A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

One impression I am getting from this conversation is you like clear procedures and it seems you probably like consistency too in that respect.

For what it's worth, I don't get that impression from @hawkeyefan. I think he is encouraging us to drill down into detail about particular play episodes and the techniques used. But those techniques/procedures won't necessarily be the same as those used in other episodes of play.

It basically takes them coming into contact with the setting and asking questions about it

<snip>

A lot of this stuff can vary because it can arise from the setting details I have established (i.e. I know red claw gang is active in this area, and so if the players go around looking for local bullies, they stand a good chance of encountering Red Claw Gang members). Usually this kind of stated goal, I ask for a Survival roll for (and it kind of operates as a more fluid inversion of the encounter table). And Survival has a bunch of sub skills (so there is one for cities, one for wilderness, etc). So survival can also be used for things like moving from one district in a city to another district. But sometimes these details are things I just invent based on what seems plausible. For example I think the above bullying incident was in a tiny village, for which I had very little information and there wasn't a lot of sect activity in the area, so they were just a couple of nobody's bullying a local street vendor, who the player called out and attacked.

This is the point where I'm curious to know what the deep contrast is between the following three processes:

(1) The player makes a Survival (Urban) check and succeeds, obliging the GM to provide some information that the GM has prepared in advance;

(2) The GM makes something up and narrates a situation (eg street bullies) that the player can have his/her PC engage with;

(3) The player decides that there is something s/he wants his/her PC to encounter - that is consistent with established fiction, genre, etc - and makes a check to establish his/her recollection/knowledge of that thing.​

Obviously there are technical differences. But there is also a lot of overlap: (2) and (3) both require a degree of spontaneity on the part of GM; (1) and (3) both require a check. I'm missing the fundamental cleavage between (3) and the others.

 

[Aldarc]

I think anytime you are in our world, it is easier to run things without maps. I often set my mafia campaigns around Boston (where I live) for that very reason, it is just very easy to know an NPC has a house in Lynn or Malden (and we all have a sense of the geography there, to the point that we can even say what neighborhood or street and it will have meaning). If you do need to look stuff up, google maps works. But you don't really need a map when someone says I drive to the mall, and you know how long that takes.

Jein. I once ran a one-shot supernatural investigation game set in 1840s Vienna. Even though my players and I all live in Vienna, I had to use an old historical map of the city from the 1840s because the boundaries and make-up of the city looked different then. A number of the current city districts, for example, were townships outside of the city that were subsequently incorporated into the city from 1850 onwards, and the city walls were not taken down until 1857 (i.e., Ringstraße), which was when and the area where a lot of the current major buildings were moved: e.g., Rathaus, Universität Wien, Burgtheater, Parliament, State Opera House, museums, etc. But this is a case where the geography is both familiar and different enough.

I've lived in the DC area for most of my life. I've always derived amusement from watching how film and TV (and to a lesser extent novels) get the geography wrong. I'm sure you didn't make any mistakes a non-native would catch.

One of my favorite ludicrous film geography moments was in the recent U.S. Godzilla movie when about 5-8 troops in San Francisco get a one ton bomb from Chinatown to the docks in less than 10 minutes on foot. I watched the film in Berkeley, California. People were all scratching their heads at that one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For what it's worth, I don't get that impression from @hawkeyefan. I think he is encouraging us to drill down into detail about particular play episodes and the techniques used. But those techniques/procedures won't necessarily be the same as those used in other episodes of play.


This is the point where I'm curious to know what the deep contrast is between the following three processes:

(1) The player makes a Survival (Urban) check and succeeds, obliging the GM to provide some information that the GM has prepared in advance;​

​

(2) The GM makes something up and narrates a situation (eg street bullies) that the player can have his/her PC engage with;​

​

(3) The player decides that there is something s/he wants his/her PC to encounter - that is consistent with established fiction, genre, etc - and makes a check to establish his/her recollection/knowledge of that thing.​

Obviously there are technical differences. But there is also a lot of overlap: (2) and (3) both require a degree of spontaneity on the part of GM; (1) and (3) both require a check. I'm missing the fundamental cleavage between (3) and the others.

I would do 1-2 because 1-2 can still result in the player discovering there are not bullies (because it was a success though I would probably offer more information on why, or provide information on otters possibilities that are potentially attractive to the player based on what they said. For the bullies, because virtually every place has them, I would probably say yes though, so there wouldn't be a discernible difference between 1-3. But if the thing they were looking for was different, like they were looking for house of paper shadow agents, then it is much more likely successful Survival checks would not result in them finding any agents (though again I would provide them whatever information might be available locally).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, that helps me get a sense. Survival skill as a kind of means of gathering info or understanding the local situation. Some freeform narration from NPCs and the like.

