All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[Ovinomancer]

You think player vs GM dungeon crawling is the dominant form of play now, in the modern era? Really?

Solving the GM's puzzle is. Did you mean specifically B/X style dungeon crawls with your post? Didn't come through.

There's a range of GM led puzzle solving approaches that are broadly defined by what puzzles the GM puts together to be solved.

 

[prabe]

Choices are important, absolutely, and they can (arguably should) be at the heart of TRPG play. But ...

As @Crimson Longinus said, choices cannot have meaning without context, and sometimes it takes some amount of play at the table to establish that. I would add that worthwhile choices will have consequences, and it will sometimes take some amount of play at the table to resolve those. I would be inclined to say that both establishing context and resolving consequences are about the choices, so play doing either of those is (or at least can be) centered on player/character choice.

 

[Reynard]

Solving the GM's puzzle is. Did you mean specifically B/X style dungeon crawls with your post? Didn't come through.

There's a range of GM led puzzle solving approaches that are broadly defined by what puzzles the GM puts together to be solved.

What are you basing your assertion that "GM puzzle solving" is the dominant form of play on? If the recent published material is anything to go on, it seems that the dominant form of play is a sort of watered down CRPG structure with a contained "open world" theme park.

 

[Umbran]

Not specifically about dungeon crawling, but just about trying to figure out the solution to any problem that the GM presents. Such an approach isn’t limited to dungeon crawling, though it is of course a core part of it as you say.

But I think it’s a core part of a significant amount of play of all types.

I'm not so sure.

There's a type of play where the GM sets up a challenge, and has a preferred solution. The GM knows the "right" way to get around the challenge. They may allow other solutions, but there's one way that the GM knows ahead of time will work. It is up to the players to find it.

This is not a core to all types of play.

As an example - the Atomic Robo RPG (Fate-based, also based on the Atomic Robo comic). The PCs are generally Action Scientists, going out to handle weird stuff that happens - giant ants marching on the town, rogue AIs, sentient fungus coming to take over the world, the ghost of Thomas Edison come to wreak revenge, and so on.

There is a subsystem for the players to figure out any Weird Science stuff. But, in so doing, they are NOT figuring out what the GM had in mind. The GM, very specifically doesn't have anything in mind. The GM said there were giant ants. The GM did not pick out any particular vulnerabilities, or have any idea how the ants work. That's for the players to decide. The players make up what will work, using a little sub-game, and whatever they come up with is the answer, and will have mechanical impact.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Choices are important, absolutely, and they can (arguably should) be at the heart of TRPG play. But ...

As @Crimson Longinus said, choices cannot have meaning without context, and sometimes it takes some amount of play at the table to establish that. I would add that worthwhile choices will have consequences, and it will sometimes take some amount of play at the table to resolve those. I would be inclined to say that both establishing context and resolving consequences are about the choices, so play doing either of those is (or at least can be) centered on player/character choice.

This statement that choices can't be meaningful without context is fairly tautological. It's a trivial observation that @Crimson Longinus used to smuggle in a play preference as defining of meaningful choice only relating to understanding what NPCs want and need. Perfectly valid, but not really definitional at all. This play puts the NPCs ahead of PCs as far as who's definition play. PCs in this mode are reactive, not proactive. This is, however, exactly how all of the WotC AP are presented, so it's clearly a dominant approach. It's not the only way to provide context, though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What are you basing your assertion that "GM puzzle solving" is the dominant form of play on? If the recent published material is anything to go on, it seems that the dominant form of play is a sort of watered down CRPG structure with a contained "open world" theme park.

Have you read a WotC AP? Take CoS, for instance. The puzzle is defeating Strahd. The pieces are provided with strong clues. You follow the clues, get the puzzle pieces, and then defeat Strahd. Everything here is defined by the GM (or GM by proxy in the case of the adventure writer) to be solved by the players.

 

[prabe]

This statement that choices can't be meaningful without context is fairly tautological. It's a trivial observation that @Crimson Longinus used to smuggle in a play preference as defining of meaningful choice only relating to understanding what NPCs want and need. Perfectly valid, but not really definitional at all. This play puts the NPCs ahead of PCs as far as who's definition play. PCs in this mode are reactive, not proactive. This is, however, exactly how all of the WotC AP are presented, so it's clearly a dominant approach. It's not the only way to provide context, though.

I don't think it was smuggling anything. The interaction with those NPCs isn't meaningful in the way of mattering for choice/s if there in fact aren't any choices that involve those NPCs. Same thing applies to any other element of the game world.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think it was smuggling anything. The interaction with those NPCs isn't meaningful in the way of mattering for choice/s if there in fact aren't any choices that involve those NPCs. Same thing applies to any other element of the game world.

The claim was that you need a few hours of play to get to know the NPCs so that you have context to make decisions around them. This strongly implies that this is 20-questions style play to determine what the NPCs want so that you can make decisions regarding that. You don't actually need to do this to provide context for meaningful decisions. That was the smuggling.

 

[prabe]

The claim was that you need a few hours of play to get to know the NPCs so that you have context to make decisions around them. This strongly implies that this is 20-questions style play to determine what the NPCs want so that you can make decisions regarding that. You don't actually need to do this to provide context for meaningful decisions. That was the smuggling.

The claim was that you can't make meaningful choices without context, and sometimes it takes some time in play to establish that. "Twenty Questions Style Play" isn't the only way to establish that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The claim was that you can't make meaningful choices without context, and sometimes it takes some time in play to establish that. "Twenty Questions Style Play" isn't the only way to establish that.

That was what was presented. I mean, I suppose that we can imagine other things being presented instead of what was presented. Let's ask, though:

@Crimson Longinus: what other means of establishing context regarding meaningful choices with NPCs do you see that do not involve in-character play around learning about that NPC's wants, needs, and personality?