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

[pemerton]

Thanks for the clarification. So what is reasonably knowable? Some folks suggested the DM provide cinematic sequences to give the PCs key information. Do you think that is necessary, in the case of the guard? Or is it sufficient for the PCs to be able to learn that information via their own investigations?

I feel like I've already posted a lot about this.

It seem to me that "reasonably knowable* is obviously context-sensitive. But building on prior replies to you I can give an example of what I think clearly doesn't count - the investigation-equivalent of being sent on a the gorgon-killing quest by the King of Thracia. Now the game is not player-directed or player-controlled: it's the players, via their PCs, following the GM's breadcrumbs.

There's a vast gulf between blind (i.e. knowing nothing) and transparent (i.e. knowing everything). Most if not all real-world interactions fall between these two extremes, it makes sense that in-fiction interactions would also.

Ideally, your character would have about the same degree and amount of information that a real person would have if in the same situation.

I'm not talking about the character's knowledge in the fiction. I'm talking about the player's knowledge in the context of playing a game.

Here's a parallel. In the real world, I know that I have no chance of out-fighting @Manbearcat. He is an experienced martial artist and athlete more generally; I am a mild-mannered scholar who cycle commutes 30 km a couple of times a week. But, if the D&D-model of pemerton confronts the D&D-model of @Manbearcat, there is a chance the former can win (in virtue of lucky rolls). And whoever is playing the pemerton PC knows this, in virtue of knowing the game rules. Likewise, the player of the AD&D Dwarf knows that they have a certain percentage of identifying new stonework, etc.

Likewise, when I start a session of Moldvay Basic with the GM telling me that my PC is at the entrance to a dungeon, I the player know that the dungeon contains threats, and treasures, which it is the goal of the game to try and avoid (in the case of the former) and obtain (in the case of the latter).

This is all knowledge that enables me to play the game. Otherwise I am just saying stuff about what my PC does that then prompts the GM to say more stuff. Maybe that's a fun experience (although I personally don't enjoy it much, unless the GM is a very compelling storyteller). But it barely counts as playing a game. And it certainly does not have the player-directed and player-controlled nature of a sandbox.

For example, absent prior information, on walking up to the guarded gate of a strange town for the first time your character (and thus you-as-player) has no way of knowing whether either or both of the guards on duty are bribe-able, how seriously they take their duties, how competent they are as warriors, what if any unusual orders they got this morning, etc. etc.; and thus your options are:

--- stop and watch the guards for a while* and see if anyone else pays them off
--- try and enter town normally, i.e. without bribing a guard
--- try bribing a guard anyway and see what happens
--- go around the town walls and see if you can find an unguarded entrance
--- bail out, come back after dark, and sneak into town somehow
--- or something else, there's loads of possibilities.

* - though hanging around and watching might arouse suspicion as well, depending on circumstance.

See, here's an alternative way to start a session, that I personally find more compelling. It also illustrates how the players can rely on their knowledge of game systems to drive the action - which, to preempt the usual howls of protest - is not a synonym for "getting everything they want for their PCs": [Burning Wheel] First Burning Wheel session | Roleplaying Actual Play

 

[pemerton]

So, the PCs had a liaison to the Council (ToD AP) who was cool and a friend to the PCs. He did a cover up for them, keeping info away from the Council and was outed (along with his fellow party members) by the PC who despised deception.
Their replacement was a tight-assed bureaucrat from the Order of the Gauntlet, who had seen no real action, but had opinions and was tasked to bring the PCs in line. I played him like you'd expect. (His name was Ondath, sorry @Ondath)
They absolutely hated him...he was unyielding, very much THE roadblocker (going with @Hussar's word)

After just over a month dealing with him, it came to a head with one of the party members who threatened him (Intimidation check) and it was the cherry on top because the faction was already looking like it was going to withdraw from the Council, and they did for other reasons really.
Anyways, I framed a scene where the PC passed this bureaucrat along with 2 of his aides in a corridor. I had no idea what was going to play out, the scene was quickly imagined by me because I had to give the player something as he was a little aimless in terms of what his character wanted to do and I didnt want him bored watching the other proactive players.

Well, the PC stopped and delivered a hell of dialogue about starting over, tensions/stress...etc
The PC was a Fighter-Barbarian with nothing in CHA or Persuasion.

The DC was 15 for success (moderate difficulty)
05-14 Fail Forward (the dialogue was great)
01-05 Total Fail

In my mind I had 5-14 being a Fail Foward, requiring more back-and-forth dialogue, as the bureaucrat would want to air his grievances. There would be an additional attempt but this time the 01-10 would be a Total Fail.

PC succeed on the DC 15.
Anyways the above reflects what can occur when there is an obstinate PC who has been a roadblocker the entire game and how something could evolve from that.

