Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

EDIT - Basically the antithesis of the George Lakoff Strict Father model of GMing that I see so often; "Its your game and if you spare the rod you'll spoil the child and you'll never condition your players into 'playing appropriately'...oh and beware of games that are too player-facing because its nothing but rod-sparing and child-spoiling!"

There is a spectrum of diverse GMing ethoi, for sure, but it seems like the one that I see advocated for most vociferously is the model above. I don't agree with that approach (to say the least) and I don't think its good for the hobby for it to be the standard-bearer.

Yeah, I agree. There was a lot of that early in the thread in response to the OP, and that’s probably what got me so involved in this discussion to begin with. “Punishing players” and correcting behavior, and so on.

There is of course a social aspect to the game, and I think conversations about all that are key. Any problem that’s not really game related should be addressed with a conversation.

Anything else that’s seen as problematic....well, I think you have to look at why it’s being considered problematic first, and then consider how to handle it.

You mentioned how the declaration of the insult in the OP may have been a valid action declaration...I absolutely agree that it could have been. It’s also possible that the player was simply bored and wanted to provoke a confrontation. Now, if that’s the case, I think it’s up to the GM and players to look at the reasons this happened. Could it be a problem player? Possibly. Could there be other reasons? Absolutely.

A lot of times, it seems to me that when a player decides to do something other than what’s expected, it’s seen as problematic play. It’s too broadly applied.

 

[Campbell]

I really enjoy sandbox play sometimes. The Sine Nomine games that embrace that style of play (Stars Without number, Godbound, Wolves of God) are some of my favorite games. I am a player in a Freebooters on the Frontier game that will be moving over to a West Marches style game.

I think you can absolutely have games that are about playing to find out what happens with prep that constrains play. It just requires a phenomenal amount of discipline in both preparation and play. The second your prep becomes about sharing your content rather than creating an environment for the other players to play in I think you are stepping over what I consider to be a pretty important line. Embedding mysteries that players can look into if they want is fine. Creating a mystery that players are expected to solve is over the line for playing to find out what happens. It may be a fine example of playing to find out how it happens or if it happens.

Generally speaking if you have a strong indication of what a player will do based on your prep I think you either need to work on your scenario designs or look into unspoken biases in play. Many players will reflexively follow a GM's lead without even thinking about it. This is something I think we all need to work on. Especially in lengthy games it can be all to easy to fall into familiar patterns.

 

[prabe]

Generally speaking if you have a strong indication of what a player will do based on your prep I think you either need to work on your scenario designs or look into unspoken biases in play. Many players will reflexively follow a GM's lead without even thinking about it. This is something I think we all need to work on. Especially in lengthy games it can be all to easy to fall into familiar patterns.

I don't entirely agree with this (though the rest of the post is spot-on, from what I can tell). I'm DMing one table with six players and one with five; there are three players in common. Two of them I've been gaming with for more than fifteen years, as both a player and as a DM, and one of them is my wife (whom I've been gaming with for even longer, and know even better). I can usually guess how both tables will react to situations, but if/when I'm wrong then I'm wrong and things go a direction I didn't have prepped--no big deal.

I'm also not entirely clear on your distinction in re: mysteries. I kinda accidentally ended up DMing one, but it was because play evolved that way, so I had to work out what had really happened and why--but I did so after the PCs had already demonstrated they were going to look into it and try to solve it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I really enjoy sandbox play sometimes. The Sine Nomine games that embrace that style of play (Stars Without number, Godbound, Wolves of God) are some of my favorite games. I am a player in a Freebooters on the Frontier game that will be moving over to a West Marches style game.

I think you can absolutely have games that are about playing to find out what happens with prep that constrains play. It just requires a phenomenal amount of discipline in both preparation and play. The second your prep becomes about sharing your content rather than creating an environment for the other players to play in I think you are stepping over what I consider to be a pretty important line. Embedding mysteries that players can look into if they want is fine. Creating a mystery that players are expected to solve is over the line for playing to find out what happens. It may be a fine example of playing to find out how it happens or if it happens.

Generally speaking if you have a strong indication of what a player will do based on your prep I think you either need to work on your scenario designs or look into unspoken biases in play. Many players will reflexively follow a GM's lead without even thinking about it. This is something I think we all need to work on. Especially in lengthy games it can be all to easy to fall into familiar patterns.

So I'm currently running a Blades in the Dark campaign using the Flame Without Shadow playtest material. The PCs are playing an Inspector and Bluecoats who have a mandate to deal with a drug epidemic that's come up in Nightmarket.

I know who the "bad guys" are because it was a PC crew from a prior campaign. But exactly who is behind them, and which factions have a vested interest in how things go....whether they want the Mandate to succeed or fail.....all of that is kind of unknown to me. I'm introducing elements and factions and things are happening, and I'm not quite sure why.

