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

[pemerton]

That these systems build such things right into their mechanics indicates a baked-in expectation that the nobility-to-commoner ratio among PCs is going to be much higher than among the overall population. Fair enough, if unrealistic.

What's a realistic nobility-to-commoner ratio among PCs? Is it the same or different from the elf-to-dwarf ratio? The fighter-to-MU ratio?

 

[pemerton]

This is treating nobility as, "...some empty title and a PC who wears nice clothes, and is stuck up."

<snip>

This doesn't really say anything about nobles being treated as nobles, and not just an empty title.

<snip>

And now we're back to empty title.


Having the odd noble here and there with an empty title is okay. It does happen. The great majority of the time, however, it's not going to be an empty title, so treating every PC noble title as empty doesn't jive with me.

I think many readers of LotR would not agree with you that Aragorn's title was an "empty" one.

Nor would everyone agree that Richard the Lionheart's claim to kingship is an "empty title" when he reenters England covertly to try and retake his throne from his sinister brother.

I don't think the White Russians regarded their titles as empty either, but that is more debatable.

This is artificially limiting. Why should mage nobles be less common than say fighter nobles?

So it's not OK for players to have advantages like nobility, but when they have them it's not OK for there to be trade-offs?

Or are you just not familiar with how PC build in BW works?

 

[pemerton]

Here's some stuff from RuneQuest (Avalon Hill Deluxe Edition, 1993, p 8):

The Player
As a player, your first duty is to play within the limits of the characters you generate. Even though you are a chemistry major, for instance, your shepherd character cannot (without learning or training) stroll to a game world village and open an alchemy shop.

Operating within your adventurers' limits will challenge your imagination. How well you act out the roles you create defines how well you roleplay, the ultimate enjoyment which this art form affords. . . .

Always have some idea of your character before you start, but also allow new eents in his or her game life to help shape the character's personality. . . .

Cooperation and Competition
Gaming is social. . . .

Cooperation is essential to enjoyable roleplaying games, for the participants work together for a common goal - overcoming opponents, or a hostile setting controlled by an impartial gamemaster.

For instance, a party of adventurers will not survive against a bunch of monsters if they are not willing to aid each other . . .

Players too must work together. . . . If you know something appropriate to a situation, share it gently, not with disparaging remarks. Leave personal animosities out of the game.

There also needs to be cooperation between players and gamemaster. Though the gamemaster creates the world and manipulates its details, it's also true that the game remains a game for him as well, and that he likes to have fun playing too. Players should pit their ingenuity against the game world, not the gamemaster.

The gamemaster should be interested in his players' opinions on game matters, and the players should debate rules questions and play opportunities with him. Gamemaster decisions are final, and players must be will to take losses if the gamemaster sticks to his ruling. All the same, strive to work out questions by discussion. Both palyers and gamemasters should be willing to change their minds if necessary and occasionally adjust the game to the situation at hand. . . .

Simple communication builds enjoyable and understandable worlds for adventuring. The rewards of cooperation are great . . .​

It's interesting to see that there is no statement of any universal metagame ban - eg players are expected to play their PCs as cooperative to one another for reasons to do with gameplay, not ingame reasons.

It's also interesting to see the approach to rules questions, and the emphasis on collaboration/consensus rather than GM rulings and GM decision-making.

And this is from a hardcore simulationist game!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's some stuff from RuneQuest (Avalon Hill Deluxe Edition, 1993, p 8):

The Player
As a player, your first duty is to play within the limits of the characters you generate. Even though you are a chemistry major, for instance, your shepherd character cannot (without learning or training) stroll to a game world village and open an alchemy shop.

Operating within your adventurers' limits will challenge your imagination. How well you act out the roles you create defines how well you roleplay, the ultimate enjoyment which this art form affords. . . .

Always have some idea of your character before you start, but also allow new eents in his or her game life to help shape the character's personality. . . .

Cooperation and Competition
Gaming is social. . . .

Cooperation is essential to enjoyable roleplaying games, for the participants work together for a common goal - overcoming opponents, or a hostile setting controlled by an impartial gamemaster.

For instance, a party of adventurers will not survive against a bunch of monsters if they are not willing to aid each other . . .

Players too must work together. . . . If you know something appropriate to a situation, share it gently, not with disparaging remarks. Leave personal animosities out of the game.

