D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not discussing PbtA any more. If you want to discuss D&D or details on how you could apply an aspect of another game to D&D that wouldn't require D&D to morph into something it's not, I might be interested in discussing.

I just did that. I talked about how I handle shopping in D&D.

What methods do you use?

I mean... say something. Anything.

 

[Oofta]

I just did that. I talked about how I handle shopping in D&D.

What methods do you use?

I mean... say something. Anything.

Umm, I don't reply to every post.

As far as shopping for the most part I just tell people what's available in town and they can have at it. Occasionally, or as an intro to a special shop, we'll RP it out. But long drawn out shopping sessions? If I can't think of how to make it fun and interesting? Nah. I listen to Critical Role off and on and some of the shopping trips they go on ... zzzz.

An exception to the rule was a PC that had a nemesis due to some unfortunate downtime rolls went shopping for magical gear only to find out that she was being charged more than everyone else. Eventually she got her name cleared and money refunded with sincere apologies and a discount on her next purchase. Wouldn't do that with every player, but we enjoyed it.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, rats and carrion crawlers certainly have means of transport beyond what humanoids have. Small tunnels and cracks and such. That's easy, and I thought of it before I even finished reading your post.

I think you're too concerned about nonsense. If they're there, then that's where they are. There's either a reason we can think of, or it remains some unsolved mystery. Based on your past comments, I can't imagine you'd care if the players never learned how the monster got into that part of the dungeon.

Giant rats are small, so only need a tiny tunnel to squeeze through. Carrion crawlers though are large. You could rule that because they're basically giant centipedes they can squeeze through cracks in the wall, but if those cracks weren't seen before it could be odd.

But in either case, it's a question of what are they eating, why are they attacking, etc. I have no problem with unexpected encounters but if carrion crawlers start coming out of the wall, I'd rather have it foreshadowed a bit or simply describe deep crevasses in the wall that seem to go nowhere. If you look at the description of carrion crawlers it mentions that they like to follow potential prey, sometimes for hours. That gives me ideas to go from, the PCs occasionally glimpsing something moving in the shadow, etc..

Much better than they just drop down off the ceiling in an otherwise pristine tunnel. It's not like it takes much extra work, I just roll for potential random monsters ahead of time and decide if I can think of how to fit them in.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm reminded of some of the really old school dungeons I ran ages and ages ago. Totally nonsensical, open a door there's a monster in the room. How did they get there? What are they eating? Where do they go poo? No clue.

Yep.

Just for kicks I wrote and ran an adventure once that really leaned hard into this madhouse-dungeon aspect where in many cases monsters literally couldn't have fit through the door to get into their locations...and yet behind it all was an underlying explanation (that I'm not sure the players ever did figure out).

Random monster encounters, especially in a relatively enclosed area whether cave system or dungeon, are just as bad as far as I'm concerned.

There's a case to be made that an occasional one-off occurrence is fine - something literally did just wander in there and hasn't yet been eaten by the usual occupants - but the frequency that most wandering-monster tables demand they appear is light-years too common for this.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, rats and carrion crawlers certainly have means of transport beyond what humanoids have. Small tunnels and cracks and such. That's easy, and I thought of it before I even finished reading your post.

If a Carrion Crawler can fit through a tunnel then a small (or gaseous) PC can fit through it as well, so why isn't it shown on the flippin' map?

I think you're too concerned about nonsense. If they're there, then that's where they are. There's either a reason we can think of, or it remains some unsolved mystery. Based on your past comments, I can't imagine you'd care if the players never learned how the monster got into that part of the dungeon.

I might not care if the players ever learn it but I sure as hell care whether I-as-DM have that info available should I need it.

And sure, there's much to be said for a madhouse dungeon now and then. But even there, at least wave at giving it an underlying explanation or reason to exist.

 

[pemerton]

here are two possibilities (there may be others)

(1) No one at the table wants to create or tell a story.

(2) Everyone at the table is able to integrate their story conceptions.

I could see (2) working provided people are willing to sometimes compromise their own story concepts to fit with those of others and together build a seamless whole.

For some, however, compromise is a four-letter word; and I've played with and DMed many such over the years.

