Alternatives to map-and-key

[soviet]

Ouija board roleplaying. I'm not moving the planchette, the causality of the fiction simply has an undeniable momentum of its own!

 

[The Firebird]

There is no causality in fiction. There is only the fiction of causality, which - of course - can be anything the author chooses which seems to make some sort of sense to them.

Which is, of course, the bit the railroaders and illusionists can't abide hearing said out loud. It's also what they mean by 'simulation' - it means appears to make sense to the GM, but can be passed off as inherent to the fiction itself so as to pretend it wasn't their authorship at work all along.

All part of the goal of pretending the GM isn't in control of all outcomes, when in fact they are.

Simulation = illusionism = fiction has causality. The unholy triad of rpg dishonesty.

Suppose the GM makes a ruling that clearly violates causality. What happens to the game? Ime it falls apart because the GM can no longer be trusted in the role of neutral arbiter. The Magic Circle is broken, the game suspended. Concretely this manifests as people leaving the table.

 

[chaochou]

Suppose the GM makes a ruling that clearly violates causality. What happens to the game? Ime it falls apart because the GM can no longer be trusted in the role of neutral arbiter. The Magic Circle is broken, the game suspended. Concretely this manifests as people leaving the table.

The question is demonstrably absurd. If there were real causality the GM would be unable to break it - because the outcome would be down to causation, not the GM.

But the GM can't make a ruling which violates causality because there is none to break. There is just authorship. Period.

Bad authorship leading to bad games is hardly a ground-breaking observation. Fiction still doesn't include causality. It contains the fiction of causality, which is authored, just like the rest of the fiction.

 

[The Firebird]

The question is demonstrably absurd. If there were real causality the GM would be unable to break it - because the outcome would be down to causation, not the GM.

But the GM can't make a ruling which violates causality because there is none to break. There is just authorship. Period.

Bad authorship leading to bad games is hardly a ground-breaking observation. Fiction still doesn't include causality. It contains the fiction of causality, which is authored, just like the rest of the fiction.

I don't think anyone is claiming real causality. The same holds for player action -- your declaration of attacking an orc does not cause an orc to be damaged, nor does it cause you to roll the dice. You could choose not to. But you can't forgo doing so and be considered to be playing the game.

You have an action declaration. We then have a set of rules. These rules encompass the state of the game world; e.g., you are next to the orc; and the mechanics for determining action resolution; e.g., you must roll to hit. Therefore we collectively assent to the fiction evolving as dictated by the state of the world and the rules.

Likewise, when the GM resolves actions--often because there is information unknown to the players, like the presence of a second guard in the courtyard--they progress things according to the state of the world (the guards is/is not present) and the mechanics (the guard must have a perception roll above X to see the PCs).

If the GM does not progress the fiction according to the state of the world and the mechanics, then they can properly be understood as cheating--they are breaking the rules in order to bring about their desired outcome. This is what happens when they break fictional causality.

So yes, they can break causality, but doing so violates the rules, just as a player breaking causality would.

(Some people may be ok with the GM cheating, or with the GM establishing a new world state in secret, but these are tangential to the main point at the moment.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Bold added. I don't see the difference here with respect to GM control.

One is visible to the players, the other is not. One is set, the other is not.

The reason I used fictional description in one and mechanical in the other is because that's how I think of the problem. Once we enter SC land, I'm not trying to get past the defenses...I'm trying to get 3 successes. Without that structure, I'm focused solely on the fiction.

This sounds more like a quality of yours rather than the game. And it remains a flawed approach to comparison.

I don't think I said most. Just that it happens often. Am I forgetful?

I believe you said it “happens all the time”, which I expect was not meant literally, but to me indicates a very common frequency.

I mean you can keep denying it all you want. Skill challenges force the fiction to conform to the rules instead of other way around. This lessens the impact of character actions and fictional positioning. I have several times explained how this occurs, and no one has refuted the actual logic.

What actual logic? I’ve seen you make claims, but others have absolutely refuted them.

Yes, obviously characters. Information can be conveyed by a method called "talking." Furthermore, during the play, the players express their characters, making us all know them better

Dude, it’s a genuine question. Do you have a dedicated session zero, do you all make PCs together? What form does the “talking” take?

First if all, refusing to engage your repeated attempts to "drill down" into my motivations in the hopes of catching me in a "gotcha" is not threadcrapping.

Threadcrapping is you refusing to engage with the premise of the thread, commenting solely to defend something that’s not under attack.

Secondly, I'm fine with providing the players with information so they can make decisions, provided the information in question was acquired by the PCs in fiction. Nothing beyond that please.

Yes, everyone knows. You asked what is the purpose of a skill challenge. I answered. It is to provide a structure for play and to inform players. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant to the answer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What actual logic? I’ve seen you make claims, but others have absolutely refuted them.

No they haven't beyond "nuh-uh."

In skill challenge if fictional positioning was such that the early obstacle would be bypasses swiftly, the GM either has to invent reasons why it cannot be done, or concoct further obstacles so that the success quota can be fulfilled. This is simply the logical outcome of the skill challenge rules, and it greatly lessens the meaning of fictional positioning and the choices the player make.

Dude, it’s a genuine question. Do you have a dedicated session zero, do you all make PCs together? What form does the “talking” take?

Yes, I have session zero and characters are made together and players are my friends so I talk with them. But I think in a longer campaign the most important method for getting to know the character is simply to see how they behave in the game.

 

[The Firebird]

One is visible to the players, the other is not. One is set, the other is not.

Which is the key difference, in your mind? If the DM ran a skill challenge but didn't tell them the mechanics, would that also reduce DM control in an appropriate way? What if they told the players the DCs for various tasks, but the players still chose their route to infiltrate?

(I know you think public information is useful for informing choices, i.e., for a reason beyond DM control. I'm asking only about DM control).

This sounds more like a quality of yours rather than the game. And it remains a flawed approach to comparison.

I agree it is a quality of mine. I think it is shared by some other players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ouija board roleplaying. I'm not moving the planchette, the causality of the fiction simply has an undeniable momentum of its own!

Do you not see that kind of sarcastic comment as insulting?