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

[pemerton]

Maxperson, I'm going to restate some questions because you didn't answer them.

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?

I think it's something I don't enjoy. I gather you do. But both those facts are irrelevant to my question, which I'll restate:

I assert that a game in which the GM has pre-eminent, overwhelming authority in ddtermining what PCs know is one that involves heavy GM-gating, not just of action resolution outcomes but action declaration (as has emerged in the fire vs troll discussion). Do you disagree?

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.

This is not an answer to my question, so I'll try it again:

Actor stance, as defined by Ron Edwards (and that's the only definition I'm aware of), consists in "a person determin[ing] a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have." My assertion is that this is possible only if the PC has relatively richly established knowledge, motivations, etc. Hence, in the absence of those things, what will result is pawn stance, that is, the player will "determine[] a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities". Because those real world priorities will be the only one's ready to hand (given the thinness of the PC's knowledge and motivations).

Do you disagree with this?

 

[pemerton]

Some thoughts on what it is plausible to suppose a starting PC might know:

(1) From Gygax's DMG (p 39):

Acquisition of Magic-User Spells
Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!). Having been a relatively apt pupil, worked diligently, and made every effort to please, master (or mistress, as the case may be) was kind enough to prepare a special present for the character before he or she goes out into the world to seek his or her fortune. At this juncture request the player to ready a piece of paper which will go into his or her records as a permanent fixture. Instruct the player to entitle the page "FIRST LEVEL SPELLS KNOWN".​

Now if we're talking realism, it seems inconceivable that a 6th or higher level magic-user would send his/her protege out into the world to seek his/her fortune without at least offering a few tips (such as that trolls regenerate unless burned by fire or acid). But obviously this bit of prose from Gygax is just a story-telling device (a "lampshade" as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] would say) to provide a fig-leaf of in-fiction explanation for the 1st level MUs training and spellbook.

In classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, AD&D) the player of a fighter is entitled to play as cleverly as the player of a MU. Different classes are expected to perform different functions, but not at different levels of skill - "skilled play" is possible independently of class. The player of a MU isn't privleged in this respect just because, in the backstory, s/he was taught by a high level MU.

**********************************

(2) The suggestion that PCs would acquire their information about the gameworld primarily from interactions in taverns is (to me) a sign of a very particular approach to FRPGing, which frames the PCs as "man with no name"-type wanderers (along the lines of REH's Conan) who have no roots or connections to the world in which they act.

Change the fiction to something more like RuneQuest or Chivalry & Sorcery and that suggestion makes little sense.

(It makes little sense also if one takes seriously Gygax's default MU backstory, but as I said at (1), that's just a device, not a serious part of the game.)

**********************************

(3) In games that exemplify (1) and/or (2) - which is to say, that treat PC backstory mostly as a "lampshading" device to explain character abilities, and/or that treat PCs as ungrounded individuals whose main source of socialisaiton is tavern interactions - the primary stance for play will be pawn stance: that is, players will declare action based on real world priorities (like "beat the dungeon" or, perhaps "rescue the children from the orcs") because there is little PC knowledge and motivation to draw upon, and hence no strong foundation for actor stance.

One of many reasons that drove games like C&S and RQ, in the late 70s, was to make actor stance possible, by establishing gameworlds, and PCs with groundings in those gameworlds, which would provide the requisite knowledge and motivations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because it makes sense to do it that way.



If the PCs find an obscure religious symbol in a ruin, make a religion check to know what it is. If they are wanting to know about the history of a town, make a history roll to know what it is. If they want to know what a plant does, make a nature check to know what it does. Contrary to your statement above, in-game considerations are pretty much all that there is. If I can't tie the information to something in game for the PC, the answer is going to be no, as there will be nothing in the PCs background, game experiences, skills, etc. that would give the PC a reasonable chance to know the information.

So, you're telling me you know all the experiences and all the possible things that every PC will ever have done, seen, or heard of in his or her life without any doubt? Pffft. Sorry, that is not supportable. Not even remotely.

I'm perfectly happy with notions like a player gating his ability to pull something off and staking his resources on making a knowledge check. It is no different, fundamentally, than an Athletics check used in an analogous way. I'm perfectly happy if the player and the GM agree that some information is much less likely to be known than other information (as long as the player is advised of this before something is done which hinges on it in general). There certainly CAN be information "no man knows" and that can form a dramatic need to find out. I just don't think that troll's vulnerability to fire is even close to that, or should be. This kind of thing should be reserved for purposes which require it, not sprinkled around like salt. I mean, PCs are already going to not know a lot of stuff, and the players are likely to not even know enough to ask about most of it, so it isn't like they're going to spoil every chance at discovery this way, far from it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So what. You have yet to show even a shred of evidence that all DM gating is bad. Gating is how games run.

Then how do you explain that I have literally authored an RPG in which this is not true? It is even basically using a variation of D&D rules. If your statement is true, then what, HoML doesn't exist and will implode into a black hole if someone tries to run it? Or is it not an RPG?