There also needs to be cooperation between players and gamemaster. Though the gamemaster creates the world and manipulates its details, it's also true that the game remains a game for him as well, and that he likes to have fun playing too. Players should pit their ingenuity against the game world, not the gamemaster.

The gamemaster should be interested in his players' opinions on game matters, and the players should debate rules questions and play opportunities with him. Gamemaster decisions are final, and players must be will to take losses if the gamemaster sticks to his ruling. All the same, strive to work out questions by discussion. Both palyers and gamemasters should be willing to change their minds if necessary and occasionally adjust the game to the situation at hand. . . .

Simple communication builds enjoyable and understandable worlds for adventuring. The rewards of cooperation are great . . .​

It's interesting to see that there is no statement of any universal metagame ban - eg players are expected to play their PCs as cooperative to one another for reasons to do with gameplay, not ingame reasons.

It's also interesting to see the approach to rules questions, and the emphasis on collaboration/consensus rather than GM rulings and GM decision-making.

And this is from a hardcore simulationist game!

I think you are really misinterpreting this throughs he lens of your own playstyle. Nothing in there is controversial or shocking for any old school, run the setting GMs or groups. I talk to my players all the time about rulings, and change my mind about rulings. But the GMs determination is final. And nothing about pitting the players against the setting, running the setting as a living world, rulings over rules, etc means there isn't collaborative discussion. But you are stretching what they are saying into territory they clearly don't intend (and not that the territory you are shifting it to is bad, it just doesn't reflect what is written there). Also, the point about the challenge of playing within the limits of your character, to me that very much suggests a thought about meta gaming. Been ages since I've read Runequest, so I am not about to parse the system line by line here. But just from that section, I feel it doesn't really do anything to clarify the discussion at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I think many readers of LotR would not agree with you that Aragorn's title was an "empty" one.

Because it got filled at the end. Until then, he was unknown and his title really didn't mean much.

Nor would everyone agree that Richard the Lionheart's claim to kingship is an "empty title" when he reenters England covertly to try and retake his throne from his sinister brother.

Again, filling it later doesn't meant that it meant much until then.

So it's not OK for players to have advantages like nobility, but when they have them it's not OK for there to be trade-offs?

Or are you just not familiar with how PC build in BW works?

I get the balance reasons for the trade-off style of PC building, but it doesn't sit well with me when designers use balance to justify things that don't make sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Here's some stuff from RuneQuest (Avalon Hill Deluxe Edition, 1993, p 8):

The Player
As a player, your first duty is to play within the limits of the characters you generate. Even though you are a chemistry major, for instance, your shepherd character cannot (without learning or training) stroll to a game world village and open an alchemy shop.

Operating within your adventurers' limits will challenge your imagination. How well you act out the roles you create defines how well you roleplay, the ultimate enjoyment which this art form affords. . . .

Always have some idea of your character before you start, but also allow new eents in his or her game life to help shape the character's personality. . . .

Cooperation and Competition
Gaming is social. . . .

Cooperation is essential to enjoyable roleplaying games, for the participants work together for a common goal - overcoming opponents, or a hostile setting controlled by an impartial gamemaster.

For instance, a party of adventurers will not survive against a bunch of monsters if they are not willing to aid each other . . .

Players too must work together. . . . If you know something appropriate to a situation, share it gently, not with disparaging remarks. Leave personal animosities out of the game.

There also needs to be cooperation between players and gamemaster. Though the gamemaster creates the world and manipulates its details, it's also true that the game remains a game for him as well, and that he likes to have fun playing too. Players should pit their ingenuity against the game world, not the gamemaster.

The gamemaster should be interested in his players' opinions on game matters, and the players should debate rules questions and play opportunities with him. Gamemaster decisions are final, and players must be will to take losses if the gamemaster sticks to his ruling. All the same, strive to work out questions by discussion. Both palyers and gamemasters should be willing to change their minds if necessary and occasionally adjust the game to the situation at hand. . . .

Simple communication builds enjoyable and understandable worlds for adventuring. The rewards of cooperation are great . . .​

It's interesting to see that there is no statement of any universal metagame ban - eg players are expected to play their PCs as cooperative to one another for reasons to do with gameplay, not ingame reasons.

It's also interesting to see the approach to rules questions, and the emphasis on collaboration/consensus rather than GM rulings and GM decision-making.

And this is from a hardcore simulationist game!

Dude. The first paragraph says you can't use player knowledge and have your PC's know it. I bolded it so that you can see it. The players working together just means that they shouldn't be jerks about ideas on what to do. Not that they can bring knowledge of trolls into the game when the PC doesn't have said knowledge.

