How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Lanefan]

No he just used a motivation as an excuse to use his canned material. If Mialee hadn’t died, there would have been some other reason for the players to meet the cleric with the wererat problem. If they needed an item instead of resurrection, it would have been a merchant instead of a cleric. And so on.

Except we don't know that, do we?

For all we know, if Mialee hadn't died the PCs might have gone nd done something different and never known about the Cleric and the wererats.

Your take here assumes the GM is locked in to running what's prepped, which isn't always the case.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are assuming. Nothing in that section says that. Further, even if there was another test of player established motivation to get them there, it's still a test of player established motivation. And...........................they can still say no and go somewhere else.

That section doesn't tell the DM to try over and over until they get there. That's you placing your bias into the mix. That section only gives examples of testing their motivations through DM established content. It doesn't tell them to railroad the players.

I don't think I'm assuming a whole lot. I'm basing this off a reading of the actual text. Here's what it says (highlights mine):

"Motivation is what drives the adventure- it's what gets the PCs involved in whatever you have designed for them to do. If the PCs aren't motivated, they won't do what you want them to, and all your work will be wasted."

I'm not sure how you can read that passage, or any of what follows, and read it as the GM testing the PCs' motivations. It's about using their motivations as a means of getting them to engage with the pre-authored material the GM has made. Why else point out that all your work would be wasted if they don't engage?

If you construct an understanding of agency that specifically precludes the GM from creating content, then it's pretty trivial to claim the players don't have any.

How much must the GM adjust their content to shift in response to player/character motivation for it to count? Moreover, does it provide more agency when a payer chooses not to engage with something, or when they're never offered a chance to engage in the first place?

I mean, the fact that you describe it as "their (the GM's) content" says a lot. It means that the GM has prepared material and now needs to figure out how to get the PCs involved.

Per the passage, it seems that you should be ready to do what you need to in order to get the PCs motivated to engage with the scenario. How much? I don't know... I suppose it would depend on the GM and how easily they could come up with something else, or how comfortable they are GMing by improv.

What I'm saying is... What's the functional difference between, "This PC is a wizard looking for the secret to immortality, let me write up a wizard's tower" and "I wrote up a wizard's tower and l can tie it in the the PC wizard's desire for immortality?"

The DM's motivation is different, but both instances result in a wizard's tower that ties in to the player's stated priorities. The result is the same.

Who's desire is it to search the tower? Or more accurately, whose desire does the tower represent? Why did the GM come up with the wizard's tower?

Except we don't know that, do we?

For all we know, if Mialee hadn't died the PCs might have gone nd done something different and never known about the Cleric and the wererats.

Your take here assumes the GM is locked in to running what's prepped, which isn't always the case.

It really doesn't. The opening passage, quoted and highlighted above, makes it pretty clear that the GM is meant to find a way to get the players to engage with his material. I don't even see how that can be in doubt.

Is it possible that instead of the temple and wererats, the GM has some other material prepped that he can more easily motivate the PCs to engage with? Sure. But does that really make a difference?

 

[Pedantic]

I think I get where you’re coming but I’m always going to have a suspicion that people are ok with knowledge checks because the first game they played when they were 14 had them.

I think some old game stuff has had a kind of theoretical reassessment, where what seems to be really dumb on the face of it, is not only functional but does some really interesting things with the medium. In the particular case of knowledge checks it’s hard for me to have the conversation in good faith.

That being said, what’s kind of interesting is:

In the case where the player is totally unaware of the perception check occurring at all, what function does the check serve? Now I think GM side checks can be ‘good actually’ but I’d like to see a reasoned explanation as to why. What makes me curious here is that I can see the case for GM side random tables but when that’s moved to knowledge, it seems to tread heavily over stuff that more obviously seems good. In this case isn’t it almost always more interesting to see what people do with the knowledge? I mean I guess not but it’s a perspective I can only understand if I squint hard.

Start from the assumption that the GM who created situation/setting the players are in and the GM tasked with resolving it are different people and not allowed to change each other's work. That simulates the separate functions the GM should inhabit.

The why (controversially, I know) is to give the players agency. By making the situation an objective thing that they can interact with, their decisions gain weight and meaning, and strategic/tactical thinking becomes possible. Players can find and articulate different lines of play, with different cases for what actions will or will not best achieve their goals when strung together. The key is to thus have information that exists behind things like Knowledge and Perception, and to be principled about revealing or not revealing it. A player who has purchased that information will (again, crediting the design for consistency) have the opportunity to use it to make better choices.

It's a mistake to focus on the "risk" portion here. I don't really care if there's a random chance involved. You could as easily replace knowledge as a rolled skill with knowledge as a passive ability that always provides information up to whatever grade the character has and get the same result, and I was complaining earlier that dice are overrated.

 

[Pedantic]

I mean, the fact that you describe it as "their (the GM's) content" says a lot. It means that the GM has prepared material and now needs to figure out how to get the PCs involved.

Per the passage, it seems that you should be ready to do what you need to in order to get the PCs motivated to engage with the scenario. How much? I don't know... I suppose it would depend on the GM and how easily they could come up with something else, or how comfortable they are GMing by improv.

This is a baffling conversation, and I can barely follow what's going on between you and Maxperson.

Clearly, the GM's choices are constrained by the PC's choices; they can only present certain scenarios the PCs will accept. Further, the advice is entirely about trying to maximize your preparation by focusing it toward what the PCs are likely to engage with, again making it clear that they have the ability to engage our not engage with whatever you've made.

