Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

I have played with D&D GMs whose response to that sort of thing is to shut it down - ie the inquiries produce no new information or options, all the potential informants remain silent, etc. I personally regard that as terrible GMing.

I agree this is awful.

I have also played with D&D GMs who don't shut this sort of thing down but string it out endlessly - leads lead to leads lead to leads lead to session after session of trying to "find the plot". I also regard that as awful.

I don't agree that this is awful, as long as there's some underlying logic to it all - maybe the PCs just happened to take the long way around to getting the info they really needed.

To relate the above to the example at hand: if the GM narrates the guards, and hints at or foreshadows the sewer, what happens if the PCs start searching for a hidden postern they can enter through? I don't think there's a single best answer, because it's so contextual. If it looks like the players are themselves trying to string things out, or squib in some fashion, because they're having trouble screwing up their courage to try and enter the castle, then as a GM I think it can make sense to force them to confront the choice: Come on, people, what's it going to be? The gate, or the sewer? But if there is something genuinely going on - eg one of the PCs is an engineer or architect and so has some special interest in finding and exploiting the postern - then I think the GM would do better to take it seriously and see where it goes.

I think the GM should take it seriously, and even if she already knows from her notes that the old postern was bricked up years ago, play through the PCs investigations until they learn this for themselves.

And at that point maybe the PCs come up with a bright idea as to how to get through a bricked-up postern in a way that doesn't raise too much fuss; and if they do (and if things work out for them) that's cool! But it won't be without risk...

If the idea that the player has is genre and gameplay appropriate, then cannot be made to work seems to mean doesn't fit with what the GM had in mind. This is what I am focusing on; and I am saying that, in general, I think it can make for a bad play experience. Because it pushes play towards working out what the GM has in mind rather than engaging and following the fiction.

Thing is, to some people those are the same thing.

The fiction is in the GM's mind, thus working it out is simply another step in engaging and following said fiction.

(To be clear: if we're playing OSR-ish/"skilled play" and we're talking about puzzling out the riddling statue, or the room of trapped demi-gods, or similar than it's a different kettle of fish. But most of this thread doesn't seem to be about that sort of play.)

There's three pillars of play - 5e codifed them really well - and one of those in a way is almost completely a matter of puzzle-solving; that being exploration (and exploration also includes investigation and info-gathering).

Downplaying or removing puzzle-solving largely guts one of the three pillars. Why would anyone do this?

Sometimes social interaction also involves puzzle-solving e.g. the riddling statue, but it's less common there. Combat itself rarely if ever involves puzzle-solving, though the pre-planning and run-up to it often can.

 

[Lanefan]

Given the scorn that @Lanefan has heaped on "Schroedinger's fictional element" in past posts, I am hesitant to attribute that to him.

So am I, to be honest.

No, the Assassins are where they are; and it's up to the PCs to (try to) figure out where they are.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. But the point I was trying to make is that it buys into a certain sort of approach which - at least for me - does not support depth or verisimilitude. Because what it means is that narration leans towards those details written down ahead of time to help someone (ie the GM) frame a puzzle; rather than the narration actually evoking the situation and what matters to me as my PC. (Or, if I'm GMing, to me as the GM trying to bring the players into the fiction)

Notice also that @Lanefan makes a big deal of treating (say) time of day of arrival as a big deal that can't be anticipated in advance.

Let me ask: were you framing this scene would you even consider the weather? The time of day? The season of the year? Local variables such as holidays or market days?

More importantly, would you lay these out to the players and allow them to use that info to inform how and-or when they were going to approach their investigations?

Wheares there is actually nothing I can see about the framing of We're looking for the assassins that makes the time of day matter (unless the PCs sneak in after dark deliberately; but then they're not going to see what all the shops are, nor notice the worn-away leatherworker's sign, either). The whole approach is one that prioritises the map as game board and also the counting of squares moved (and correlating that to the passage of in-game time) which may be fun for a certain sort of wargame-inspired play but to me doesn't help with veriimilitude or depth.