But as it happens, as elements are introduced and then expanded upon, I'm finding that they reconcile themselves. The lack of predetermined motives and actions and agendas by many of the NPCs (not all, some have very clear motives and goals) means that nothing is being contradicted. Everything is established in play, with only the basic framework of setting and factions before hand.

It's really interesting to watch.

 

[darkbard]

I know who the "bad guys" are because it was a PC crew from a prior campaign. But exactly who is behind them, and which factions have a vested interest in how things go....whether they want the Mandate to succeed or fail.....all of that is kind of unknown to me. I'm introducing elements and factions and things are happening, and I'm not quite sure why.

But as it happens, as elements are introduced and then expanded upon, I'm finding that they reconcile themselves. The lack of predetermined motives and actions and agendas by many of the NPCs (not all, some have very clear motives and goals) means that nothing is being contradicted. Everything is established in play, with only the basic framework of setting and factions before hand.

This may be more work than you're willing to do, but I think it might be useful if you can flesh this out with a specific example or two: what was happening in a scene when you introduced a new element, how that new element became integrated, consistent, and reconciled with other elements already established, and so on.

On another note, I've basically been away from EN World for the past eight or nine months, checking in only once every few weeks or so, but catching up in this thread has been one of the better parts of the past week. Thanks, participants, for a lively and enlivening discussion and analysis!

 

[hawkeyefan]

This may be more work than you're willing to do, but I think it might be useful if you can flesh this out with a specific example or two: what was happening in a scene when you introduced a new element, how that new element became integrated, consistent, and reconciled with other elements already established, and so on.

On another note, I've basically been away from EN World for the past eight or nine months, checking in only once every few weeks or so, but catching up in this thread has been one of the better parts of the past week. Thanks, participants, for a lively and enlivening discussion and analysis!

Welcome back.

The example that jumps out at me happened pretty early in the campaign. So as I mentioned, the PCs are police in a special unit that’s been assembled to deal with a specific gang, the Steel Syndicate, who has been flooding the streets of Nightmarket with a supernatural drug called Third Eye. The Steel Syndicate is actually the gang the players created and played in our first campaign.

Early on, after their third Operation (equivalent of a Score in Blades proper), I rolled for entanglements during the Fowntime phase. The result I got was that someone makes a move against a friend or ally. At this point, they hadn’t made enough progress to even be on the Syndicate’s radar, so it didn’t make sense to have someone from the Syndicate make a move on them. So instead I had an anonymous guy make a threat on one of the PC’s family. He was outside the PC’s house and said “Must be nice to have a family. A man should be careful to make sure nothing happens to them.” (Straight out of “Untouchables” if you’re familiar). Then he ran off.

So I had no idea who this guy was working for, other than it wasn’t the Syndicate. All I knew was that some other faction was already taking an interest in the unit.

So the player decided he’d have his PC spend some downtime devoted to finding this guy. The PC started questioning people and asking around and roughing people up to get them to talk. After a few downtime phases, he filled the clock that indicated he had located the guy.

In the interim, the PCs had a separate encounter that put them at odds with a gang called the Dimmer Sisters. This was an idea for an operation that the players came up with. The Dimmer Sisters are like a coven of witches that are involved in all kinds of magical crime and the like. So when it came time for the PCs to confront the mysterious guy, it made sense to have him working for the Dimmer Sisters. They nabbed him and got him to talk. So now they realize that they didn’t just have a run in with the Dimmer Sisters....the witches are actively involved in the situation. Which, given that the drug Third Eye is supernatural, dovetails very nicely.

When I introduced the guy threatening the PC’s family, I didn’t even know the Dimmer Sisters would ever come into play.

If I had had to decide that ahead of time, I would have likely picked another gang or faction, which would potentially steer things a different way. Instead, it kind of slid into something else that came along....something else the players brought to the game...and fit very nicely.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Edited double post

 

[Campbell]

@prabe

I was mostly speaking to the additional discipline required to run preparation heavy games if your goal is to play to find out what happens.

There are all sorts of constraints you need to impose on yourself:

1. You have to be willing to let a vast amount of material go unused.
2. You need to avoid investment in your prep.
3. Prep should be done in a purposeful way. You are a facilitator - not the main attraction.
4. Most importantly you have to fight against a whole host of unconscious biases that pervade the minds of players and GMs, particularly ones that have been part of the hobby for a long time.

When I am running a game my first priority is to be what John Harper calls a curious explorer of the fiction. A large part of that involves fighting against making assumptions or setting unconscious expectations of what actions the other players will declare for their characters. Another part involves using techniques that will help players focus on the situation and away from trying to find out what I want them to do. These techniques vary based on the type of game.

If I start considering how the environment will respond based on what players may or may not do then I am opening up avenues for cognitive biases to step in. It also means (particularly in social scenes) that I am not really being a curious explorer of the fiction and really considering what a given NPC would do
right here right now.