As for cooperation between players and DM, well that's also the way it always has been. The DM should consider his players, and the player should be able to discuss rules. And the rules you quoted say that the DM's decision is final and if sticks to his guns, the players lose the debate. He has full authority in this example.

 

[Numidius]

Sure.

I'll give one example from when I was a player and one from when I was a DM.

Example 1.

There was a game that I was playing in where we had to find a powerful witch in order to stop a powerful group of NPCs from having their way with our homeland. While I was out alone shopping for some stuff my character would need before we left to find the witch, some of those NPCs found me and took me to their leader. The leader told me that he had my wife and kids captured and that when we found the witch, I was to call them via a magical device so that they could come and get her. I was told that if I said anything to anyone else, my wife and kids would be killed.

We adventured for a while trying to find this witch, and one of the things that happened was that we saved an 8 year old girl from some marauders that had killed the rest of her family before we arrived. we decided to take her to the next town and turn her over to the authorities. As we were traveling through a swamp on the way to that town, we came across a hut in the swamp with an old woman who was an herbalist. I had the great idea of using the device to call the NPCs on this woman, who I knew wasn't the witch we were looking for, but who could easily be mistaken for a witch. That way I could alert my companions as to what was going on via an "honest mistake."

The NPCs arrived to collect the "witch" and when they did, they took one look at the girl we had rescued and thanked me for calling them to get the witch. Apparently the girl was who we were looking for and nobody in the party had any idea. The rest of the group took up positions to defend the girl. My PC however was now in the position of turning the girl over to the NPCs and allowing them to retain control over the land, or stand against the NPCs and let my wife and kids be killed. It was a very hard choice, but I made it and stood with the NPCs telling the rest of the group that they had my family and I would kill anyone who tried to stop them from taking the witch. Now the rest of the group was in the position of letting her go and allowing the NPCs to retain control, or attack and possibly kill the friend they grew up with and adventuring companion. They eventually relented and the girl was taken by the NPCs.

So, we have Gm controlled Npcs that kidnap Gm contr. Npcs that force Pc* to search for a Gm cntr Npc** in order to invade a land of Gm cntr Npcs...

Man, if that's not railroad, I don't know what else could be.

I would dare say that Gm is violating the Czege Principle

*because family
**curiously appearing in the midst of events; also gotcha moment in the end

 

[Numidius]

Dude. The first paragraph says you can't use player knowledge and have your PC's know it. I bolded it so that you can see it. The players working together just means that they shouldn't be jerks about ideas on what to do. Not that they can bring knowledge of trolls into the game when the PC doesn't have said knowledge.

Not player knowledge of Real World, we're debating, but P K of Game World, and the quoted part from RQ doesn't say anything on the latter.

It does speak of Pc boundaries, so everithing is still open to debate where this limit is, but the provided example warns only on OBVIOUS real world knowledge.

 

[Numidius]

Example 2.

A low level group was in a town that was attacked by orc raiders in the night. They killed some orcs, but there were too many for them to stop entirely. The raiders grabbed a bunch of children as the kids were easy to carry quickly, and they set off to their village. In the aftermath the following morning, the PCs learned that about 20 children had been taken.

The PCs being heroes, decided that they would go off and rescue the kids. The orcs, though, had a sizable lead. Nevertheless, the PCs set out and started tracking the orcs hoping to catch up with them and save the kids. Towards the evening of the first day they came across a place where the orcs had made their camp. They found an area with a fire pit and while investigating the fire pit and the area around it, they found some child sized bones.

Everyone at the table got really quiet as they realized that the orcs were using the kids as food. Suddenly the rescue got really serious as they realized that they were now in a time crunch to rescue the kids that remained before more were killed and eaten. The decided to forgo resting and push through to gain ground on the orcs and hope that they would come upon them in time, even though that meant taking penalties for lack of rest.

Plenty of drama to go around in DM facing games.

Ok so we have some pretty straightforward bad Npc that threaten lives of innocent Npc: linear railroad with evident psicological use of Force (because children + heroes pc, for Goodness sake).
And the Drama is, what? A metagamey resource management?

 

[hawkeyefan]

As long as you're applying disadvantages to cancel off advantages I'd likely have no problem with it were I in your game.

Sure. I don't know if it's as formalized as that....generally speaking, all the backgrounds in 5E come with a benefit of some kind, so each player will have some equivalent perk associated with what they've chosen.