It's a pretty shallow world that has no changing weather, or turning seasons, or other such basic things that serve to set the tone and atmosphere of any outdoor situation.

Also, "we're looking for the Assassins" is just a bit (as in, a whole lot!) too broad to be a useful declaration of anything. I'd want to drill rather deeply into how they were looking, and where, and when, and who they were talking to; and then start roleplaying some of this out.

 

[Lanefan]

Side Note : I find it immensely helpful when folks take the effort to specify when they are referring to the player and when they are referring to the character instead of using PC for either.

For my part, if I say PC I mean character, if I say player I mean player, and in cases where I mean both at once it'll say player/PC or PC/player.

On Prep
When I run B/X, other OSR games, and Pathfinder Second Edition I utilize keyed maps for adventure locations including notes on traps, other features, wandering monster tables, and general creature locations (that is more fluid). I play, but will not run Fifth Edition anymore. Generally I am a lot more fluid with down time. Time and space are tracked far less rigorously.

Ditto here on the bolded bit. We often call it "rubber time" due to its immense flexibility.

I do not generally focus too much mysteries that have to be solved. In general I prefer play where the characters are awash in information rather than one in which they are fumbling around in the dark. Instead I prefer games where there is a variety of information that is meaningfully knowable that can be leveraged by players so their characters receive certain advantages.

I also prefer they be awash in information, with the caveat that not all of that information is necessarily going to be accurate or truthful.

Put another way, once in a while leveraging your information might put you at a disadvantage you didn't expect.

I hold to my prep, but I try to be extremely disciplined about how I prep. I aim to only prepare the challenge and never the solution. I aim to prepare situation and never story. I will not weigh in on if it is railroading or not, but I dislike it when GMs attempt to establish fiction with the aim of trying to exert control over the actions player declare for their characters. I also am not overly interested in setting tourism.

I prepare the challenge and usually at least one solution, but if they find a different solution then good for them.

What you call 'setting tourism' I call exploration; and that's part of the fun for me: learning about this whole new world I get to play around in. (which is why a DM using an established setting is always a bit of a letdown, as oftentimes I-as-player have already explored it thus much of the newness is gone)

 

[pemerton]

it does buy into a certain kind of approach. It's not my personal approach, but it is quite common, and I'm not convinced it has to be bad at verisimilitude or depth either. I don't know how much it props wither of those things up particularly, or even that it's supposed to prop them up in every case.

Well I was replying to this:

​

What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.​

​

I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.​

​

​

If you go back to that post, and what it was replying to, you'll be able to see that it was an argument that the kind of detail of a street that I'm reacting against is something that contributes to depth and versimilitude and draws players in.

And that's what I'm disagreeing with.

Some people just like to have some details written down because they aren't going to remember everything they want to, and aren't playing a completely play-to-find-out game, which D&D usually isn't.

Sure. But to what end? Upthread @Lanefan said it took him little time to come up with that. So what is the contribution to gameplay of setting it all out like that in advance of play?

There's a huge premium on GM production of detail D&D I think it's unavoidable that notes and maps should be involved to a certain extent. That doesn't have to reduce the game to one played on a map as game board either, I think that's a really extreme example and probably not fair to what a lot of D&D DMs actually do, even if they make use of copious maps.

Again, to what end? What is this GM-produced detail, encoded in these maps and notes, for?

Let's just go back to the time of day of arrival. In the fiction, there could be any number of reasons why the travel takes + or - N hours. Which means it is no more nor less realistic or verisimilitudinous for the PCs to arrive in the morning, at noon, or in the evening. Yet in much D&D play that is not treated just as a matter of framing. The travel is counted out on maps using miles-per-day charts and no one ever twists an ankle, or has a horse throw a shoe, or otherwise have their travel time be less than near-metrenomic. Why? What is this bringing to the table? Certainly (in my view, at least) not depth or verisimilitude!

 

[pemerton]

Most of the games I look to for more character driven play have an element of tragedy to them

<snip>

Hatred counts as much as love.

