All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[Lanefan]

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

Isn't that similar to real life?

I've seen it. A guy I once knew came into some money and, like the fool he was, went out drinking and started boasting about all the money he had - while carrying it on him! I was there for that part; I wasn't there for the part where he got mugged and robbed later that night, but I saw the black eye the next day and heard the tale.

I've seen PCs be every bit as foolish and even more so. Think there shouldn't be the possibility of consequences?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think this still smacks a bit more of 'playing in the GM's story' than I actually like... I'm wanting to have things such that I would need to accomplish something. As a player I might essentially bring in this concept of a sheriff that will suite my purposes, or maybe the GM might introduce such as part of scene framing. HoML might allow for, say, doing free RP up to the point where you engage this guy as an element in a challenge you are attempting, and at that point he becomes a part of the scene that starts the challenge. So, you could technically meet said sheriff simply 'in the course of things', but unless you then focus on "here's a chance to initiate solving a conflict" then said NPC will likely just fade back into the woodwork, for now. Obviously as an established piece of fiction he may well return to relevance later. So you can kind of get a bit of a range of possibilities. OTOH I am not super fond of the PCs just wandering around endlessly gardening fiction without doing anything. In that sort of case I'll take a page from PbtA and 'make a move'.

 

[payn]

Isn't that similar to real life?

I've seen it. A guy I once knew came into some money and, like the fool he was, went out drinking and started boasting about all the money he had - while carrying it on him! I was there for that part; I wasn't there for the part where he got mugged and robbed later that night, but I saw the black eye the next day and heard the tale.

I've seen PCs be every bit as foolish and even more so. Think there shouldn't be the possibility of consequences?

Every time they go shopping or out for a beer? No, I dont think so. Laying this on a new group immediately will create an expectation of a snake in every pot. No thanks. I can think of a million better ways to engage the players than punishing their perceived stupidity based on stuff I once saw.

 

[Lanefan]

Indeed.

I generally prefer for the players to decide how much time they want to spend interacting with NPCs and/or other environmental features. What they decide to interact with is likely to become important in play.

Sure, and that can quickly lead to you-as-GM having to hit a curveball - the players/PCs omehow latch on to something as being important or vital that you thought was irrelevant (or, even, hadn't thought about at all) and now you've got to run with it as if it is important even though it might not be and they might just be chasing a red herring.

I love this kind of stuff!

 

[Lanefan]

Every time they go shopping or out for a beer? No, I dont think so. Laying this on a new group immediately will create an expectation of a snake in every pot. No thanks. I can think of a million better ways to engage the players than punishing their perceived stupidity based on stuff I once saw.

I guess it depends what type of world and-or atmosphere one wants to run.

Me, I'm by and large a "trust nobody" kind of DM. The setting is in many ways out to get you, thus you-as-PC need to be careful who you trust as some NPCs are trustworthy and some are not. And this too is IMO and IME very reflective of real life.

 

[payn]

I guess it depends what type of world and-or atmosphere one wants to run.

Me, I'm by and large a "trust nobody" kind of DM. The setting is in many ways out to get you, thus you-as-PC need to be careful who you trust as some NPCs are trustworthy and some are not. And this too is IMO and IME very reflective of real life.

So you wake up everyday and search your home to make sure nobody broke in? Then, you search the property to make sure nobody is there who shouldn't be? You pop the hood of your car to make sure nobody messed with your engine before starting it? You search the entire office before starting your work day to make sure nobody who shouldn't be there is there? Even the folks who should be there you start to spy on them because they could out to screw you over? After work, you pop the hood of you car before starting it...

That's not how real life is at all. Though, its how "trust nobody" GMs like to roll. Been there done that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

A GM draws up (or purchases) the description of the 'world'. Whether the elements of that world are intended to form a linear/branching adventure structure, or a more 'flat' sandbox, the point still holds. You go to the locations, by means negotiated with the GM based on their established details of the terrain, and when you get there the GM describes some sort of scenario, which you then interact with, prompting further descriptions of the established fiction and action outcomes. In virtually all AP/Module type play the menu of possible things you can find or accomplish in a given location is predefined. This forms exactly what @Ovinomancer terms a 'puzzle'. Critically, the roster of PCs and their interests and characteristics is not related to any of this, ANY group of PCs going to hex A7 will find the haunted pagoda, and the ghost will be Queen Godiva the Good, who will tell you where the Great Jewel is hidden, if you do X or pass check Y or whatever the particular flavor of game chooses.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

It is an interesting concept. I'd equate it with, though it isn't exactly identical to, the sort of 'maps with holes in them' conception of adventuring that Dungeon World uses. Likewise much of the nature of the challenges, and thus solution to them, is derived from and by the players. Obviously the details are a bit different, and it sounds like a fun take on a Narrativist game design where the play focuses on playing to explore a theme instead of the PbtA-typical exploring character conflict. It sounds interesting. OTOH I think when posters were mentioning dominant forms of play, they were probably not thinking of Atomic Robo! I think both sides were referencing D&D pretty explicitly, actually.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think the idea here is that when you state that hanging around and doing trivial 'tourist' stuff (or even prep) like that because it is needed to establish context, that you are at least ADVOCATING for that, and so justifying it. The response is that, indeed, you don't need 'Twenty Questions Style Play', but that there are indeed many alternative ways to construct context, or avoid the need for it perhaps. PbtA games definitely outline one way to do that (AW and DW at least). You can simply have the players supply the context directly! You can have the PCs be constructed in a way that suggests or establishes some context that can be used as seeds. In DW nothing ever comes down to chats with NPCs that don't imply taking some action (making a move). It MIGHT be a 'town move' like Carousing or Preparing, maybe. Even then it will presumably be serving the PCs needs, and throwing up consequences that are directly relevant to them. You don't NEED a lot of context, it kind of builds itself.

 

[Reynard]

A GM draws up (or purchases) the description of the 'world'. Whether the elements of that world are intended to form a linear/branching adventure structure, or a more 'flat' sandbox, the point still holds. You go to the locations, by means negotiated with the GM based on their established details of the terrain, and when you get there the GM describes some sort of scenario, which you then interact with, prompting further descriptions of the established fiction and action outcomes. In virtually all AP/Module type play the menu of possible things you can find or accomplish in a given location is predefined. This forms exactly what @Ovinomancer terms a 'puzzle'. Critically, the roster of PCs and their interests and characteristics is not related to any of this, ANY group of PCs going to hex A7 will find the haunted pagoda, and the ghost will be Queen Godiva the Good, who will tell you where the Great Jewel is hidden, if you do X or pass check Y or whatever the particular flavor of game chooses.

This is just blatantly not true. You are nearly always given a list of possible, even likely, solutions to held the GM along, but I can't think of one modern adventure that gives you a limited list of the only solution(s) possible.