A Question Of Agency?

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, one of the reasons strongly railroaded adventures are so common is that they're easy to write, and you don't have to take up a lot of space with large chunks of material that will often go unused.

 

[Lanefan]

But now you're assuming that the GM at one-and-the-same time both thought a check was important and yet said "yes".

Or didn't realize a check was important and said "yes"; the opposite of calling for a check where none is needed, and a simple enough mistake to make.

But here, yes, I am assuming a situation where the GM realizes a check is likely appropriate but intentionally doesn't give one due to the very real possibility of said check producing a result she (and-or the player) doesn't want. To me this is pretty much the same as fudging a die roll, only instead of fudging a bad result into good after the roll you're preventing the bad result from ever arising by not rolling in the first place.

You also don't seem to recognise why a player might want to push things to a check - for instance, to establish finality in respect of some matter (eg whether or not Lady Askol believes the lie).

I can see the desire to establish finality but as a player, why risk it if you don't have to? From all appearances you've got the finality anyway without having to chance the roll, so just be quiet and run with it!

Which brings up another point, I suppose: if the GM says yes (or no) without a check, to me that produces the exact same degree of finality as had dice in fact been rolled. In your example you say - without a check - that the lie is believed, which in my eyes means I-as-player can proceed just as if I'd rolled a successful check and with the same expectation of finality.

Where we differ, I think - correct me if I'm wrong, is that you view a die roll as locking things in while simply saying yes maybe doesn't; where I see the degree of locked-in-ness as being the same either way; and the discussion then becomes one of just what that degree is both at the time and later.

 

[darkbard]

It would take an extended conversation, a real conversation not one where we are trying to outdo each other rhetorically, to really give you a full take on how I run a game, how I play NPCs, and what my overarching goals are.

I am unsure why you assume this kind of bad faith posting in these conversations and don't assume instead that contributors who post extensive analysis and examples from their gameplay are having extended, substantive conversations and are not engaging in rhetorical showmanship.

Further, at times, both in this thread and many similar ones over the years you express hostility to analysis, sometimes encouraging others to skip analysis and "do what works for them" or some variant thereof. Which is it? Do you want extensive analysis via conversation or not? If you feel the kind of "real conversation" you seek is impossible in these threads, why do you become a frequent participant in them?

EDIT TO ADD: These are not rhetorical questions. I legitimately don't understand your assumptions and motivations.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that the DM in 3e versions could have NPCs use skills in that manner on the PCs. And while I wouldn't defend the skill system of 3e D&D, I think that there is a fundamental difference between a PC and a NPC. They must be treated differently in many ways.

Where to me there's as far as possible no difference between PCs and NPCs. They're all equally a part of the game world, and that I'm running some and the players are running some has - or should have - no bearing on how they interact or operate.

Which means that if you can use Intimidate (or any other social roll) on an NPC, so should an NPC be able to use it on your PC with exactly the same degree of effect. Given that, and given that having it work this way would hammer player agency into the ground, it's a pretty easy call to just strip such mechanics out of the game wherever possible and to oppose them wherever they arise.

Same reason I rarely if ever use reaction rolls.

Now, beyond that, do I think that things can happen to the PCs during play that impacts their state of mind, and forces some behavioral consequence on them? Sure, it can happen quite often to be honest.

Sure - charm etc. are (usually) an accepted part of both the game and the setting. No problem there, and it can work equally both ways.

Predetermining it means you may also be predetermining the ways in which the PCs will likely be interacting with this NPC. And that may be fine. But I think it's worth considering if you can get the same roleplay out of deciding during play.

Experience tells me that if-when I try running significant NPCs without much forethought the results tend to either be predictable (as per @Manbearcat 's theories posted above) or quickly become somewhat incoherent and inconsistent. Neither is ideal.

I think it may also matter the context of the NPC; certainly some should be more clearly defined before the PCs interact with them.