It has become that for me. Technically I would also allow knowledge skills to be used actively (and by the book, those are more what you are supposed to use). But because Survival is used to move through territory and avoid encounters, I started using it the opposite way, so players can find encounters.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that what I would worry about if I was to actually run 5E D&D for a group of players who were new to me is that I would struggle to do what the game actually expects the GM to do. It’s very GM centric....the players only understand what the GM tells them. The GM sets the scene and the stakes and the difficulty and likely the outcome. Several points where errors or miscommunications can be made that impact a player’s understanding, which then influences their choices.

Is this ever something you worry about?

No, I don't. Obviously miscommunication can happen, but that is a known possibility to the players in such a game. And we try to get things clear.

One thing I do is I don't narrate with a heavy hand. I usually just give the players a short sentence or two description, I don't conceal details for autmospheric effect. I choose one or two key words to emphasize things. But I am not the kind of GM to get into deep detail of a scene unless that details seems significant. And the players are free to ask for further details (which I always think of as reflecting them moving their eyes towards things). But this concern is pretty low on our list of priorities

 

[Bedrockgames]

Obviously there are technical differences. But there is also a lot of overlap: (2) and (3) both require a degree of spontaneity on the part of GM; (1) and (3) both require a check. I'm missing the fundamental cleavage between (3) and the others.

While I don't have a standard way of handling this every time, this is a common way I've done it and it might clarify this a bit (also this is a procedure that cropped up naturally after players essentially kept asking to run into specific people, types of creatures, etc. So here is an example: the players desire to run into local officials for some reason (and they know this means most likely a patrolling inspector or constable, because they tend to be patrolling the region with their men). So they tell me, we try to find a patrolling inspector. I would have them make a survival roll, and then my most likely next course of action, if they succeed, would be to consult the encounter table for the area. If patrolling inspector is on the table I would go with it. If it isn't on the table but still seems within reason, I would roll a d10 and asking a x in 10 chance). However if they were deep into the frontier where there were no constables or patrolling inspectors, it wouldn't crop up. Something else might though (maybe they spot some Kushen riders or something). And I wouldn't always do it that way, but that is a way that I have naturally started to do it and has become a bit of a pattern over time. Though my method will definitely vary based on the specific thing they are looking for.

Now if it is something that is ubiquitous, then I am not going to stop them from finding it (and in that case I think 1-3 feel the same in practice).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Jein. I once ran a one-shot supernatural investigation game set in 1840s Vienna. Even though my players and I all live in Vienna, I had to use an old historical map of the city from the 1840s because the boundaries and make-up of the city looked different then. A number of the current city districts, for example, were townships outside of the city that were subsequently incorporated into the city from 1850 onwards, and the city walls were not taken down until 1857 (i.e., Ringstraße), which was when and the area where a lot of the current major buildings were moved: e.g., Rathaus, Universität Wien, Burgtheater, Parliament, State Opera House, museums, etc. But this is a case where the geography is both familiar and different enough.

This happened to me when I ran an adventure set in Revere in the 1920s. It also happened when I ran some Colonial Gothic adventures in the area around Lynn and Marblehead. The 1920s map was pretty easy to find and most of the geography was similar enough we could figure things out. The Colonial Gothic adventure took a lot of research, and things were so different that it was quite a challenge to figure out before play

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can sometimes be a bit soft on the characters in my D&D game. The players have grown quite attached to the group, and I suppose I have, too. So I get the idea of relying on the long distance player to kind of be tough on the characters.

I’ve found that less necessary with Blades because the way the game works it gives the players strong means to prevent character death. It allows you as a GM to swing hard when you should. That can be harder to do in other games.

I think that what I would worry about if I was to actually run 5E D&D for a group of players who were new to me is that I would struggle to do what the game actually expects the GM to do. It’s very GM centric....the players only understand what the GM tells them. The GM sets the scene and the stakes and the difficulty and likely the outcome. Several points where errors or miscommunications can be made that impact a player’s understanding, which then influences their choices.

What I like about it is you are basically recruiting someone to play a villain. So you can really present them with a challenge that is different from facing a villain run by you. For example if you have a player who is great at concocting schemes, or knows how to exploit the system more, it will be easier for him to present a threat at a level the players are not accustomed to. Because of this though, this is when I do things like making a real point to track the movement of the villain and his henchmen on the map in real time ( I usually put figures on a map of the setting on my table----since we play on line the players can't see this) and track their movement day by day.

 

[FrogReaver]

Should we actually measure the number of 'onions' in 5e? I don't think that comparison will come out the way you are implying...

It does.

 

[FrogReaver]

I therefore tend to handle this sort of action (can we get from A to B in time) via opposed checks (or perhaps checks against a difficulty if it's not a race) and then use the map (if there is one) to help contribute to the colour of the consequence narration.

I have no problem with having dice set distance. I think there's a few challenges with that. Future consistency and information overload. Maps tend to help with both. One could Map things out based on the dice - essentially a procedurally created world.

Also one could maintain consistency by introducing fictional events that do so. Ex: You were delayed due to a snow storm that slowed your travel.