OK, so those are the sorts of people that one doesn't play Dungeon World with, or arrange to go to films with, or similar group activities. Although I don't really understand how people who can't compromise play D&D - eg what if the party needs to decide which door to open (of the two or three they can see) or how to divide the treasure or whatever? If someone really is impossible of ever compromising on any of those things, I can't see them lasting very long in any D&D playing group.

If (1) is the case then how do things move forward in any long-term meaningful way?

I've posted this twice: the first time you replied to it, which sort-of suggested you'd read it; the second time was in reply to you. Here it is again:

DW, like its parent AW, takes for granted that RPGing is a conversation. The participants say things, and in the process of, and as a result of, saying those things, they create a shared fiction. That shared fiction concerns the fantasy adventures of some D&D-style protagonists.

DW, like its parent AW, sets out a procedure for that conversation to follow: it's not free-form. As @hawkeyefan posted not a long way upthread, it specifies certain "triggers" for whose job it is to say what.

The most common thing for a player (cf GM) to say is what it is that their character does. When they say that, either it will trigger a player-side move, or it will not. The list of player-side moves is finite, and each states a trigger, which (with one or two exceptions that can be ignored for present purposes) takes the form of a description of an action in the fiction, like when you take aim and shoot at an enemy in range (in DW, this triggers the player-side move Volley). If a player-side move is triggered, the dice must be rolled (because of the rule "if you do it, you do it") and depending on the result (after modifiers), either the player or the GM (sometimes both) are instructed to add something further to the conversation (eg one possible result for Volley is that "You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM" - so the player describes "I move to get in my shot" and the GM describes the resulting danger, drawing on the established elements of the shared fiction (as per the earlier conversation), plus whatever other ideas they might have, to do so).

If the result of the roll for a player-side move is 6 or less, then the GM gets to make as hard a move as they like. More on this shortly.

If a player describes their PC doing something that does not trigger a player-side move, then the rule is that the GM "makes a move", that is, says something in the contribution. This should be a soft move, unless the player is handing the GM a golden opportunity to follow through on a threat that has already been established in the shared fiction (as a result of an earlier move).

Sometimes, in play, the players don't describe their PCs doing things, but rather look to the GM to get a sense of what is going on around them, or to get some framing, or just because they're not sure what happens next. When this happens, the GM "makes a move". Just as mentioned in the previous paragraph, this should be a soft move unless the players are handing the GM a golden opportunity to follow through on an earlier move.

When the GM makes a soft move, this means describing something in the fiction that increases the risk, or threat, or apprehension, or stakes - to speak in general terms, it contributes to the rising action. But a soft move does not foreclose the current aspiration the player has for their PC in the fictional situation. By way of contrast, a hard move consists in the GM describing something that does, in some fashion or to some extent, foreclose in that way. In other words, a hard move is immediate and irrevocable in its effect. The most generic example of a hard move is dealing damage, but obviously in many situations other, perhaps more interesting, hard moves will be possible.

The basic sequence of play that results from these rules is this: there is rising action, as the players describe their PCs doing things that do not trigger player-side moves, and the GM responds with soft moves. Then a player has their PC do something that triggers a player-side move; or, perhaps a player has their PC do something that hands the GM an opportunity. In the latter case, the rising action resolves into some sort of crisis or climax (as the GM makes a hard move). In the former case, depending on the result of the dice roll, the same may be true; or, perhaps, the result of the dice roll is another soft move (eg as per the example of Volley above, the GM describes the PC moving into a new sort of danger); or, perhaps the result of the dice roll is some sort of victory for the PC (eg in dealing their damage as a result of Volley, they kill their enemy, just ending the threat they are facing).

The most radical contrasts with D&D, as typically played are these: (i) the GM can only make a hard move in the situations I've described; the GM has no licence to make a hard move because that's what would follow from the logic of their as-yet-unrevealed prep; (ii) the GM is not permitted to narrate fiction which is not either a hard move (some sort of immediate, irrevocable crisis or climax) or a soft move (some sort of contribution to the rising action). In other words, "nothing happens" is not a legitimate move for a DW or AW GM.

<snip>

DW emphasises the GM's role in either contributing to the rising action (soft moves) or - in the circumstances that the rules dictate - contributing to crisis or climax (hard moves). When making those contributions, the GM will naturally draw on ideas about jails, and legal systems, and NPCs, but in aid of performing their job in the conversation as dictated by the rules of the game.