Absolutely. I don't much care if the gate guard the PCs speak to once ever comes across the same as all the other gate guards the PCs speak to once ever; but I do care that the personality and motivations of the party's patron have a solid pre-built foundation so I can play him consistently from one session to the next and from one year to the next.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, one of the reasons strongly railroaded adventures are so common is that they're easy to write,

And they become popular because they're also easy to GM, and in some ways also easy to play.

and you don't have to take up a lot of space with large chunks of material that will often go unused.

 

[Lanefan]

See, to me, this post and the one before it, in which you talked about players "getting away with stuff" and that "they always go along with what they want", etc. smacks of an ethos in which the GM is some sort of task master/enforcer. That the players are these little miscreants who just want to have treasure handed to them, and it is the job of the tough guy GM to make it hard for them.

It's the players' job to advocate for their character and in so doing gain what advantage they can, and IMO this advocacy includes pushing the envelope of the rules.

It's the GM's job to push back. That's why a GM's role is often referred to, in part, as that of referee.

IMHO this is a way, simplistic perhaps, to interpret Gygaxian skilled play, but it is anathema to, certainly diametrically opposed to, the type of gameplay we are talking about. There are not two sides in these narrative construct/fiction first games! DW's GM agenda literally instructs the GM to be a fan of the PCs and an advocate for the players. They aren't some sort of 'opposed teams'! There is no such thing as players "getting away with it."

This seems conflicted somehow - the GM is supposed to be a fan of the PCs yet at the same time is supposed to go hard-ass on them? (I forget who posted above how 'weak-kneed' GMing doesn't work in those types of games)

I mean, it's one or the other: either you're legitimately-but-fairly trying to screw them over (or kill them) and thus forcing them to fight back or you're not; and IMO doing this well requires a mindset of really being their opposition, not their fan.

This is what I would call antiquated thinking, at best. All the participants at the table are generating a fiction (play to see what happens) and all of them have the same goal, interesting and engaging fiction. Because it is an RPG that is going to focus on character and how it interplays with setting, genre, etc. through dramatic conflict. It also has elements of exploration and the other foci that you will see called out by WotC people when they talk about different kinds of players.

Even in Gygaxian skilled play I would say that a similar ethos is actually in play. The GM never simply pitches the PCs into hopeless situations. There aren't Invisible Stalkers on level 1 in the front corridor that slay everyone who enters, or pit traps filled with lava that do 100 points of damage with no save or chance to detect them.

Depends on the particular campaign and-or GM. A GM running a true sandbox game might very well have such things in some places, and it's on the PCs to pick their spots and find things they can handle, even if only by trial and error.

Remember, this was actually called out in the original Tomb of Horrors. The intro to the module literally says "This is unsurvivable, every PC who enters this dungeon will die. Go to the back of the book and run the pregens! Don't use any PC you care about." Given the sheer volume of ways PC spell casters can attack a problem some people DID get to the end of the module, but IME it is pretty rare!

Heh - we used the pre-gens. There's six of them. Of those, three finished the dungeon and survived, despite (or more like, because of) the DM running bets among our friends as to which room would be our furthest point of advance before the TPK!

Clearly 'normal dungeons' are built so that the PCs are very likely to advance and surive IF THE PLAYER IS GOOD AT PLAYING D&D. The goal is not any sort of verisimilitude or reasonable and believable anything. It is to have a kick ass time beating the, hard but beatable, dungeon.

This is what informs my thesis about how play is really driven. You might have a model of GM vs Player at a superficial level, but at most your trying to make a 'fair test'. What we're doing is a bit different, but the ultimate goal is basically the same, to have a fun tale emerge at the end of the night. Yours might emphasize player puzzle-solving, loosely, and GM as puzzle-giver, and ours emphasizes GM as 'plot complication giver' and involve a more overtly cooperative model of how that works, but we are all ACTUALLY on the same side.