I don't feel that Prince Valiant has much of an element of tragedy. And hatred doesn't really count as much as love.

The only system I currently play that I think has room for tragedy is Burning Wheel. That's part of what makes it a demanding game compared to eg Prince Valiant, Cortex+ Heroic or 4e D&D.

 

[pemerton]

The fiction is in the GM's mind

This claim is highly contentious. I would say - if the fiction is in the GM's mind, why am I as a player bothering to turn up?

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton - Well, this is specifically @Lanefan 's prep, not mine, so I'd only be speculating about the use. It's not my personal taste in prep, which is much more in line with yours I think. I can sympathize with wanting some details to refer to if you don't feel you're good at making it up on the spot though, or if you want to ensure that certain details remain constant. IDK.

You keep making these statements about what D&D 'is', like your reference to travel above. I don't get it. D&D has rules for travel mishaps, getting lost, and all sorts of things. To play it like you describe is to ignore all the rules and suggestions in the core books. You can elide travel time, but that is by no means unique to D&D, and not an idea that really reflects the presence or absence of verisimilitude. Without a deadline for arrival there's no pressing need to detail the journey at all unless it's adding something to the fiction, which it might or might not depending on the game and genre expectations.

 

[pemerton]

You keep making these statements about what D&D 'is', like your reference to travel above. I don't get it. D&D has rules for travel mishaps, getting lost, and all sorts of things. To play it like you describe is to ignore all the rules and suggestions in the core books. You can elide travel time, but that is by no means unique to D&D, and not an idea that really reflects the presence or absence of verisimilitude. Without a deadline for arrival there's no pressing need to detail the journey at all unless it's adding something to the fiction, which it might or might not depending on the game and genre expectations.

My point is that the ostensible reason given for laying out the building and occupants of the street, but not the pie vendor or curio vendor who will engage the PCs, was that the latter can't be done because we don't know what time the PCs will arrive.

Whereas in fact we can almost certainly make the time of the PCs' arrival a simple matter of framing. (The almost is there because sometimes the players will have a particular reason to want their PCs to arrive at time X rather than time Y, which makes it something to be determined by action resolution if it's not just obvious that they can do it.)

In the post you quote I said the following: "Yet in much D&D play that is not treated just as a matter of framing. The travel is counted out on maps using miles-per-day charts and no one ever twists an ankle, or has a horse throw a shoe, or otherwise have their travel time be less than near-metrenomic." Do you disagree with this? What, then, are all those hex-marks and movement rates for?

As far as mishaps are concerned: I've played a fair bit of D&D and I've never had a GM tell me that I've twisted my ankle, or that my horse threw a shoe. (Whereas I have had issues with being lost: this goes back to the hex-crawl origins of the outdoor travel aspect of the game.)

Not too far upthread you said the following about your use of maps:

NPCs and physical spaces don't play the same way, or at least I don't use them the same way. I don't usually bother with physical maps for anything smaller than a real dungeon, and even then, I don't really see the connections of the physical space as something that limits player choice in a negative way. I mean obviously it does limit choice, when there are only two corridors you have only two choices, but that seems trivially obvious. Maybe it's because I don't have room contents in the way that a published module does that I'm struggling here. My 'dungeons' tend to have sorts of inhabitants, and sorts of possible treasure, and there may be some loosely strung together encounters, but those aren't tied to rooms. The idea that X is waiting in room Y has never made any sense to me, as it makes the place enormously static rather than responsive to the players actions. As soon as the players hit a dungeon, the inhabitants are in motion, and where the players might encounter X, Y or Z, has everything to do with their choices and nothing to do with the map. My maps are just a tool to keep me colouring inside the lines when it comes to obeying the laws of physics, really.

I'm not 100% sure I follow the metaphor of "colouring inside the lines" but I take you to be saying that the map informs your narration. This seems similar to how in my Prince Valiant session today I Googled up a map of Romania, Bulgaria and Anatolia so that I could make sure what I described about the PCs' movements on their way across Dacia to Constantinople would make rough geographic sense.