Things move forward because participants say things, according to the structure and constraints that I've just posted:

(A) The player say things that their PCs do, given the situation the GM has described - this does not require that anyone desire to create or tell a story; it does require that players be invested in their characters and the situation and have ideas for what they want their characters to do.

(B) The GM makes moves when appropriate, either soft or hard as the rules dictate - this does not require that anyone desire to create or tell a story; it does require that the GM have a vivid sense of the fictional situation, and of what the players want for their PCs (otherwise the GM can't make decisions about "threats", "opportunities", "costs" etc), and thus of what sort of things would be fun and interesting to say next.

(C) When the dice are rolled, because a player's declared action for their PC triggers a player-side move, the participants do the things the result tells them to do - which is to say more stuff under the appropriate constraints.

Rising action, crisis, and climax don't define a story

<snip>

Though if you're defining "story" in a more literary sense, perhaps the word I/we should be using instead is "tale", which is more a straight-up relating of events. Even a simple journal tells a tale when read through later; the same is true of a game log.

Well I'm relying on a pretty common-sense notion of "story", more-or-less what I learned in school. I've just looked at Wikipedia - the entry for "story" is a mere index, but it leads to this page: Narrative - Wikipedia. The opening line is " narrative, story, or tale is any account of a series of related events or experiences" and then some way down the page there is a heading "Aesthetics approach" and under that heading is the following:

Narrative is a highly aesthetic art. Thoughtfully composed stories have a number of aesthetic elements. Such elements include the idea of narrative structure, with identifiable beginnings, middles, and ends, or the process of exposition-development-climax-denouement, with coherent plot lines; a strong focus on temporality including retention of the past, attention to present action, and future anticipation; a substantial focus on character and characterization, "arguably the most important single component of the novel" . . .; different voices interacting, "the sound of the human voice, or many voices, speaking in a variety of accents, rhythms, and registers" . . .; a narrator or narrator-like voice, which "addresses" and "interacts with" reading audiences . . .; communicates with a . . . rhetorical thrust, a dialectic process of interpretation, which is at times beneath the surface, forming a plotted narrative, and at other times much more visible, "arguing" for and against various positions; relies substantially on the use of literary tropes . . .; is often intertextual with other literatures; and commonly demonstrates an effort toward Bildungsroman, a description of identity development with an effort to evince becoming in character and community.​

The technical accomplishment of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World (and some other RPGs that have comparable origins in terms of influences and schools of design) is to have set out methods of RPGing which will produce fiction that tends to exemplify the criteria of "thoughtfully composed stories" and hence satisfies the aesthetic demands of storytelling, even though no one has to thoughtfully compose a story.

The particular points that I've emphasised are narrative structure and related temporality, and character and identity development. The different voices interacting, including a narrator-like voice, will tend to be produced by the mere fact of a conversation among multiple participants, one of whom has an asymmetric role in creating the fiction (ie the GM), although given the spontaneous and unedited nature of play this is perhaps less likely to be as strong a feature as the others I've mentioned, which the structure of play deliberately sets out to generate.

As far as "rhetorical thrust" is concerned, DW and AW are interesting in this respect. In DW, the use of "bonds" to establish various sorts of relationships between PCs, and then the GM's use of their moves to invite and sometimes even oblige the players to act in response to or in expression of those bonds, creates some sort of "argument for or against a position" which is different from the sort of neutrality that you (Lanefan) prefer in GMing. (AW uses different techniques from bonds in this respect.)

Intertextuality and the use of tropes are of course part-and-parcel of all RPGing, and I don't think DW or AW has anything particularly special to offer in relation to these.

And to do so it tries to force the literary-story construct of rising action-crisis-climax into play, where the characters (and thus players) have no real choice but to go through the crisis rather than be able to try to find means of avoiding or mitigating it? Yeah, no thanks.

though in a small way pretty much any combat encounter meets these criteria.

A couple of thoughts about this.

First, if you don't want that sort of structure, and yet you assert that pretty much any combat encounter exemplifies that structure, does that mean you don't want combat encounters in your D&D play?

