Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fenris-77]

I will also use the confirmation moment to outline possible consequences specific to the attempt. D&D doesn't fail forward mechanically, so if I want to adjudicate that way this is the moment where I'll outline the range of possibilities. For example, with the jump, I might say if you miss by three or less you'll have a chance to grab the other side, but more than that and you're going all the way down.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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).

I believe I was clear that the issue was about how 5E can leave it very unclear how what the DM describes translate into game mechanics that the players can reliably understand/predict/interact with. If that wasn’t clear prior, I hope it is now and we can discuss with this in mind going forward.

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.

Two things here. First, why can’t the DM just give all the mechanical info to the players? The way you preface that idea with “unless” makes it sound like you think this typically shouldn’t be done. Why not? Or did I misunderstand what you’re saying?

Second, I never said that this can’t be a flaw in many games. Lots of games take major cues from D&D, and so this weak point will often carry through. But how severe it is for each game will vary; I think you’d likely agree with that, yes? If so, what I’m saying is that it’s a particularly significant weakness for D&D. It can be avoided and/or mitigated, but it’s there.

Look at my example from Blades in the Dark, where all of this is discussed between GM and player before the player has to commit his character to the action and make the roll. It’s possible something may not translate from fiction to mechanics in an entirely clear way, but it seems far less likely, doesn’t it? The player knows the character’s Position for the action, the strength of the Effect on a success, and the degree of consequence of failure. The specific consequences may be known or unknown, but their severity is clear.

Where do you think this system lends itself to the muddy fiction-mechanics relation?

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.

Sure it does. Because the players know that the dragon has an AC score. It’s a mechanic they can understand and rely on. It’s pervasive in the game. Whether a specific AC is given, or just a description of it being heavily armored, the players have some sense what that means. They know that it’s going to come down to their attack bonuses and spells that can inflict damage without an attack roll and other combat-oriented, player facing elements that the game makes crystal clear. Even if the AC is so high that it’s beyond their abilities to hit with a d20 roll except if they score a natural 20, which is always a success, they have an idea of their odds and how things work.

They also know that the DM isn’t simply going to decide “nah, your attacks have no chance to succeed here.” This is key. This will not happen in combat, barring either really poor GMing or a spectacularly fringe edge case.

In the social interaction with the Baron, nothing is so clearly defined as all that. The players may have some sense of using their Social skills to deal with him (Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation), but no real way of knowing which may be well suited, which may work, and which will be shot down out of hand by the DM. They don’t know what the equivalent to AC is in this scenario, or HP. The game lacks these elements.

Then, on top of that, the DM may simply decide at any point that something they’ve declared not only doesn’t succeed, but can have dire consequences. That unilateral ability for the DM to do so is a huge compromise to the idea of player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To add on to my prior post.....can the players decide that the story of the game is “how the outsiders came to Vallaki and cowed the baron into stopping his madness”?

If they can’t decide that, then doesn’t it simply mean that the GM has already decided how they must go about their goal? And if so, isn’t that clearly a limit on agency?

 

[prabe]

There's no difference. That's why, in 4e D&D, there is a monster - I think a type of chained demon - that is able to establish a (mechanical) dominate effect because (in the fiction) it has wrapped its chains around the PC and is manipulating the PC like a marionette.

EDIT: I looked it up: the creature is a Gorechain Devil.

From p 65 of the MM2: "These shambling hulks . . . wrap[] their soon-to-be-dead foes in gore-encrusted spiked chains and control[] them like puppets".

The mechanical implementation of this fiction is:

Gorechain Takeover (standard, recharge 5,6)​

Melee 3: +15 vs Fortitude, 3d6+5 damage, and the target is dominated (save ends).​

The dominated condition ends if the target is more than 3 squares away frm the gorechain devil at the start of the target's turn.​

I saw this go by yesterday, and I'm just having a chance to refer back to this now (sorry).

