GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

I still wonder whether "mental model" just means what the GM imagines.

But I do agree that, once the GM is trying to include the implausible so as to enhance overall plausibility, players inferring to outcomes becomes more difficult. As a player, knowing that something unexpected will happen doesn't help me work out which of the many possible unexpected things that will be!

If you worked it out, it wouldn't be unexpected

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's describe Player 2's actions not in terms of what the character did, in the fiction but what the player did, at the table.

The player declared an action that prompted the GM to tell the player more of the stuff written in their notes. (Or, if the GM had no notes, prompted the GM to make up some stuff and tell it to the player.) This about the minimal amount of agency that can be exercised in a RPG - without it, either (i) everyone just sits around saying and doing nothing, or (ii) the GM provides a monologue.

Why would you call that a minimal amount of agency?

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. They might encounter the NPC. They might not. They may interact with the NPC. They might not. How it goes depends on them, not me. The NPC is like the tree or hill over there that I also put into the game. Worldbuilding is not railroading.

Then why did you talk about a GM creating an important NPC?

I mean, if the NPC may not even be encountered, then why label him important?

 

[pemerton]

Torchbearer also, if I recall, has different camp events based on different area types… so there’s one for the wilds, one for ruins, one for dungeons… and so on.

True.

I’m not sure why you think that you can’t do more to secure your camp in Torchbearer. There’s more that can be done than Aetherial Premonition.

A Survivalist test can be made to establish concealment, granting +1D to camp checks.

If players are anticipating a particular sort of threat (eg an ambush), they can also declare other actions that - if successful - might grant a +1D in downstream tests. Or even that might make a downstream test unnecessary (if the preparation gives rise to a "good idea"); or the original action might be a good idea, meaning that, later on, the fictional basis for a test is laid that otherwise wouldn't be.

This example from play - of Golin preparing to carry off the tapestry prior to investigating the sarcophagus - is not about camping, but illustrates the idea:

The players then lit their last 3 candles (with Telemere's tindebox)- and Fea-bella pulled out her stick of glowing fungus - so they could go to the doors they hadn't yet ventured through. Fea-bella instinctually read the Elvish writing on the door (successful Scholar test): it said "Here lies Celedhring, in communion with the Outer Dark". There was some discussion of what this might mean - demons, liches, portals, etc. The playes decided that it was worth checking out. Korvin inspected the doors and (with a successful Criminal test, though he would probably have preferred to fail) identified that they were not locked and would open easily. So the PCs went through.

They saw the black tapestry hanging at the end of the hall (pack 5). Golin rolled it up and tied it with a rope, ready to haul it out in a hurry if necessary. I treated this as a good idea.

Korvin took the silver cup (pack 1, draught 1, 2D) from the altar and put it in his pack.

Telemere the Elven Ranger was intrigued by the Ritual tools (bespoke tools, for performing rituals to the Outer Dark) that were also on the altar, and put them in his pack.

Then - with a bit of goading from me, reminding them that every sarcophagus they'd looked in so far has had something valuable in it - they decided to lift the lid of the sarcophagus that was sitting in the middle of the room. This freed Celedhring the Barrow Wight. The players thought this was a bad idea, and so tried to put the lid back on - a capture conflict!

Golin as conflict captain rolled 5 hit points for the players, while I rolled 8 for the Wight. I was feeling a bit confident, and the players were feeling a bit worried. But my Wight got hosed!

Golin equipped the sarcophagus lid as his weapon (+1s Attack). Telemere equipped the ritual tools that he'd taken from the altar to Darkness in the sarcophagus chamber - the players' point was that a Barrow Wight is the result of an improper burial, and so the Wight would be sensitive to the possibility of more ritual, and after some discussion I agreed these granted +1D Feint and Manoeuvre. More importantly, Telemere's player - in only his third session - worked out that paying 1 persona to put his 5 Nature dice into an unopposed attack roll might work. And so the PCs won the conflict with no hit points lost: their previous action was a Defence with lots of open-ended and so everyone rallied behind the Skald and his Voice of Thunder (even Megloss, who prior to being knocked out of the conflict had not been helping, my view being that he was too scared). They couldn't actually capture the Wight as per their intention (3 vs 5 Might) but shoved the lid back on long enough to get clean away. (The rules for what happens if an opponent's Might is to high for the players to get their conflict goal expressly say that a successful capture conflict might allow the PCs to escape, and that's what they wanted.)

The Wight did get three successes on a Manoeuvre, disarming Telemere and taking back its ritual tools. And shoving the Wight back into its sarcophagus did mean that the PCs missed out on scoring its mithril sword (+1 Might to a mortal wielder). I offered as consolation that they now knew the location of a mithril sword; Golin's player retorted that they knew the location of a wielder of a mithril sword!

The PCs decided to leave the dungeon - which meant going back up the rope into Megloss's house - Golin successfully hauling the tapestry behind him (Ob 3 Labourer).

