A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[innerdude]

Exploration is such a weird, interesting thing for me, because I've always LOVED the sense of exploration in every aspect of gaming.

Take two recent video game examples:

I've been playing through the nearly-25-year-old game, Crusader: No Remorse which I picked up on GOG.com a while ago. I played it waaaaay back in the day when it first game out, and from the first time I played it, THE MOST ENGAGING THING about the whole experience was the sense of exploration. How did I get from A to B? Where did that blind hallway actually go? The whole idea was just to poke into every corner I could, because . . . it made me happy.

Reading through some GameFAQs walkthroughs, several of the guides pointed out that you can totally "shortcut" through the levels to get to the end faster. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of the type of experience I was wanting to have with the game.

I'm also a big fan of the Trine game series (Trine 1 and 2). A few days ago I was playing while two of my daughters watched and hung out with me, and there were several moments where they were saying, "Dad, you don't HAVE to get every single flask of XP in the game!" To which I immediately replied, "Yes, I do!" I would spend 15-20 minutes trying to figure out how to capture one small, relatively insignificant item in the game, but just HAD to prove to myself that I could do it.

So I am completely drawn in by the concept of exploration in pen-and-paper RPGs as well.

I think for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], though, the draw isn't to just "see what's around the next corner." There's exploration-for-exploration's sake, and there's exploration-for-the-sake-of-revealing-character-driven-stakes.

And even in spite of my love of exploration in gaming, I can sort of see his point. Exploration-for-exploration's sake in TTRPGs is ultimately a zero sum game. The very open-ended nature of the enterprise basically ensures you'll never run out of un-poked corners. I think for anyone other than a very small subset of gamers who are wholly committed to "The Sandbox" as an end of its own, this kind of exploration-for-exploration's sake gameplay wears thin rather quickly.

TTRPG play becomes more interesting when there's something of value at stake for the characters within the fiction, and the pursuit of those stakes gets expressed by the players.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think for @pemerton, though, the draw isn't to just "see what's around the next corner." There's exploration-for-exploration's sake, and there's exploration-for-the-sake-of-revealing-character-driven-stakes.

And even in spite of my love of exploration in gaming, I can sort of see his point. Exploration-for-exploration's sake in TTRPGs is ultimately a zero sum game. The very open-ended nature of the enterprise basically ensures you'll never run out of un-poked corners. I think for anyone other than a very small subset of gamers who are wholly committed to "The Sandbox" as an end of its own, this kind of exploration-for-exploration's sake gameplay wears thin rather quickly.

TTRPG play becomes more interesting when there's something of value at stake for the characters within the fiction, and the pursuit of those stakes gets expressed by the players.

It is fine that Pemerton has this preference. I think if he likes that, he should continue to game that way and post about it. My issue in this thread is the way our style is being characterized, and the way their style if being presented as an almost more enlightened approach to gaming. I also should say, this isn't just about exploration. I've said over and over, my games are drama and sandbox they are living adventures that largely are character driven. In my present wuxia campaign, I do create a JIanghu, a martial world to explore, but there are people in it with goals, and the players have goals and these things constantly intersect, clash and lead to drama. But I still tun things in the traditional way. It is a method that works well for me. I get some people want to do things like set stakes. That is fine. My interest is in immersive play. I do realize, based on previous posts and interactions I've with Pemerton and others, there are some big disagreements on what immersion means. But I can tell you, the way I play is so I can experience the immersion I want in a game. And it leads to a lot of fun evenings for me. So it is just incredibly frustrating to be told, over and over, that our style is either some how broken (mother may I), or not really what we think it is, or that we secretly want some other approach. Like I've said countless times, I am not very rigid about how I run a game. I adapt to my group, I try out different things. And one of the reasons I avoid discussions like this is the longer I participate the more I find my self being forced to stake positions for the sake of building an argument, and I think it leads away from regular table play. I don't even think this conversation is at all about table play. It is about people winning a style argument and controlling the dialogue about gaming. I don't honestly believe anything good has come from this or the other thread. There hasn't been any increased understanding of peoples styles. It has just seen an increase in hostility and divisive rhetoric. And it is all to serve the interests of promoting one play style over another.

