Approaches to prep in RPGing - GMs, players, and what play is *about*

[Baron Opal II]

And where your game lands on the fault line of either of those pivot points is going to create a matrix for play which works out as a dichotomy.

If you're a 5e table and your (i) GM decides unilaterally what happens and what operationalizes that happening is (i) the GM's particular conception of naturalistic causal logic and extrapolation of setting then your table experience is going to be quite different than if you're a 5e table and your table decides by (ii) some manner of negotiated consensus what happens and what operationalizes that happening is (ii) what creates the best story outcomes for the most participants at the table.

And if you mix and match (i) and (ii) (either arbitrarily and opaquely or via declared organized principles and transparently so), then that formulation will create a very different experience than either of the two above.

You know, I think all I wanted was someone to say exactly that.

Cheers!

 

[Manbearcat]

You know, I think all I wanted was someone to say exactly that.

Cheers!

I’m not sure if you’re telling me what I wrote was helpful or…something else?

Regardless though, the nature of GM’s prep (amount and type) and their employment of that prep is going to be quite different (leading to a very divergent play experience for both players and GMs) in the above configurations, right?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay...

And?

I mean, yes, if I'm playing Bushido, Pendragon, Burning Wheel, or Vampire: the Masquerade the precise game definitions are important. If I'm playing D&D with an honor system addon the precise definition is important.

I think the assertion here is that a declaration of a belief, say in Burning Wheel, is a proposition, not an assertion of fact about the character. If I were to say put forward the belief "I am loyal to the king" and then I'm also an officer of the kingdom, owing a duty to the kingdom as a whole, how loyal am I to the man on the throne? More loyal than I am responsible to my office? In a D&D game a character can be absolutely lawful good, and the GM can tell you "this is lawful good behavior" even if it isn't obvious to the player which that is. In Burning Wheel the character will simply test their belief, its not a fact about them, its really a QUESTION "am I totally loyal to the king?" Well, lets find out! D&D isn't even TRYING to test your alignment, its just a thing about your character. The fact that going against it requires mechanical punishment to ENFORCE IT tells us all we need to know! Granted, 5e has a bit different approach to it, the expectation is STILL that alignment is an indicator of how the PC WILL ACT, not a question to be answered about who they are.

 

[soviet]

I think the assertion here is that a declaration of a belief, say in Burning Wheel, is a proposition, not an assertion of fact about the character. If I were to say put forward the belief "I am loyal to the king" and then I'm also an officer of the kingdom, owing a duty to the kingdom as a whole, how loyal am I to the man on the throne? More loyal than I am responsible to my office? In a D&D game a character can be absolutely lawful good, and the GM can tell you "this is lawful good behavior" even if it isn't obvious to the player which that is. In Burning Wheel the character will simply test their belief, its not a fact about them, its really a QUESTION "am I totally loyal to the king?" Well, lets find out! D&D isn't even TRYING to test your alignment, its just a thing about your character. The fact that going against it requires mechanical punishment to ENFORCE IT tells us all we need to know! Granted, 5e has a bit different approach to it, the expectation is STILL that alignment is an indicator of how the PC WILL ACT, not a question to be answered about who they are.

Agreed. Ultimately if you are playing a paladin with a code of honour in D&D and the GM spent half of every session poking at it and seeing if you will break or subvert the code, or imposing harsh consequences on you or those you love for sticking to it... you'd probably think that GM was being a dick. But in a narrativist game you might think the GM was being a dick if they didn't do that because they'd be neglecting your intended theme.

In a D&D game you would normally expect your paladin with a code of honour to stay a paladin with a code of honour for the whole of the campaign. And if it did change for a while, for the status quo to be restored not long after. Whereas again in a narr game that paladin with a code of honour is likely to be very different after X sessions of play - to have either breached their code or have paid a very heavy cost for not doing so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed. Ultimately if you are playing a paladin with a code of honour in D&D and the GM spent half of every session poking at it and seeing if you will break or subvert the code, or imposing harsh consequences on you or those you love for sticking to it... you'd probably think that GM was being a dick. But in a narrativist game you might think the GM was being a dick if they didn't do that because they'd be neglecting your intended theme.

In a D&D game you would normally expect your paladin with a code of honour to stay a paladin with a code of honour for the whole of the campaign. And if it did change for a while, for the status quo to be restored not long after. Whereas again in a narr game that paladin with a code of honour is likely to be very different after X sessions of play - to have either breached their code or have paid a very heavy cost for not doing so.

I think that comparing these two kinds of play, it’s clear there’s a starker line between GM and player in one than in the other. As you suggest, in D&D, the character and just about everything about them is up to the player, while the setting and everything about it is up to the GM.

But narrative type games blur that line. The players have more say about the setting, and the GM has more say about the characters; specifically is meant to challenge the characters’ concepts rather than just give players space to express their chosen concept.

