion on the matter. At the outset I'd just like you to know my players enjoy some GM Force (even on their backgrounds), where much of the heavy lifting is done by the GM, they enjoy the surprises. But that shouldn't influence your opinion.

PC input into his background - PC sword-mage was initially trained by a master who was an apothecarist. DM input into his background - Part of the apothecarists clientelle were some well-to-do ladies seeking potions of charisma/seduction...etc. It was known to the PC he fooled around with some of his clientelle. Anyways this master disappeared suddenly and his lab was trashed.

PC made the assumption it was a jealous husband.

Some adventures later. The master makes a return and leaves again. This process continues on for a year or so, while the PCs engage on a series of quests to destroy a lycanthropic organisation.

Spoiler

The master was the werewolf in charge of the lycanthropic organisation. As an apothecarist, he had been creating potions for his kin which would mask their scent amongst animals, allowing them to travel a lot easier within urban areas. He has stolen this formula from the Minrothad Guilds during his short stint there. The theft along with a murder of a colleague had activated a Black Seal Warrant (legal assassination - hence his continued disappearing act). He had, during his returns, explained to the PC that this had been a misunderstanding during his time in Minrothad and that the truth was the Guilds were after some of his formulae. He painted them as corrupt capitalists. The PC bought it and so helped him out from time to time (hiding him and giving him cash).

The revelation of his master came about when the party's actions became too difficult to ignore as they racked up success after success against the organisation. In a final effort, the master revealed himself to his former apprentice, saying he was willing to forgive the PCs past misdeeds against his kin if the PC would but just join him.

By me making the master (using no mechanics) the lycanthrope - does that fall into GM force or is that just generating content?

So, in some games, (Dogs and Cortex+, for example) the relationship that is embedded in the PC background would involve the ability to invoke a Die that helps in conflicts (like a d8) and a Die that complicates your life (a d4 and you get a token in C+ or the likelihood of earning what is tantamount to "xp" in Dogs). This is player-facing tech, however.

If you invoke your relationship as a complication and new obstacle has to be authored as a consequence of action resolution fallout, what might manifest is something like what you're describing above; the GM authors some new fiction surrounding your master that may test your relationship or that may emotionally injure you (weaponizing the relationship).

As far as is "is you making the master the lycanthrope Force" goes, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too zoomed out. That scale isn't really a test for "is this Force?" I mean, broadly, authoring backstory preemptively isn't Force. However, you can certainly impose fiction upon play that nullifies player input and controls the gamestate by leveraging that pre-authored backstory during action resolution, during situation-framing, or during situation-reframing (post conflict resolution).

You would need to zoom in a whole lot tighter on singular instances of play for me to have an opinion on the above content and Force.

To repeat, high resolution metaplot and high resolution setting aren't Force as a matter of mere existence. Its just that they can easily just be used for such (and the temptation is often there due to GM investment in (a) their creation broadly, (b) the time and energy poured into it, and (c) the fact that they feel most acquainted with it and therefore perhaps better prepared to deploy it vs something improved on the spot).

 

[Nagol]

Your Torchbearer sounds very little like the game I was playing the '90s. Is it a (relatively) new game? The one I remember had an abstract encumbrance system (PCs could carry a fixed number of items), a complex magic system involving a "rainbow" of schools (wood, elemental, etc.), physical nodes of magic used to channel for each school and casting got faster the more nodes you channeled through.

 

[Manbearcat]

Your Torchbearer sounds very little like the game I was playing the '90s. Is it a (relatively) new game? The one I remember had an abstract encumbrance system (PCs could carry a fixed number of items), a complex magic system involving a "rainbow" of schools (wood, elemental, etc.), physical nodes of magic used to channel for each school and casting got faster the more nodes you channeled through.

Luke Crane's Torchbearer

Mouse Guard/BW hack in the vein of Moldvay Basic

 

[Nagol]

Luke Crane's Torchbearer

Mouse Guard/BW hack in the vein of Moldvay Basic

Ah! Very different then. My memory is of a streamlined RQ with an overly complex magic system glued on.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ah! Very different then. My memory is of a streamlined RQ with an overly complex magic system glued on.

Yeah, definitely not the same! For my mileage, its the best Dungeon Crawl game on the market and its not really close.

Are you familiar with the video game Darkest Dungeon? It was inspired by Torchbearer so you would have a rough approximation if you're familiar with it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, in some games, (Dogs and Cortex+, for example) the relationship that is embedded in the PC background would involve the ability to invoke a Die that helps in conflicts (like a d8) and a Die that complicates your life (a d4 and you get a token in C+ or the likelihood of earning what is tantamount to "xp" in Dogs). This is player-facing tech, however.

