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

[Maxperson]

What am I ignoring? And on what am I wrong?

Much of what I have said in this thread.

Are you asserting that you don't accord overwhelming authority to the GM in ddtermining what PCs know?

Standard book authority is not overwhelming. And as I have said(and you ignored), I don't even engage in the full book authority.

Are you denying that such an approach would be a very strong form of GM-gating?

Why do you think DM gating is always a bad thing?

Do you disagree that thin PC background produces pawn stance? If so, what's the basis for your disagreement?

Probably because they aren't pawns. They are in actor stance. You are incorrectly attributing pawn to my style of play. Pawn is specifically an aspect of Author stance, and one can which involve metagaming.

Relevant quote from the link, "In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)"

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/

So without your weak justifications, the Author using personal knowledge to determine character decisions based on that person's priorities is making his PC a pawn.

There is nothing about how I run the game that removes the PCs will about what he engages in during game play. That's what Pawn stance is. It's having the PC act without a reason in the game to act in the way that it does. Nobody who plays my game does that, and if someone did, I would talk to them about it. Either to explain why metagaming isn't allowed, or to help them understand how to roleplay better(for my game) for those who aren't metagaming. The stance in my games is primarily actor.

 

[Maxperson]

More from Over the Edge (p 196 of 20th Anniversary Edition):

Could vs Should
One creative block that often keeps GMs from winging an adventure successfully is clinging to what "should" happen instead of imagining what "could" happen.

For example, the PCs come into Sad Mary's and ask what the crowd looks like. One way to answer the question is to refer to premises and deduce the logical result. Sad Mary's is on the Plaza of Fowers, and lots of artists live in that area, so you deduce that the crowd has more than its share of artistic types. That's deduction: that's interpreting what should happen.

On the other hand, you could answer that same question by deciding what would be interesting. A bunch of off-duty peace officers, guns in evidence, could be hanging around. There's nothing in the [setting] text about Sad Mary's that says that peace officers frequent the place, but it's not impossible. And it's interesting, especially if the PCs have been to Sad Mary's a gew times already and don't expect to meet Peace Officers here. Now, of course you have to come up with a good reason for their presence. Maybe a friend of theirs is performing. Maybe they just like unsettling people. If you can't figure a good reason, then maybe no one knows. The PCs ask a waiter why all the peace officers are here, and he says he doesn't know. The PC asks a peace officer, and the officer gives some lame excuse. Generally, however, you can figure some reason, and it may lead to new plot ideas. . . .

Unless your [campaign] is going out of control from sheer entropy, make things up based on what coul dhappen, not on what should.​

I think this is relevant to the discussion of sudden revelations (whether GM or player authored, like the PC who turns out to be a noble), as well as the original discussion of searching for sect members.

I prefer to mix the two. If the PCs go to Sad Mary's on the Plaza of Flowers, they will note an over abundance of artists AND perhaps the extra off duty guards hanging around. I see no reason why what should happen and what could happen can't coexist.

 

[Sadras]

I have allowed rolls like that, but the DC is generally significantly higher since the players almost always ask me who is in the taverns they go to, so I have a good idea of who has been around to talk and adventuring groups are uncommon.

This might be a reason of some of the disconnect that occurs here between the various posters. You seem to play a highly detailed game whereas [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] primarily focuses on story-moving scenes, so that level of character engagement with the setting that your table experiences is glossed over fairly quickly by him - thereby it makes sense for Pemerton's table to use a die roll for knowledge gained to cover the RPing aspect (conversations, books read, tales listened to) that your table actually experiences as part of the roleplay.

I switch between the two styles during a session, depending on pacing. I have certainly moved towards a faster paced game of late, given that my playtime has been reduced to 6-10 hours per month if we are lucky.

 

[Maxperson]

Speaking for myself (but I don't believe my case to be uncommon), due to RL and time constraints, I got forced into winging it, and the frequency of being thrust into that situation increased as my responsibilities as an adult grew. With everything else one keeps practicing, I became more adept at it.
I believe you have to find the right balance for oneself. There are still a few things that throw me off still, especially if it relates to world-building, but as for normal in-game creativity that doesn't phase me as it once did.

Same here. When I prep for a game, it's usually just an outline with a few encounters. Most of the guts are done via improv as I just don't have the time to spend hours and hours figuring a bunch of stuff out. Even that outline is just an idea for me about what I think the most likely direction that could happen is. I've gamed with my players for a long time, so I can often predict what they will choose to do, but they still zig when I think they will zag fairly often. When they do, the outline breaks and even more improv happens.

I imagine the noble background example though might touch on the world-building aspect and that is why some might prefer not to wing it. It certainly does require a little more flexibility on the part of the DM in this regard.

The noble background doesn't bother me, but as it comes with such a huge advantage most of the time, it's just not something players can pick. It's similar to how I won't just let someone pick an adult gold dragon for a PC.

 

[Maxperson]

This might be a reason of some of the disconnect that occurs here between the various posters. You seem to play a highly detailed game whereas [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] primarily focuses on story-moving scenes, so that level of character engagement with the setting that your table experiences is glossed over fairly quickly by him - thereby it makes sense for Pemerton's table to use a die roll for knowledge gained to cover the RPing aspect (conversations, books read, tales listened to) that your table actually experiences as part of the roleplay.

To be honest, I'd prefer not to have to figure out who is in each tavern(and I don't bother until the players ask), but the players will usually ask me and I'll quickly figure it out with a few rolls. It's important to them for some reason, so I will know the levels, classes, races, sexes, etc. of most of the patrons. It just works out that way for me.

