D&D 5E Fairy tale logic vs naturalism in fantasy RPGing

[Sword of Spirit]

Like I tend to do after a thread gets too long, I skipped part of this thread, so I'm possibly covering ground already covered.

By severing causal connections, fairy tale logic frees up individual scenario elements to be at least semi-autonomous in their framing and resolution. It's not the only way to do that (eg there are player-side mechanics that can do the same thing while favouring naturalism over fairy tale logic - though D&D tends not to have these). But it's one way.

Okay, I think I am maybe kind of getting what you are talking about here. I'm still not sure how it relates to the player vs GM control of the scenario that I'm seeing (perhaps incorrectly) you reference.

It seems to me that fairy tale logic is incredibly flexible and subjective. There isn't necessarily an obviousness to it that empowers the players and takes decision making weight off the GM. It can shift a lot of the GM's work from up front world creation to scene by scene spontaneous decisions, but I don't think it addresses player agency at all--or if it does it does it the opposite way you see it.

In short, I guess what I'm saying is that fairy tale logic is less predictable and learnable than naturalist logic. The only way a player can have more control in such an unpredictable situation is if the DM accepts whatever logic a player proposes and weaves it into the narrative, and there is no reason the DM couldn't do the same thing with world design in a naturalistic world.

On the other elements of the discussion...

I don't think fairy tale logic is well-suited to a long campaign. It is perfectly suited to a story, or a string of episodic stories with undefined gaps of time between them.

In an ongoing campaign most people are just going to eventually start asking the questions that can't be answered by fairy tale logic, because that's normal human thought process.

For example, let's say the characters are supposed to be adventuring in the same Land. After a few stories, you just won't be able to stop at least some of the players from beginning to form a mental map, and then questions will come up like, "Wait a minute, I thought you said it was months from the Castle to the Dark Tower, and a week further to the Wasteland, but now you are saying it is only days from the Castle to the Wasteland. I think I'm lost." And there are only so many times you can say, "Yes, you're lost!" before it turns into a farce and they cease to take it seriously.

Now, I personally really like using fairy tale logic in some places, whether we are talking about fay realms or short stories. For instance, I designed and ran a ten session theme adventure for my players. They basically started out arriving in a kingdom from different directions in response to a call for heroes to save the day. In the story, there was basically only one road in the kingdom, and one town with the castle, the rest of it seeming to be a combination of cultivated fields, open meadows of flowers, and wilderness. Despite that, the king and queen were all dressed up in full fairy tale monarch clothing, and there was apparently enough commerce to support bandits, while not posing a sufficient threat to the seemingly small population to justify the king mounting a full scale bandit eradication effort. In other words, the kingdom, as described, really worked on fairy tale logic. The adventure was kicked off by a prophecy that basically told them to go all the west on the road to achieve X, and then go east on the road to achieve Y, and that they wouldn't have any time to spare and shouldn't stop. The distance was conveniently exactly what it needed to be for them to not have any time to spare, etc.

Would that have worked as part of an ongoing campaign? Absolutely not.

But that doesn't mean it can't be part of a consistent world. Because this kingdom was created to be part of my homeworld, it actually does/will have an internal consistency if it ever comes up (ie, if other characters end up in that neck of the woods). This will involve adding additional villages, smaller roads, keeps, etc, that simply "didn't come up" in that fairy tale story, having been glossed over in the background. It won't contradict anything previous established, and ideally won't detract from the flavor of the land. It will, however, basically eliminate the ability to use that part of that kingdom as the setting for a similar fairy tale in the future.

So that comes back to the ongoing campaign idea. Part of fairy tale logic requires a good degree of ignorance on the part of the protagonists, but an ongoing campaign automatically involves the acquisition of information about the world. The only way around this would be to have a world that is slippery and ever-changing in such a way that it prevents accumulation of knowledge about it--and that goes beyond fairy tale into surreality. That is why ongoing campaigns aren't generally set in Faerie. It's a fun place to visit, but living there would drive you crazy, unless you were of fay nature yourself, in which case you basically are crazy by human standards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems to me that fairy tale logic is incredibly flexible and subjective. In short, I guess what I'm saying is that fairy tale logic is less predictable and learnable than naturalist logic.

