All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[Grendel_Khan]

I don't think you need special mechanics for things like this. I thing traditional RPGs do things fine as long as everyone is on the same page.

Sure, you definitely don't need them, but in some cases mechanics can help move things along, and get players making more risky decisions, rather than turtling or only doing what they're optimized for. Even stuff like getting rid of passive Perception rolls can help--players have to take more actions to figure out what's happening in a given situation, or just act boldly with incomplete information, rather than squinting and peering until they intuit what the GM wants them to know.

Making lots of decisions can be daunting as a player. It helps when a system gives them a nudge, including changing the way you think about a "failed" roll (but obviously that's not a requirement).

 

[Umbran]

To be clear, I wasn't saying "do it this way." I was actually kind of lamenting cutting out all that "meaningless" play, upon self reflection.

Yeah. For example, there can be meaning in the social interactions that happen in mundane moments, if you or the players choose to set them up to be so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. For example, there can be meaning in the social interactions that happen in mundane moments, if you or the players choose to set them up to be so.

I'm not sure that citing occasionally found value, largely accidental as it's not planned for at all, is the best selling point for why you should always let things play out -- just in case.

RPGs occupy a weird place between game and general leisure activity. If I focus on the game aspect, then I absolutely want things to deliver, and deliver constantly. If I'm in it for general leisure, then the focus on generating content is less strong, and I'm more apt to want to wander through scenes sometimes just to engage in the play-acting for the sake of the play-acting. Neither is better or worse, but it's one of the major divisions driving these kinds of disagreements. And if you're someone that wants the game to be forefront, you tend to get mocked for being badwrong. And if you like the leisure approach, you seem to want to avoid saying this and apply some kind of import to the wandering as if it's some kind of art. It's perfectly fine to want this approach -- it needs no more justification than liking it.

 

[Campbell]

Depending on the game I do sometimes find a lot of value in having conflict neutral scenes that are mostly about establishing character, getting a sense of the stakes or just exploring bits of the setting so that the conflicts that come up in play feel more meaningful. I prefer to approach such scenes with clear eyes and full hearts.

Rather than randomly wander about, hopeful that the GM will read your cues or just try to insert these moments I prefer an approach where a player might say things like "I would like to have a scene where I introduce myself to the sheriff and get a feel for who they might be". That way we don't have to guess and can be mindful as a group of how much spotlight we're taking and manage the pace of play as a group. Sometimes we might even put a pin it and flashback to it later.

 

[SubrosaGames]

Just an idle Saturday Morning Thought: as a GM, when I am running a game -- any game -- all I really care about is the players having meaningful choices to make at any given moment of play. It doesn't matter if it is at a dungeon intersection or shopping for potions or choosing sides in a draconic civil war. The whole point of the medium, to me, is to witness Player Agency and respond to it, in order to lead to more of it.

Note that I am not talking about complete player freedom (Matt Coville has a great video on the subject of Agency versus freedom). I think it is perfectly okay to constrain choices. in fact, in order to get meaningful choices, you HAVE to constrain them.

I often find myself cutting stuff out of play that others might consider "immersion" because there's no meaningful choice to be made. Roleplaying shopping is one good example: the choice of what resources to bring on an adventure will very likely be meaningful LATER, but at the moment of play it isn't so I don't bother spending time on the shopkeep interactions. Other times I remind myself to make otherwise arbitrary choices meaningful, like the dungeon intersection problem. There MUST be clues about what might lie in either direction, otherwise the choice is meaningless.

Like I said, just musing.

I think I understand what you're conveying here -- I love the players working together to solve a problem, and the choices they make sometimes reveal things about themselves (I hold a M.A. in psychology so I find things like that interesting). Oftentimes, my players have arrived at a problem or crossroads that I did not foresee / plan (and sometimes, they fell into my mastermind trap, lol), and it is quite entertaining to see how they solve it when I honestly had no idea myself how they would get out of the trouble or what choice they would make.

In my planned scenarios, I have 100% optimal solutions that award full XP if the players figure it out perfectly, but in the scenarios where I haven't planned any solution, oftentimes I've had to give on-the-spot awards for genius-level problem solving/choices the players have amazed me with.