This doesn't bother me the way that having the GM tell me what my character does, does. This effect is how this monster works, it's what it does; as a thing that opposes my character in the story, that's trying to impose its story on the world, that's fine. Someone from outside the fiction (such as the GM, or even another player) reaching in to impose their story on my character: That bothers me, greatly. The difference feels clear in my mind, and I hope it's clear in the words.

 

[Maxperson]

Two things here. First, why can’t the DM just give all the mechanical info to the players? The way you preface that idea with “unless” makes it sound like you think this typically shouldn’t be done. Why not? Or did I misunderstand what you’re saying?

No I don't think it should be done, unless that's how you guys really love to play. For me and my group it would not only destroy a large portion of the game's mystery, but would drag us kicking and screaming out of immersion, turning D&D into a gamist game. I don't want to play a game of numbers when I roleplay. If I wanted that, I'd play a board game.

If so, what I’m saying is that it’s a particularly significant weakness for D&D. It can be avoided and/or mitigated, but it’s there.

Look at my example from Blades in the Dark, where all of this is discussed between GM and player before the player has to commit his character to the action and make the roll. It’s possible something may not translate from fiction to mechanics in an entirely clear way, but it seems far less likely, doesn’t it? The player knows the character’s Position for the action, the strength of the Effect on a success, and the degree of consequence of failure. The specific consequences may be known or unknown, but their severity is clear.

Where do you think this system lends itself to the muddy fiction-mechanics relation?

I think it sounds like a horrible system(for me) that makes Blades more about being a game than roleplaying the character and immersing yourself in the story. The less often mechanics pull me out of the story the better.

Sure it does. Because the players know that the dragon has an AC score. It’s a mechanic they can understand and rely on. It’s pervasive in the game. Whether a specific AC is given, or just a description of it being heavily armored, the players have some sense what that means. They know that it’s going to come down to their attack bonuses and spells that can inflict damage without an attack roll and other combat-oriented, player facing elements that the game makes crystal clear. Even if the AC is so high that it’s beyond their abilities to hit with a d20 roll except if they score a natural 20, which is always a success, they have an idea of their odds and how things work.

So what. So AC has a mechanic. Without a specific score being given for that dragon, the players are more likely to make a bad decision with the dragon than with the Baron. One AC 16 is beatable. The other AC 22 is not. The players aren't going to know which is which from the description, "The dragon is armored." All of their knowledge of attack bonuses, spells and damage don't matter all that much, since they have no number to compare them to. Hell, that statement could even mean that this dragon wears some sort of barding that makes it even harder to hit.

Even if the AC is so high that it’s beyond their abilities to hit with a d20 roll except if they score a natural 20, which is always a success, they have an idea of their odds and how things work.

You're basically arguing that the player not knowing whether they need a 14 or higher to hit or need a natural 20 to hit, gives them an idea of their odds and how things work. That's ridiculous. The odds vary so wildly between those two points that any group that relies on them thinking that they "have an idea of the odds." deserves the TPK that they will eventually walk into.

They also know that the DM isn’t simply going to decide “nah, your attacks have no chance to succeed here.” This is key. This will not happen in combat, barring either really poor GMing or a spectacularly fringe edge case.

Fat lot of good that will do the PCs' corpses if they walk into a dragon fight needing natural 20's to hit.

In the social interaction with the Baron, nothing is so clearly defined as all that.

It's even more clearly defined. Instead of the wildly vague and destructive 14 to natural 20 to hit, they have crystal clear knowledge that the Baron is insane and will be very highly likely to have them tortured or killed if they insult him.

The players may have some sense of using their Social skills to deal with him (Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation), but no real way of knowing which may be well suited, which may work, and which will be shot down out of hand by the DM.

This is wrong. With only the knowledge in the OP, I know with crystal clarity to not even attempt intimidation. Trying to intimidate someone who is insane and would react with lethal force to an attempt at intimidation would be stupid, and I'm not stupid. I also know with crystal clarity that deception is pretty risky, but not as risky as intimidation. Someone that insane and touchy about things will probably react poorly to being lied to, but probably not as badly as if I tried to intimidate him. Persuasion would absolutely be the best way to go, IF I even want to risk a conversation with a madman, which I probably don't.