Neither is better than the other, beyond preference, but they are certainly distinct.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that comparing these two kinds of play, it’s clear there’s a starker line between GM and player in one than in the other. As you suggest, in D&D, the character and just about everything about them is up to the player, while the setting and everything about it is up to the GM.

But narrative type games blur that line. The players have more say about the setting, and the GM has more say about the characters; specifically is meant to challenge the characters’ concepts rather than just give players space to express their chosen concept.

Neither is better than the other, beyond preference, but they are certainly distinct.

It's also true that the Paladin's code of honour in D&D is filling a very different mechanical/narrative niche than beliefs in BW. Poking at beliefs works in BW because it's designed to (and BW is nothing if not elegantly designed). The Paladin's code, by comparison, is more like a bothersome ribbon in terms of character.

 

[niklinna]

It's also true that the Paladin's code of honour in D&D is filling a very different mechanical/narrative niche than beliefs in BW. Poking at beliefs works in BW because it's designed to (and BW is nothing if not elegantly designed). The Paladin's code, by comparison, is more like a bothersome ribbon in terms of character.

Now you've got me imagining if, instead of recharging on a short or long rest, a 5e paladin's powers recharged only when they did a noble or pious deed.

 

[Bagpuss]

Agreed. Ultimately if you are playing a paladin with a code of honour in D&D and the GM spent half of every session poking at it and seeing if you will break or subvert the code, or imposing harsh consequences on you or those you love for sticking to it... you'd probably think that GM was being a dick. But in a narrativist game you might think the GM was being a dick if they didn't do that because they'd be neglecting your intended theme.

In a D&D game you would normally expect your paladin with a code of honour to stay a paladin with a code of honour for the whole of the campaign. And if it did change for a while, for the status quo to be restored not long after. Whereas again in a narr game that paladin with a code of honour is likely to be very different after X sessions of play - to have either breached their code or have paid a very heavy cost for not doing so.

That's perhaps true but it doesn't need to be. I played a Paladin in a recent 1st Ed Pathfinder campaign that routinely visited brothels between adventures (which was totally legal in the setting). The GM acting through the NPCs Mayor of the town and head of the local church that he followed, constantly challenged him on it, saying it was bringing the church into disrepute, not behaviour fitting of a paladin. It allowed my Paladin to have a religious debate with him. At no point did the DM go "This isn't Lawful Good, you loose your Paladin status", but it was challenged in character.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I’m not sure if you’re telling me what I wrote was helpful or…something else?

Oh, it was helpful. My apologies for being unclear, no hidden meaning or snark intended.

Regardless though, the nature of GM’s prep (amount and type) and their employment of that prep is going to be quite different (leading to a very divergent play experience for both players and GMs) in the above configurations, right?

Maybe.

There seems to be an assumption that preparation for a game / setting is necessarily onerous. Also, that the play experiences are necessarily divergent. I don't think it needs to be. Now, it may be unusual that the players at my game can make whatever character they want and have full permission to "break" the world I have created. There have been many changes over the years, and they can "see behind the curtain" enough that they can author changes which then unfold. A delight we share is when current players encounter aspects that were authored by players past.

I mean, is it "setting tourism" if you encounter something authored by someone else than the DM?

I think the assertion here is that a declaration of a belief, say in Burning Wheel, is a proposition, not an assertion of fact about the character. If I were to say put forward the belief "I am loyal to the king" and then I'm also an officer of the kingdom, owing a duty to the kingdom as a whole, how loyal am I to the man on the throne? More loyal than I am responsible to my office?

I think this is an excellent question to play through, and really doesn't matter what system you're playing in. It is easier when there is a formal means of contesting ideals, certainly. In Burning Wheel the player certainly has 3-6 specific things that are to be directly challenged, where in other systems the player may not be expecting to be challenged over what is little more than "color". Again, communication is key, especially so that it isn't unexpected.

Sometimes people play paladins so they have a fighter+, not because they want to be an ethical chew-toy. Sometimes they do. It depends.

Part of the reason I acquired Burning Wheel, and will eventually acquire Apocalypse World, is to see what the magic is that you, pemerton, et al., are talking about. My games are larger affairs, 6-8 players on average, and we seem to have a blend of map-and-key and narrative styles. Some of my players aren't really interested in more narrative aspects, some are. Things that I see in narrative story hours I have experienced in my own game. I didn't design for it, but it seems to be an emergent property. Anyway, I'm reading these other games to learn about some mechanics that might otherwise improve the game I am currently running.

That was probably all over the place. Distracted.

 

[pemerton]

Why? 5e doesn't handle alignment in a classical manner. Among other reasons, that's why it is false.

I don't follow. @soviet asserts that there's a difference between X and Y. The fact that a particular game might be Y rather than X doesn't show there's no difference!