I switch between the two styles during a session, depending on pacing. I have certainly moved towards a faster paced game of late, given that my playtime has been reduced to 6-10 hours per month if we are lucky.

I get about 16-20 hours of game time a month as I have the Thursday evening time slot blocked off for gaming. It's the prep time that kills me. I work, get home and help my wife with my son's dinner. After dinner my 5 year old son likes to play with me, or perhaps it's bath night. Then my wife and I have dinner and an hour or so of our time to catch up on talking about the day and whatever shows are on the DVR. Then I have about an hour to myself, which by that point is not something I generally want to spend prepping for a game as it's my only hour to just relax before the next day. My weekends are usually busier since that's when my wife and I have time to do events with the family. I only get about 2-4 hours a month to prep, and sometimes less than that.

 

[Caliburn101]

When I run a game I just have a list of very common things one would learn as a wet-behind-the-ears adventurer in your first conversation with a veteran around a tavern table as known.

The idea that troll regeneration not being front and centre of a conversation like that is counterintuitive to me.

How I do this at the table is say that anything more commonly encountered within the CR range of a first tier of play adventurer (CR up to 5) is not a secret unless it's a rare creature. So people know kobolds and cowards and trap-makers, ogres are massively stupid, trolls regenerate unless you burn them one way or the other and bears do indeed in the woods.

The rest - gelatinous cubes and oozes, the differences between ghasts and ghouls, shadow's strength drain - well, that's a knowledge check.

 

[Sadras]

The noble background doesn't bother me, but as it comes with such a huge advantage most of the time, it's just not something players can pick. It's similar to how I won't just let someone pick an adult gold dragon for a PC.

I agree there is certainly more pause for thought when someone selects noble background* than say an acolyte, charlatan or mercenary background....etc

*And I do not mean like a knight, but rather a landed knight or a title of baron/ess or higher.

 

[Sadras]

The idea that troll regeneration not being front and centre of a conversation like that is counterintuitive to me.

I like your ideas overall, and much would depend on setting, but the conversation the last ten or so pages had shifted between player and character knowledge of monsters and whatnot and whether one should/does roleplay their character without such knowledge even though the player knows the creature's vulnerabilities.

 

[Caliburn101]

I like your ideas overall, and much would depend on setting, but the conversation the last ten or so pages had shifted between player and character knowledge of monsters and whatnot and whether one should/does roleplay their character without such knowledge even though the player knows the creature's vulnerabilities.

Understood - interesting, because I have a 'rule' for that too, in keeping with my trying to keep meta and gameworld reality from colliding too often at the table.

Firstly I adapt the rule about low CR creatures upwards and inform my players what they have heard about a creature - but only after they have identified it. I don't say, "You are attacked by a Bulette…" I describe it. Secondly if metagameyness (which my Session 0's always cover in terms of my expectations of it's absence...) crops up in this regard I change the vulnerability or expected abilities to the next most intuitive thing, or something interesting that provides a good twist.

For instance, the last time I pulled this I turned a Medusa into a vampire-style enemy after a PC bought antitoxins and large steel mirrors for the party without so much as a query to me on what their character knew. So I decided that the Medusa did physical & bonus necrotic with her weapons, her snake bites did the Vampire stat-block Bite attack and her gaze delivered the Vampire Charm ability - so reflecting it did nothing to her. The players LOVED that encounter - having to react on the fly to an encounter that was utterly different both terrified and delighted them. If I remember it rightly the Cleric (maybe Paladin...) in the party was the first to realise they were facing an undead, but only after the first two rounds of confusion and 'crap that didn't work' chaos. I think the IC expletive "Pelor's balls - she's an undead blood sucker!" or words to that effect were used. Kudos to the woman playing the character for being in-game sweary - always love it when people method act!

After the fight I then took the player to one side in a break and asked them not to do that again - all it takes is a quick knowledge roll or a bit of party research and I will always be willing to impart what is gained through success in such efforts.

They all got the picture in any case.

Assuming get's you dead - always do you research...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that for me and my group, we’ve stopped looking at our game as a game, as contradictory as it sounds. It’s much more an exercise in collaborative storytelling. This is generally speaking; obviously, what game we are playing has a huge impact on how we proceed, but that mindset does inform how we proceed regardless of system.

So even with a game that’s very challenge oriented like D&D, there’s a lot less concern about something being an “unfair” advantage because everyone’s working toward making the story more interesting, rather than worrying about trying to win. So to beat a dead horse a bit more, a player introducing the idea that his character has an Uncle Elmo who’s given
him adventuring advice isn’t a “weak justification” to gain an “unfair advantage” (nice pejoratives, those!) so much as a clever way to introduce a fictional element that helps move the game forward and also adds to the world the PCs inhabit. Any GM would be happy to have such a connection to work with, I would think, especially since so many characters seem to always be free of such connections.

When it comes to 5E specifically, one of the things I’ve started doing is emulating the “partial success” or “success with a complication” from more narrative games and incorporating it into D&D by having tiered DCs for most tasks. So a DC of 12 grants partial success/ success with complication, DC 16 is a full success, and DC 20 is a Critical success. The actual numbers will adjust up or down a bit depending on the actual task, but that’s the gist.

I think this works so well because partial successes are so interesting, and actually add to the fiction as you play. They also remove some of the binary “pass/fail” issues with skill checks in D&D. It still relies pretty heavily on GM judgment in establishing the DCs, but I find it really opens up play.

I’ve also started using Clocks as presented in Blades in the Dark. Just a nice little mechanism to help make skill challenges a bit clearer and meaningful.

These two minor alterations have really worked for my game.