I just find it a lot easier to explicitly think that way, because bringing our thought processes and interests out into the open and putting them on the table is generally a more successful way to get to success reliably.

OK, I get this.

I mean, there's no reliable numbers on any of this I'm sure, but I am of the opinion that it is much more likely for a game run in a style like, say, @Manbearcat's to 'hit the mark' than it is for one where some people pick up D&D and try to run it in a classic fashion. That if you went across all the groups that did the latter, most of them achieved limited, or no, success. Most of the groups which tried the former OTOH, I suspect a lot of them succeeded. I think the 'classic D&D way' is just vastly more obvious. It doesn't take much analysis or explaining to get going with. It is successful enough of the time that if you try a few times you'll probably achieve enough satisfaction to keep playing. The other way is unlikely to just come about when random naive people try to play an RPG. Yet if you teach it to people it really does click well.

Yeah, not buying this.

Over the history of RPGs, chances are that 98+% of all players' first exposure came through D&D. What this means is that by the time those players get to any other RPG, chances are that most of the "random naive people" have been winnowed out; and many of those players who remain just stick with D&D because it gives them what they want.

Players who look for other RPGs usually have a clear idea of what they want that D&D doesn't give them, thus ensuring a higher success ratio for those games as the participants are both already experienced in RPGing and are more invested in making their new game work in hoopes it can give them what D&D didn't.

In short, comparing success rates isn't really fair on any level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can see the desire to establish finality but as a player, why risk it if you don't have to? From all appearances you've got the finality anyway without having to chance the roll, so just be quiet and run with it!

Because if you don't ever stake anything, then the game will grind to a halt! If the characters in @pemerton's Traveller campaign simply want to be ordinary boring paper pushing civilians someplace, then sure, they can just go get 9-5 jobs and never ever stake anything on anything. That would be 'realistic' I guess, in some way, but utterly pointless. Remember the joke about "Paper & Pencils" back in the 1e DMG? Why was it funny? Obviously because nobody would ever play such a game!

Which brings up another point, I suppose: if the GM says yes (or no) without a check, to me that produces the exact same degree of finality as had dice in fact been rolled. In your example you say - without a check - that the lie is believed, which in my eyes means I-as-player can proceed just as if I'd rolled a successful check and with the same expectation of finality.

Where we differ, I think - correct me if I'm wrong, is that you view a die roll as locking things in while simply saying yes maybe doesn't; where I see the degree of locked-in-ness as being the same either way; and the discussion then becomes one of just what that degree is both at the time and later.

This is because you approach the subject from the perspective of a classic DM. In your mental paradigm NOTHING is ever locked in. If I take some fantastic treasure from the dungeon, you'd feel perfectly willing to have somebody else steal it from me. Heck, maybe even without I ever know such a move is coming or have a chance to prepare! Whereas Pemerton would not do that. He would instead frame a situation where the player has a chance to decide to put up those stakes (maybe by taking on the interests of the infamous thief's guild that is known for stealing heavily guarded treasures). Now, if instead the PC put up NO STAKES and just got this fantastic treasure in the first place (IE no check took place, nothing was risked) then Pemerton might well simply take the thing away again. I would say THAT would be a form of framing a situation where the PC could THEN take risks (IE is it worth taking on these villains to get the thing back). But remember, in this case the treasure was basically dropped in the PC's lap, and the player NEVER EXPRESSED ANY INTEREST IN HAVING IT. So why would they care? The player certainly cannot complain that anything here is a 'railroad'.

It is the same with Lady Askol. She appears to have accepted the lie without anyone declaring an intent or making a check. So, now the PC "has the treasure" but "never paid for it" and if the GM suddenly decrees that she was snowing him down the road, he's got nothing to complain about. There IS no finality, its just an ongoing framed piece of the fictional state. The player can risk his certainty that the lie was believed later on, and THEN the results of tossing the dice will decide this matter, but the form of such a risk taking has yet to be decided, maybe never will be decided in theory.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Where to me there's as far as possible no difference between PCs and NPCs. They're all equally a part of the game world, and that I'm running some and the players are running some has - or should have - no bearing on how they interact or operate.