But also, the fact that 5e D&D doesn't exemplify its X-ness via the particular mode I described doesn't show it's not X. My overwhelming impression is that 5e D&D, as actually played, is mostly a version of exemplifying the idea of the character, not challenging the idea of the character.

not only are there several oaths for paladins there is explicitly an oath for the oathbreakers.

<snip>

If the character is honorable, then the milieu responds to that according to the worldbuilding / setting, be it reinforcement or challenge. And the challenge could be how do you deal with betrayal or dishonorable people.

Oathbreaker paladins are not part of a system for challenging the idea of the character. They're a method for giving mechanical expression to the idea of a fallen paladin.

And the idea of the milieu responding to a character is all about the content of the fiction. Whereas @soviet's contrast is not about the content of the fiction, but about the purpose and the focus of play.

I mean, yes, if I'm playing Bushido, Pendragon, Burning Wheel, or Vampire: the Masquerade the precise game definitions are important. If I'm playing D&D with an honor system addon the precise definition is important.

The RPGs you mention are all examples of @soviet's X (ie "exemplifying the idea of the character").

None of them is a RPG widely used to play a game of "challenge the idea of the character" - they could be drifted in that direction, but the drifting will reveal the mechanical limits of their frameworks.

Ultimately, I think that the order of Worldbuilding / Setting => Character or Character => Worldbuilding / Setting is irrelevant. The key part is Character => Situation. I need to know what kind of game my players want. Presumably, they will make their characters in accord with that desire and will seek out those situations appropriately.

The idea of "seeking out situations" already shows the difference that you deny. In Burning Wheel (or Apocalypse World) there is no "seeking out situations".

 

[soviet]

That's perhaps true but it doesn't need to be. I played a Paladin in a recent 1st Ed Pathfinder campaign that routinely visited brothels between adventures (which was totally legal in the setting). The GM acting through the NPCs Mayor of the town and head of the local church that he followed, constantly challenged him on it, saying it was bringing the church into disrepute, not behaviour fitting of a paladin. It allowed my Paladin to have a religious debate with him. At no point did the DM go "This isn't Lawful Good, you loose your Paladin status", but it was challenged in character.

Sure. I'm not saying these things can't come up in many different styles of play. What I'm saying is there is a difference of frequency and consequence. There are games and playstyles where challenges to your character's sense of honour or paladinhood are the primary focus of play, or where the outcome of those challenges are likely to be profound and far reaching - either real collateral damage to oneself or one's goals and loved ones for sticking to the code, or an abandonment or breach of the code that leads to a significant change in status quo for the character - exile, ronin, death, and so on.

 

[pemerton]

That's perhaps true but it doesn't need to be. I played a Paladin in a recent 1st Ed Pathfinder campaign that routinely visited brothels between adventures (which was totally legal in the setting). The GM acting through the NPCs Mayor of the town and head of the local church that he followed, constantly challenged him on it, saying it was bringing the church into disrepute, not behaviour fitting of a paladin. It allowed my Paladin to have a religious debate with him. At no point did the DM go "This isn't Lawful Good, you loose your Paladin status", but it was challenged in character.

What was the real nature of the challenge here? As you describe it (eg "between adventures"), it sound like colour but not much else.

Sure. I'm not saying these things can't come up in many different styles of play. What I'm saying is there is a difference of frequency and consequence. There are games and playstyles where challenges to your character's sense of honour or paladinhood are the primary focus of play, or where the outcome of those challenges are likely to be profound and far reaching - either real collateral damage to oneself or one's goals and loved ones for sticking to the code, or an abandonment or breach of the code that leads to a significant change in status quo for the character - exile, ronin, death, and so on.

One starting point: is there such a thing as "the adventure"? In Burning Wheel play, there is no "the adventure" that is distinct from challenging this player-authored Belief.

 

[Bagpuss]

What was the real nature of the challenge here? As you describe it (eg "between adventures"), it sound like colour but not much else.

Just an roleplaying one, as in them taking offense at it, threats to expel me from the town/order, that sort of stuff. Doesn't need mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Just an roleplaying one, as in them taking offense at it, threats to expel me from the town/order, that sort of stuff. Doesn't need mechanics.

I'm not really asking about mechanics. I'm asking about its place within the overall architecture and logic of play.

 

[soviet]

Just an roleplaying one, as in them taking offense at it, threats to expel me from the town/order, that sort of stuff. Doesn't need mechanics.

But what happened as a result? What changed?

 

[soviet]

Hope this is OK but as an illustration here's an excerpt from the GM chapter of my game Other Worlds which tries to make this stuff a big part of play:

Give the Characters Hard Choices

Now that the characters have both information and leverage, we get to turn up the heat and force them to make some hard choices about what they’re going to do. Many of these decisions will have a strong moral component, but some may be more personal or strategic in nature. Setting up these kinds of dilemmas can be a difficult part of GMing, but it is really the crux of successful play. Such problems put the character under the microscope and allow their player to make a clear statement about who they are and what they truly believe in. These statements then lead in to further character examination and development as we begin to explore the ramifications of what he has just done – and who he has done it to.

