Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Yup, once it's in play, it's no longer prep. The 'hold on loosely' is more before it's in play -- the part where you use the prep to inform your decisions. The recommendation here is that you shouldn't be married to your prep, if something better comes along, let go and run with the new thing. It's not fixed until it enters play.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.


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.

Good for you.

My experience differs. I've run and played in both styles and IME it doesn't produce identical results. Similar perhaps. But different enough that you can often tell if you're looking for it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes. That's stuff only you as GM will ever know. The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.

What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it. That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world. I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player. I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes. That's stuff only you as GM will ever know. The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.

What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it. That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world. I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player. I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.

First of all, the DM's enjoyment matters too. So even if it only enhances the DM's sense of verisimilitude as you claim, that's still a win.

Secondly, personally speaking, I disagree. Maybe it works for you. However, the parts of my world that I prep almost always have more depth than things I improvise. That's frequently reflected in feedback I get from players after game. I'm willing to believe that your experience differs, but it doesn't mesh with my own.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good for you.

My experience differs. I've run and played in both styles and IME it doesn't produce identical results. Similar perhaps. But different enough that you can often tell of you're looking for it.

Well, okay, but I was asking what your experience is. This is because there's some pretty fundamental conceptual differences and your arguments seem to indicate you don't have a lot of experience with the other set. Not because we're disagreeing, but because the nature of those disagreements would be rather different if you did have experience with the fundamental conceptual differences. It's not winging a D&D session, which I will agree with you is a good way to end up with a bad experience. This is because D&D doesn't support no-myth play with it's mechanics, instead using a GM-decides core resolution mechanic. The GM decides if dice are needed, and what checks are needed, and what DCs are needed, and what resolution narration is needed, etc. It's a GM-decides game. Nothing wrong with that, I still run and play 5e primarily, so I clearly have no issue with that.

However, a no-myth game in a system designed to handle it is not a GM-decides game. The GM is very limited in authority to being able to frame scenes. After that, the GM's authorities are really in choosing to challenge a player action declaration or not. If not, it works the way the player wants. If the GM challenges, the game mechanic is used to determine who gets to determine the parameters of the narration of the outcome. On a PC success, the player gets to define the narration to be achieving the intent of their action. On a failure, the GM gets to narrate an outcome, usually to the detriment of the player's intent. That's a pretty big difference in conception of how these games work. Firstly, it should be obvious that the GM cannot actually prep for this style of game except very loosely, and then, if play goes in a different direction, must abandon such prep. This is because the GM has no authority to enforce any outcome, only challenge, which is a fixed mechanic the GM can't modify outside of the already established fiction. In other words, the GM doesn't set the DC, it's fixed, but may, depending on the fictional state, be able to impose a penalty that follows the current fiction state. No authority to enforce an outcome means that prep is useless. This puts a lot more pressure and expectation on the players, because they have to drive the fiction in ways D&D players do not.

So, unless you have experience in a well-run game like this, we're talking past each other. And by well-run, I don't mean a superb GM, I mean just a competent one. Superb GMs in this style are an absolute joy, but then that's true of pretty much any style.

What I've been discussing as adjudication in 5e in this thread is informed by the possibilities that no-myth style games can afford and stealing the bits that can actually work in 5e. One of those is to allow PCs to try things that are grounded in the established fiction and are genre appropriate and test that with the mechanics (which are still largely GM-decides because you set the DC and ability check needed rather than the fixed mechanic in no-myth style games). You have to hold things not established in play as fluid because what the PCs try might conflict with your prep that you haven't yet introduced, and that may mean you need to abandon that and go with what play presents. I'll put one of my social encounters up against anyone's, and I don't think you could claim one has more verisimilitude than the other. I'm only claiming parity, not superiority.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First of all, the DM's enjoyment matters too. So even if it only enhances the DM's sense of verisimilitude as you claim, that's still a win.

Secondly, personally speaking, I disagree. Maybe it works for you. However, the parts of my world that I prep almost always have more depth than things I improvise. That's frequently reflected in feedback I get from players after game. I'm willing to believe that your experience differs, but it doesn't mesh with my own.

Of course the GM's enjoyment matters. Do you think I do not enjoy my games because I don't use prep like you do? I explicitly made the point that it's good that you're using a style that increases your enjoyment in one of these posts. It is good. And I explicitly said it's a difference that can make a difference because of that.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't result in more or less verisimilitude. It just results in the GM liking that style more or less. I like it less, but I'll put my verisimilitude up against anyone's. I'm confident we're in the same ballpark, if not on the same base.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes. That's stuff only you as GM will ever know. The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.

IME it's surprisingly easy, once you've got to know your DM at all.

What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it. That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world. I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player. I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.

Two steps.

One, the GM needs to have a world believable to her - that 'feeling of constancy'.

Tweo, she then needs to present that to the players in a way believable and constant for them. This may be the step your previous GM(s) missed out on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

IME it's surprisingly easy, once you've got to know your DM at all.

Only because most GMs approach D&D through prep and so, when they wing things, they are not as comfortable. A GM comfortable in following the fiction with light prep is not noticeable in the same way.