That is maps as mere colour. Nothing more. They have no significance for action resolution and impose no meaningful constraints on action declaration. (Of course a wall, say, or a forest will constrain action declaration; but you don't need maps to narrate terrain and geography and architecture.)

I have not seen a single D&D module ever that proposes using maps in that sort of way. Nor have I ever seen a D&D ruleset set up to use them like that except 4e, because it an use a skill challenge to actually resolve the journey, with the colour of the map being used to inform the resulting narration. When I say that in much D&D play travel is counted out on maps I'm drawing on my own play experience, my reading of many D&D modules over the years, my reading of various D&D rulebooks (even 4e has a miles-per-day chart because the authors of the PHB didn't integrate their mechanical elements into the skill challenge resolution framework), and what I see posted online.

If your approach was typical I would expect to see it reflected somewhere in the official materials. But I don't.

 

[pemerton]

On the topic of social conlict: my session today (of Prince Valiant) had three main ones.

* When the PCs arrived in Constantinople, feted as dragon slayers, they did homage before the Emperor and were bestowed with great gifts. When in due course they headed off into Anatolia, the wife of one of the PCs was invited to stay behind in the entourage of the Empress. At first the PC in question inclined to think this was a good idea, but then he got anxious that he couldn't trust himself (he is in fact in love with another woman, although she is currently in Toulouse) and perhaps not his wife either: so he tried to persuade her to travel with him. This was his Presence + Fellowship against her Presence + Glamourie. He succeeded, and she agreed to travel with him. This turned out to be handy, because later on in the session the PCs needed to haggle over the price of a debt that they were purchasing, and the PC's wife was the only in their entourage with Money Handling skill. She was able to get them a good price (one-and-a-half pennies in the shilling).​

​

* While travelling in Anatolia the PCs agreed to help a local count, too impecunious to field an effective force (he was the debtor whose debts the PCs ended up buying), to fight off an incursion of Huns. Taking council in the evening, they agreed on a plan of attack for the next day. But the count insisted on leading the charge himself. The PCs didn't want this - given the smaller number of their warband compared to the Huns they wanted to be in command themselves (two of the PCs have quite high Battle skill ratings). So an argument ensued - Presence + Courtesie on both side, though with the PC taking a penalty because he was not being fully courteous given that (as the count pointed out) it was the count's land and the count's cause that was at issue. The PC lost the argument and agreed to let the count lead the charge on the morrow. The PCs went on to circumvent this agreement by taking their forces out on a night raid against the Huns, which ended up working spectactularly well.​

​

* While the count and the PC commanders were arguing in the tent about who would lead the charge, the third PC heard a commotion outside among the levies and camp followers. He went out to see what was going on. A middle-aged camp follower was denouncing the count as hopeless and unable to properly provision and equip his levies - hence, she predicted, they would lose on the morrow. The PC atttempted to bully her into silence by insulting her, and this was resolved as a competition of his Presence vs her Presence + Oratory. (The PC has no Oratory skill.) The camp follower won this debate, and so the PC returned to the command tent and readily agreed that the PCs would be better off undertaking a night raid then trying to rely on any useful help from the count.​

There were some other social checks - one of the PCs made a good impression when the group arrived at the Byzantine border on the Black Sea coast, and the same PC helped the members of the PCs' warband remain calm when the vessel they were travelling on was assaulted by a "dragon" (a giant crocodile). That PC has the best Oratory of the group, and it's partly for that reason that he is Marshall of their Order. But those weren't conflicts as such.

EDIT: I probably should include this information, namely, descriptors for the relevant NPCs:

Elizabeth of York: Gullible about knights and noblemen (hence her desire to spend time in the retinue of the Empress);

Count Aethelred, a Goth in Byzantine Anatolia: Proud but not haughty, honest, merciful, trusting;

Cameh the camp-follower: Independent, melancholic, relentless in holding the count responsible for the state of his levies.