They don’t know what the equivalent to AC is in this scenario, or HP. The game lacks these elements.

Sure I do. Intimidation = AC 22. I'm very likely to end up dead and take my party down with me. Deception would AC 18ish. Possibly winnable, but still risky. Persuasion would be AC 16. We can win this one, but it's not guaranteed. It's the least risky.

I have a clear enough picture of the Baron to make those assessments and assign AC equivalents to the social skills.

Then, on top of that, the DM may simply decide at any point that something they’ve declared not only doesn’t succeed, but can have dire consequences. That unilateral ability for the DM to do so is a huge compromise to the idea of player agency.

Which is why I'm not going to do something so stupid as to insult a crazy, insult sensitive ruler and risk a reaction with no roll. If the players use their brains even a little bit, it's really easy to avoid auto failures in social situations. That leaves only auto successes and having to roll the dice.

 

[prabe]

I agree that the player has a dog in the fight. But I don't see the problem with that. I don't think it hurts the game for the ficiton to trend in the direction the players want.

I don't have a problem with the fiction trending as the players want, either; I just want it to be rooted in the setting and prior events, and the result of character choices. I'm also more open than you are, I think, to the idea the player who proposed the idea might be stubbornly wrong, which might be as much about our different experiences with fellow-gamers as about our different preferences.

Here are some concrete examples, from epic tier 4e D&D I've bolded the bits where players estabish credibiity; in the second quote that would mean bolding lots of it so for the sorcerer's plan I haven't bolded beyond the introduction to it):

{descriptions of play that didn't copy-paste over}

I think that these examples illustrates pretty clear the (2a), (2b) distinction I stated upthread: first establishing feasibility/credibility by way of table consensus; then framing the action and resolving it by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

I'm going to talk about those as though they were happening at a table were I was GMing, not because you're doing it wrong (y'all are enjoying it greatly, I gather, so that seems unlikely-shading-to-impossible).

At my table, I think the parts you bolded would likely play out (or I would interpret it as playing out) as the party deciding on their plan of action, maybe with some consulting with the GM as to how the plan would interact with the GM's understanding of the rules and the setting (there is some thought at the table that the GM is less likely to forget established in-world facts than the players, which is ... kind of them). It seems as though we may be seeing similar (not identical) processes through different perspectives, eh? I mean, the party in one of the campaigns I GM spent an entire four-hour session planning an assault on an enemy's lair, and there was some checking to make sure the players and the GM were on the same page as far as situation and rules.

In those posts there are two examples of rolling the dice: funnelling the souls across The Bridge That May Be Traversed But Once, and sealing the Abyss. There are more examples of "saying 'yes'": allowing the Thundercloud Tower to tear through the Demonwebs; allowing the previous successful Religion check to allow using the flow of souls to slow down the NPCs; allowing the Beacon to be permanentely expended in order to allow the rapid performance of a ritual; allowing Strech Spell to feed into the plan to seal the Abyss; allowing the chaos sorcerer to give of his essence to power his attempt to seal the Abyss.

Two of those examples of saying "yes" trade on the system's resource econcomy (and so are a bit like, though obviously not identical to, spending a Fate point or a Storyteller Certificate): expending the Beacon, and spending healing surges and hit points for the buff to the check. Having a robust resource economy in a game supports effective GMing in my view, especially when the game has lots of moving parts as D&D tends to.

In my view these examples of play illustrate a relative high degree of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. I think they show how that differs from what I have called "puzzle-solving" play. I also think they show an approach to RPGing that is quite different from OSR-ish/"delve"/dungeoncrawl play.

I can definitely see how having expendable resources would make it easier to say yes. If nothing else, the player is indicating the importance of the question to them by spending something. I don't know 4E (never played it at all) but I don't see anything in the descriptions here that seems overly generous, especially for a game that you describe as "gonzo."

