All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[AbdulAlhazred]

Talking with NPCs was merely an example. You need to establish the context of the choice somehow. And I'm not merely talking about establishing the facts, I'm talking about establishing the emotional and thematic context. And considering what mind bogglingly wide variety of choices can happen in RPGs, I don't think we can come up with an exhaustive list for the ways to establishing the context. But the point was that it often takes some time to do this. And no, this was not particularly insightful or novel observation, we can see this happening basically in every story across various mediums.

OK, but do we have to use non-conflict-addressing modes of play to do this? I'd say that even D&D doesn't really require that. You could wander around in a dungeon level without any real context beyond "this is the maze beneath Mistlemoss Castle" and find things like maps, long lost treasures, the remains of past expeditions, etc. etc. etc. and they could all serve this purpose. I'd say this kind of thing is AT LEAST as classic as anything else. It also really depends on your desires. In a lot of cases a simple 2D quest giver NPC will suite fine.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So you wake up everyday and search your home to make sure nobody broke in? Then, you search the property to make sure nobody is there who shouldn't be? You pop the hood of your car to make sure nobody messed with your engine before starting it? You search the entire office before starting your work day to make sure nobody who shouldn't be there is there? Even the folks who should be there you start to spy on them because they could out to screw you over? After work, you pop the hood of you car before starting it...

That's not how real life is at all. Though, its how "trust nobody" GMs like to roll. Been there done that.

You clearly didn't know some of my relatives... lol.

People scale their levels of relaxation too. When I was a kid we didn't even HAVE door locks. Robbery was completely unheard of in our town. Nowadays I have a security system, a dog, and I would never leave a door unbolted even when I'm IN the house, let alone elsewhere! Honestly, I don't think my little neighborhood is really all THAT beset by crime either, but I have little interest in gambling to find out exactly how often someone wanders buy and checks out my doors. I'd be surprised if it has NEVER happened!

Honestly though, in an RPG? I mean, it is going to depend on genre, but I personally find endless suspicion to be exhausting. I'd sooner portray things as "when you go back to base and resupply, you're pretty safe unless you do something weird and unwise."

 

[Lanefan]

So you wake up everyday and search your home to make sure nobody broke in? Then, you search the property to make sure nobody is there who shouldn't be? You pop the hood of your car to make sure nobody messed with your engine before starting it? You search the entire office before starting your work day to make sure nobody who shouldn't be there is there? Even the folks who should be there you start to spy on them because they could out to screw you over? After work, you pop the hood of you car before starting it...

You're taking this to a bit of an extreme, don't you think? There's a difference between PC (and real life) caution and outright paranoia; you're talking paranoia where I'm talking caution.

That's not how real life is at all.

No, but real life is far too full of people who say "trust me" and then screw you over.

Though, its how "trust nobody" GMs like to roll. Been there done that.

Anything taken to an extreme isn't good, and if you've had that extreme experience I feel for you.

But blithely trusting everyone is the other extreme, and I've seen (and played!) PCs who take this approach. It's a poor long-term strategy.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly though, in an RPG? I mean, it is going to depend on genre, but I personally find endless suspicion to be exhausting. I'd sooner portray things as "when you go back to base and resupply, you're pretty safe unless you do something weird and unwise."

...like go around boasting about how rich you've just become.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is just blatantly not true. You are nearly always given a list of possible, even likely, solutions to held the GM along, but I can't think of one modern adventure that gives you a limited list of the only solution(s) possible.