All the ammunition you need to create these moral dilemmas is right there on the character sheet. Take a close look at each character’s values as an individual – his goals, his flaws, his relationships, and his personality traits. Pick one of these values and try to find some way to test it. Pit it against one of his other values, or against the success of the mission itself. Force him to choose which one is most important to him, or at least to find out what he will do to try to maintain both values equally. For example, you might test a character’s Loyalty to the Company against his Do the Right Thing ability by having his employers give him some morally dubious assignment, or test his desire to Become a Jedi against his need to Avenge My Father’s Death by having the one person able to train him be the same man who killed his father all those years ago (testing also his Compassionate ability against his People Never Change ability).

You can also explore the intensity of a character’s individually-held beliefs by setting up situations where they may have potentially undesirable consequences, just to see how far he will go in trying to uphold them. Is there a line he will not cross, a sacrifice he will not make? For example, if he is Scrupulously Honest, would he lie to get himself out of trouble? Or to save his marriage? What about to get his daughter further up the transplant list? If he truly believes that The Ends Justify the Means in his undercover mission against the mob, what will he do to preserve his cover? Will he beat up an innocent man? Will he sit back and watch while an innocent man is killed? Will he kill the innocent man himself if necessary?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hope this is OK but as an illustration here's an excerpt from the GM chapter of my game Other Worlds which tries to make this stuff a big part of play:

Give the Characters Hard Choices

Now that the characters have both information and leverage, we get to turn up the heat and force them to make some hard choices about what they’re going to do. Many of these decisions will have a strong moral component, but some may be more personal or strategic in nature. Setting up these kinds of dilemmas can be a difficult part of GMing, but it is really the crux of successful play. Such problems put the character under the microscope and allow their player to make a clear statement about who they are and what they truly believe in. These statements then lead in to further character examination and development as we begin to explore the ramifications of what he has just done – and who he has done it to.

All the ammunition you need to create these moral dilemmas is right there on the character sheet. Take a close look at each character’s values as an individual – his goals, his flaws, his relationships, and his personality traits. Pick one of these values and try to find some way to test it. Pit it against one of his other values, or against the success of the mission itself. Force him to choose which one is most important to him, or at least to find out what he will do to try to maintain both values equally. For example, you might test a character’s Loyalty to the Company against his Do the Right Thing ability by having his employers give him some morally dubious assignment, or test his desire to Become a Jedi against his need to Avenge My Father’s Death by having the one person able to train him be the same man who killed his father all those years ago (testing also his Compassionate ability against his People Never Change ability).

You can also explore the intensity of a character’s individually-held beliefs by setting up situations where they may have potentially undesirable consequences, just to see how far he will go in trying to uphold them. Is there a line he will not cross, a sacrifice he will not make? For example, if he is Scrupulously Honest, would he lie to get himself out of trouble? Or to save his marriage? What about to get his daughter further up the transplant list? If he truly believes that The Ends Justify the Means in his undercover mission against the mob, what will he do to preserve his cover? Will he beat up an innocent man? Will he sit back and watch while an innocent man is killed? Will he kill the innocent man himself if necessary?

And finally, going full circle, we come back to prep and how it's used. A character driven game that tests the proposition which is the PC will build around those propositions. It's situations and even setting will produce those tests and things like time and space will have secondary import over relationships, intentions, and needs.

In D&D a guard exists to be a mechanical challenge. He may have personality traits, connections, etc which can be part of that, but in a BitD game that guard's connection to the PCs, what group he belongs to, etc is the point of his existence.

 

[niklinna]

Just an roleplaying one, as in them taking offense at it, threats to expel me from the town/order, that sort of stuff. Doesn't need mechanics.

Ah, you were challenging the GM's sense of what constitute proper Paladin behavior. Bully for you!

I wonder if there are any RPG's that explicitly do that. One could argue that Dogs in the Vineyard does—in spite of its laundry list of things that constitute The Faith*, the dogs (that is, the PCs) have final say in any given situation. Disagreements between them make things more complicated of course.

 

[Bagpuss]

But what happened as a result? What changed?

How the character is viewed by his peers within the order, relationship with the city mayor who was one of the main patrons for the party, that sort of stuff. Not everything needs a mechanical difference to be part of the story.

 

[clearstream]

How the character is viewed by his peers within the order, relationship with the city mayor who was one of the main patrons for the party, that sort of stuff. Not everything needs a mechanical difference to be part of the story.

The latter makes sense. As to the former, those sound like external changes. Did anything change internal to the character?