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

[Faolyn]

How can it work while simultaneously being impossible?

Magic.

I mean, we are talking D&D, right?

 

[AlViking]

Geez, are you seriously taking all that on yourself, they do not manage their own character sheets?

I remember when I first started DMing 4e. If you're familiar with the edition, there were a ton of conditions always being put on the characters and their enemies. So I'd put a pop bottle ring on their mini and tell them the condition. Then when it came around to their turn they'd expect me to remember exactly what conditions they had because I didn't already have enough to track. After that happened a couple times I double checked every condition they could possibly have and applied them all unless they could keep track of their own PC. Amazingly they suddenly developed memory better than a senile hamster quickly.

 

[Lanefan]

Geez, are you seriously taking all that on yourself, they do not manage their own character sheets?

At the end of each session I take notes on characters' hit points etc. for a few reasons:

--- if someone doesn't show next session we know the character's status (relevant as the character will still be played as normal)
--- some players track this stuff on the chalkboard, which serves as a table the rest of the week meaning things might get accidentally erased (and even more so when we had a cat!)
--- others sometimes track these things on little scraps of paper that, because we who live here often can't tell the difference between a scrap of paper relevant now and a scrap of paper from six months ago, get lost or chucked out during the week

 

[dave2008]

How can it work while simultaneously being impossible?

I said for practical purposes it is possible. It is clear to me that my mind works in ways that are impractical for most people.

 

[JConstantine]

My pet peeve along these lines is the Training downtime action.

Ah, yes, the Abu Salim special.

 

[pemerton]

both of you can frame the exact same scenario but how you adjudicate the player's declarations and how that plays out (consequences etc) may reflect the difference in techniques/approaches, but both of you would create a plausible and internally consistent storyline.

Right. I've talked about my techniques. They're not identical in every RPG, because the RPGs I play are different. Talking about just 3 of them:

*BW uses frame scenes based on player-determined PC priorities, intent-and-task and say 'yes' if nothing is at stake (as per the previous two principles) or otherwise roll the dice.

*TB2e differs from BW in multiple ways, but one of the most salient here is that it also uses random events tables to introduce new scenes and scene elements.

*Prince Valiant differs from BW in that it doesn't call for express player-determined PC priorities; rather the scenes/situations are constructed on the basis that they will prompt knights errant into some sort of action.​

But while recognising those differences, some things are the same. I will decide where NPCs are, and when they do their thing, based on framing concerns. So, for instance, in the example I posted upthread of the PCs in Prince Valiant meeting an abbot being accosted by bandits, I wasn't tracking the abbot and the bandits on any sort of map or time chart: I just narrated the scene.

The passage of time and distance in (my group's version of) Dark Ages Britain is not so precise that it makes no sense that such an encounter should occur.

And resolution is always by applying the rules. This is important, because in all 3 of these RPGs it is failed rolls by players that are one important prompt for the introduction of new complications into scenes, or the framing of new scenes, that make the game "go". Compared to other approaches that I have read about or experienced, this reduces the "GM guidance" aspect of how play unfolds: there is less of the GM just narrating, and saying "yes" to stuff that the GM thinks is easy or low stakes, and then narrating some more; and there is more of a focus on the PC's orientation to the current situation, and wanting something out of it.

This is also helped by relatively clean/simple resolution and consequence mechanics. For example, consider these from Prince Valiant (a couple of snippets of what I posted upthread):

The players made checks to see how their PCs' hunting was going (they don't like spending money on provisions!) - and poor rolls lead to the conclusion that they were rather lean and hungry, all three of them suffering a 1-die penalty to Brawn until they could get a good feed.

<snip>

the PCs' trip to Castle Hill gave me the chance to use a different scenario - the Rebellious Peasants in the main rulebook. The PCs were riding through a village surrounded by a low pallisade, having entered from the west, only to find the east gate shut against them and a band of peasants armed with pitchforks and crude spears behind them. Their reputation for favouring wealthy abbots over salt-of-the-earth outlaws had preceded them!

Sir Gerren tried to calm the peasants, but the rolled check failed (his Presence is not that strong and at that point he had not developed any Oratory). So his player decided to cash in his certificate to activate Arouse the Passion of a Crowd: his voice grew stronger and more sure, and he explained to the peasants the importance of mutuality and justice between all the king's subjects, which begins with free travel on the roads. The leader of the peasants acknowledged the truth of what he said, and apologised, explaining that it was their hunger that had driven them to such extremes. The PCs expressed sympathy, supped with them on some gruel, and rode on.

The first paragraph here shows how the in-fiction circumstance of being hungry due to bad luck hunting can easily be resolved and expressed in mechanical terms: roll Hunting against an appropriate obstacle, and if it fails take a -1 to Brawn until you eat properly. There is no need for complex systems of tracking days and rations and the like; the focus of play does not get shifted to wargame-esque logistics and resource management. The focus is on the characters and their growling stomachs.

The second paragraph shows how prior events (including in this case the snipped account of how the PCs helped the abbot over the outlaws) can easily be brought home through crisp framing. There is no need to track details of the PCs' movement on a map: we know that they're travelling to Castle Hill; the map (we are using the map on the inside cover of Pendragon 5.2) shows that that is a bit of a way; undoubtedly there are villages en route, and the PCs will be riding through them; and the framing here brings one of those villages to life.

