Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[pemerton]

You described the Certificate earlier as an auto-win. Are there limitations or restrictions on that?

Using tools from outside the fiction--maybe even including auto-wins; I'd have to think on that--doesn't feel to me as though it's the character doing it.

On the idea of "tools from outside the fiction" - a flashback doesn't invovle tools from outside the fiction (the PC packed his/her rucksack well), nor does looking for a chandelier or recognising a friend in a crowd. These are all things that the PC has done or is currenlty doing.

Of course the fate point or whatever exists outside the fiction, but so does the d20, the action ecnomy, the hit point, etc. These are all mechanical apparatuses.

In non-OSR RPGing I've often had a player ask something like "Can we assume that I bought some rope when we were back in town?" A flashback is like that but with player-side control: it shifts agency but it doesn't change the basic process.

And spending a Storyteller Certificate to kill someone, or find something, or arouse the passions of a crowd, or make someone fall in love wish you (these are the affects that have been used in our game; others include things like escaping, or remaining hidden, or saving someone in combat, or causing fear, or granting ispirational buffs) isn't any different from achieving such a thing via a check, except the check is not required. (It's no coincidence that the most frequent user of Kill a Foe in Combat is the player whose PC has the weakest combat stats on his PC sheet.)

clearly there's something in the fiction that led the PC to pray in Hagia Sophia and introduce himself, so the player could declare those actions expecting those results to be among the possible consequences? I figure there's some elision happening, there, because I don't see the recognition as described as a consequence I'd expect of an introduction

Here are fuller accounts of those two moments of play:

I decided to use the scenario The Crimson Bull. The PCs met an old man, the last survivor of an assault, holding a crimson bull by a black cord. He asked for help to take the bull to the Valley of Mudde. Through good fortune rather than good planning on my part, the map (we are using the Map of Britain on the inside cover of the Pendragon book) indicated that this would be at the southern end of a large fen on the mid east coast. The PCs (and players) were curious about this, but being noble knights offered to help. Sir Justin introduced himself as Sir Justin and then made a successful Presence check, with the result that the old man knew of him - "You're Sir Justin the Gentle, of the shrine of St Sigobert" [in an earlier session Sir Justin helped care for some of the ill in that hospice, earning the sobriquet Sir Justin the Gentle] - and I was sufficiently impressed and amused to give him a Storyteller Certificate.

Sir Justin, who had been badly wounded in the forest [by the Bone Laird], was utterly spent (reduced to 1D in each of Brawn and Presence).

<snip>

the dragon was slain by Sir Morgath. An Oratory check by Sir Gerran enabled him to maintain control over the soldiers still on the boat and that had fallen into the water, so only two Huns of the PCs' entourage were lost. The bones of one was recovered so that they could be placed in the reliquary for martyrs of the Order

<snip>

When the PCs and their retinue arrived in Constantinople they were welcomed as dragon-slayers. Luxurious pavilions had been established outside the walls of the city, and taxidermists were waiting to prepare the body of the dragon. The players abandoned their plan to turn the hide into armour and instead gifted the body to the Emperor: a troop of their soldiers carried the body up to the gate of the city, where they handed it over to Varangians to carry it to the Emperor. The PCs also entered the city unarmed and unarmoured (wearing their fine clothes, and with Sir Justin being borne on a litter as he was still on Brawn of 2 ie 2 down from his normal 4) and did homage to the Emperor in one of his palaces. He presented them with gifts, which I asked the players to narrate: Sir Morgath and his wife Elizabeth were gifted fine robes, which provided the standard +1 prestige bonus in the East but would provide a +2 bonus when worn in the West; Sir Gerran was gifted a jewelled and damascened sword of Syrian make (+1 prestige when worn); and Sir Justin was gifted a mace which had once been wielded by the Gothic holy man St Cuthbert, and so seemed a fitting gift for a Western knight who had come to the East to fight a holy war (the mace of St Cuthbert grants +1D when fighting heathens).

The PCs then prayed in Hagia Sophia. I can't now remember whether or not there was a check associated with this, but Sir Justin had a vision of St Sophia and St Sigobert side-by-side, with the host of martyrs behind them, who assured him that his crusade would not fail so long as the reliquary of the Martyrs of St Sigobert was not despoiled. As a result he healed, going from -2 to -1 Brawn. I also gave his player a Storyteller Certificate.