Oh, and I almost never role-play boring shopping sessions unless "shopping" is a cover for a more sinister plot. Shopping, leveling, etc. is all done in "admin sessions" where everyone knows that XPs will be awarded and only one-on-one role playing (for tying up loose ends -- 5 mins tops per player) will be conducted that session.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It depends on the players. Resource management is a crucial aspect of the game; without it, I won't bother GM'ing the campaign.

I don't worry about choices for the players; they will find and make their own choices.

 

[Lanefan]

One useful thing I've found with initiating occasional "not-relevant" interactions e.g. chatting with the gate guards is that it gives me-as-DM a general idea of how much or little info the PCs will tend to give out about who they are, what they're doing, etc. This matters because information is or often can be valuable, and while some parties/PCs play things close to the vest there's others who couldn't keep a secret in a locked safe.

A party that goes about town boasting of how rich they got in their last adventure, for example, is far more likely to have someone try to rob them than a party that keeps its wealth more low-key. A party that makes a big deal about leaving tomorrow to rescue the prince because the queen has put up a massive reward is far more likely to have another adventuring group steal a march on them tonight and try to beat them to it than is a party who just quietly goes about getting on with the mission. Etc.

Non-relevant town encounters (e.g. gate guards, shopkeepers, fellow pub patrons) provide a good weathervane for assessing the party's willingness to be discreet and-or capability thereof. Don't need to do this often, but running one or two such encounters with any new group or group that's just undergone significant turnover is usually worth it.

 

[payn]

One useful thing I've found with initiating occasional "not-relevant" interactions e.g. chatting with the gate guards is that it gives me-as-DM a general idea of how much or little info the PCs will tend to give out about who they are, what they're doing, etc. This matters because information is or often can be valuable, and while some parties/PCs play things close to the vest there's others who couldn't keep a secret in a locked safe.

A party that goes about town boasting of how rich they got in their last adventure, for example, is far more likely to have someone try to rob them than a party that keeps its wealth more low-key. A party that makes a big deal about leaving tomorrow to rescue the prince because the queen has put up a massive reward is far more likely to have another adventuring group steal a march on them tonight and try to beat them to it than is a party who just quietly goes about getting on with the mission. Etc.

Non-relevant town encounters (e.g. gate guards, shopkeepers, fellow pub patrons) provide a good weathervane for assessing the party's willingness to be discreet and-or capability thereof. Don't need to do this often, but running one or two such encounters with any new group or group that's just undergone significant turnover is usually worth it.

So, players should just have their PCs shut up in your games or get screwed is what it sounds like.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

So, players should just have their PCs shut up in your games or get screwed is what it sounds like.

That's a bit more direct than I might have put it, but sounds about right.

This gets at something that's bugged me for years, which is when GMs talk about PCs dying because the players did something "stupid" or generally presenting games as being about PCs sussing out the right way to approach various challenges. Call me a dirty hippy, but I'm way more interested in narratives that are interesting and unexpected, and especially where the characters do things based on meaningful drives and flaws, not based on constant optimization and ruthless efficiency. But more than that, I don't like the idea of games being primarily about reading and anticipating the GM, figuring out what they think is the "smart" move in a given situation.

Some of the most interesting stories in other mediums are ones where there's no right decision to make, just decisions with different consequences. And even in stories where there's a clear path to success, the plot often kicks off (and/or pivots later on) based on someone acting impulsively--doing the exact kind of thing that those horrible "How It Should Have Ended" videos try to skewer, because they're made by dweebs who've conveniently blocked out having ever made a non-calculated or emotional decision in their lives. I'm not saying every group of PCs should be purely impulsive blowhards blundering through every scene. But the idea that there's always the right or smart approach, in other words the one the GM believes they should take, and that the GM is waiting to swoop in and punish stupidity (again, stupid by their standards) is increasingly mind-boggling to me. That's old school GM-player antagonism to the hilt, and players trying to "beat" the GM.

In other words, there's a reason so many newer games include something like "Be a fan of the players/characters" as a guideline. It's a useful one.

 

[kenada]

In other words, there's a reason so many newer games include something like "Be a fan of the players/characters" as a guideline. It's a useful one.

It’s also an advantage of conflict resolution over task resolution, which those systems also tend to use. Something like rivals getting involved or coming after your stuff can be a natural consequence e.g., on a missed carousing roll, without the risk of turning it into a gotcha.