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

[Lanefan]

But only the ones that the DM thinks of. For instance, going back to the tea house. The mayor might be there, as might the warlock's patron waiting to give him a task, or the wizard's master, or... There are waaaaay too many possibilities for the DM to be able to think of, let alone spend hours rolling the thousands or millions of them to see if any of the really long shots happen.

There is no potential for this method to mirror real life, but that's okay. It can approximate things and give the game a similar feel to real life. If the DM only thinks of a few possibilities and one of them hits, say the warlock's patron waiting at a table for the warlock to get there, that's enough to give it the real life feel.

This is, of course, quite right: no DM is ever going to think* of everything, and any expectation that she will is doomed to failure.

* - be it during prep or on the fly.

As long as a DM can think of enough things, however, to keep the game going and provide within the setting some interesting and reasonable options, choices, consistency, and consequences then all is probably good.

 

[FrogReaver]

This thread is a spin-off of this thread. Its immediate trigger is the following post:


In real life, people move through a physcially-structured environment where events happen in accordance with causal processes. Notions of request, permission, decision etc have no explanatory work to do in relation to real-life causal processes (except for a rather narrow range of phenomena involving interactions between human beings).

At a RPG table, in the situation being described in the posts above, the players give rise to an idea - our PCs find some sect members at the teahouse - and they suggest that that idea should be an element of the fiction that is being collectively created at the table. The GM then decides whether or not that idea actually does become part of the shared fiction, and communicates that decision to the players by telling them what it is that their PCs find at the teahouse.

That causal process has very little in common with the causal processes that bring it about that, if I go to a teahouse looking for members of a particular sect, I find any of them there. The most obvious difference is that whether or not, in real life, I meet any sect members doesn't depend upon whether anyone takes up a suggestion I make about an interesting idea.

Whether or not the GM making decisions about the gameworld, and then conveying that to the players, makes for good RPGing seems a matter of taste. But whether or not such a process is like real life seems a straightforward matter of fact. It's not.

In RPG's time is rarely tracked down to the second or the minute. So we can't determine that an NPC is there at exactly 8:22 to 8:53 and then the players don't say we arrive at 8:49, thus allowing the DM to simply deduce that they met. Instead because time isn't tracked to that degree of precision (and shouldn't be IMO) then the only way the DM can answer the question of whether you meet a person at a particular place is by assigning a DC and rolling a die to determine if you do. In that way it's not like real life. You don't really have a chance of meeting someone at any particular location in real life, the timings are already determined by the other things that you are doing and that happened that day and thus you either meet or don't meet. We simplify all those calculations into a simple probabilistic d20 roll.

If you are focused on simulating the process then I think I might agree that it's not much like real life. But it very much provides real life like outcomes (at least to whatever dXYZ granularity you are using).

The question I'm curious about is why do you care whether the process for determining something in game mimics the procress something would be determined by in real life? What benefit is there to that?

 

[Maxperson]

i better not generalize. I'm sure there's plenty of valid Gms in Italy. Let's say: the ones I've met, then.

Sometimes I just wonder why is it so hard (for me) to just sit down, roll some pc, agree on an initial set-up/situation, generate background accordingly, and start rolling dice

Sounds good, and where I was ultimately going. Whether you have been unlucky or I've been lucky, I think there are DMs out there that will have what you want. There may also be some cultural differences at play. Try getting into a roll 20 game with a group in the U.S. and see if there are any differences that you like. In any case, I wish you the best of luck finding what you need.

 

[Shasarak]

I think, if anything, pemertons example about going to the library proves that a DM telling the players about the gameworld is exactly like real life.

I mean he went to the library, failed to find anyone from the Bone Breaking Sect then he got sidetracked by a bunch of other NPCs ad wasted half an hour talking about something completely unrelated to the game. So how is that not exactly the same as a real game?

 

[pemerton]

I made a new ability in the game (largely because of their tastes) that was called something like "Master Schemer". It allowed characters after the fact to make a roll and declare they had dome something devilishly deceptive like poison the very wine the NPC is drinking. This was meant to emulate something that comes up a lot in wuxia. I was very surprised by the strong negative and cautious reaction it received across several groups, but even among the more story oriented group. The reasons for disliking it did vary, but one of them was the players were being given control of what happened in the setting without having to walk through the steps of doing it.

I have never played a game with a mechanic of the sort you describe. As you describe it it seems a little weak as a mechanic, becuase it appears not to connect the action either to the character or the situation; but perhaps there was more to it than your brief sketch has set out.