 

[pemerton]

In general I am not fan of FATE. Based on what @pemerton has said about it I would likely bounce off of Prince Valiant, but would probably enjoy the scenarios. I think a lot of the games @pemerton likes have the possibility (although not the inevitability) of being played as story advocacy games where play tends to revolve around competing visions of how the story should go. My preference is to play games that are strongly rooted in character advocacy. In the sort of play I tend to prefer (for character focused play) players simply play strong protagonists who goes after the things they want and it is the GM who frames them into conflicts.

That being said those games when played as written still have a very strong sense of player agency over the fiction. I tend to not enjoy how they get there, but that is another matter entirely.

My own preference is a tendency towards games that have a great deal of correspondence with the fiction, where the rules of the game almost underwrite the mentality of the characters. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Masks, and Monsterhearts. Blades in the Dark pretty much represents the edge of what I like. I find that stress and flashbacks have just another fictional correspondence to help us portray these dangerous rogues who live life on a knife's edge. The Forged in the Dark games that go further like Band of Blades are not to my taste.

I tend to prefer the way the games I like achieve player agency over the fiction - transparent GM ethos, player facing mechanics that constrain both players and GMs, and focus on making play a more fluid conversation. The GM is still given a great deal of latitude, greater in some areas than a game like modern D&D, but the MC does not like run the game. They are a player that takes on a slightly different role.

I've never played or GMed Fate. Of the games I like I suspect - it's more than a guess but not much more than conjecture - that you would like Classic Traveller the most and Cortex+ Heroic the least.

I think that Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant sit somewhere between story- and character- advocacy, or maybe on the border between them. They encourage strong PCs played forthrightly (Prince Valiant is definitely more pulp-y/4-colour than BW) but there are resource expenditure choices (various sorts of points in BW; certificates in Prince Valiant) that lean more towards story control.

4e D&D also has points and allied things (surges, limited-use abilities, etc) but the choice about expenditure of these tends to be more tightly embedded in a tactical situation, hence making the choice more immediate and urgent, than in BW or Prince Valiant.

I'm curious what you think of these ruminations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, 5e has flaws. No, having descriptions isn't one of them.

I didn’t say that having descriptions was the flaw. It can become very frustrating to speak with you at times.

My point has been that part of the problem in the OP is that the DM has described a NPC. The players have no way of knowing how that description translates into game mechanics, so they really aren’t sure how to engage with it. Then, additionally, the DM can simply deny that a declared action has any chance for success.

This can lead to less player agency. I don’t even know how you can argue that....not without resorting to some overly broad definition of agency.

Take a system that doesn’t allow a GM to simply decide that an action is impossible. Others have mentioned the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”. The GM can either say that the action succeeds, or he calls for a roll to determine the outcome. He can’t deny it outright. Such a system is designed to maintain player agency by not having an option that totally removes it.

Blades in the Dark does allow the GM to declare that a stated action will have zero effect. However, this is coupled with the player’s ability to spend stress to push for effect. This means that on a success, instead of zero effect, the PC gets limited effect. The same thing happens if the player rolls a critical. So although a GM can decide an action has no chance, the player has resources at his disposal to override that decision for a cost, and to still have a chance.

This is all discussed openly between the GM and players so that the player knows his chances for success and the severity of consequences for failure. Basically the GM and players discuss the fiction, and then they put the fiction into game terms, and then the player decides to proceed or not.

 

[Lanefan]

Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge.

In which case you never attempted the leap at all; you're denying the commitment your action declaration has tied you to.

Flat-out declaring "I try to leap the chasm" commits you to at the very least going over the side. There's really only three possible outcomes (with minor variants on each): you safely make it to the other side; or you fall; or you hit the far bank or cliff below your safe landing point and manage to hang on there.

A less-committed declaration would be something like "I try to gauge the distance and then if I think I can make it I'll leap the chasm"; with skidding to a halt possibly being the result of a success on gauging the distance and realizing in the fiction that no, you ain't gonna make that.