No, but there are some things that are possible good solutions, and some that are not, or are less good. I think you are being a bit too literal in terms of what @Ovinomancer meant. The point that is relevant is that the story is exactly about whatever the GM decided to include. Yes, the players may well, probably can, supply alternate solutions to problems, etc. I don't think that changes the fundamental nature of the model. That model is: the GM presents a situation, the players bring their selected resources to that situation, and then they try different things and the GM tells them which things worked or what happened. This is contrasting with models like what happens in a PbtA game where any situation the GM presents is presented BECAUSE it is directly relevant to a PC, and often a lot of the subject matter was introduced either directly by a player, or at their instigation. Typically in this type of paradigm there IS no 'world' that has any fixed content. The GM is still presenting obstacles to the players to solve, generally, but very little/nothing is really laid out in advance. The GM never presents anything simply because it is part of some plan they have (this may not be strictly true in the sense that the GM probably has a lot of potential choices in exactly what sort of obstacle shows up, and nothing stops them from including ones that match their own conceptions of the situation). Usually genre and built in game thematics will inform a lot of the 'color' heavily. So, DW is a 'fantastic world' and 'dangerous' and filled with things like orcs and dragons. The GM will leverage that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

...like go around boasting about how rich you've just become.

hahaha, yeah, exactly! I totally would not let something like that pass, though maybe it wouldn't end badly. Dungeon World has a name for this GM move. It is called "Make a hard move when the players hand it to you on a silver platter."

 

[Reynard]

No, but there are some things that are possible good solutions, and some that are not, or are less good. I think you are being a bit too literal in terms of what @Ovinomancer meant. The point that is relevant is that the story is exactly about whatever the GM decided to include. Yes, the players may well, probably can, supply alternate solutions to problems, etc. I don't think that changes the fundamental nature of the model. That model is: the GM presents a situation, the players bring their selected resources to that situation, and then they try different things and the GM tells them which things worked or what happened. This is contrasting with models like what happens in a PbtA game where any situation the GM presents is presented BECAUSE it is directly relevant to a PC, and often a lot of the subject matter was introduced either directly by a player, or at their instigation. Typically in this type of paradigm there IS no 'world' that has any fixed content. The GM is still presenting obstacles to the players to solve, generally, but very little/nothing is really laid out in advance. The GM never presents anything simply because it is part of some plan they have (this may not be strictly true in the sense that the GM probably has a lot of potential choices in exactly what sort of obstacle shows up, and nothing stops them from including ones that match their own conceptions of the situation). Usually genre and built in game thematics will inform a lot of the 'color' heavily. So, DW is a 'fantastic world' and 'dangerous' and filled with things like orcs and dragons. The GM will leverage that.

I don't understand why folks are constantly trying to create hard distinctions between trad games and "new school" games as if no D&D GM ever considered allowing players input into the world and the "story."

I am as trad as they come and I've been listening to my players for decades. You know, because a) they are the players, and b) I'm kind of lazy.

 

[payn]

You're taking this to a bit of an extreme, don't you think? There's a difference between PC (and real life) caution and outright paranoia; you're talking paranoia where I'm talking caution.

No, but real life is far too full of people who say "trust me" and then screw you over.

Anything taken to an extreme isn't good, and if you've had that extreme experience I feel for you.

But blithely trusting everyone is the other extreme, and I've seen (and played!) PCs who take this approach. It's a poor long-term strategy.

I've screwed over more by folks who say "trust no one." It's a big red flag. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't understand why folks are constantly trying to create hard distinctions between trad games and "new school" games as if no D&D GM ever considered allowing players input into the world and the "story."

I am as trad as they come and I've been listening to my players for decades. You know, because a) they are the players, and b) I'm kind of lazy.

Yeah, I am not trying to relitigate some debates we all had recently. Sure, maybe, uncharacteristically, you play a very narratively focused kind of 5e and etc. etc. etc. I think that wouldn't even be 5% of 5e tables though. Nor am I trying to criticize trad/neo-trad play.

 

[Campbell]

I don't understand why folks are constantly trying to create hard distinctions between trad games and "new school" games as if no D&D GM ever considered allowing players input into the world and the "story."

I am as trad as they come and I've been listening to my players for decades. You know, because a) they are the players, and b) I'm kind of lazy.

We're talking about two completely different things here though. One is about the situations being distinctly about the player characters. The other is collaborating with players to build a world / tell a story. These are different sorts of gameplay experiences, both of which I find valuable.

No one here is questioning the validity of trad techniques, including more collaborative trad play which I discussed upthread. Just talking about other viable forms of play.