Second, not far upthread the issue of whether or not RPGing is sometimes dull, or sometimes does or should include "nothing happens", came up. My response to that is "no thanks!" To my mind, the most obvious way to avoid it is to use techniques that ensure the structure of rising action leading to climax or crisis. The PbtA structure of play isn't the only way to do this, but it's one.

Conversely, to posit that the player has a choice to avoid crisis/climax (I don't say the crisis/climax, because there is no the in DW/AW play, as @AbdulAlhazred has posted a few times upthread) is to posit that the player has a choice to make the fiction dull. In that case, there better be something else pretty interesting to make the game worth playing!

 

[pemerton]

I think you're too concerned about nonsense. If they're there, then that's where they are. There's either a reason we can think of, or it remains some unsolved mystery. Based on your past comments, I can't imagine you'd care if the players never learned how the monster got into that part of the dungeon.

Just for kicks I wrote and ran an adventure once that really leaned hard into this madhouse-dungeon aspect where in many cases monsters literally couldn't have fit through the door to get into their locations...and yet behind it all was an underlying explanation (that I'm not sure the players ever did figure out).

Doesn't this basically confirm @hawkeyefan's point?

I might not care if the players ever learn it but I sure as hell care whether I-as-DM have that info available should I need it.

And sure, there's much to be said for a madhouse dungeon now and then. But even there, at least wave at giving it an underlying explanation or reason to exist.

But if the players don't care and never learn, why does it matter if the GM doesn't care and never learns?

What difference does the GM knowing but never telling make to the play experience?

 

[pemerton]

the PCs could never be attacked without them somehow triggering it, right? The game revolves around the character moves. The fronts never move independently? Because if they did you could have @Lanefan's sniper scenario.

I don't know what you mean by "independently".

Do you mean "in the fiction, the NPCs and so on act independently of the PCs"? Then of course the answer is yes. The principles in AW and DW that tell the GM to have regard to this include "Think offscreen" and "Sometime, disclaim decision-making".

Do you mean that, at the table, the GM doesn't just make hard moves based on their conception of what has been happening off screen, then the answer is "correct". The GM makes hard moves in accordance with the structure and rules I've posted. But the GM can make a soft move whenever they are looked to or called upon to say what happens next, and that can based on their conception of what is happening off screen (see further immediately below).

So it's wrong to say the game revolves around the characters moves. The fiction at the table, naturally enough, is about the PCs - I don't think that's different from much other RPGing (and if a GM likes to use out-of-character vignettes or "cut scenes" in D&D, nothing would stop them doing that in DW either). Player-side moves are things that happen at the table, not in the fiction, triggered by certain categories of action the players might declare for their PCs. Player-side moves, when resolved, will often call for the GM to make a move. But as I set out in the thread you replied to, and as I'm reiterating in this post, the GM also makes a move whenever the players look to them to see what happens next.

Can the PCs be attacked? Yes. Can this be a soft move? Yes - "As you step out of the tavern, you see a swift movement through the window of the building opposite - someone is raising a bow to shoot you!" The GM might make that soft move because it is what seems most fun and interesting, given the established fiction and given the interests and inclinations the players have demonstrated through the play of their PCs. The GM might also draw upon their conception of what (say) the assassin cult has been doing while the PCs were doing whatever it was they were doing that led them to the tavern. (This would be a straightforward example of - in the fiction - NPCs acting independently of the PCs, and - at the table - the GM thinking offscreen.)

The PCs being attacked might also be resolved by way of a hard move. Eg - "An arrow flies through the window of the building opposite, and nestles beneath your ribcage: roll to see how much damage you take!" As per the structure and rules I posted, this hard move might be made if the player hands an opportunity on a plate - eg, in response to the soft move described just above, suppose the player declares "I boldly step through the tavern door, undeterred." The GM might make the hard move I just described. That hard move might also be made if the player triggers a player side move and fails the roll - eg in response to the soft move above, the player declares "I run down the street, doing my best to avoid being shot!" and the GM says "OK, that's Defy Danger (DEX)", and the result is 6 or less.

The difference from D&D is therefore not about whether or not the PCs can be attacked, or about who is independent of what. It is about when the GM is permitted to make a hard move and also whether "nothing happens" is a legitimate GM move.

So I just asked this, but what limits hard moves? What stops the GM from a rocks fall everyone (or at least the character that triggered it) dies move?