EDIT: The reason I included the 2 aides was to place Ondath in an uncomfortable situation because it was public so he couldn't just brush away the PC - he was a person of image. The DC would have been 20 had they been alone.

Did the player know the odds? (This might matter, for instance, if the player rolls a 2 and needs to decide whether or not it is worth spending Inspiration.)

But anyway, this does not seem to be an example of the GM having decided, in secret, that a NPC can't be persuaded to do some relevant thing. Unless I've misunderstood, it looks like the opposite of that.

 

[robertsconley]

Well, it seems a lot of it is about geography... the examples you share of players map vs. GM map are definitely that.

But understood... that's one example of exploration as you meant it. Exploration as trying to uncover the unknown is definitely more up my alley.

From experience, even social geography has a physical component as a result of living and working at specific location.

But plopping folks down a blank hex grid and saying "Go Forth and explore" is a niche taste and not one I share. There are green blobs empty of details because that made sense for the circumstances like with Dearthwood . Other elements that are empty of details I handle in different ways depending on their circumstances.

But I don't go out of my way to create them and I am generous with what is considered common knowledge.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it is fair. But I also think having it all in one city is considered somewhat unconventional so it is the kind of thing people are likely to debate

Oh, I'm sure some would. But since it's all made up, it's really about the level of detail, right? I mean... look at Star Wars. An entire galaxy right? Except not really (at least as far as the films are concerned). Everything that happens in the Star Wars films could just as easily happen on one planet. Especially since every single planet is like one type of environment.

Really, the story takes place across a handful of locations that could just as easily be presented as being on the same planet. The scope of it all is artificial.

There's no reason that a city district can't be as immersive and engaging as an entire continent in another game. All they are is a collection of locations and NPCs and so on.

We might have gotten lost in the weeds here. I may need to review these posts to see where I got my responses mixed up

Okay... well let me know if you do take a look, otherwise no big deal.

I almost got into combat because I sensed this might come up. I just don't accept that combat and social interaction are comparable in a game. We aren't going to use boffer weapons so we need to abstract combat (and combat is very hard to do free form without mechanics and dice: I've tried to devise freeform methods and I can't do it). Roleplaying, if you say something and I know how my character would react, or the GM knows how an NPC would react, that you can do without mechanics. I just don't these aspects of play are similar enough to necessitate mechanics on the social side (but like I said, I get social skills are expected so I use them, i just have a very particular way of using them so they don't trip me up personally)

But we often don't know how people would react. We often don't know how we may react to something. Or we think we do... until it happens and then we react differently than we expected. This stuff happens all the time.

And yes, when we play, we're talking to each other... but we're playing a game. The stakes are likely quite different than something like a diplomatic mission, or a hostage negotiation, or negotiating a peace treaty, or trying to convince a king to lend you his army... the two things are as different as having a fight and rolling dice.

But they aren't. You keep going back to that. But that isn't what is happening. To this player their agency hinges on their character words mattering. Dice rolls can interfere with that. I am not even saying they do for everyone.

I keep going back to it because it's unavoidable. If the processes of determination are entirely unknown to the players, then they cannot make meaningful choices about play. No matter what words you say, the GM may decide "no, that's not enough". There's no way to know... that's the kind of black-box situation that others have mentioned.

Again, I don't really think of it as prioritizing one more than the other. I think they are deeply connected. And I don't think play is a choice between priorities. You have not mentioned fun at all as a priority, only player driven agency. I wouldnt' assume based on that, that you are deprioritizing fun, or that your games are necessarily less fun because you are making agency the most important thing

Because what is fun will vary by person. Usually according to their priorities! So fun isn't really useful to discuss. We're all playing to have fun.

Priorities do indeed conflict at times. Some of the examples we've discussed show that, clearly.

 

[robertsconley]

I think a murder mystery is a horrible example to bring up if you want to avoid playing through the GM's story. It's almost entirely that. The major exercise of agency in play would be to just walk away from the mystery entirely.

All I can say when I release my Scourge of the Demon Wolf, 2nd edition I will be glad to comp you the PDF.

Three died. They were mauled beyond recognition. The Baron sent his huntsmen to kill the beasts and for a fortnight they tramped across the countryside. Between their whoring and drinking they killed twelve wolves, parading their skins through the village. They were hung on poles as trophies of victory. Then the huntsmen left, the beasts slain, the village saved… so we thought.

As the fields turned golden under the summer sun the killings began again. Four more died. Then the Baron’s man, the bailiff, was killed on the high meadow in sight of Mitra’s Temple. His screams could be heard well into the village. He was only identified after we reassembled the pieces.

With the priest’s help, I wrote a report to our liege, the Baron of Westtower. My report ended with,
There will be no harvest until the beast is slain, and the killings stop.