I've never played RuneQuest, so all I know of it that passage. That passage definitely limits PC knowledge, and disallows the player from using player knowledge for a PC that wouldn't have that knowledge.

But who decides which knowledge that is?

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's something I don't enjoy. I gather you do. But both those facts are irrelevant to my question, which I'll restate:

I assert that a game in which the GM has pre-eminent, overwhelming authority in ddtermining what PCs know is one that involves heavy GM-gating, not just of action resolution outcomes but action declaration (as has emerged in the fire vs troll discussion). Do you disagree?

I do disagree. Things limit what the player can declare for his PC. That's a fact of life for every game out there. Rules limit things, and the DM uses the rules to limit those things. Sometimes he engages some house rules which also limit things, but which are as much rules as any game rule out there. The gating is not the DM run amok, but rather the DM engaging the rules. What you call DM gating is nothing more than rules gating. The DM is just your scapegoat since it's his job to run the game. You may not like certain kinds of gating, but you do engage in it. We all do.

Within the limits provided by the rules, action declaration is affected. And D&D by RAW, and as I run it, is not one where the DM has "overwhelming authority to determine what the PCs know." I as DM am using the rules to determine what the PC knows via ability checks, etc. The vast majority of the time, I am not deciding it myself.

Actor stance, as defined by Ron Edwards (and that's the only definition I'm aware of), consists in "a person determin[ing] a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have." My assertion is that this is possible only if the PC has relatively richly established knowledge, motivations, etc. Hence, in the absence of those things, what will result is pawn stance, that is, the player will "determine[] a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities". Because those real world priorities will be the only one's ready to hand (given the thinness of the PC's knowledge and motivations).

It absolutely was an answer. You are using Pawn stance incorrectly, and I pointed out that I agree with the Forge's position that you are using it incorrectly.

Beyond my last answer, yes, I completely disagree with you. I have no problem making decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that that the character would have. Neither do my players. Establishing via rolls and occasionally DM decisions does not alter the fact that once I know what the knowledge and perceptions are, I am using only those to make my decisions and actions. There is nothing at all that even remotely places me into the pawn stance.

Now, will a 300 page thesis on the character's background, knowledge and more make it easier to make those decisions? Sure. But a half-page background, or even no background at all works just fine.

 

[Maxperson]

Now if we're talking realism, it seems inconceivable that a 6th or higher level magic-user would send his/her protege out into the world to seek his/her fortune without at least offering a few tips (such as that trolls regenerate unless burned by fire or acid). But obviously this bit of prose from Gygax is just a story-telling device (a "lampshade" as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] would say) to provide a fig-leaf of in-fiction explanation for the 1st level MUs training and spellbook.

Sure, but there is no guarantee that the 6th level master ever encountered or learned about trolls. His advice might just as well have been, "Don't stab a skeleton with a dagger. It won't go well for you."

(2) The suggestion that PCs would acquire their information about the gameworld primarily from interactions in taverns is (to me) a sign of a very particular approach to FRPGing, which frames the PCs as "man with no name"-type wanderers (along the lines of REH's Conan) who have no roots or connections to the world in which they act.

Who even suggested this? I have had one person ask me if I would use taverns as a possible source, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that they are better than libraries or universities.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you're telling me you know all the experiences and all the possible things that every PC will ever have done, seen, or heard of in his or her life without any doubt? Pffft. Sorry, that is not supportable. Not even remotely.

No, I'm not saying that. I don't need to know everything to have a reasonable idea based on background, play experiences and skills what the character would know(a little bit), not know(a little bit), and what would be in doubt requiring a roll(the vast majority). I'm not going to believe that you know all of those possible things, either. The player deciding on the spot =/= knowing. It's just changing who makes the decision.

I'm perfectly happy with notions like a player gating his ability to pull something off and staking his resources on making a knowledge check. It is no different, fundamentally, than an Athletics check used in an analogous way. I'm perfectly happy if the player and the GM agree that some information is much less likely to be known than other information (as long as the player is advised of this before something is done which hinges on it in general). There certainly CAN be information "no man knows" and that can form a dramatic need to find out. I just don't think that troll's vulnerability to fire is even close to that, or should be. This kind of thing should be reserved for purposes which require it, not sprinkled around like salt. I mean, PCs are already going to not know a lot of stuff, and the players are likely to not even know enough to ask about most of it, so it isn't like they're going to spoil every chance at discovery this way, far from it.

These are all fine opinions, and you can play that way no problem.

 

[Maxperson]

Then how do you explain that I have literally authored an RPG in which this is not true? It is even basically using a variation of D&D rules. If your statement is true, then what, HoML doesn't exist and will implode into a black hole if someone tries to run it? Or is it not an RPG?

The only way you played with no gating is there were no rules. Rules = ways to gate the players, and if you run the game by the rules, you are gating them as the person who is running those rules.

But who decides which knowledge that is?

Without further rule quoting from RuneQuest saying differently, it would say it has to be the DM. The DM is the one who runs the rules, and that's a rule.