{snipping another description of play}

Again there is no hint of RPG-as-puzzle. The player establishes the credibility of the peddler selling something angelic; of such a thing being useful in confronting a Balrog; and the credibility of knowing something from ancient history about such things as battels between angels and demons. But the action resolution fails, and so the feather is not as desirable as had been hoped, because it is cursed.

So ... the item is cursed because the character failed to identify it? That's an ... interesting mechanic. I'm pondering how that possibility would affect my decision-making in-game. I think--and this is about me, not about your table or even really the game--that it would gradually erode my suspension of disbelief somewhat as a player; clearly it doesn't for you or your players, or y'all aren't as worried about that--again, that's superb that y'all enjoy playing that way.

I have a question about your term "RPG-as-puzzle": what exactly do you mean by that? Clearly it's a style you don't particularly enjoy--that much is clear--and it seems to come up when someone mentions the possibility that players and/or characters should be allowed to make mistakes (as something different from failing at an action resolution). It seems as though you associate it with bad-faith GMing and/or a degenerate form of play, and it seems as though it comes up a lot around things I don't see as either. (I don't think you're accusing me of either.)

 

[Manbearcat]

It might do, but maybe not in the way/s you think. As has emerged elsewhere in this thread, I have remarkably little problem with mind-control effects inside the game (psychic super-villains, mental parasites, whatever). It's when they come from outside the fiction--when the GM or another player starts reaching into my character--that I get angry.

If I'm playing a character in a TRPG, I don't particularly want things like that imposed from outside the fiction. It stops feeling like my character against the world and starts feeling like me, the player, against the GM.

But again, to go back to what I said prior, if something exogenous isn't imposing its will upon you (in this case the resolution mechanics) and making your conception of self subordinate to that power in this moment (as happens in real life)...and you're making an active choice to pantomime (or not) the subordination of self to that power...then how are you remotely inhabiting your PC?

This is an aspect of these conversations that get extremely difficult and entangled. It is because people claim to want (a) verisimilitude/immersion/PC habitation, (b) they want agency, and (c) they want coherent incentive structures (as you cite directly below, which I'll address in a moment). However, you've got all of the following in a moment where a PC could legitimately have their will (through exogenous forces - social pressures perhaps - interacting with endogenous forces - the endocrine system) become subordinate to another character through mundane interaction:

• complete autonomy (as in your second quoted bit) in this moment which must utterly defeat the actual realities of (a) and (b)
• an incentive structure that completely pushes back against even the pantomiming of becoming mundanely charmed/intimidated/mentally undone

This is what I was trying to get at in my prior post. If you're just pantomiming becoming mentally undone (because you want it it "feel like my character" vs what actually happens in real life where when you succumb to something external to your conception of self...that sure as hell isn't something you identify with!...it feels as if you're a stranger to yourself!)...how is that remotely immersive...its literally the opposite of what happens in real life? Further, you're completely discincentivized in doing so (which you cite as a problem directly below). You don't identify this as a system issue?

I think the system of incentives in the game argue against it being as much about challenging the player's conception of the character as you seem to think. Fate Points are too valuable to ever turn one down, so there's a powerful incentive to inflict more and more badness on your character (or perhaps more accurately to allow the GM to).

I've GMed Fate somewhere around 6-10 times, so I'm quite familiar with the machinery and its context, holistically, in the game at large. Further still, I'm very familiar with the tech as it interfaces with other systems.

You're arguing for a misaligned incentive structure here. 2 things:

1) I would like you to address the incentive structure issue I cite directly above (which you don't cite as an issue...particularly how it is at tension with PC habitation/immersion/verisimilitude). I don't know how the two sit alongside each other.