Again, the focus is not on the logistics or management of the journey, but on a vivid situation that reflects what has gone before. The peasants are revolting! The failed Oratory roll could have been ugly, but Sir Gerren's player has his certificate, and chose to cash it in.

Relating this to what I posted above about there being no "finish line" - because there is no "adventure" here, and no GM-determined trajectory, the player doesn't need to worry that he is "wasting" his resource at the wrong time. This situation is just as salient, just as important, as any that has preceded it and any that might follow. And instead of ending in bloodshed (had the PCs fought and won) or robbery and ransom (the likely outcome of the peasants winning a fight), it ended with the knights and peasants in a type of (feudally-mediated) solidarity.

The techniques I used in these episodes - clear and deliberate framing, following the players' leads, applying the action resolution mechanics - all combined to produce (if I do say so myself!) a vivid sense of the setting, the people, the social relationships (knights, abbots, peasants, outlaws) and the deeds of the PC knights. And that's deliberate - that it what I was aiming for, and within the limits of amateur hobbyism I was satisfied that it was achieved.

 

[pemerton]

it's very silly to reduce playstyle down to a few options like this. People are complex and roleplay in different ways at different times.

No one is "reducing" anything:

I'd say almost every player actually uses each stance

And from here: "Stance is very labile during play, with people shifting among the stances frequently and even without deliberation or reflection."

As a player, if the GM didn't describe a cup, I would say "is there a cup around?" The GM would likely either say "yes, there's one right there" or "no, you don't see any", and the latter would be because there are literally no visible cups--they're put away in cupboards, underneath discarded clothes or other junk, deliberately hidden away in a secret drawer--(edit) or there are actually no cups at all.

The example you gave is basically, the cup is important to the PC, therefore, the PC rolls to make it exist, which strikes me as Authorial by the definitions you copypasted above.

In terms of stance, what happened in my game is identical to what you describe here: the player declares an action (in actor stance, because the PC needs a cup and so looks around for on); and then that action declaration is resolved.

In your description that I've just quoted, the action ("I look around for a cup") is resolved by the GM deciding. In my example, it's resolved by rolling a Perception test. Neither of those is relevant to stance - stance is about the context/manner/upshot of a player's declared action, not how the declared action is resolved.

In both your case and my case, if the upshot of the declared action is that a cup is narrated that was not previously an element of the shared fiction, then we have had a moment of director stance (because the action determines some aspect of the environment - here, a vessel - that is separate from the character's ability to influence events).

The fact that in your example the cup would be there because the GM decides it is; and that in my example the vessel was there because the player succeeded on their roll; doesn't change anything about stance.

 

[pemerton]

So, when I play Vampire - The Requiem, Dune 2d20, Monsterhearts, Apocalypse World or Sorcerer because the scenarios and world building come out of who the characters are and breathe life to a particular location I get to just play a character who is going about their life in a world that is not built for adventure. Because the GM and the game are handling the make things exciting and engaging part as a player, I do not have to do it. I don't have to go out and explore a world or seek adventure. I get to play a person who strives, who loves, who has responsibilities, has friends and family they don't have to leave behind. I do not have to tie myself into knots or deal with the sorts of setting level contrivances that drive me crazy in Vampire: The Masquerade and most D&D settings.

I get to just play my character with integrity and not be responsible for making the game go. That to me feels organic as a player.

Don't get me wrong. I like D&D. I like Monster of the Week. But when I play them I kind have to twist myself into knots and engage less with the character I'm playing and kind of glance over some of the setting level stuff that takes me out of it. Something being designed top-down does not make it not contrived.

I don't want to put words into your mouth . . .

But what you say here makes me think about my own experiences playing Thurgon and Aedhros in BW, as well as what I posted just upthread about GMing Prince Valiant.

You seem to be describing a lot of actor stance action declaration - that is, no need to "glance over" the board and the game context to work out what you "should" be doing, and then retroactively motivate your PC to do that.

And you seem to be describing relatively vivid situations for your PC that just "emerge" out of them being who they are, doing their thing.

I've got no doubt the details - not just of genre, but of how people interact at the table, actually portray their characters and narrate scenes, etc - are different. But the general structures / character of what you describe seems familiar to me.

 

[pemerton]

There were three popes in two-and-a-half months in 1978. Weird stuff happens.

Likewise at one point during the "Babylonian captivity" - and they were all "popes" simultaneously!

 

[Maxperson]

What? How does what's plausible "exist outside the DM"?

Because he can't determine was is or is not plausible. He can only say what he thinks is plausible. If my fighter swings a sword at an orc, a plausible result is a hit or a miss. The DM can't say that as a result of my sword swing, the moon explodes and have it be plausible just because he said so.

What is or is not plausible can be seen by everyone. It's not something the only exists within and is determined by the DM.

I mean... someone moving is perfectly plausible.

What if the GM, as part of their living world process, had already determined that this person would leave town on such and such date? And then the PCs attempted their move after that date?

Then when the PCs were there, everything would have been packed up and the store closed. There would be signs of the impending move. If any merchandise was still on the shelves, the merchant would be like buy it now, because it will be gone tomorrow because I'm leaving town.

There would be clear signs and roleplay around such a move.

But that doesn't mean that the NPC leaving town is implausible.

In the way it happened it does.

Bwah haha hahahahaha the Forgotten Realms yes, yes a bastion of plausibility!