 

[pemerton]

Ler's go back to Dungeon World, and the Thief move Trap Expert (DW p 138):

When you spend a moment to survey a dangerous area, roll +DEX.

*On a 10+, hold 3.
*On a 7–9, hold 1.

Spend your hold as you walk through the area to ask these questions:

• Is there a trap here and if so, what activates it?
• What does the trap do when activated?
• What else is hidden here?​

If a player in the game is playing a thief who surveys dangerous areas, then it becomes more likely that the fiction of that game will feature traps than otherwise would be the case. That is to say, the mechanics of the game mean that if you bring a thief into the game, you bring traps into the game.

This contrasts very markedly with Gygax's AD&D (and other versions of classic D&D). From Gygax's PHB (pp 18, 106):

The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class . . .

[C]lerics' major aims are to use their spell abilities to aid during any given encounter, fighters aim to engage in combat, magic-users aim to cast spells, thieves aim to make gain by stealth, and monks aim to use their unusual talents to come to successful ends. If characters gain treasure by pursuit of their major aims, then they are generally entitled to a full share of earned experience points awarded by the DM.​

In other words, in classic D&D choice of class is choice of function whereby one will succeed at the game (ie collecting treasure, and defeating monsters on the way through).

Whereas in DW, choice of class is choice of theme/fiction.

That's a big difference. But not a surprising one. The first time that the GM of a D&D game included a demon in the dungeon because s/he thought the player of the paladin would enjoy confronting it, RPGing had headed off on the DW path.

 

[pemerton]

You are using Pawn stance incorrectly, and I pointed out that I agree with the Forge's position that you are using it incorrectly.

Nonsense. Pawn stance is a variation of author stance. Both involve a player determining a character's choice/action by reference to the player's real-world priorities. In author stance, there is a second step also, of retroactively imputing a motive to the character to explain the choice/action.

The main example provided in this thread has been given by [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]: the player determines that the character chooses to attack the troll with fire because the player knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire (on it's own, this would be pawn stance) and attributes a motivation to the character, namely, "Uncle Elmo told me once that only fire can kill a troll!" (with that second step, we have author stance in the strict sense).

I didn't quote and reply to the following part of your earlier post, because it is wrong and hence a needless distraction:

the Author using personal knowledge to determine character decisions based on that person's priorities is making his PC a pawn.

<snip>

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.

I mean, you can define "pawn stance" however you like, but I'm using it as Ron Edwards does. Edwards makes no reference to "personal knowledge". He refers to a "real person's priorities". Nor does he make any reference to "without a reason in the game". He is talking about the method whereby a player chooses what a character does, not what fiction accompanies or is created by that choice. Obviously if a PC chooses to do X rather than Y, then there exists, in the game, a reason for that (unless the PC is insane). But that fact about the fiction is irrelevant to the question that Edwards is concerned with, which is how is a player making decisions about the play of the game.

Actor stance, as defined by Ron Edwards (and that's the only definition I'm aware of), consists in "a person determin[ing] a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have." My assertion is that this is possible only if the PC has relatively richly established knowledge, motivations, etc. Hence, in the absence of those things, what will result is pawn stance, that is, the player will "determine[] a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities". Because those real world priorities will be the only one's ready to hand (given the thinness of the PC's knowledge and motivations).

Do you disagree with this?

I completely disagree with you.

So that means that you think that it is not necessary for a PC to have relatively richly established knowledge and motivations in order to make play decisions in actor stance? So can you explain how this works? How do shallow/thin PC knowledge and motivations support actor stance?

I have no problem making decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that that the character would have.

But that's not relevant to the question I asked, which was about how richly establisheda character's knowledge and motivations have to be.

will a 300 page thesis on the character's background, knowledge and more make it easier to make those decisions? Sure. But a half-page background, or even no background at all works just fine.

If a character has no background, and the campaign is just starting so the player has no knowledge acuqired via the play of the game, how do you envisage this working?

Imagine, for instance, a group starting out a campaign with B2 keep on the Borderlands. The players generate their PCs using the rules found in Moldvay Basic or Gygax's PHB. The referee reads the players the opening text about them arriving at the Keep, etc. How does a player decide what his/her PC does?

In my personal experience, at most D&D tables the players have their PCs "look for the adventure" rather than (say) ask about trading opportunities or look for potential spouses for their PCs. And this is because they are making decisions for their PCs motivated by real-world priorities (in this case, playing a D&D module). That decision might be lampshaded by an attribution to the character of a desire to become rich through adventuring (which takes it from pawn to author stance) but I don't possibly see how it could be actor stance in the scenario I've described.

I don't know what happens in your game. But of the two actual play examples you provided, one seemed to involve making choices in actor stance (eg deciding to sacrifice the "witch" to ally with the NPCs who had kidnapped your PC's family) while another seemed mostly to involve making choices in pawn or perhaps author stance (the decision to chase the orcs who raided the village) followed by a decision which may have been actor stance or pawn stance (the decision not to rest so as to save the children: you referred to player shock, but it wasn't clear the extent to which that was in character as opposed to real world).