Right now I am preparing for the first session / session 0 of a Lancer game. It is easy for me to get carried away creating rich inner lives for NPCs, elaborate factions, and world building. That would not serve my game well. I need to keep it purposeful and focused. Prep serves play. Not the other way around.

 

[Campbell]

My previous post is focused on if you place a very high premium on playing to find out what happens. It is the prevailing focus of my play, but it does not have to be yours. It is not intrinsically good.

It comes with many risks. The feral story is more apt to risk our creative connections to our characters. The discipline required might require effort you are not willing to exert. Setting exploration for its own sake might be important to you. Some players prefer a certain level of GM guidance.

The things I look for in roleplaying games are somewhat specific. While I am not entirely crazy with his analysis in terms of Robin Laws' player types I tend to score highly as a Method Actor and Tactician. I come from a theater background and used to be an avid LARP participant. That sense of being in the situation is critical to me on both sides of the screen. I also have very little interest in setting exploration for its own sake.

Here is my Gamer Motivation Profile:

My Gamer Motivation Profile: Action-Oriented, Proficient, Relaxed, Social, Deeply Immersed, and Creative

Want to know your profile? Take the survey!

apps.quanticfoundry.com

I am guessing that I very unusual in having very little regard for the Discovery component and almost no regard for the Completion or Power Components. I would also guess that having such a high regard for the Mastery Components (Challenge and Strategy) is somewhat outside of mainstream play culture.

 

[Lanefan]

I absolutely 100 % agree. But I'm not sure that I agree in the exact way that you intended it, so maybe you can confirm either way.

Unforeseen consequences as an outgrowth of action resolution is one of the beating hearts of keeping conflicts dynamic and interesting. Here are all the moving parts:

1) The consequences (presuming failure here) needs to address what the thematic stakes were about in the conflict. Do you recall a long, long time ago when we (I'm almost certain you were involved in that conversation) my 4e play excerpt where the PCs were on horseback sprinting across the badlands trying to get to the forest to lose the army of bad guys on their tail (after they just stole an idol from their temple to bring back to the forest's Shaman to lift a curse)? They failed a navigation check (it was Nature if I recall) and it was the 2nd failure of their Skill Challenge to "escape the pursuit by making it to the forest." I navigated them getting lost and cresting a rise and narrowly stopping their horses before falling into a large gorge (with the forest in view on the other side).

Offhand I don't remember this example, sorry. But I get the gist.

"Unforeseen consequences" that set them back in their goal and created a new obstacle to overcome (as the scene's conflict mechanics said things were still in the balance).

From the players' point of view the consequence of the gorge is unforeseen. It matters not whether the GM had the gorge on her map all along or made it up on the fly (in badlands a sudden gorge makes perfect sense either way).

2) Unforeseen should mean all participants.

No, just the players. Ideally the GM has already thought of a bunch of possible outcomes and thus won't be caught off guard.

The more the GM contrives to preconceive a outcomes, the following happens:

a) The GM's precious, prepared material will have a tendency to limit the dynamism of play. There is situational context and ebb and flow and momentum and player intent that will emerge during play that will not be regarded in the GM's preconception of events before play ever began.

b) The GM won't get to "play to find out."

c) The game will be increasingly apt to be seduced toward GM Force in any singular moment of play and possibly have a tendency toward erecting a railroad for the long haul.

First off, there's a difference between a GM having a preconceived outcome and directing play towards it and a GM having a bunch of possible outcomes in mind (or in notes) and putting these in play as the situation suggests. That said:

a) sounds like something @pemerton, who IMO has a rather strong and consistent anti-GM bias, would post.

b) if the GM's only just now finding out what's going on, she's floundering. The GM should IMO always be a few steps ahead. In your chase example this would include having a half-decent map of the area done ahead of time so I could see what was where, and track the PCs' progress. (and the PCs would probably have learned some of what was where on their initial trip from the forest to the temple, if one was made, though when hotly pursued later they could still get lost as hell and find a gorge they didn't expect)

That's what prepping more than you need is for: reducing the chance of having to hit player-thrown curveballs and-or having to wing it, which IME often (as in, always!) leads to consistency issues when I don't remember some relevant detail I said an hour ago, can't write and talk at the same time, and don't want to grind everything to a halt every two minutes while I make notes on what I just said. Not saying I can't wing it, but I prefer not to* if possible.

c) I don't hold the same strident objection to GM Force that some here seem to. It has its place, particularly on nights (and they do happen) when the players are in story-consumption mode. Even a full-on railroad has its place now and then, though I prefer to keep these occasions to a minimum.

* - the exception is something like a dream or alternate-reality scenario or adventure where consistency doesn't necessarily matter anyway. I'm happy to wing those.