Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[FrogReaver]

Sigh. I asked. I asked if you could explain that statement in a way that wasn't an accusation of dishonesty. I tried to NOT take offense.

As for the rest of your post, I was not interested in the discussion if you were accusing me of dishonesty, so I tried to resolve that, in a polite way, by asking.


I accept your apology.

Now time for yours.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, silence on message boards is not consent or agreement. There's any number of reasons I may not have responded to you, and silent assent should not be your default assumption. The first time I realized what had happens was the same post you made things personal by attacking me instead of discussing my argument. I put you on 'scroll snooze' and didn't read your posts for a few days. As I do, I will usually look against after a few days and see if I think it's worth re-engaging. Here we are.

If you want to assume that lack of response is agreement with your arguments from other posters, go ahead. You should never assume that about me.


I am summarizing my point fairly and correctly because my point hasn't changed. It's the same point I've made in many other threads. I have no reason to obfuscate it in any way. I'd actually strongly recommend that you do go back and check before you suggest I'm mistaken or in error about my own arguments -- not a good look.



No, I'm saying I, as GM, can refuse to adjudicate the action at all. There are any number of action statements that are genre inappropriate that I wouldn't even countenance, much less adjudicate. There are many that I would. Without a specific statement and situation, I'm not going to say one way or the other and keep both options open.


Would I similarly have to adjudicate a cheated roll? Or a dishonest modifier added by a player? A genre inappropriate action can rise to the level of bad play and shouldn't be treated as a valid input to the game as a whole. I don't need a rule in the game to decide this or we need to talk about how GMs must honor cheating because there's no rule specifically to deal with that outside of fiat. If an action rises to the level of being outside the game, I don't have to use game rules to deal with that -- I can just say, "no, do we need to discuss this or are you going to engage the game?"

If it's not at that level, then, sure, adjudicate it if you want.



If the GM chooses so.


I'm very confident that I've only ever said, "follow the fiction." Following fiction seems like nonsense to me, so I wouldn't have said that outside of an unfortunate typo. Following the fiction, refers to a specific fiction. My mistake in assuming it would be obvious that it was the fiction created in the game. I didn't think that it would be taken as refering to any fiction, as that doesn't seem a logical argument at all (as you note). Now that I do know that some will miss the definite article or not grasp it's intent, I'll make sure to sprinkle in 'follow the established fiction.' I am glad that this formulation let you understand my point.

Discussion is over. Seems you would rather be right than attempt to continue.

 

[pemerton]

On this issue of genre as a constraint on valid action declarations, here's a very clear statement of the idea from the HeroQuest Revised rulebook (p 74), under the heading "Credibility Tests::

As Narrator, you are never obligated to allow a contest just because two characters have abilities that can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem abusrd, you disallow the contest, period. . . .

Players are typically as attuned to common-sense narrative reality as you are, and will not routinely propoose patently absurd actions. You'll find that they do almost all of your credibility testing for you. . . .

What constitutes a credible action may vary form one setting to the next. [The text goes on to give examples of varous genrses, like LeCarre spy thriller compared to James Bond-style spy thriller.]​

I already posted about a similar point being made in the Burning Wheel book: no roll to see if there is beam weaponry hidden in the Duke's toilet.

Dungeon World (p 58) also states a similar idea, though it links it less to genre and more to a robust sense of ficitonal positioning:

Note that an “attack” is some action that a player undertakes that has a chance of causing physical harm to someone else. Attacking a dragon with inch-thick metal scales full of magical energy using a typical sword is like swinging a meat cleaver at a tank: it just isn’t going to cause any harm, so hack and slash [ie the basic melee combat resolution framework] doesn’t apply.​

This is also crucial in GMing Marvel Heroic RP: if Bobby Drake's player proposes as an action to try and beat The Hulk in an arm wrestle, then (unless Bobby does something tricky, like making The Hulk slip on some ice) the outcome is a foregone conclusion, because Bobby simply isn't anywhere near as strong as The Hulk.

These examples are all talking about something very different from the GM deciding that an attempted action fails because - though it makes sense given the genre and the established fiction - there is some reason stated in his/her notes that means it cannot succeed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now time for yours.

Discussion is over. Seems you would rather be right than attempt to continue.

In the last three exchanges about my position, you've said that my positions sucked, that I was not fairly or correctly summarizing my position, and that I'm more interested in being right when I correct misstatements about my position. That's making it personal, an accusation of dishonesty, and a claim that I'm being argumentative. My position doesn't suck -- many seem to get it and have argued it on my behalf. I'm not being dishonest -- my position has neither changed nor has it been inconsistent. And, correcting misunderstanding of how I look at the game and my positions isn't "being right," especially since that implies there's a "right" position on these things. I'm actually the ONLY person that can be right about what I think about the game.