 

[Fenris-77]

In which case you never attempted the leap at all; you're denying the commitment your action declaration has tied you to.

Flat-out declaring "I try to leap the chasm" commits you to at the very least going over the side. There's really only three possible outcomes (with minor variants on each): you safely make it to the other side; or you fall; or you hit the far bank or cliff below your safe landing point and manage to hang on there.

A less-committed declaration would be something like "I try to gauge the distance and then if I think I can make it I'll leap the chasm"; with skidding to a halt possibly being the result of a success on gauging the distance and realizing in the fiction that no, you ain't gonna make that.

I disagree, at least for a game like D&D. When a player makes a declaration the DM certainly has the option to insert an "are you sure about that" moment. It's pretty standard play to outline consequences and then ask for confirmation. I don't do it all the time, but I would in cases where I suspect the player may have some misconceptions about levels of success required.

 

[pemerton]

On this discussion of jumping: I think you lose your nerve and pull up at the edge would certainly be a legitimate narration of failure in Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant. I think it would be a bit more unconventinal in D&D, because normally the GM doesn't narrate the emotional state of the PC.

But at a particular table I can imagine it as acceptable.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In which case you never attempted the leap at all; you're denying the commitment your action declaration has tied you to.

Flat-out declaring "I try to leap the chasm" commits you to at the very least going over the side. There's really only three possible outcomes (with minor variants on each): you safely make it to the other side; or you fall; or you hit the far bank or cliff below your safe landing point and manage to hang on there.

A less-committed declaration would be something like "I try to gauge the distance and then if I think I can make it I'll leap the chasm"; with skidding to a halt possibly being the result of a success on gauging the distance and realizing in the fiction that no, you ain't gonna make that.

Ah but go back and look at why I brought this up in the first place. I was saying it in response to Max telling me that the DM in 5E can’t apply consequences to a failed roll. He said:

Failure = don't succeed. It does not = don't succeed plus setback.

So I took the example of a jump and decided how that would work. Skidding to a halt is the only way that I can see a PC not succeed at a jump while facing no further consequences for the failure.

The three possible outcomes you mentioned don’t fit the “Failure=don’t succeed” idea. The reason is because it’s not the way the game is played. The DM is always adding consequences to failed rolls.

So I wasn’t really advocating for a PC skidding to a halt (although that may actually be a fine ruling for the DM to make) so much as using that example to show how the DM applies consequences to failed actions.

 

[Fenris-77]

In the jumping example falling is part of the failure state, not some sort of additional setback. They aren't separate.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn’t say that having descriptions was the flaw. It can become very frustrating to speak with you at times.

You very clearly spoke about DMs not describing things completely or clearly making it hard for players to know what to do, and then said that was a flaw of 5e. That's descriptions being the flaw.

Maybe you just described the flaw poorly, though. That could be a flaw of this thread(and many other threads).

My point has been that part of the problem in the OP is that the DM has described a NPC. The players have no way of knowing how that description translates into game mechanics, so they really aren’t sure how to engage with it. Then, additionally, the DM can simply deny that a declared action has any chance for success.

Unless the DM is just going to give all of the mechanical information to the players independently of the description, this is going to be a problem with any game that employs descriptions. This goes back to your dragon example. Unless you as DM tell the players that the dragon has an AC of 22, telling them that the dragon is armored won't translate clearly into game mechanics and they won't be sure how to engage with it. Engaging an 18 AC dragon could be winnable, while a 22 AC dragon would be death.

The main difference between "The dragon is armored." and "The baron is insane and does horrible things to those who insult him." is that the latter is clearer and gives you a better idea of what to avoid. Knowing that armor class is a mechanic doesn't mean much.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree, at least for a game like D&D. When a player makes a declaration the DM certainly has the option to insert an "are you sure about that" moment. It's pretty standard play to outline consequences and then ask for confirmation. I don't do it all the time, but I would in cases where I suspect the player may have some misconceptions about levels of success required.

I do it not only then, but also if I know that the PC would have a clearer idea that the attempt would be a bad idea. Sometimes, when the PC might or might not realize, I'll call for an intelligence or wisdom check, which if successful, will result in something like, "You realize that this leap is about 4 or 5 feet farther than you've ever manged to jump before."