D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

'This is simply the logic of the gameworld' is the 'I was only playing my character' of GMing.

Sooooo...are you saying the game world isn't supposed to have any logic?

Or are you saing the players-as-characters should always have a chance of getting what they want even if it otherwise makes no sense?

Or...what are you saying here?

 

[The Firebird]

I don't think that needs to be the case at all. I've done this plenty of times in the past, and I don't think it's every been an issue.

Not much to say beyond our experiences differ.

I don't really know what distinction you're making here with "storytelling" and "gaming".

By gaming, I mean making a series of meaningful choices in the context of the game world. E.g., I choose to do X or Y. By storytelling, I mean developing information about the world. E.g., deciding my character grew up in a barbarian clan.

Chess is a game; only gameplay decisions are made. Unless you want to like, decide that you're playing as France and England in the hundred years war or something.

Narrative games have much more storytelling. There are rules for adjudication so you aren't just making things up, but the players have much more control over the content of the fiction.

This is always the example that gets rolled out in these discussions... and yet, has anyone ever played in a game where this happened?

I mean, I suppose there could be examples... but generally speaking, this is not the kind of thing anyone is talking about.

Just an extreme example to show the point--NPCs having strong desires is not a railroad.

Why not let the dice decide what kind of person the NPC is?

That's ok too.

I don't know. We have to ask what's the reason that this NPC's disposition matters so much. And I mean this from a game play perspective, not from the fictional perspective.

For a king ruling a kingdom, it's easier to see. He is a bigger game piece in that sense... his influence on the game is larger and therefore requires more rules and or consideration.

The priest who doesn't want to drink? Why is that important to play? In my experience, this is very often "because that's what the GM imagined about them". And if that's the only or even the primary reason, then I can see it as problematic. It's forcing things in specific ways rather than others, and for no good reason.

The example is not well defined enough at the moment. Is it a religious tenet that fleshes out the world? Does it relate to the characters backstory? Is it demanded by his order?

As a player, I have no interest in wandering around inside the GM's novel.

Interesting, because this is the complete opposite of what I see these kind of fixed things creating. If lots of aspects of the world are subject to the players creative control, and they can do this while the game is in motion, then the activity is more group storytelling. Its not the GMs novel; but it is the gaming groups'.

In contrast, if things are fixed, then gameplay becomes more possible. The rook moves like so, and this gives the players certain choices they can make. The priest doesn't drink, and that gives us choices about how to approach them.

 

[Lanefan]

But as I say PCs are in a privileged position. I don't accept that such a privilege should extend to the GM's many NPCs.

Fairly hard disagree on this one.

If a PC can do it or not do it then an NPC can just the same*.

Otherwise the logic - there's that word again - of the setting and the PCs' place within it gets blown to hell.

* - which is why I eschew social interaction rules; I want the players free to play their characters as they like, the tradeoff being I remain free to play the NPCs as I like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not in mine. Its an occasional necessary evil, but if I have to do it frequently, as far as I'm concerned the game system isn't doing its job for the most part (the fact I'm forced to it as much as I am is one of the things I don't find a virtue in 13th Age).

What kind of games do you enjoy? I think that makes a huge difference in how important rulings are.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Protagonism is a narrative term. It is orthogonal to whether or not the game is a sandbox.

Protagonism is just a word. Forget about the narrative cooties and instead look at what's being said.

Is every NPC meant to be played as robustly by the GM as the players play their characters? Is every NPC equally important to play as other NPCs or as the PCs?

Is it important that the GM's conception of an NPC's trait be sacrosanct? The priest that never drinks... is that trait as important as a PC who never drinks?

Should a GM be considering these factors when they create and portray NPCs? I mean... it's feasible to have a priest who does drink, or who has sworn it off, but still falls off the wagon from time to time.

So the issue isn't about realism or what have you... so what's it about? The GM's conception remaining paramount. Why?