Fairy-tale logic makes sense to 4-year-olds. Can't be that unlearnable. Could be a little less than predictable, at times.

But it's not hard to cope with.

I don't think fairy tale logic is well-suited to a long campaign. It is perfectly suited to a story, or a string of episodic stories with undefined gaps of time between them.

A single story-arc could encompass a long campaign, and sure, fairy tale logic would work fine for that - because it is the logic of stories.

In an ongoing campaign most people are just going to eventually start asking the questions that can't be answered by fairy tale logic, because that's normal human thought process.

'Most people' might, but most people don't play D&D.

After a few stories, you just won't be able to stop at least some of the players from beginning to form a mental map, and then questions will come up like, "Wait a minute, I thought you said it was months from the Castle to the Dark Tower, and a week further to the Wasteland, but now you are saying it is only days from the Castle to the Wasteland. I think I'm lost."

Would you say Star Trek used fairy-tale logic? Because that particular continuity issue seemed to come up a lot.

 

[pemerton]

Okay, I think I am maybe kind of getting what you are talking about here. I'm still not sure how it relates to the player vs GM control of the scenario that I'm seeing (perhaps incorrectly) you reference.

It seems to me that fairy tale logic is incredibly flexible and subjective. There isn't necessarily an obviousness to it that empowers the players and takes decision making weight off the GM. It can shift a lot of the GM's work from up front world creation to scene by scene spontaneous decisions, but I don't think it addresses player agency at all

I am assuming that we also take the next step - that once we are in the zone of "scene by scene spontaneous decisions", we use the mechanics of the game to address player action declarations. Thereby giving the players agency (which is not apt to be thwarted by appeals to "behind the scenes" causal logic).

The only way a player can have more control in such an unpredictable situation is if the DM accepts whatever logic a player proposes and weaves it into the narrative

I was thinking of far more mundane stuff like declaring actions and rolling dice!

there is no reason the DM couldn't do the same thing with world design in a naturalistic world.

A naturalistic world introduces far more considerations into play - including considerations to which only the GM has access (like the "naturalistic" motives of NPCs) - and makes following the face-value logic of action declarations and resolutions far less viable.

In a naturalistic world, will the ogre be friendly to the elf just because the reaction dice came up 76? In the fairytale world of dungeon exploration, though, the answer is "yes". Why is the ogre friendly? Either (i) don't worry about it, or (ii) make up something about this ogre, with no need to ground it in some deep naturalist logic of ogre life and society.

I don't think fairy tale logic is well-suited to a long campaign. It is perfectly suited to a story, or a string of episodic stories with undefined gaps of time between them.

In an ongoing campaign most people are just going to eventually start asking the questions that can't be answered by fairy tale logic, because that's normal human thought process.

For example, let's say the characters are supposed to be adventuring in the same Land. After a few stories, you just won't be able to stop at least some of the players from beginning to form a mental map, and then questions will come up like, "Wait a minute, I thought you said it was months from the Castle to the Dark Tower, and a week further to the Wasteland, but now you are saying it is only days from the Castle to the Wasteland. I think I'm lost." And there are only so many times you can say, "Yes, you're lost!" before it turns into a farce and they cease to take it seriously.

This is not an issue I've ever had.

My main 4e game has been running now for 8 years. In that time, all the action on the mortal world has taken place on one map, namely, the inside front cover of Night's Dark Terror. I haven't got it in front of me, but I would guess that it is about 50-ish by 30-ish hexes, or around 150-200 miles wide by 100 or so miles high (they are 3 mile hexes). In that rather small space, everything of historical or cosmological significance in a 1st to 30th campaign has taken place: goblin armies, gnoll hordes, ruins of ancient Nerath, ruins of ancient Arkhosia, caves just below the surface that have been unchanged since the Dawn War, underdark entrances to great drow and duergar cities, etc, etc.