If you are asking, how do the rules limit this?, then you've had answers upthread, eg from @AbdulAlhazred and I think also @EzekielRaiden - a hard move must follow from the established fiction, must conform to the principle "be a fan of the PCs", etc.

If you're asking "What stops a participant from breaking the rules?" then the answer is the same as in any other game.

But I still don't see how any of that applies to D&D or the thread subject. Maybe I'm dense. Some things from DW are similar to D&D (and virtually all RPGs I assume) like Fronts. The DMG talks about the same concepts, just in different words. It's hardly a unique concept, it's just packaged differently. But soft moves and hard moves? I just don't see how it translates.

The method described in the OP (and a few follow-up posts) is one that to me seems pretty familiar, and has been commonplace in D&D play since at least the mid-1980s.

That method is to have the GM write out an adventure plot - the PCs attend the social function; the PCs are falsely accused; the PCs got to jail; the PCs are rescued by the mysterious stranger; the PCs are geased as part of that rescue; etc - and then to "run" that adventure for the players. The GM doesn't tell the players the plot in advance - this is a difference from (say) a typical theatre production - but the GM uses their control over the fiction to "direct" the players' choices so that the plot unfolds as planned.

There are two main ways that the GM uses that control. One is to create incentives or options for the players as they respond to the fiction: eg the GM introduces so many guards into the scene that the players form the view that they can't successfully fight them, and hence they surrender. The other is that the GM places "hooks" or "cues" into the fiction, which the players are expected to recognise and respond to not because it necessarily "makes sense" for their PCs but because they are trying to adhere to the "social contract" of play. A classic example of this, although not present in the OP, is when the GM narrates a stranger being beaten up by thugs in an alley just as the PCs happen to pass by.

Sometimes these two methods can be combined: eg the mysterious stranger is both a hook/cue the players are expected to have their PCs respond to (even though, from the point of view of the PCs, there's no special reason to trust the stranger); and the mysterious stranger can also be the only obvious option the PCs have for getting out of their predicament (this can also help "lampshade" the essentially metagame nature of the players' decision to have their PCs trust the stranger).

40+ years since this sort of RPGing was invented I think we're all pretty familiar with the ways it can go wrong: the players ignore the hook/cue; the players don't have the same response to incentives and options as the GM anticipated; therefore the GM introduces more fiction, sometimes ad hoc, to try and get things back "on track"; the players continue to make the "wrong" choices; and before you know it the situation looks something like that in the OP!

I think a D&D GM who thinks about their exercise of control over the fiction in terms of soft and hard moves may be a little bit better able to modulate how they adjudicate this sort of scenario. It might help them reflect on what sorts of hooks/cues they're presenting, and how these speak to the players' play of their PCs; and it might also help them think about how to present incentives and options as part of their narration of fiction.

At least, that was the thought I had in answer to your question.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know what you mean by "independently".

Do you mean "in the fiction, the NPCs and so on act independently of the PCs"? Then of course the answer is yes. The principles in AW and DW that tell the GM to have regard to this include "Think offscreen" and "Sometime, disclaim decision-making".

Do you mean that, at the table, the GM doesn't just make hard moves based on their conception of what has been happening off screen, then the answer is "correct". The GM makes hard moves in accordance with the structure and rules I've posted. But the GM can make a soft move whenever they are looked to or called upon to say what happens next, and that can based on their conception of what is happening off screen (see further immediately below).

So it's wrong to say the game revolves around the characters moves. The fiction at the table, naturally enough, is about the PCs - I don't think that's different from much other RPGing (and if a GM likes to use out-of-character vignettes or "cut scenes" in D&D, nothing would stop them doing that in DW either). Player-side moves are things that happen at the table, not in the fiction, triggered by certain categories of action the players might declare for their PCs. Player-side moves, when resolved, will often call for the GM to make a move. But as I set out in the thread you replied to, and as I'm reiterating in this post, the GM also makes a move whenever the players look to them to see what happens next.

Can the PCs be attacked? Yes. Can this be a soft move? Yes - "As you step out of the tavern, you see a swift movement through the window of the building opposite - someone is raising a bow to shoot you!" The GM might make that soft move because it is what seems most fun and interesting, given the established fiction and given the interests and inclinations the players have demonstrated through the play of their PCs. The GM might also draw upon their conception of what (say) the assassin cult has been doing while the PCs were doing whatever it was they were doing that led them to the tavern. (This would be a straightforward example of - in the fiction - NPCs acting independently of the PCs, and - at the table - the GM thinking offscreen.)