Part of what makes this work is that making tests is bound up within an action economy and an advancement economy which means that players do not have an incentive to make every possible test before camping, returning to a settlement, etc.

 

[pemerton]

Why would you call that a minimal amount of agency?

For the reason that I gave in my post:

The player declared an action that prompted the GM to tell the player more of the stuff written in their notes. (Or, if the GM had no notes, prompted the GM to make up some stuff and tell it to the player.) This about the minimal amount of agency that can be exercised in a RPG - without it, either (i) everyone just sits around saying and doing nothing, or (ii) the GM provides a monologue.

 

[Maxperson]

Then why did you talk about a GM creating an important NPC?

I mean, if the NPC may not even be encountered, then why label him important?

Because he is. Just because something is important, doesn't mean that the players can't ignore it. I consider any NPC that isn't your basic farmer, guard, innkeeper, etc. to be one of import and influence. Those are the ones that are generally going to know more and be more competent.

 

[FrogReaver]

For the reason that I gave in my post:

That doesn’t answer the question.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because he is. Just because something is important, doesn't mean that the players can't ignore it. I consider any NPC that isn't your basic farmer, guard, innkeeper, etc. to be one of import and influence. Those are the ones that are generally going to know more and be more competent.

When I think of important NPCs, I tend to think of their importance to the game. One of the most important NPCs in my Stonetop game is Patch, a 9 year old boy, nephew to one of the PCs and potential apprentice to another. All the players love this kid.

To me, that’s what makes an NPC important. When he was created, it was during character creation. He was labeled as being the ranger’s nephew and being somewhat adventurous. And that was about it. I had an idea that his importance could increase as we played… but it also may not have, or he could have been killed or otherwise removed from play.

So when someone describes creating an important NPC, it sounds like they as GM have intentions for that NPC which make them important. Which implies plotting on the part of the GM. Which brings up thoughts of railroading.

So, you’ve clarified your use, I suppose… but I think perhaps you can see why the word evoked the response it did.

 

[thefutilist]

@Manbearcat

I'm taking an extreme position to highlight what's fundamental. Yeah if I was actually doing the set up for RotJ I'd have a clock where the Empire wins but presumably there would be ways to disrupt it or at least change the result of the outcome so the entire rebel fleet wasn't destroyed.

You've posted a really good practical retort. Why not just scene frame further because this will be exposition. Well we don't know that because there are situational changes other than the result of the shield being blown. I mean maybe C-3PO takes a stand, refuses to impersonate a god and the Ewoks eat Luke and Han. Leia manages to escape with Wicket. (that obviously sounds comical because RotJ has genre expectations but we're treating it like a serious character driven drama where also being eaten by teddy bears is a thing that can happen).

But it's still kind of weird because the players are invested in at least one thing (saving the rebel fleet) that I know the results of and so we're not really enjoying the situation together, which is, seemingly, a direct indictment of my agenda.

Anyway it's good because it is so horrible. I contend that GM storytime is only a problem because of the 'way' the GM makes decisions, not the decisions made. That's like my fundament thesis.

Yeah yeah you can do all this stuff and blow up the generator and the rebel fleet is still destroyed. Yeah yeah you can set an alarm and because of off screen reasons you wake up dying with an assassin crouching over you.

Also I've had something similar to the above happen in play when I was the GM and it absolutely sucked.// Well the gang is going to go into the holding when no one is there and slaughter everyone. It's what 'would' happen.// I apologised after and one player was like 'that did suck' and the other was like 'no that's awesome. it shows there is a solid world.'

So yeah it sucks but it gives you a fundamental basis to work from. Given that I have these constraints put in place, what do I need to do when I'm not directly making an ethos based choice?

Because if what's fun or good for the players or interesting or fun for me, ever conflicts with an ethos based choice, the ethos based choice wins.

(I'm probably doing a great job selling anything other than my style)

 

[Maxperson]

When I think of important NPCs, I tend to think of their importance to the game. One of the most important NPCs in my Stonetop game is Patch, a 9 year old boy, nephew to one of the PCs and potential apprentice to another. All the players love this kid.

To me, that’s what makes an NPC important. When he was created, it was during character creation. He was labeled as being the ranger’s nephew and being somewhat adventurous. And that was about it. I had an idea that his importance could increase as we played… but it also may not have, or he could have been killed or otherwise removed from play.

So when someone describes creating an important NPC, it sounds like they as GM have intentions for that NPC which make them important. Which implies plotting on the part of the GM. Which brings up thoughts of railroading.

So, you’ve clarified your use, I suppose… but I think perhaps you can see why the word evoked the response it did.

We have different playstyles, so I'm not surprised that it meant something different to you. While I do provide adventure hooks, rumors, etc., I don't push any NPC, adventure, or really anything on the players. They are free to ignore, listen to, choose or not choose as they see fit.

There's no such thing in my game as an NPC that is so important that it must survive, or must give out X information. There is no "must."