And, after all of this, I am suppose to apologize to you because I asked you if you intended to accuse me of dishonesty? No, I'm not going to apologize for asking, politely, for clarification of intent.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the last three exchanges about my position, you've said that my positions sucked, that I was not fairly or correctly summarizing my position, and that I'm more interested in being right when I correct misstatements about my position. That's making it personal, an accusation of dishonesty, and a claim that I'm being argumentative. My position doesn't suck -- many seem to get it and have argued it on my behalf. I'm not being dishonest -- my position has neither changed nor has it been inconsistent. And, correcting misunderstanding of how I look at the game and my positions isn't "being right," especially since that implies there's a "right" position on these things. I'm actually the ONLY person that can be right about what I think about the game.

And, after all of this, I am suppose to apologize to you because I asked you if you intended to accuse me of dishonesty? No, I'm not going to apologize for asking, politely, for clarification of intent.

And this is why so many of your discussions blow up. You seem incapable of admitting when your actions cause offense even if unintentional. I have done that and tried to move forward while you refused. It's not that I believe I did anything wrong but rather that I understand sometimes things can be taken the wrong way. Why are you incapable of that courtesy?

 

[FrogReaver]

On this issue of genre as a constraint on valid action declarations, here's a very clear statement of the idea from the HeroQuest Revised rulebook (p 74), under the heading "Credibility Tests::

As Narrator, you are never obligated to allow a contest just because two characters have abilities that can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem abusrd, you disallow the contest, period. . . .​

​

Players are typically as attuned to common-sense narrative reality as you are, and will not routinely propoose patently absurd actions. You'll find that they do almost all of your credibility testing for you. . . .​

​

What constitutes a credible action may vary form one setting to the next. [The text goes on to give examples of varous genrses, like LeCarre spy thriller compared to James Bond-style spy thriller.]​

I already posted about a similar point being made in the Burning Wheel book: no roll to see if there is beam weaponry hidden in the Duke's toilet.

Dungeon World (p 58) also states a similar idea, though it links it less to genre and more to a robust sense of ficitonal positioning:

Note that an “attack” is some action that a player undertakes that has a chance of causing physical harm to someone else. Attacking a dragon with inch-thick metal scales full of magical energy using a typical sword is like swinging a meat cleaver at a tank: it just isn’t going to cause any harm, so hack and slash [ie the basic melee combat resolution framework] doesn’t apply.​

This is also crucial in GMing Marvel Heroic RP: if Bobby Drake's player proposes as an action to try and beat The Hulk in an arm wrestle, then (unless Bobby does something tricky, like making The Hulk slip on some ice) the outcome is a foregone conclusion, because Bobby simply isn't anywhere near as strong as The Hulk.

I'm not familiar with those games but every example you give to me sounds like auto-fail and auto-success mechanics being used to root out genre inappropriate fiction before it makes it in the game.

I think there is an important distinction between:
1. genre inappropriate fiction - which is what all these rules attempt to avoid
2. genre inappropriate action declarations - of which I believe there aren't any because at worst anything that might be classified as that makes you function as the rpg analog to the literary comic relief character - and that's not actually a bad thing IMO.

These examples are all talking about something very different from the GM deciding that an attempted action fails because - though it makes sense given the genre and the established fiction - there is some reason stated in his/her notes that means it cannot succeed.

I've seen arguments that both the genre and the established fiction meant that insulting the burgomaster would necessitate a harsh reaction. I don't necessarily agree with those arguments but it's worth noting that they were made.

 

[chaochou]

Proponents of ’GM decides’ as a method of policing bad faith play by negating player agency, can’t simultaneously claim that GM decides doesn’t negate player agency.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan

Generally in games with a GM where scene framing is like a thing framing is primarily the responsibility of the GM. The GM/MC is the one that sets the stage for the scene and establishes the initial fictional details. So if the players have their characters travel from one village to another the time it took, what time of day it is when they arrive, who is there to meet them when they arrive is up for the GM to establish.

True, in a set-the-scene sort of way; but to what level of detail is the question, and at what 'points'?

For example, let's say the PCs are heading to Bayport to find an Assassins guild known to be based there that had been hired to kill off an important person in their hometown, and had succeeded in said killing. The PCs' overall goals are twofold: one, try and find anything that can help determine who hired the guild; and two, exact some revenge on the guild by making such mess of it as they can.

Let's for convenience's sake say it's a ten-day journey by foot to Bayport and that said journey turned out (via whatever mechanics) to be uninterrupted and safe.

Now, do you frame them as generically arriving outside the town:

DM: "At about two hours before sunset on Auril 12, after an uneventful trip, you're looking down a long shallow decline at the town of Bayport about half a mile away. It's mostly cloudy, with a cool sea breeze blowing in off the busy harbour. Even from here you can see the gates are open, with considerable traffic going both ways; and while guards are present they don't seem very concerned about who or what is passing through."

Or do you assume they get into town and find an inn, and just put them there an hour later?

Or do you jump a step further and assume they've learned the guild's in Cheapside Way, and put them there either later that night or sometime the following day?