I don't accept this. If it was true, then you would be as equally likely to have the action focus on the NPCs, to have them leading parties, or being the 'main characters' in other contexts. Yet I am pretty darn sure you don't. Because there is a fundamental difference between a PC and an NPC. They are not alike at all! Neither in your game nor in mine...

Sure - charm etc. are (usually) an accepted part of both the game and the setting. No problem there, and it can work equally both ways.

I think we agree that 'charm magic' can be used as an explanation and fictional circumstance WRT both PCs and NPCs. I doubt that they are employed in a really symmetric way in any of our campaigns though. I would bet money that there have been PC wizards in your game who used charm routinely, but that PCs have been subjected to it very rarely, most of them not at all. And that players would see routine symmetrical use as 'overuse' and 'trampling on their agency'.

Experience tells me that if-when I try running significant NPCs without much forethought the results tend to either be predictable (as per @Manbearcat 's theories posted above) or quickly become somewhat incoherent and inconsistent. Neither is ideal.

Absolutely. I don't much care if the gate guard the PCs speak to once ever comes across the same as all the other gate guards the PCs speak to once ever; but I do care that the personality and motivations of the party's patron have a solid pre-built foundation so I can play him consistently from one session to the next and from one year to the next.

I think there is quite a bit of truth to the idea that you cannot easily delve into a PC and explore their character and conflicts without some well-drawn NPCs at times. I guess maybe the other PCs can serve the purpose, depending on the nature of the particular game. However, I expect that there are going to be times when a well-drawn NPC is useful. I don't see a reason not to produce some sketches of NPCs that might be useful. I would be wary of over-prep though, or that some imagined trait of an NPC would turn into an obstacle to some twist of plot. Luckily I think no sketch is going to be so ironclad it can't accommodate some bending.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's the players' job to advocate for their character and in so doing gain what advantage they can, and IMO this advocacy includes pushing the envelope of the rules.

It's the GM's job to push back. That's why a GM's role is often referred to, in part, as that of referee.

Well, only in certain models of RPG play...

This seems conflicted somehow - the GM is supposed to be a fan of the PCs yet at the same time is supposed to go hard-ass on them? (I forget who posted above how 'weak-kneed' GMing doesn't work in those types of games)

I mean, it's one or the other: either you're legitimately-but-fairly trying to screw them over (or kill them) and thus forcing them to fight back or you're not; and IMO doing this well requires a mindset of really being their opposition, not their fan.

I think that's too simplistic. You can, in real life, say "gosh, I like that guy, but maybe he needs to go join the Army and get some sense kicked into his head." Right? There's a huge difference between being a 'fan' of someone or something, and "everything should just be milk and honey for this guy." I am a fan of the PCs, but the PCs need to be worth being fans of. It isn't worthy to just get a path lined with gold to whatever you want. Struggling for it, making hard choices, etc. is what makes the character worthy of being rooted for. I mean, in real life we rarely wish hardship on people (certainly not often when we like them). This makes sense, but PCs in a game aren't people. They are tools for exploring a fictional world, etc. Pain, fear, discomfort, difficult dilemmas, whatever are not actually experienced by any real person. There's no reason to "wish a PC well", that isn't part of the GM's job. The dichotomy of choice you present is false, IMHO.

Depends on the particular campaign and-or GM. A GM running a true sandbox game might very well have such things in some places, and it's on the PCs to pick their spots and find things they can handle, even if only by trial and error.

Not without amply telegraphing that, as the Tomb of Horrors does. Again, this betrays the fundamentally narrative/gamist nature of virtually all play.

Heh - we used the pre-gens. There's six of them. Of those, three finished the dungeon and survived, despite (or more like, because of) the DM running bets among our friends as to which room would be our furthest point of advance before the TPK!