Edit: And just to be clear Innerdude, I am not directing this post at you. I don't think I had any trouble interacting with you in that thread. You had your position, but you were still open to what I was saying and there was a legitimate give and take. But this thread, was started as an attack on one of my posts in that thread. And it the OP of this thread is a level of navel gazing I didn't think was possible in the hobby.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well this here is a big part of the disconnect... I, like you actually enjoy exploration games, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has made it clear in other threads that he doesn't particularly value exploration in his games (and please correct me if I am mistaken here). Personally I see that as a gigantic flaw and a limitation in his style and techniques of play, as well as something that isn't really addressed or explored in any of his arguments (except to dismiss it as something he is not interested or frame it negatively... as opposed to exploring it's actual merits and flaws in a neutral manner).

If he doesn't like it that is fine. My problem isn't him wanting to play another kind of game. I've said that countless times. My issue is he keeps framing these discussion in a way that is totally dismissive of things other people do that obviously work at the table the for them. And he builds these crazy arguments around each word that comes out of your mouth. This is not a normal conversation.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hard No's in the Combat Pillar (i.e. immunity to x damage) are A-ok, however
Hard No's in the Exploration or Social Pillar = Mother May I

That's interesting. This is actually a really good point and a good contribution. It would have been nice if discussion emerged around it.

I have some underdeveloped thoughts on why that is (in standard D&D), but I'm not certain. I'll have to think on it some more.

 

[Manbearcat]

I propose we change the term "Saying yes" to Daddy thankyou

Although I know this is snark, I have two thoughts:

1) "Daddy" here would be the designer, not the GM (it only works that way).

2) It does actually carry explanatory power that way if the intent is being appreciative of a certain sort of empowerment.

 

[Manbearcat]

I take exception to describing how the game is intended to be played as a DM flaw. It's not a flaw to be in charge of content introduction. It's the rules. It's also a style of play different from yours, but no less valid of fun(for those that like the style).

Let me clarify what my intent was with that post (and the other posts around it).

When I invoked "entitlement to absolute authority over content introduction", I wasn't referring to an inevitable outgrowth of a regime of GMing of the sort we're discussing here.

I was invoking the possible operant conditioning landmine of such a regime (particularly for evolved chimps like us that have stratified their social groups via establishment of various dominance hierarchies)...and how that force-multiplies, or pushes back against, other behaviors.

GMing under the burden of such a responsibility can induce a sense of duty and sacrifice to the betterment of the collective (as both an exemplar to aspire to and simply as a vessel for enjoyment)...or a sense of entitlement (which can then be abused to the detriment of the whole).

 

[pemerton]

If I am a player for example, and Bill is running a world. I am fine with the idea that Bill's brain effectively is the universe. There are quirks that are unique to Bill that will consistently come up for sure. But that world is going to have its own internal logic and rhythm because it is all coming from Bill. And Bill is a real GM. I remember a campaign where we were in a city where all the magic users were treated like gods, and I got it into my head to become the local god of Coffee and start a temple. Every time I went somewhere to find out if some resource or potential ally or worshipper was available, he didn't 'say yes or roll', he didn't 'say yes', nor did he have a set of clear procedures. He just decided in most cases.

This is exactly why I describe the focus of player activity in these games learning what is in Bill's notes. Some of those notes are literally such. Some are notional notes - ie Bill hsan't thought about it before, and so hasn't yet written it into his notes, but when prompted to decide makes a decision which then becomes part of the GM's setting notes.

 

[pemerton]

"Saying Yes" per se doesn't mean much: it was originally phrased Say yes or roll the Dice, and in that game was RAW, not a suggestion.

<snip>

not even there players had the authority to create new content about the setting/situation out of their head, because prep & plot by Gm.

Right. This is why I've said multiple times in this thread and the companion thread that a discussion which proceeds in disregard of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" is pretty close to useless.

The notion that the alternative are GM unilaterall decision-making or player unilateral decision-making is ridiculous: it's not how any part of AD&D combat works, for example, just to point to probably the best-known mechanical framework in the history of RPGing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is exactly why I describe the focus of player activity in these games learning what is in Bill's notes. Some of those notes are literally such. Some are notional notes - ie Bill hsan't thought about it before, and so hasn't yet written it into his notes, but when prompted to decide makes a decision which then becomes part of the GM's setting notes.