That everything that might matter to humanity should take place within such a geographically modest expanse is itself the logic of the fairy tale. It has caused no issues.

And in a game in which distance is being disregarded because everything is just "N days ride through the forest", then the GM won't be specifying travel time in days, and the players sense of being lost or found won't be operating in that fashion. (After a certain point I did not use any maps for the underdark component of my campaign. It didn't matter - travel was arbitrated via skill checks, and using rough concepts like "a few days of journeying". Different locations were identified through their significance as sites of events, not in terms of their geographic relationship to one another.)

Part of fairy tale logic requires a good degree of ignorance on the part of the protagonists, but an ongoing campaign automatically involves the acquisition of information about the world.

I don't agree. The absence of geographic, or other naturalistic/causal knowledge, doesn't mean ignorance in general.

 

[pemerton]

Fairy-tale logic makes sense to 4-year-olds. Can't be that unlearnable.

Unlearn what you have learned!


(Then you'll be ready for fairy-tale logic.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Fairy-tale logic makes sense to 4-year-olds. Can't be that unlearnable. Could be a little less than predictable, at times.

But it's not hard to cope with.

I am assuming that we also take the next step - that once we are in the zone of "scene by scene spontaneous decisions", we use the mechanics of the game to address player action declarations. Thereby giving the players agency (which is not apt to be thwarted by appeals to "behind the scenes" causal logic).

I was thinking of far more mundane stuff like declaring actions and rolling dice!

A naturalistic world introduces far more considerations into play - including considerations to which only the GM has access (like the "naturalistic" motives of NPCs) - and makes following the face-value logic of action declarations and resolutions far less viable.

In a naturalistic world, will the ogre be friendly to the elf just because the reaction dice came up 76? In the fairytale world of dungeon exploration, though, the answer is "yes". Why is the ogre friendly? Either (i) don't worry about it, or (ii) make up something about this ogre, with no need to ground it in some deep naturalist logic of ogre life and society.

Let me elaborate. In naturalistic logic, each event has pretty much one outcome defined by the parameters. Uncertainty as to the exact nature of that outcome is based on logical limitations of knowledge of the natural world--which are often integrated via dice or DM's judgement call. However the parameters of possible outcomes are obvious enough that you can anticipate and make choices without being surprised at the outcomes.

In fairy tale logic, each event can have an indefinite number of possible outcomes that are thematically appropriate. You, as the player, cannot know what the range of outcomes is, because what is thematically appropriate isn't quantifiable. It is based on a subjective feeling. All you can do is have certain possible outcomes that occur to you--none of which necessarily overlap with those thought of by the DM.

Naturalistic Logic: I can anticipate the possible outcomes and choose my actions based on probabilities, and will not be surprised with the results.
Fairy Tale Logic: I cannot anticipate the results unless I can read the DM's mind, so I might not know any possible outcomes at all.

Now, here is what I think is going on, based on the play example from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's campaign: It is being assumed that players are being given narrative control in the fairy tale logic, and that they are not in naturalistic logic. This is an entirely different consideration than the point that I am addressing (which is the point that I interpreted the OP to be talking about).

Well of course the players have more narrative control of the story if they are given it! I might even say that fairy tale logic is more amenable to giving players narrative control. But I maintain my position that narrative control is a consideration independent of fairy tale logic.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's play example already gave us a fun account of fairy tale logic + player narrative control, so there is no need to create an example of that one. Examples of naturalistic logic + minimal player narrative control are the standard for simulationist play, so no examples needed. An example of naturalistic logic + player narrative control is a simulationist world where players have a resource that lets them make things true in the world by override. Usually this is represented by some sort of points that are spent to gain rerolls, or better yet, just buy stuff like a contact, or a lucky break, or whatever. Many systems have something like this, so we don't need an example.