If the GM can't produce content the PCs want to engage with at all, then nothing happens, the game falls apart and everyone does something else with their hobby time. What is the issue?

 

[thefutilist]

It's a mistake to focus on the "risk" portion here. I don't really care if there's a random chance involved. You could as easily replace knowledge as a rolled skill with knowledge as a passive ability that always provides information up to whatever grade the character has and get the same result, and I was complaining earlier that dice are overrated.

Ah ok that’s interesting, one of the questions I was going to ask but didn’t was about exactly that. Like if there was a resource mechanic, something like: you can exert yourself to really think hard but you can only do it twice a before you need eight hours rest. I think you answered that though and I’m not sure the details matter that much.

The rest of the stuff, yeah sure, this is how I like to run narrative games. The more fixed something is, the more it’s taken out of the GM’s hands (and yeah, fixed prep is only one method, random tables being another). Although actually I have to admit your explanation is really good because with perception you can retain both fixed prep (you can’t with random tables) and still get the good stuff of it not being in the GM’s hands.

(If anyone is interested in Blorb then it solves some of the scissors before paper issues)

So yeah you’ve convinced me, I thought that would be far harder.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a baffling conversation, and I can barely follow what's going on between you and Maxperson.

That's okay... I'm having trouble with it at times, too!

Clearly, the GM's choices are constrained by the PC's choices; they can only present certain scenarios the PCs will accept. Further, the advice is entirely about trying to maximize your preparation by focusing it toward what the PCs are likely to engage with, again making it clear that they have the ability to engage our not engage with whatever you've made.

Where does it say that in the passage?

I think we can assume that the players can simply "not bite"... they can choose to not accept the offered mission... but that is absolutely framed as an unwanted outcome in that passage. Doing so means "all your work will be wasted." Clearly, the implication there is that the work existed prior to the motivation, and so you have to tailor things to fit a proper motivation for the PCs.

If the GM can't produce content the PCs want to engage with at all, then nothing happens, the game falls apart and everyone does something else with their hobby time. What is the issue?

I didn't say there was an issue with that. I think the GM directed play is a very viable and popular style of play. I just said that this has been a dominant form of play for many, many years now, and Max seems to think otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

An attempt to remember is automatic man. When you see a banana you either remember it automatically, succeeding in recognizing it. Fail to recognize the banana for some reason.

When I see a banana I don't try and recognise it; I just do recognise it.

In the context of a game, a player succeeds when they make a move and it works out for them; and fail when they try to make a particular move but it doesn't work for them. An approach to GM side narration that puts the GM in charge of not just resolving but establishing player action declarations is one that, from my point of view, undermines game play.

The attempt is reflexive. Just like the PC can be successful at defending themselves from a sword blow or dodging a fireball without the player having to declare every time that they try to block or dodge.

Reflexive perception and memory are for the benefit for the players.

I discussed this upthread. Save vs ninja is the GM bringing a consequence home, and the player getting a roll/check to avoid or at least blunt it.

But save vs ignorance doesn't seem to me to have the same structure at all. What consequence is the GM bringing home? None that I can see. Rather, it seems that the GM is playing the game on the player's behalf.

 

[Pedantic]

That's okay... I'm having trouble with it at times, too!

I think we can assume that the players can simply "not bite"... they can choose to not accept the offered mission... but that is absolutely framed as an unwanted outcome in that passage. Doing so means "all your work will be wasted." Clearly, the implication there is that the work existed prior to the motivation, and so you have to tailor things to fit a proper motivation for the PCs.

I don't think that follows at all. The implication is that failing to produce content that will align with the PC's motivations will result in the GM wasting a lot of effort, which seems pretty clearly to suggest it is a concern before you do all that work.

Regardless, why does the timing matter here?

 

[pemerton]

And yet when talking about RPGs, control is typically understood to be when the DM is deliberately asserting control over the players in some manner, such as with a railroad. Atypical definitions need not apply.

First, it's abundantly clear what @hawkeyefan means by control. Doubly so when on refers to the text from the AD&D 2nd ed rulebooks that I posted upthread.

Second, given that you are using non-standard meanings of "realism" and of "success" in post after post, I don't see how you suddenly assert the authority to dictate some normative standard for use of the word "control"!

 

[pemerton]

Sometimes you "succeed" at noticing things without intentionally trying to. Today, for example, while walking around town I happened to notice a squirrel running on a rooftop. Was I looking for squirrels on rooftops? No. But I saw it anyway, and was glad I did.

That's seeing something. Even spotting something. It's not succeeding at something you tried to do.

In D&D, passive perception seems to be a system attempt to move determination of NPC success in some situations over to the player. A PC isn't specifically looking into the bushes but there's an NPC trying to hide there; instead of having the GM roll for the NPC's success in hiding, the PC's passive-perception mechanic is invoked.

Sure. This doesn't mean that the player succeeds at anything.

One can, I think, safely assume that when someone sees something unusual and is not sure what it is, there'll be at least a passing thought given to wondering what it is; and that passing moment of curiosity is all you need for it to be an "attempt" at knowledge.

And on that attempt you'll either quickly realize what it is and-or what it's for "it's a runic circle for holding demons in", or you might determine part of that e.g. what it is but not what it does "there's a runic circle on the floor here for some reason", or not have a clue "there's a bunch of strange marks on the floor, roughly in a circle".

So now you're justifying the GM declaring an action for the PC, because it can be "safely assumed" that the PC is doing that thing? As I posted upthread, this makes me want to know what the player's job is in this game!