Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

With all this mention of turtles being trotted out, I've got my popcorn handy and am eagerly awaiting the start gun for the turtle derby...

 

[Fanaelialae]

I guess I can see how you see that, but that's not what I pulled from @pemerton's questions. C'est la vie.

Well, no, if the Captain is established in the fiction (more on this soon), then this would violate narration of results must be grounded in the fiction (and genre appropriate, but betrayal is, so that's not the conflict). The issue I have here is how your characterize your game world changing -- and I think the conflict is what we consider to be established in the fiction.


And, here's that conflict. You treat things that you've decided, but that players do not yet know, as established in the fiction. I don't. Unless it's in the world openly, it's up for grabs. Now, I may very well (and do) make all kinds of notes for myself, but these are aids to help me quickly make decisions in play -- kind of defaults, if you will. But, I unless those notes make it into play, they're not established. So, unless I've already presented that, say, the Captain is loyal to the Burgomaster, then that loyalty isn't set in stone. Only once it's in play does it become part of the fiction. Anything I have in my notes is more like the Pirate Code.



Unsurprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you. Not that you get what you want out of your method -- I believe you do and that's great. But that verisimilitude is capably of being defined as you have or that my method doesn't generate it in equal abundance.

First, about your definition. The world doesn't really exist without the PCs -- if there are no PCs, there's no game, and you've just been writing a story. So, if you have a world, it exists because of the PCs. Now, I get what you're driving at, and that's that there's fiction in the world that exists no matter what the PCs do, but, at that point, you're still writing fiction you're just telling it to your players and they have no opportunity to change it. If they do have an opportunity to change it in play, then we're back to it having been created as a challenge to the PCs, which would be because of the PCs. I don't think that you can have a coherent definition that is 'exists outside of the PCs.'

Semantics aside, though, I don't see how you writing down secret notes that you then tell the PC generates a feeling of realness or complexity that cannot be created in play by following PC actions. For instance, the example @Manbearcat presents has the Captain telling the Burgomaster a hard truth. If this was written in the GM's notes beforehand, it would be indistinguishable to the players form a situation where the GM invented it on the spot. And it involves things that aren't the PCs. There's nothing special about notes that increases a feeling of realness or depth in a game.

All of that said, though, I do fully understand there's a different feel to these two methods, at least to a GM who sees behind the curtain. There is certainly a different GM feel to an adventure that has good notes and plays out well compared to a game more discovered in play and completely unscripted. These feel very different to GM, so I understand your point that the notes method feels better to you (arguably, given how most enter the hobby, it's more comfortable and familiar than better, but that's a different discussion). However, and this is my point, the fiction created is hard to impossible to distinguish from each other. Verisimilitude is equally obtainable in each.


I think perhaps notes was the wrong tack. You clearly think that NPCs should react according to the GM's ideas about that NPC rather than leaving things to the dice. Perhaps you don't have a strong feeling about a certain thing and so leave it to the dice, but that doesn't change that if you do have a strong feeling, your intent for the NPC dominates. Which was my intent when I said NPCs are scripted -- I think this was referred to upthread, I forget by who, as GM-simulation. The GM controls the simulation of the NPC at all times, even if they decide to occasionally cede control to the dice the authority for saying how an NPC reacts belongs solely to the GM. I prefer letting things be more open to the mechanics and then fitting the fiction to match.

And, no, there's no way that you could convince an ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard (absent extraordinary circumstance). That violates both being rooted in the fiction and genre expectations. You keep circling back to the argument that not doing GM-simulation means that anything is available to a roll, despite being told this is not the case. At some point, I hope you listen and stop making that argument.

Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them, whereas you seem to consider them more as suggestions until they become established with the players.

I disagree that you can't tell the difference. It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details. After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO.

That's not to say that the approach in the example doesn't have its own advantages. It caters to the wishes of the players, which they will probably enjoy. We play this game for fun after all, so that's a good thing.

Personally, I think the best approach is found in the middle. Prep some things and have them fixed. Improvise some things and leave them flexible. That way, you keep the players guessing and the wheels turning.

 

[Maxperson]

One difference here is that character sheets stay with the DM between sessions anyway, mostly for reasons of practicality.

I let the player keep the originals if they want and leave a copy. It's up to them.

Which means I've got folders full of old character sheets here, both PC and NPC. Useful if-when I ever want to do any statistical comparisons or number-crunching.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that was my disagreement with the other poster, not you. Rather, it appears you've been attacking because you disagree with my disagreement with another poster

Just as an FYI conversations, even if you are talking to another, are not private. Everyone here is a part of them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree. There's no point keeping anyone wound-up about this.

While I don't think shifting the specifics of the original example help illuminate it, I was clearly misunderstanding the shifting examples, and we all ended up shouting past each other, I suspect.

While I don't think it's great play to have a PC's success at influencing an NPC come by way of another NPC (at least in part because in a situation anything like this I the player might have forgotten that other NPC exists ...) I also don't think it's necessarily bad play--it'll come down to the table, as so many things to.