2) With respect, I don't think you either have enough experience with Fate and/or games that have similar tech. To wit:

a) You're isolating one aspect of the incentive structure of Compels and the Fate Point Economy and claiming everything is downstream from that. Its not. The reality is, you have three other competing forces that can, and do, push back against that claim (thereby working back upstream toward some equilibrium). (1) Players have a conception of their character that they're interested in testing to possibly realize within the fiction. If you accept every Compel, you're significantly diminishing those prospects (likely to completion). (2) Players have an interest in interesting outcomes and an obligation to the table toward interesting story creation. This will absolutely push back toward accepting every Compel. (3) Players who accept every compel will get themselves into a ridiculous positive feedback loop of trouble...thereby knocking themselves out of scenes routinely...thereby actively limiting their impact on the trajectory of play overall and (1) and (2) above.

So, no, the incentive structures of the game aren't set up such that play isn't the product of this avalanche of "Compel-Acceptance" as you're forecasting it (not to mention the diminishing returns of "swimming in Fate Points" which is the paradigm you're creating here). Its not that way before play and its certainly not that way during play. If your limited play featured that, it had to have been a product of some serious misunderstanding of both the apex play priority of the system and the feedback loops of play by the table participants.

b) There are endless examples of other systems that have competing incentive structures (like the above) that yield a dynamic play experience (both in decision-points and in the fiction that emerges from gamestate changes). Players aren't constantly trying to fail in BW/TB and DW nor are they constantly trying to put d4 Traits/Relationships (et al) in their dice pools in Dogs nor are they constantly trying to make Action Rolls against Desperate Position in Blades because that is a significant portion of the xp > Advancement paradigm in those games. Success is important to both your conception of your PC and the trajectory of play. But this incentive structure tension creates a cognitive space for players (and attendant level of agency) that is filled with conflict and emotion. "Yeah, I'm going to bring my brother's death into this situation because it emboldens me...but it also makes me reckless as hell....eff it. For Brendon <pulls out Colt revolver>."

 

[prabe]

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.)

Taking these at least out of order:

Yeah, I can see how Certificates would work more as in-the-fiction than some of the other resources. That's why I was (and kinda still am--the knowledge that they exist still seems as though it's outside the fiction, if that makes sense) ambivalent about whether they were in-fiction or out-of.

I concur that your examples in the first paragraph are in-the-fiction--though I'm less sure that non-linear narratives work super-well in TRPGs (a different question). My example with the mook being the college roommate was a more out-of-the-fiction application, I think. Your examples don't bother me--I can buy an adventurer-type having rope, or a chandelier or a familiar place being where the character is. Maybe in the instance of the chandelier there's a misunderstanding on the player's part of the architecture, in which case maybe there shouldn't be a chandelier, but looking around at the scene is a reasonable thing to do, roughly always.

Game mechanics are weird. Mechanics that define what a character can accomplish (such as dice and modifiers) don't seem as out-of-fiction to me as maybe they do to you--it seems as though the character's capabilities need to be defined, somehow. Game mechanics that force the player to act outside the character seem to give me metaphorical hives.

Here are fuller accounts of those two moments of play:

Ah. Now I understand better the context of the thumbnails you posted earlier. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Campbell]

So I think social interactions are particularly fraught in gaming because we have radically different intuitions about social dynamics. My own personal experiences in the heavy metal youth subculture, as a varsity wrestler, a former soldier, a former salesperson and a martial artist have led to radically different conceptions of how open most of us are to influence, our social autonomy, and how impacted we are by things like emotions and relationships.

Additionally the vast majority of us have never felt what is like to live on the knife's edge. Most of us have never had to interact with people who have a casual relationship with violence or have gone through the crucible of almost daily violent conflict and learned what it takes to lead men. I am phenomenally lucky that I was able to serve my country without going through that experience. The interactions I had with infantry guys and gals were uniformly positive, but they like lived in another world man.

Take a look at someone like Jocko Willink, a retired Navy Seal officer who now teaches leadership to corporate types and has a very successful podcast. He comes off as a great guy, but also freaking dangerous man. He obviously fits slightly out of polite society, but there is just something about the man that begs you to listen and really consider his words.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Maxperson I don’t feel we can meaningfully discuss this topic, and I’d rather not continue the back and forth. I’m clearly not explaining my view properly, or you are somehow unable to understand it, so I’ll stop.