Until then, all I can offer is this.
Scourge of the Demon Wolf Review

I have run the adventure 20 times down at cons, and games tore. While there were common patterns (which allowed me to write the product), no one group handled it the same way, and there were some very unique resolutions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Self-analysis--which is what Lanefan talked about--is not automatically "jargon-filled game theory". It still requires introspection, and if you're not willing to do some of that, I'm hard pressed to think you actually know why you're doing some of what you do. People don't in any other field without that, why would here be any different?

Not automatically, no. But judging from what I've seen in this thread from some posters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not automatically, no. But judging from what I've seen in this thread from some posters.

That's their problem (well, and the problem to some degree of the people they insist on it from). But it doesn't change that you can't talk about why you use the GMing style you do without taking the time to think about that.

 

[pemerton]

If you can't trust the referee the game is probably not going to be successful regardless of what rules you have in place.

Trust them to do what?

I've been a player for about 10 or so sessions in the past decade. I've GMed many more than that. When I GM, I don't want to be playing a storyteller/railroad game. Which is why I like systems that create structures and processes that don't require me to do that.

I posted an example oF what I want to avoid in the current "GM mistakes" thread: when GMing Rolemaster, the PCs had a powerful faction acting against them. I, as GM, had to decide how much effort the faction devoted to thwarting the PCs, and how seriously the resources dedicated to that effort were deployed. The rules of the game gave me measures for things like how many and how potent spells can a NPC cast, but nothing more. So all the rest was simply up to me to decide, with the upshot of my decision being the full gamut from the PCs experience little threat to the PCs are utterly hosed.

RM has no inherent devices for handling or mitigating this, because it's mechanics are basically more elaborate and simulationist versions of classic D&D mechanics (with a few exceptions - eg it has rudimentary but still workable social mechanics); but it assumes a completely different framing context from the very artificial environment of the classic D&D dungeon (which constrains and channels possible threats so the PCs don't get automatically hosed by the forces arrayed against them).

This experience is one reason why I prefer systems that - like classic D&D - provide a framework for the introduction and prosecution of adversity, but - unlike classic D&D - have a framework that will work in the more verisimilitudinous/naturalistic contexts that I prefer.

To give a concrete illustration of what I mean: in the most recent session of my Torchbearer 2e game, two PCs escaped from a prison in Wintershiven (the capital of the Theocracy of the Pale), abetted by a third PC. So there are now agents of the Pale who are hostile to them. But I don't, as GM, need to make any decisions in advance about who those agents are, how effective they are, etc - the sorts of decisions that I had to make in the RM game. Rather, the resolution system tells me (through various of its devices, like the rules for failed tests, the rules for events, etc) when I need to introduce "unanticipated" adversity, and there are also clear frameworks for establishing its difficulty, and there are clear frameworks for resolving conflicts (including clear rules for when PC death is on the line).

There is all the verisimilitude and vibrancy of my old RM game - I'm even using my same beloved 1980 Greyhawk Folio maps (though I think I actually got my copy in 1983 or perhaps early '84). But the game system improves the playability, by establishing clear procedures for the presentation and unfolding of PC-threatening adversity.

Talking about "trust in the GM" - as in, whether or not I trust myself (to do what?) - is a red herring.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Did the player know the odds? (This might matter, for instance, if the player rolls a 2 and needs to decide whether or not it is worth spending Inspiration.)

I will admit he didn't. This is something I personally need (want) to improve on specifically when it is not planned and I'm scrambling to to create the the story, the habit of not player-facing these mechanics is something I'm in the process of unlearning.
It is easier when it is planned, but in the spur of the moment that is when I forget. Perhaps I need to slow the game down for myself.

But anyway, this does not seem to be an example of the GM having decided, in secret, that a NPC can't be persuaded to do some relevant thing. Unless I've misunderstood, it looks like the opposite of that.

Yes in that example, but I wanted to highlight what could happen to someone who was obstinate and unyielding (in terms of this thread cannot be bribed) with the PCs in prior interactions. This shows an evolved relationship where PCs had no chance before, then it reached a boiling point and now finally it looks like there could be some leeway as parties find a more even footing between each other.
When the concept of this NPC was created I had no idea where it would lead. Only thing that was certain was that there would be friction, and that was kind of the point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not nearly as much as they used to. Resource management of the mundane sort is not really a major concern with D&D these days, Lanefan. There are just bucket loads of abilities that obviate all such obstacles, and most are easily available, many as early as at character creation.

If you asked a 5e player how many torches he had, he's likely scissor kick you in the jaw with his footbone.



I give you almost all of D&D since the Hickman revolusion, sir.



Not really. What's immersive will vary. Personally, I don't find it immersive to rely on minimal information and have to constantly ask about things that would be readily apparent or easily discernable to my character.



Again, this is all in how it's presented and what the player is allowed to know or to potentially learn.

Where is it posted that this thread concerns itself only with modern D&D? Could have sworn the tag said D&D General.