If you don't like GM as final arbiter, it may not be for you.

The GMing technique that is mentioned in the OP is not GM as final arbiter. It is GM as initial and sole arbiter. Those two things are very different.

there's no way a DM can hope to mirror all of the possibilities that real life comes up with. However, that doesn't mean that the approximation we come up with shouldn't be done.

But it does raise the possibility of (i) not characterising one's techniques by reference to their approximation of real life, and (ii) if the desire is to approximate real life, look for other systems that might do that.

My opinion is that a component of apprehension, almost fear, is preventing a more collaborative and enjoyable playstyle; a deep concern about sharing some narrative aspects of Rpg, about listening to inputs from the table and adding those to the usual output of being a Gm, so to enrich the experience.

I agree that some GM-driven play does seem to be motivated at least in part by a fear of what will happen to the setting, and the shared fiction more generally, if the players are allowed to exercise significant influence over it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have never played a game with a mechanic of the sort you describe. As you describe it it seems a little weak as a mechanic, becuase it appears not to connect the action either to the character or the situation; but perhaps there was more to it than your brief sketch has set out.

I think you and I would have very different definitions of weak mechanics. But it may well have been. The important point though wasn't the lack of heft, it was that this mechanic crossed a line that even my story friendly players didn't want me to cross (because it was effectively giving them retro-active control over something that had already occurred). In a wuxia film this happens all the time. In that context it would make sense. In a game, I think I failed to appreciate how jarring it might be. Here is the full text I had. Note I haven't decided what to do with it yet, so it very well could be removed, altered, etc. Also it is worth keeping in mind, this is a rules light dark wuxia game intended to be far less crunchy than my other wuxia game. So all of the styles are designed with GM Rulings being the assumed approach (meaning we tried to keep them light and open in the manner of say the white box spells, with the understanding that the GM is meant to interpret their broader application rather than spell out all the different cases and uses). Also the tag, "optional-style" just indicates it is an optional rule due to campaign style considerations. EDIT: This mechanic is a Signature Ability which is something every character can select at character creation (they get up to three, five if they take some serious Qi-based flaws; and each of the Signature Abilities are usually pretty broad, often approaching something more like a martial style or philosophy, but narrowing in some instances to fit other wuxia concepts):

Master Deceiver (Optional-Style)
You are skilled at deception and poison use and can reveal your schemes at any moment. You may freely announce (in or out of combat) that you have placed a trap or poison in a location or on an object. You must still make a relevant skill roll against the Target's Wits to deceive them into being poisoned or trapped. This ability can only be used within the bounds of reason, and the GM has the final say.

Examples: as an NPC is drinking a cup of alcohol, you tell the GM that you gave the inn’s staff poisoned powder to put in the cup.

The GMing technique that is mentioned in the OP is not GM as final arbiter. It is GM as initial and sole arbiter. Those two things are very different.

This strikes me as a bit pedantic

 

[Maxperson]

But it does raise the possibility of (i) not characterising one's techniques by reference to their approximation of real life, and

Not for me and the other supporters here in this thread. What we do is a fine approximation of real life.

(ii) if the desire is to approximate real life, look for other systems that might do that.

I'm quite happy with D&D which allows me to approximate things quite well. Even if another system is better at it, I don't want to have to learn a new system and persuade all my players to make a switch that just isn't necessary.

 

[S'mon]

My contention is that the what would likely be there approach is not an approximation to real life. And thus that whatever experience it engenders in those who enjoy it, like real life or more like real life than (say) declaring and resolving a Streetwise check is not an appropriate description for that experience.

I don't think you have any real basis for denying the subjective experience of other people who say they do experience it that way.

 

[pemerton]

The GMing technique that is mentioned in the OP is not GM as final arbiter. It is GM as initial and sole arbiter. Those two things are very different.

This strikes me as a bit pedantic

Why? It's pretty fundamental to some key differences in RPG techniques, and corresponding differences in RPG preferences. Most of the RPGs I run involve GM as final arbiter. But I would never play or run a system in which the GM is initial and sole arbiter of action declaration outcomes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why? It's pretty fundamental to some key differences in RPG techniques, and corresponding differences in RPG preferences. Most of the RPGs I run involve GM as final arbiter. But I would never play or run a system in which the GM is initial and sole arbiter of action declaration outcomes.

I am just finding your approach to language in the discussion, excessively precise. You are so hyper focused on language in the other thread you didn't even answer my question but instead took issue with how my question was presented. I just don't appear to have an issue conveying my meaning in plain english to other posters like I do with you.