This is why I brought up Giles Corey. He was pressed to death for three days and refused to plead guilty. It is obvioulsy rare. But it can happen and in a fictional game where you might have over the top characters, it can very easily happen. In something like a wuxia campaign, a samurai campaign, a knights of the round table campaign, and bog standard fantasy I can very easily see a character like this

Sounds like the kind of thing that a series of dice rolls going a specific way would yield.

Much like in life, we cannot say that someone is willing to die for a thing until they have done so.

I don't want to play a game where I don't trust the GM to try to provide me with the best experience they can, and I don't want to run a game where the players mistrust me either.

Can we please stop with the talk of trust and jerk GMs?

Look at this thread. Look at others. Clearly, people have different ideas about play. If I was to GM for you, or you for me, I expect that each of us would be trying to run a good game. Neither of us is going to be a jerk.

But we clearly have different ideas of how play should work. The things I do may not be to your liking. It doesn't make me a jerk, it doesn't mean you can't trust me... it means we have different preferences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I'm back to saying that if, for the most part, it doesn't, you're either using the wrong system or have a group that wants to different a things to really work well together.

Or you just aren't comfortable with these things being codified.

 

[Lanefan]

This is an extremely radical position of GM privilege. The same privilege of protagonism that I want for my fighter should apply to the GM and his billions of NPCs?

Yes. Obviously. And while you see it as "extremely radical" I just see it as situation-normal; nor do I consider it "GM privilege".

Your fighter isn't the only fighter in the setting; Janet's wizard is also one among many, and so on.

And the NPC fighters and wizards etc. are doing their own things, 99.x% of the time offscreen and irrelevant to the PCs which means they don't come up during play, but once in a while they do. Example: on numerous occasions I've had as a possible random encounter "other adventuring party", to account for the idea that the PC party might not be the only ones here and that other adventurers might be here for their own reasons that may or may not be the same as those of the PCs.

And if those parties meet and come into conflict those NPC adventurers will be statted out just like PCs because, in the setting, there's no difference between PC and NPC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Questions like this, had you been asking them of me instead of @Faolyn and taken in tandem with some bits I didn't quote, seem to be asking for a deeper degree of analysis than I'm ever going to give it.

I can't be bothered to think about what I'm doing step by step and analyze everything down to the rivets - I just dive in and do it; and as what I do seems to work out OK the vast majority of the time, little if any further analysis is required.

That's absolutely fine! No one has to share their specific details about what they do as a GM.

But in discussions about how to GM this way or that way, it's likely going to come up. When people can't get specific, but they have opinions on how to do something... well it seems pretty odd.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sounds like the kind of thing that a series of dice rolls going a specific way would yield.

Much like in life, we cannot say that someone is willing to die for a thing until they have done so.

I think both approaches would be valid. I mean the GM knows enough about Giles Corey to know he wouldn't plead, a player making a character like this might know enough. How much control characters actually have over their will when under duress is as common debate so I can see both sides. But I don't see anything inherently railroady or wrong about just saying 'this guy can't be bribed' or ' this guy will never admit to being a witch'. Some people are that stubborn. And that is what we see with Corey. His death is about as horrific as way to die as one can imagine, and it was slow, and they tortured him, and demanded he plead. But he didn't. People in history martyr themselves, refuse to plead guilty under torture, etc. It is not common. But you care making a character and in control of their personality

And the guy's last words were supposedly "More weight"

 

[Lanefan]

It can be a problem for me! And I've known - and know - other RPGers for whom it can also be a problem. I don't care how compelling the GM thinks the NPC's character is - if the likely consequences and prospects of success of my action declarations aren't knowable by me as a player, then how am I supposed to play the game?

Easy. You just declare your actions, have your character try what it would try, and see what happens next.

In real life, if you've just met someone for the first time and try to persuade that person to do something, you have no idea what your odds of success are. All you can do is try your persuasion techniques as best you can and hope for the best. (anyone who's ever worked retail or commission sales knows exactly what I mean here)

Why should the game be any different? Why should you know anything about your prospects of success in a situation like this?