For me, moving to lighter prep and more following the fiction has lead to a deeper game and one my players have only noticed because it's more engaged with them. When I talk shop with one of my players, he's often surprised what's prep and what isn't.

So, no, I don't think this is a true statement.

Two steps.

One, the GM needs to have a world believable to her - that 'feeling of constancy'.

Tweo, she then needs to present that to the players in a way believable and constant for them. This may be the step your previous GM(s) missed out on.

Yes, but following your notes doesn't necessarily lead to 1, and certainly doesn't lead to 2. That's my point. It might lead to 1 and 2 for you, and that's great, but nothing about the approach guarantees that outcome, and nothing about a different approach means a different GM can't get to 1 and 2 just fine. I do.

 

[pemerton]

The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask.

<snip>

You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard.

<snip>

I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too.

No one has said they get it because they want it.. They've said they can get what they want by succeeding on appropritae action declarations.

With the ancient red dragon, has an appropriate action been declared? If the PC is a demigod threatening the dragon, perhaps yes. If the PC is the only one who can lift the curse that will blah blah blah blah blah, also perhaps yes. There are many ways interests can intersect or leverage arise. If the PCs is an anonymous and irrelevant 1st level fighter then the real question to me is why is the GM framing this scene?

But in any event: if the scene is well-framed, and nevertheless the GM has decided that something can't happen regardless of player action declaration or even moreso that nothing can happen to influence the NPC whatever action is delcared, to me that seems like a railorad. The fiction that is mattering in that case is the GM's predetermination of what happens next.

they aren't equivalent things. NPCs are killable, just like orcs. Their houses are passable, just like forests. However, orc =/= terrain =/= NPCs. Different things can be treated differently and that's okay.

If the GM decides that a particular orc cannot be killed by application of the resolution mechanics - eg no matter what the players roll to hit, the GM is resolved to declare it a miss - I would call that railroading.

If the GM decides that a particular forest is not passable - eg no matter what actions the PCs declare about drawing the machetes to cut through underbrush, reading the compasses, etc the GM will narrate that they have failed to make iany headway - I would be very curious as to what is going on. If the GM is trying to hard frame some other scene or context, why are the players declaring these forest-passing actions? At best something has gone badly wrong with the GM's attempt to frame the scene; at worst we have a railroad.

If the GM decides that a particular NPC will always do X or always do Y - s/he cannot be influenced by a PC regardless of what actions the players declare - to me that looks like a railroad through-and-through. Whatever the players do, they can't affect the fiction except to push it along some path or other already decided by the GM. To me the whole point of a RPG is it's not a choose-your-own adventure.

Like traps, NPCs are more useful when you have telegraphing, or information of some kind to work with, either before hand or gained during interaction, that you can use to help guide a dynamic social encounter. Or they can be black box that has responses to things, but not for reasons that are made available, forcing PCs to play the 20 questions game to try and figure things out.

I don't think these are the only two options. Or maybe I don't know what you mean by telegraphin information gained during interaction - because you contrast that with playing the 20 questions game but I'm not sure what contrast you are drawing.

My own preference is to have the NPC presented by reference to a genre-appropriate role or achetype - the bishop, the leader of the sorcerous cabal, the ship's captain who has brought his wife on board despite the objections of the crew, etc - and then to let the details emerge during play.

I posted a number of actual play examples upthread. that show what I mean here. Eg how does Sir Lionheart - the proud and famous knight who is blocking the bridge to all comers - respond to a squire who tries to push past him? Turn him back? Squash him? Knight him so they can joust? It turns out that it's the lattermost. But we didn't know that until the scene was actually being resolved.

The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign. The character did insult the Burgomaster. The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign. I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action. Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain. Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC? Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.

Let's turn this around. If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult. So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!

Clearly, this is ridiculous, but you can't have it both ways.

Fully agreed. I made this exact point upthread. I don't think narration of success and narration of failure are identical in all respects, but in this case the structural parallel is obvious.

Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.

And this goes right back to my comment, upthread, that I don't see why social encounters in a RPG shouldn't resemble social interactions in the source fiction.

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton - I'm talking about the kind of information that would normally be gained during the course of a social interaction. In actual practice for me this tends to look like making plain that the NPC has objections, or reservations, or perhaps is being evasive, or whatever (in the case of the thread topic paranoid etc). I'll impart this info in the form of roleplaying up to a point, but I also use straight editorialization - he seems confident and relaxed, or you think he's hiding something, say, or he's seems afraid of something, or he's wringing his hands and fidgeting in his seat like he'd rather be anywhere but here. In an actual conversation there are things you can intuit or even just notice about people I guess is what I'm talking about. What I want to avoid is a series of questions like is he scared? Is he angry? Is he sweating? If he fidgeting? And on and on like that. Questions that feel like the characters aren't there. What I give them is based on their approach and possibly a roll, lets call it reactions and first impressions, and then the ball is back in their court to decide what to do about it.

I know that isn't a revolutionary idea, but I try to avoid too many rolls, and too many questions about simple or basic things. I want the players to make decisions based on information (or suspicions at least).