The PCs being attacked might also be resolved by way of a hard move. Eg - "An arrow flies through the window of the building opposite, and nestles beneath your ribcage: roll to see how much damage you take!" As per the structure and rules I posted, this hard move might be made if the player hands an opportunity on a plate - eg, in response to the soft move described just above, suppose the player declares "I boldly step through the tavern door, undeterred." The GM might make the hard move I just described. That hard move might also be made if the player triggers a player side move and fails the roll - eg in response to the soft move above, the player declares "I run down the street, doing my best to avoid being shot!" and the GM says "OK, that's Defy Danger (DEX)", and the result is 6 or less.

The difference from D&D is therefore not about whether or not the PCs can be attacked, or about who is independent of what. It is about when the GM is permitted to make a hard move and also whether "nothing happens" is a legitimate GM move.

If you are asking, how do the rules limit this?, then you've had answers upthread, eg from @AbdulAlhazred and I think also @EzekielRaiden - a hard move must follow from the established fiction, must conform to the principle "be a fan of the PCs", etc.

If you're asking "What stops a participant from breaking the rules?" then the answer is the same as in any other game.

The method described in the OP (and a few follow-up posts) is one that to me seems pretty familiar, and has been commonplace in D&D play since at least the mid-1980s.

That method is to have the GM write out an adventure plot - the PCs attend the social function; the PCs are falsely accused; the PCs got to jail; the PCs are rescued by the mysterious stranger; the PCs are geased as part of that rescue; etc - and then to "run" that adventure for the players. The GM doesn't tell the players the plot in advance - this is a difference from (say) a typical theatre production - but the GM uses their control over the fiction to "direct" the players' choices so that the plot unfolds as planned.

There are two main ways that the GM uses that control. One is to create incentives or options for the players as they respond to the fiction: eg the GM introduces so many guards into the scene that the players form the view that they can't successfully fight them, and hence they surrender. The other is that the GM places "hooks" or "cues" into the fiction, which the players are expected to recognise and respond to not because it necessarily "makes sense" for their PCs but because they are trying to adhere to the "social contract" of play. A classic example of this, although not present in the OP, is when the GM narrates a stranger being beaten up by thugs in an alley just as the PCs happen to pass by.

Sometimes these two methods can be combined: eg the mysterious stranger is both a hook/cue the players are expected to have their PCs respond to (even though, from the point of view of the PCs, there's no special reason to trust the stranger); and the mysterious stranger can also be the only obvious option the PCs have for getting out of their predicament (this can also help "lampshade" the essentially metagame nature of the players' decision to have their PCs trust the stranger).

40+ years since this sort of RPGing was invented I think we're all pretty familiar with the ways it can go wrong: the players ignore the hook/cue; the players don't have the same response to incentives and options as the GM anticipated; therefore the GM introduces more fiction, sometimes ad hoc, to try and get things back "on track"; the players continue to make the "wrong" choices; and before you know it the situation looks something like that in the OP!

I think a D&D GM who thinks about their exercise of control over the fiction in terms of soft and hard moves may be a little bit better able to modulate how they adjudicate this sort of scenario. It might help them reflect on what sorts of hooks/cues they're presenting, and how these speak to the players' play of their PCs; and it might also help them think about how to present incentives and options as part of their narration of fiction.

At least, that was the thought I had in answer to your question.

I'm not discussing PbtA any more. If you want to discuss D&D or details on how you could apply an aspect of another game to D&D that wouldn't require D&D to morph into something it's not, I might be interested in discussing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Doesn't this basically confirm @hawkeyefan's point?

But if the players don't care and never learn, why does it matter if the GM doesn't care and never learns?

What difference does the GM knowing but never telling make to the play experience?

Some people enjoy worldbuilding for its own sake, and would like the world they build to maintain some verisimilitude. You seem to hold the opinion that if the players don't encounter it, it is meaningless. Well, all I can say is what the GM cares about matters too, even if it turns out the players never find out about it. It's not like the GM knows exactly what parts of the setting the PCs will interact with.