Here is the example we do need, that of fairy tale logic with minimal player narrative control:

The players confront the Faerie Princess who has been creating some sort of mischief for humans. The GM knows that the theme of this is about her sorrow causing her to transfer her pain to others with similar mindsets, and that she is afraid of offending the Frog King. If the players know about these parameters and act on them in thematically appropriate ways, within the boundaries of the story's assumptions, the GM is likely to rule that they succeed (perhaps with the help of dice) in the same manner as he would if they made appropriate choices in naturalistic logic. So the player says that he allows himself to feel the Faerie Princess's pains rather than fighting against the bewitchment, and tried to sympathize deeply with her, and to love her rather than fear her. He addresses her with true empathy, and offers some great sacrifice to free her from her suffering (perhaps volunteering to face the wrath of the Frog King for her). The GM rules (with or without dice) that this is awesome, and the faerie princess, feeling the sincerity and love of this person she hardly knows, finds hope, which breaks the spell her mood had inflicted on others, and leads to a happy ending. On the other hand, the player might say that he draws his sword, seeking to smite down the Faerie Princess with his might and bring her reign of terror to an end. Well, that isn't really part of the story's theme. The faerie princess, you see is an otherworldly creature who can't be prevailed upon by such will of mortals. The GM rules that the Faerie Princess traps him under her spell, leading to an unhappy ending that takes the player completely by surprise.

The reason this took the player by surprise is that the particular fairy tale logic in an individual story is harder to predict than naturalistic logic. A child can hear a story and feel how the ending is "right" (or not, like that scene in the Princess Bride where the kid says that the storyteller is ruining the story), but if you ask a child to jump in and tell you what the character does, they are likely to go off theme entirely. So they might "get it", but that doesn't mean they know how to tell it (ie, play the protagonist).

The objection is going to be that if the GM were clearer about the thematic elements of the story, the players wouldn't find themselves going off theme and not being able to reasonably predict the outcome, and that the same issue could happen in a naturalistic story if the players were dealing with laws of physics, technology, or magic that weren't correctly explained to them. This is of course true. However, my assertion is that it is significantly easier to get everyone on the same page with regards to naturalistic logic, in such a way as to avoid such unpredictable outcomes, than it is in fairy tale logic. The advantage that I'm seeing this thread grant to fairy tale logic in regards to player agency is really just this:

Fairy tale logic + player narrative control + clear GM communication of themes = less prep time for the GM
compared to
Naturalistic logic + minimal player narrative control + clear GM communication of laws of nature = less player narrative control and more GM prep time

I don't have any disagreement with that, but I thought it was worth bringing out that if this is the end point to be arrived at, it was not easy to find.

A single story-arc could encompass a long campaign, and sure, fairy tale logic would work fine for that - because it is the logic of stories.

I'll have to discuss it in my essay that I will write some day in the hopefully not imaginary future, but I contest the idea that role-playing games, as played by many people, actually constitute either games or stories. Some can be one, some can be both, and some can be neither, but I think the assumptions no longer hold true (and perhaps haven't since the earliest days of RPGs), and that even when it does constitute a story, "telling a story" is generally an inaccurate way of describing the experience.

So basically, in situational agreement with a similar argument used against a different position of mine of a while ago, I don't think we can always compare what works in an RPG with what works in a story.

'Most people' might, but most people don't play D&D.

Would you say Star Trek used fairy-tale logic? Because that particular continuity issue seemed to come up a lot.

Absolutely, in this sense in which we are talking about it.

My main 4e game has been running now for 8 years. In that time, all the action on the mortal world has taken place on one map, namely, the inside front cover of Night's Dark Terror. I haven't got it in front of me, but I would guess that it is about 50-ish by 30-ish hexes, or around 150-200 miles wide by 100 or so miles high (they are 3 mile hexes). In that rather small space, everything of historical or cosmological significance in a 1st to 30th campaign has taken place: goblin armies, gnoll hordes, ruins of ancient Nerath, ruins of ancient Arkhosia, caves just below the surface that have been unchanged since the Dawn War, underdark entrances to great drow and duergar cities, etc, etc.

That everything that might matter to humanity should take place within such a geographically modest expanse is itself the logic of the fairy tale. It has caused no issues.