But then, I pretty much just use that choice as a starting point for the fiction, and use it to help shape the events and complications that they face. A noble just comes with all manner of connections and obligations and so forth.....so I use that to help inform the challenges the party will face.

I tend to prefer the zero-to-hero arc, particularly as it helps allow for some long-term growth and change during a long campaign.

I tend to prefer a variety of character types and backgrounds and so on. Nothing wrong with a zero to hero type story, but there's no reason to limit everyone to that approach.

Two problems leap to mind.

One, if player A claims lordship of Karsos it denies players B, C and D the option of doing so should they have so desired.

Two, it grants potential advantages (wealth, status, authority) that wouldn't otherwise be present; and while some of that can be cancelled out by political considerations etc., to do so presents a here-and-now headache for the DM which could have been thought out earlier had this fact of nobility been known earlier e.g. at char-gen.

One, so the solution is to simply deny them all that option? I don't really see this as a major concern....each player can come up with something cool, or we can work together to come up with something cool. No one's going to complain "but Billy gets to be a noble, why can't I be one too?" Or if they are, then I think it's more a player issue than a game issue, and they'd likely make similar complaints about class choice and gear and so on at every step of the way.

Two, I think this may be a headache if things in the game are largely predetermined, but is not a concern if the game is more about finding the fiction through play. But even with a heavily GM driven game, I think it's just a matter of considering the situation; a character has just revealed a noble heritage that until now has been hidden. This kind of thing happens all the time in genre fiction. All you have to do is ask questions; why was your heritage hidden? Why reveal it now? What will happen now that you've revealed it?

Where you see a headache, I see a ton of opportunity.

It comes under the aegis of player advocacy for their PC, and looking for an advantage.

Well for one thing if it did interfere with my plans the last thing I'm going to want to do is tell them that! That said, again if I-as-DM had known earlier about this nobility bit then I could have planned around it and even incorporated it in somewhere else if it made sense in the fiction. (e.g. the PC would likely have been dealt with much differently in some towns previously visited, and approached said visits differently also, had the nobility piece been known up front)

Well, in my original example, it wasn't so much about the advantage as it was about sending a signal to the DM about a kind of play that they found boring.

And even though I recognize that we'll likely never bridge this metagame gap we have, I have to assume that you know how small an advantage the fire versus trolls bit is. It's a bit of info to speed one encounter along, not some kind of campaign modifying revelation.

regarding the second point, again, I think this is about looking at the fiction that's been established. Why were there no such reactions in the previous towns visited? Why has no one treated this character as a noble till now? You answer those questions and the ones I mentioned above, and the fiction emerges through play. Again, this is the kind of "Discovery" for which some are advocating.

It doesn't have to be contradictory. You can incorporate it in, and see how it fits and interacts with what's been established.

Yes, which means let's get the important bits of the background known up front rather than appearing out of nowhere halfway through.

I can't make something important in play if I don't know it exists.

Yes, you can! I mean, I believe you can. Obviously, this may not be something everyone's immediately comfortable with, or even that they may enjoy, of course....but you certainly are capable of it.

The way to achieve this (and how I do it, when I can) is to take the scout's player aside and sort the scouting out beyond the hearing/knowledge of the other players, then leave the scout's player aside while I deal with the rest of 'em.

Sure, something like this....or if the mechanics of the game allow the GM to just "fade to black" before the character's actual fate is determined, or something similar, then you've avoided the metagame concern.

Sometimes yes, other times something might happen during that hour e.g. the main party are forced to move and thus won't be there for the scout to find on her return. Or, if the scout doesn't return after an hour and they really don't know why, for all I know they might say "Let's give her another half-hour"; an outcome much less likely if they-as-players already know she ain't coming back at all.

Okay, here's where I think one of the sticking points with metagaming concerns come up. Because there is a difference between the characters doing something that they'd have no idea they need to do, and the characters choosing to do something perfectly reasonable for them to do. If your group says "it's been an hour, let's go look for the scout" and your DM instinct is to say "well why wouldn't you guys wait another hour?" you need to rethink that. Why would they not do what they said? Why find a reason to shoot it down just because it's possible they could do something else?

This is the DM creating a metagame situation where none actually exists. Why fret over the metagame concerns when there's a game to actually get on with? A PC has died and the rest of the group is going to find that out.....why delay such a moment? Why get in the way?