Or do you jump straight to their arrival at the Curio Shop, whenever that may be?

In order, each of these options incrementally increases table efficiency while decreasing exploration opportunities and - IMO - setting depth. (and also incrementally decreased are opportunities for the PCs to screw up as they go along)

Players do not generally get to frame scenes.

Not directly, but they do - or should - get some input into what scenes are framed, and how often, via their attention to detail and what they decide to do.

For example, if the players state they don't do any investigating after dark due to worries the Assassins might have an advantage at night then framing the PCs into a night scene should be off the table unless the scene comes to them e.g. their inn room gets invaded.

And during their daylight investigations, do you roleplay them out or sort it by dice rolls? I'd expect to roleplay them out, and my notes would be based on that expectation - hence the short-form write-up of Cheapside Way and the longer-form write-ups (and maps) of the Wit and Wisdom and the Curio Shop (and its various hidden bits!).

 

[pemerton]

I'm not familiar with those games but every example you give to me sounds like auto-fail and auto-success mechanics being used to root out genre inappropriate fiction before it makes it in the game.

I think there is an important distinction between:
1. genre inappropriate fiction - which is what all these rules attempt to avoid
2. genre inappropriate action declarations - of which I believe there aren't any because at worst anything that might be classified as that makes you function as the rpg analog to the literary comic relief character - and that's not actually a bad thing IMO.

I don't really understand what you think is at stake here, or why you find this point is an important one to make.

The distinction that is important to me, which the rulesets I referred to bring out, is between the following two things:

(i) enforcing genre contraints and fictional positioning when a player is making a decision as to what it is that his/her PC tries to do;

(ii) invoking the action resolution mechanics, which may include elements of GM adjudication, in order to find out what happens in the fiction.

The first is mostly about negotiation and consensus among the participants. The GM has a special responsibiility, but isn't the sole arbiter of what can be done within the constraints of genre and fictional positioning. For instance, in my 4e game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who would often take the lead in deciding what was or wasn't possible as far as magical effects were concerned.

The second is not about negotiation at all: in all the games I mentioned it's the player's job to declare actions for his/her PC and its the GM's job to apply and adjudicate the action resolution mechanics, in order to find out what happens.

These quite different at-the-table processes make it important to me to draw the distinction.

Conversely, running them together to my mind confuses responsibilities at the table. And it confuses (i) the adjudication of established fictional positioning to decide whether or not a mooted action is feasible with (ii) resolving a declared action by reference to unilateral GM conceptions of the fiction (eg as found in the GM's notes or extrapolated therefrome).

Proponents of ’GM decides’ as a method of policing bad faith play by negating player agency, can’t simultaneously claim that GM decides doesn’t negate player agency.

I'm not 100% sure who the target of this is: but from my distinction between (i) and (ii) above I hope I've made it clear that I see genre constraints and managing fictional positioning as something where shared agency and negotiation/consensus are appropriate - though I do think that in a fairly trad game the GM has a distinctive leadership responsibility here - whereas (ii) is different: the player's agency consists in declaring an action for his/her PC, and the GM's job in adjudicating it in good faith.

I hope this also brings out why I don't like adjudication based on secret fiction (ie GM notes and the like) because this tries to straddle (i) and (ii) in an unhappy way: like (i) it is the imposition of fictional positioning considerations but without any opportunity for negotiation or consensus, and that is because it pretends to be or presents itself as a versio of (ii).

I should add my standard caveat: I'm not talking about OSR-ish/"skilled play" here, where secret information in the GM's notes is de rigeur, and players are expected to discover that through various processes including the trial-and-error of action declaration. The flip side is that in that sort of play the GM has a very onerous responsibility to be exceedingly fair in not changing or departing from the notes, because that risks making the game competely arbitrary and subject to the GM's whims. But no one in this thread seems to be playing that sort of game.

I've seen arguments that both the genre and the established fiction meant that insulting the burgomaster would necessitate a harsh reaction. I don't necessarily agree with those arguments but it's worth noting that they were made.

I haven't seen those arguments from anyone, but maybe I haven't read closely enough.

The only poster I've seen link the Burgomaster's reacttion to genre is me - I said that Gothic Horrors + Renaissance doesn't seem to necessitate off-with-their-heads rulers and does seem to invite mad rulers having their mansions burn down with them inside it.

I've seen people say that the Burgomaster's reaction is established by the GM's notes (or, in this case, the module text) but I haven't seen anyone say that it followed from the established fiction - and that seems right, because only the OP could know that and the OP hasn't really chimed in on this particular issue.

 

[pemerton]

Now, do you frame them as generically arriving outside the town: <snip options>

<snip>

if the players state they don't do any investigating after dark due to worries the Assassins might have an advantage at night then framing the PCs into a night scene should be off the table unless the scene comes to them e.g. their inn room gets invaded.

The games that @Campbell is talking about actually have principles that answer these questions. (Not all games involve the same principles.)

And I posted an actual play example not far upthread.