And in a game in which distance is being disregarded because everything is just "N days ride through the forest", then the GM won't be specifying travel time in days, and the players sense of being lost or found won't be operating in that fashion. (After a certain point I did not use any maps for the underdark component of my campaign. It didn't matter - travel was arbitrated via skill checks, and using rough concepts like "a few days of journeying". Different locations were identified through their significance as sites of events, not in terms of their geographic relationship to one another.)

I don't agree. The absence of geographic, or other naturalistic/causal knowledge, doesn't mean ignorance in general.

You're apparently doing an excellent job, but you may be giving your skills too little credit compared to the ease of the task. Just because you can do it well, doesn't mean it is a more accessible method. I'm apparently really good at spontaneously using established parameters to set situational specifics. For example, I love the clear but loose guidelines for setting ability check DCs in 5e. I can just get a feel for the right sorts of DCs and set them on the fly and am very comfortable with my results. But a lot of good GMs aren't comfortable with that sort of thing at all.

In this specific scenario, keeping everything within such a relatively small area really helps out because everything is just "a few days" away from everything else.

I'm probably in danger of rambling on (some would say way past in danger of) at this point.

 

[pemerton]

In naturalistic logic, each event has pretty much one outcome defined by the parameters. Uncertainty as to the exact nature of that outcome is based on logical limitations of knowledge of the natural world--which are often integrated via dice or DM's judgement call. However the parameters of possible outcomes are obvious enough that you can anticipate and make choices without being surprised at the outcomes.

I think this is the crux of the matter.

I don't think it's true that, in naturalistic logic, the parameters are such that choices can be made without being surprised by the outcome.

In the real world, people get surprised by outcome all the time! And in RPGing, if the outcome depends upon a GM judgement call about (eg) what the trolls will do after their room in the dungeon has been scouted out by the PCs, I think outcomes can be very varied there as well.

In fairy tale logic, each event can have an indefinite number of possible outcomes that are thematically appropriate. You, as the player, cannot know what the range of outcomes is, because what is thematically appropriate isn't quantifiable. It is based on a subjective feeling. All you can do is have certain possible outcomes that occur to you--none of which necessarily overlap with those thought of by the DM.

This seems to assume that resolution comes down to GM fiat. But, as I posted upthread, I am assuming that we are using the rules of the game - so (given we're talking particularly about D&D) there are rules for NPC reactions (or CHA/Diplomacy-type checks, in later editions), for encounters, for combat, etc.

The player can predict those outcomes based on a mixture of knowledge of the game rules and knowledge of probabilities. And, in systems that allow players to expend resources to change the odds (eg Inspiration in 5e), they can deploy those resources to change the odds in favour of the result that they want.

You're apparently doing an excellent job, but you may be giving your skills too little credit compared to the ease of the task. Just because you can do it well, doesn't mean it is a more accessible method.

While it's flattering to be praised - thank you! - I don't think it's as hard as you suggest. (The Marvel Comics writers seemed to have no trouble having every dramatic event ever happen in NYC!)

It's easy to forget that the origins of the game are in non-naturalistic settings that confine the action so as to make it easier to manage - namely, dungeons.

 

[Aenghus]

In fairy tale logic, each event can have an indefinite number of possible outcomes that are thematically appropriate. You, as the player, cannot know what the range of outcomes is, because what is thematically appropriate isn't quantifiable. It is based on a subjective feeling. All you can do is have certain possible outcomes that occur to you--none of which necessarily overlap with those thought of by the DM.

Naturalistic Logic: I can anticipate the possible outcomes and choose my actions based on probabilities, and will not be surprised with the results.

People disagree strenuously about everything in the real word all the time, just look at the internet! There is no standard for "Naturalistic Logic" and I've seen many versions muted by different sources with huge variations. The failure modes of naturalistic logic in a game is particularly insidious as when the DM is adjudicating according to his or her own worldview, disagreeing with rulings implies you disagree with their worldview as well. Limited game bandwidth, misunderstandings, and differences of opinion mean that players can very much be surprised by the results of adjudication. The complex interactions of a set of simple rules or rulings can lead to unexpected places.