My recollection of the final encounter of the module is that the solution required is so utterly arbitrary that I never saw any group get through who didn't clearly have some prior knowledge though (IE they had at least read the FF entry for 'Demi-Lich' and probably most likely read or been told about some part of the actual module).

Yeah, not buying this.

Over the history of RPGs, chances are that 98+% of all players' first exposure came through D&D. What this means is that by the time those players get to any other RPG, chances are that most of the "random naive people" have been winnowed out; and many of those players who remain just stick with D&D because it gives them what they want.

Well, I'm not sure about 98%, but I don't think we're disagreeing here.

Players who look for other RPGs usually have a clear idea of what they want that D&D doesn't give them, thus ensuring a higher success ratio for those games as the participants are both already experienced in RPGing and are more invested in making their new game work in hoopes it can give them what D&D didn't.

In short, comparing success rates isn't really fair on any level.

I'm just saying, if you took a roomful of people that have never played an RPG and gave half of them D&D and half of them Dungeon World, D&D would be 'easier to figure out' in the sense that the referee/opposition role of the classic D&D DM is fairly straightforward to grasp, at a basic level. However, there are really huge pitfalls to doing it WELL. Most DM's will not, and D&D is pretty uneven about telling them to, take up the 'fair arbiter' role and simply present the material. Also good presentation is vital, etc. Most DMs will soon conceive an agenda, begin to steer things, etc.

The people who try DW may also have some trouble of course, but once you grasp the concept, things flow pretty naturally from that.

Anyway, I've seen a lot of dysfunctional D&D games, but I haven't really seen that in 'indy' type games much. I've seen players fail to take up the mantle and do it, but you can get those in any RPG.

 

[pemerton]

We know so little about the fictional world. We know little about the detailed social history of this world, of the customs and norms, of the detailed history, or even basic facts like social class and ethnic heritage, of most of the NPCs in it that we cannot even do something equivalent to a first impression, let alone some sort of actual analysis. All that is left is either some very dubious and essentially worthless assessment, like what you are doing, or to JUST MAKE IT UP. I assert that the latter is what people are doing. EVEN if they do the former, they are doing the latter, because the former is basically impossible and is just a proxy for doing the latter unconsciously.

<snip>

I think my thesis is simpler. People pick for entirely other reasons, which I like to generously label "dramatic effect", although I admit there are probably potentially many others. I'm quite sure people THINK they are doing some sort of "logical unbiased neutral" thing. IMHO and in my studies of how humans actually think (I mean physically and how the process works) that is literally impossible.

I've got no view on what is "unconscious" vs unreflective vs "best effort" in extrapolating NPC behaviour from a one-line to one-page description.

But I have a very strong view, which agrees fully with yours, that this can have no basis in any human ability to actually predict human behaviour. It is essentially aesthetic judgment or extrapolation - a judgement about "what fits" or "given this 1 page description, what comes next?" Your remarks about social history, customs, class, ethnicity and the like are all very apt here. You also mention "detaild history" by which I'm guessing you mean personal biography, and we could add to that the nature of personal convictions, quirks, foibles and weaknesses, passions, friendships, etc.

In the real world, George Orwell (not his real name) was (1) born to a middle class family, (2) attended an upper class school on a scholarship, (3) fought in Spain with a Trotskyist (para)military unit, and (4) returned to England where he dobbed in Communists (whom he saw as Stalinists, some of whom were ostensibly his friends) to the British Secret Service.

At what point in extrapolating the behaviour of such this person as a NPC would a "logical behaviour" GM make the move from one of my numbered steps to the next? Frankly I think the Classic Traveller Reaction Table, or Gygax's somewhat baroque system for integrating various considerations into the reaction table to produce a randomised loyalty resolution framework, is going to yield results that are as true, or truer, to life, than would one person's "logical extrapolations".