That doesn't capture what is going on in my opinion. But I am not going to argue with you about the point because I honestly don't think there is any convincing you.

You can describe virtually any play style in dismissive or negative terms. Doing so just ensures you will probably never really understand or appreciate where people who enjoy that style are coming from. All it seems you have been doing is finding ways to negatively characterize this style of play.

 

[pemerton]

Well this here is a big part of the disconnect... I, like you actually enjoy exploration games, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has made it clear in other threads that he doesn't particularly value exploration in his games (and please correct me if I am mistaken here).

Exploration is such a weird, interesting thing for me, because I've always LOVED the sense of exploration in every aspect of gaming.

<snip>

I think for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], though, the draw isn't to just "see what's around the next corner." There's exploration-for-exploration's sake, and there's exploration-for-the-sake-of-revealing-character-driven-stakes.

And even in spite of my love of exploration in gaming, I can sort of see his point. Exploration-for-exploration's sake in TTRPGs is ultimately a zero sum game. The very open-ended nature of the enterprise basically ensures you'll never run out of un-poked corners. I think for anyone other than a very small subset of gamers who are wholly committed to "The Sandbox" as an end of its own, this kind of exploration-for-exploration's sake gameplay wears thin rather quickly.

TTRPG play becomes more interesting when there's something of value at stake for the characters within the fiction, and the pursuit of those stakes gets expressed by the players.

To be frank, I'll put the richness and colour of my gameworlds up against those of anyone else posting in this thread. I've got lots of actual play threads on these boards, and have linked to some in this thread.

Here's a quote from one of them (on rpg.net):

I started things in the Hardby market: Jobe was looking at the wares of a peddler of trinkets and souvenirs, to see if there was anything there that might be magical or useful for enchanting for the anticipated confrontation with his brother. Given that the brother is possessed by a demon, he was looking for something angelic. The peddler pointed out an angel feather that he had for sale, brought to him from the Bright Desert. Jobe (who has, as another instinct, to always use Second Sight), used Aura Reading to study the feather for magical traits. The roll was a failure, and so he noticed that it was Resistant to Fire (potentially useful in confronting a Balrog) but also cursed. (Ancient History was involved somehow here too, maybe as a FoRK into Aura Reading (? I can't really remember), establishing something about an ancient battle between angels and demons in the desert.)

My memory of the precise sequence of events is hazy, but in the context the peddler was able to insist on proceeding with the sale, demanding 3 drachmas (Ob 1 resource check). As Jobe started haggling a strange woman (Halika) approached him and offered to help him if he would buy her lunch. Between the two of them, the haggling roll was still a failure, and also the subsequent Resources check: so Jobe got his feather but spent his last 3 drachmas, and was taxed down to Resources 0. They did get some more information about the feather from the peddler, however - he bought it from a wild-eyed man with dishevelled beard and hair, who said that it had come from one of the tombs in the Bright Desert.

<snip>

Jobe, having both nobility and sorcerers in his circles, and a +1D affiliation with both (from Mark of Privilege and a starting affiliation with a sorcerous cabal), initially thought of trying to make contact with the Gynarch of Hardby, the sorceress ruler of that city. But then he thought he might start a little lower in the pecking order, and so decided to make contact with the red-robed firemage Jabal (of the Cabal). With Circles 2 he attempted the Ob 2 check, and failed.

So, as the 3 PCs were sitting in the Green Dragon Inn (the inn of choice for sorcerers, out-of- towners and the like), putting out feelers to Jabal, a thug wearing a rigid leather breastplate and openly carrying a scimitar turned up with a message from Jabal: Leave town, now. You're marked. Halika noticed him looking at the feather sticking out from Jobe's pouch as he said that: it seemed that the curse had already struck!

Argument ensued, but attempts to persuade, and to intimidate, both failed, and they didn't want to start a fight in the inn. Once they got outside, however, with Athog (the thug) ready to escort them to the East Gate, the elf said something to provoke him to draw his scimitar by way of threat. The player of the elf decided that this was enough provocation to justify an honourable elf striking a blow, and brought his Brawling 5 to bear on the situation. This was the first and only combat of the session, which I decided to resolve as Bloody Versus. The elf had a 1D advantage from skills, plus the same from greater Reflex, and another bonus from somewhere else that I'm forgetting, although I gave Athog +1D for sword vs fist. In any event the elf won outright, successfully evading the sword and delivering a superficial wound to Athog as he grabbed his sword hand and forced him to the ground.

