All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[Reynard]

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.

I think you are taking an overly broad definition of "puzzle" here. The goal is defeat Strahd. It's only a puzzle if there is exactly one way to accomplish it. I haven't read that module specifically so maybe that's true (but it doesn't sound accurate given what others, including people I know IRL, have said about the module) but it certainly isn't true of Avernus, Frostmaiden or Storm King. Each of those is exactly as I said: a CRPG like theme park with a main story and BBEG and side quests.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you are taking an overly broad definition of "puzzle" here. The goal is defeat Strahd. It's only a puzzle if there is exactly one way to accomplish it. I haven't read that module specifically so maybe that's true (but it doesn't sound accurate given what others, including people I know IRL, have said about the module) but it certainly isn't true of Avernus, Frostmaiden or Storm King. Each of those is exactly as I said: a CRPG like theme park with a main story and BBEG and side quests.

I think you're defining puzzle too narrowly. There is one solution in CoS -- Strahd must die. Unless you're changing the module to alter Strahd, he's not available to be negotiated or reasoned with -- the only way out is through. That you can accomplish killing Strahd in many ways doesn't remove the fact that the puzzle to be solved is how to kill Strahd. And, usually, the solution set looks very much the same between tables -- you get the geegaws that help, confront Strahd in his castle, and kill him.

ETA: look, this isn't a dig. It's a frank assessment of play. This is exactly how I present my 5e games.

 

[Reynard]

I think you're defining puzzle too narrowly. There is one solution in CoS -- Strahd must die. Unless you're changing the module to alter Strahd, he's not available to be negotiated or reasoned with -- the only way out is through. That you can accomplish killing Strahd in many ways doesn't remove the fact that the puzzle to be solved is how to kill Strahd. And, usually, the solution set looks very much the same between tables -- you get the geegaws that help, confront Strahd in his castle, and kill him.

ETA: look, this isn't a dig. It's a frank assessment of play. This is exactly how I present my 5e games.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of puzzle, then. "Kill the bad guy however you can" is not, to me, well defined enough to constitute even as a solution, let alone as a puzzle. it's just a goal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of puzzle, then. "Kill the bad guy however you can" is not, to me, well defined enough to constitute even as a solution, let alone as a puzzle. it's just a goal.

Okay, use goal. A significant amount of mainstream RPG play is figuring out how to accomplish the GM defined goals.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Talking with NPCs was merely an example. You need to establish the context of the choice somehow. And I'm not merely talking about establishing the facts, I'm talking about establishing the emotional and thematic context. And considering what mind bogglingly wide variety of choices can happen in RPGs, I don't think we can come up with an exhaustive list for the ways to establishing the context. But the point was that it often takes some time to do this. And no, this was not particularly insightful or novel observation, we can see this happening basically in every story across various mediums.

 

[Reynard]

Okay, use goal. A significant amount of mainstream RPG play is figuring out how to accomplish the GM defined goals.

I would rate this statement as "True."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Talking with NPCs was merely an example. You need to establish the context of the choice somehow. And I'm not merely talking about establishing the facts, I'm talking about establishing the emotional and thematic context. And considering what mind bogglingly wide variety of choices can happen in RPGs, I don't think we can come up with an exhaustive list for the ways to establishing the context. But the point was that it often takes some time to do this. And no, this was not particularly insightful or novel observation, we can see this happening basically in every story across various mediums.

The "takes some time" is exactly what I challenging. You've indicated a few hours if play is needed. Are you standing by this, or is "some time" arbitrarily long? Is it even necessary?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The "takes some time" is exactly what I challenging. You've indicated a few hours if play is needed. Are you standing by this, or is "some time" arbitrarily long? Is it even necessary?

Yes, I totally meant it always takes exactly two hours.

As for whether establishing the context is even necessary: "A mango or a pickaxe? Choose now!" Is this a meaningful choice to you?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I totally meant it always takes exactly two hours.

Interesting. I was taking you to mean that some lengthy amount of play, typically a few hours, was needed. But exactly two hours? Very odd.

As for whether establishing the context is even necessary: "A mango or a pickaxe? Choose now!" Is this a meaningful choice to you?

Yes, I have context for both of those things. I don't need to dig anything right now, and am a bit peckish, so mango, please.

Now that we're done with your attempted dismissal via strawmen and snark, I've already said context is necessary and that I'm pushing back against your claim that time in setting is needed to create that context. Your responses seem aligned to exploring the setting (which includes the NPCs) as the primary driver of meaningful interaction in play. I'm trying to see if this is actually your argument, or if you acknowledge that there are other means available for establishing context that don't involve exploration of setting.

 

[Campbell]

Talking with NPCs was merely an example. You need to establish the context of the choice somehow. And I'm not merely talking about establishing the facts, I'm talking about establishing the emotional and thematic context. And considering what mind bogglingly wide variety of choices can happen in RPGs, I don't think we can come up with an exhaustive list for the ways to establishing the context. But the point was that it often takes some time to do this. And no, this was not particularly insightful or novel observation, we can see this happening basically in every story across various mediums.

Context is vital. I would push back a little on the notion that we need dedicated establishing scenes that are conflict neutral to establish that context. The emotional and thematic context of a narrative can absolutely be established through scenes that have high stakes. The first two episodes of Sons of Anarchy are a masterclass in this. There is not a single scene in either episode that is dedicated to exposition or establishing character, but by the end of those two episodes we learn the core struggles of the characters, how they relate to one another and all about the piece of the world they share.

Conflict neutral exploration and establishing scenes can be a useful tool for establishing context, but they are absolutely not required to do so. From my perspective how much we rely on them is more dependent on the sort of feel and pace we're going for.