I get why it might seem weird to have things resolve in that way, but I think @Manbearcat 's example was one of creative GMing. It's something I wish I had learned far earlier than I did.

You look at the stated goal of the player and their character, and that's what the check is for. So a Persuasion check made to convince the Baron that his way might have some issues isn't like an attack roll on the Baron's will.....I think we tend to think of actions having specific targets, and so this or that roll is made to influence/convince/deceive/hit this or that specific person.

Having another NPC be swayed by the successful roll and then advocate for the PCs to the point that the Baron winds up giving in.....that's achieving what the PC set out to achieve, just not in the exact way that they expected.

I think finding creative ways to establish success is a huge part of meaningful non-combat interactions. The situations need to be dynamic or else you can simply make one roll and then narrate it.

I don't think any of us here are really as far apart as what "realistic conversation" is, in TRPGs, as this thread makes it seem; I suspect we're using different internal languages, which aren't translating well. I think some of us place more emphasis on genre-fealty than others, too.

As for me, my posts--especially the last ones last night--were really not me at my best. Trying to argue after a bad gaming session (those who say bad gaming is better than no gaming are wrong wrong wrong wrong) that blew up my emotional equilibrium until ... about now, was not a good decision.

I think there are just different approaches to play, and different tools that work well for whatever desired approach you have. I think that most of us would agree that some kind of session zero/play expectation convo would need to take place at the start of play, and I think for the most part, a lot of this discussion has been the kind of stuff that would usefully happen then, rather than after the fact.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them, whereas you seem to consider them more as suggestions until they become established with the players.

I disagree that you can't tell the difference. It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details. After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO.

That's not to say that the approach in the example doesn't have its own advantages. It caters to the wishes of the players, which they will probably enjoy. We play this game for fun after all, so that's a good thing.

Personally, I think the best approach is found in the middle. Prep some things and have them fixed. Improvise some things and leave them flexible. That way, you keep the players guessing and the wheels turning.

I think the best advice in regard to prepping notes ahead of time is to "hold on loosely". Have them in mind, but be willing to change them if it makes for a more interesting play experience.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them, whereas you seem to consider them more as suggestions until they become established with the players.

I disagree that you can't tell the difference. It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details. After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO.

What experience do you have with a well run game that uses story now techniques? Because, if you had that experience, I don't think you'd make this claim. When I run Blades, for instance, I paint just as rich a tapestry with little to no prep and nothing set in stone until play reveals it as I do when I run 5e and do prep areas and foreshadow things. I've been speaking in this thread mostly about the techniques that can work in 5e, and, honestly, a true story now style play isn't really possible in 5e -- the system fights it. So, I don't play 5e that way; I do prep, but I also don't hold prep as sacrosanct until it's presented in play. This lets me be very flexible to PC actions and I don't feel like I'm corralling play or running a GM-simulation (nothing wrong with this, I just no longer enjoy doing it).

However, when I was discussing verisimilitude, I was reaching further into other games that allow for full story now style play -- no myth play where things are only true if introduced into play (and maybe still able to be challenged). And I have experience here, as well. I run Blades no prep, light myth (I use the very loosely detailed default setting of Duskvol) and I can say that the play that emerges there is just as layered and detailed as anything I get in 5e. It has a different feel on the GM side, naturally, but I see behind the curtain. But, the fictions created? Yeah, pretty similar in layers and detail to the world the PCs see. In fact, I'd say that my Blades game has more layers and detail because it's shared across all of the players rather than just me coming up with it.

Personally, I think the best approach is found in the middle. Prep some things and have them fixed. Improvise some things and leave them flexible. That way, you keep the players guessing and the wheels turning.

I have absolutely no trouble keeping the players on their toes without fixed, secret prep. I can keep them on their toes with it. I don't think this is, in any way, a requirement in any mixture to keep players engaged and surprised by events.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[prabe]

I think the best advice in regard to prepping notes ahead of time is to "hold on loosely". Have them in mind, but be willing to change them if it makes for a more interesting play experience.

My own approach is to prep no more than I need about, say, an NPC (the relevant example). I need to know enough to inform my decisions about the NPC's actions; I don't need more than that. Once the NPC has started behaving in ways the PCs can observe/learn about, I try to keep that behavior consistent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just as an FYI conversations, even if you are talking to another, are not private. Everyone here is a part of them.

Thanks for explaining how message boards work!

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think the best advice in regard to prepping notes ahead of time is to "hold on loosely". Have them in mind, but be willing to change them if it makes for a more interesting play experience.

I think I somewhat disagree. I don't necessarily consider my notes completely immutable, but I do need a very good reason to disregard them. Primarily for reasons of verisimilitude, as I described.

I think plenty of interesting play experiences can arise from sticking to your notes. Having to deal with an offended baron isn't necessarily any less interesting than having the Captain depose him.