Halika helped herself to Athog's purse (+1D cash, and no longer being penniless) and scimitar, and they insisted that Athog take them to Jabal.

The trip to Jabal's tower took them through the narrow, winding streets of the city. When they got there, Jabal was suitably angry at his Igor-like servitor for letting them in, and at Athog for not running them out of town. They argued, although I don't think any social skill checks were actually made. Jabal explained that the curse on the feather was real, from a mummy in a desert tomb, and that he didn't want anything to do with Jobe while he was cursed. Jobe accepted his dressing down with suitable Base Humility, earning a fate point. (The second for the session from a character trait. During the exchange in the bar Halika, who as a one-time wizard's apprentice is Always in the Way, got in the way of Jobe doing something-or-other to earn a point.)

As the PCs left Jobe's tower, they noticed a dishevelled, wild-eyed figure coming down the stairs. This caused suitable speculation about the nature of Jabal's conspiracy with the person who had sold the feather to the peddler.

As they were walking to the East Gate their path took them back through the market, where they saw that peddler packing up: he had just had news that his wife and daughter, in a town to the south, had fallen gravely ill, and he was finishing his business in the city before taking a boat south at dawn. The players took this as a sign of the curse being at work on the feather's former owner. Jobe also took the time to make a Perception check to see if there was anything else valuable or magical among the things the peddler was packing up. I can't remember the Ob, but it was quite high, and the check failed: with his Second Sight he noticed, instead, a sending from Jabal which branded him with a +1 Ob penalty to sorcery while in the town, for having dallied on his way to the gate.

<snip>

Jobe and Halika sneaked into Jabal's tower to try and overhear dinner-time conversations between Jabal and the dishevelled man. Witch's Flight took Halika over the walls, and then - after moving Inconspicuously through town - the same spell took her to the top of Jabal's tower. Jobe, meanwhile, followed in falcon form.

From the top of the tower Halika used the knife from her traveller's gear to lift open the bar of the shutters (scoring the first Beginner's Luck test for Lockpicking). She went in, and the falcon flew in after her. They were in the classic wizard library and laboratory - beakers, retort stands, braziers with burning charcoal, etc, plus - away from the fires - shelves of books.

The falcon peered at the books and recognised (successful Perception) that one of them bore the symbols favoured by her brother. Squawking and fluttering in the general direction of the book, the falcon got Halika's attention. An Observation check revealed that the book had been placed on the shelf very recently, and a Symbology check revealed that, while the symbols on the book were unfamiliar, they were written in the hand of her former teacher. Just as she had taken the book from its shelf and shoved it into her pack, she heard a sound of wings coming down to the windowsill.

She hid (successful Stealth against the homunculus’s Perception). The falcon, with a +1D advantage for being small, made an untrained Stealth check which tied with the homunculus’s Perception, but then won on contested Speed check to get to cover before the homunculus had landed comfortably on the sill.

As the homunculus (which I described as crow-like, but with a human-ish face and all bones and feathers with little or no flesh) sat on the sill, they heard footsteps coming up the tower stairs, and Jabal opened the door. He seemed surprised that the window was open, but had a brief conversation with the homunculus - the homunculus spoke in a strange magical tongue, but from Jabal's side of the conversation the PCs could work out that the homunculus had been checking that they had left town, and so knew where they were camped outside the walls.

Jabal then shut the window, and went to take the book from the shelf. When it wasn't there, seemed puzzled again but muttered that he must have left it downstairs, and went down again with the homunculus. The PCs decided to take this chance to leave. Halika opened the windows, the falcon flew out, and then she climbed out. But before using Witch's Flight to leap down to the ground, she decided to shut the window behind her.

There's a town, a market, an inn and a street thug, a wizard's guild and tower, a mysterious peddler and a mysterious stranger, a curse from out of the Bright Desert, and more, all in two or three hours of play. If that doesn't count as establishing and exploring a setting, then I want to see actual play posts that will show us what is.