If you invoke your relationship as a complication and new obstacle has to be authored as a consequence of action resolution fallout, what might manifest is something like what you're describing above; the GM authors some new fiction surrounding your master that may test your relationship or that may emotionally injure you (weaponizing the relationship).

As far as is "is you making the master the lycanthrope Force" goes, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too zoomed out. That scale isn't really a test for "is this Force?" I mean, broadly, authoring backstory preemptively isn't Force. However, you can certainly impose fiction upon play that nullifies player input and controls the gamestate by leveraging that pre-authored backstory during action resolution, during situation-framing, or during situation-reframing (post conflict resolution).

You would need to zoom in a whole lot tighter on singular instances of play for me to have an opinion on the above content and Force.

To repeat, high resolution metaplot and high resolution setting aren't Force as a matter of mere existence. Its just that they can easily just be used for such (and the temptation is often there due to GM investment in (a) their creation broadly, (b) the time and energy poured into it, and (c) the fact that they feel most acquainted with it and therefore perhaps better prepared to deploy it vs something improved on the spot).

I dunno. If were talking about 5e, backstory is strongly presumed to be the player's baliwick before being introduced into play. I'm very reluctant to rewrite backstories like the "surprise, you master is a werewolf!" because is does override player input. Now, if that happens during play because the player indicated that was up for grabs, then I'd say rewriting an important element of player introduced fiction to fit a GM's storyline sounds quite a lot like Force.

If were talking other games, where backstory is up for grabs, thise at least require nechanical resolution to see this example bear out.

My 5e game has an instance similar to this because I've invoked a nemisis from a PC's background. The background has this nemisis as someone responsible fir destroying the character's clan, leaving few survivors. As this is a Planescape game, I took the liberty of having this nemisis' plots be at a planar scale, but other than invoking him, I've done little extrapolation. This led to a moment in play of another players saying, "wait, is this <nemisis> guy a dwarf like <character>?" I looked to the player and saud, "well, is he?" The answer was, "you know, I'm not sure." And, bam, now what the nemesis is is up for grabs.

Alternatively, another player is an escaped thrall of mindflayers, but has no memory of before thralldom. I have a rule in this campaign that PCs don't due unless the player says so, but choosing this option means I get creative license to be mean. This PC elected to not die, and so I introduced that when he came to, he recalled that he had volunteered for thralldom, but diesn't remember why. I had that license because he invoked the death rule and I chose that because I knew it would torture the player far worse than PC death eould have.

I'd say the latter was Force, even thoigh I had loose permission, but I'd say that oermission was to engage in Force, not make it not Firce.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ovinomancer

I think these are my thoughts as it pertains to 5e:

1) A GM has huge latitude when it comes to authorship and authority with the roles of lead storyteller and entertainer.

But...

2) Ideals, Bonds, Flaws and Background Traits give players some domain that is out of bounds because it’s fundamental to a player’s conception of their PC. Further, some classes have some Fiat ability that doesn’t engage with the action resolution mechanics.

If a GM effs with those (either by leveraging negating material during situation-framing that is pre-authored or by introducing that same negating content in the course of mediating action resolution), then that would be Force.

I’m not sure @Sadras did that here. If he did, then yeah, that is Force.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

I think these are my thoughts as it pertains to 5e:

1) A GM has huge latitude when it comes to authorship and authority with the roles of lead storyteller and entertainer.

But...

2) Ideals, Bonds, Flaws and Background Traits give players some domain that is out of bounds because it’s fundamental to a player’s conception of their PC. Further, some classes have some Fiat ability that doesn’t engage with the action resolution mechanics.

If a GM effs with those (either by leveraging negating material during situation-framing that is pre-authored or by introducing that same negating content in the course of mediating action resolution), then that would be Force.

I’m not sure @Sadras did that here. If he did, then yeah, that is Force.

Yeah, 5e gives zero guidance as to what's open to.GM authority. An offical adventure even has to GM assign flaws to PCs if certain events occur. So, if we cleave to the 5e rules as presented, you're right that there are very few limits to GM authority.

But....

The definition we're using doesn't check authority. In many cases of Force talked about, authority exists over tgat arra of the game but it's still Force because legitimate player input is overridden. In the instant case, I'd say that while the GM has few limits on fictional authority in 5e doesn't mean it's not replacing player input with GM preferred material.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think perhaps we’ve reached the point in the conversation where we need to stipulate what constitutes “input” broadly and both system-specific.

Every wish and aspiration that a player has is certainly not input. However, particular PC build aspects and system-specific widgets, the intent of action declarations and the orientation of decision-points are 100 % “input”.

The line between “input” and “social contract obligations” gets a little fuzzy on the other stuff...and it shifts system by system as the authority distribution of the participants and the game’s priorities/agenda changes.