Along with "Common sense isn't common", I would add the observation that "Naturalistic logic isn't Natural" as both qualities are very subjective..

Statements like "I don't understand how you can misinterpret this situation, it's crystal clear to me", and "I don't need to provide explanations, it should be obvious" are symptomatic of such failures to communicate, and I've seen them again and again.

Fairy Tale Logic: I cannot anticipate the results unless I can read the DM's mind, so I might not know any possible outcomes at all.

Precisely because fairy tale logic is unusual, there is more onus on the DM to provide relevant context.

Now, here is what I think is going on, based on the play example from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's campaign: It is being assumed that players are being given narrative control in the fairy tale logic, and that they are not in naturalistic logic. This is an entirely different consideration than the point that I am addressing (which is the point that I interpreted the OP to be talking about).

Well of course the players have more narrative control of the story if they are given it! I might even say that fairy tale logic is more amenable to giving players narrative control. But I maintain my position that narrative control is a consideration independent of fairy tale logic.
(snip)

IMO this is yet another spectrum rather than a binary decision. The degree the gameworld is propelled by the interaction of a weave of logical cause-and-effect chains, or by grand sweeping themes and iconic NPCs can vary from campaign to campaign, sessions to session or even scene to scene.

I prefer to use rules systems rather than personal opinions on "naturalistic logic" to run a game, as the former is accessible to everyone and can be debated, whereas disagreements as to the latter are immediately personal as potentially disagreeing with the worldview of the DM.

My own mantra as its evolved is that the DMs responsibility is to run an entertaining and accessible game for all involved and that versimilitude and fidelity to setting are secondary considerations. I've seen too many games where theoretical considerations have dragged the game to places that aren't fun for some of the participants.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think this is the crux of the matter.

I don't think it's true that, in naturalistic logic, the parameters are such that choices can be made without being surprised by the outcome.

In the real world, people get surprised by outcome all the time! And in RPGing, if the outcome depends upon a GM judgement call about (eg) what the trolls will do after their room in the dungeon has been scouted out by the PCs, I think outcomes can be very varied there as well.

This seems to assume that resolution comes down to GM fiat. But, as I posted upthread, I am assuming that we are using the rules of the game - so (given we're talking particularly about D&D) there are rules for NPC reactions (or CHA/Diplomacy-type checks, in later editions), for encounters, for combat, etc.

The player can predict those outcomes based on a mixture of knowledge of the game rules and knowledge of probabilities. And, in systems that allow players to expend resources to change the odds (eg Inspiration in 5e), they can deploy those resources to change the odds in favour of the result that they want.

Can you give an example of how this would play out? From the play example earlier in the thread, I got the impression that if you succeed in the task resolution mechanic, you are given a great deal of narrative control over the result. That's primarily what I'm addressing. I just don't think it's very easy to address the premises unless we separate out that component. They're two different axes that a play example can be situation on. We need to settle on the same X coordinate for both situations if we are going to discuss the Y coordinates.

While it's flattering to be praised - thank you! - I don't think it's as hard as you suggest. (The Marvel Comics writers seemed to have no trouble having every dramatic event ever happen in NYC!)

It's easy to forget that the origins of the game are in non-naturalistic settings that confine the action so as to make it easier to manage - namely, dungeons.

An element that seems to be pulling a lot of the weight, if I'm reading things right, is the lack of downtime play. Stories are paced in scenes, so it is really easy to say, "after traveling for a few days", or "when you arrive", or even for extra fun "meanwhile..."

Now, it's perfectly possible to run an episodic campaign with little downtime where everything is either a significant scene, or not worth mentioning. I'm aiming for exactly that in one of my D&D campaigns, though I usually keep my D&D more as a history of the party's lives, because my players naturally play that way. Yes, they enjoy going shopping and going out to eat in-character. (Once, an NPC merchant I was portraying convinced a PC to buy a mundane, but well-made and cool-looking, rapier when he was trying to save money and had no intention of doing so; and we regularly make ourselves hungry with in-game food.)

If there is buy-in from the players that the campaign is focused an episodic like that, than you aren't likely to have as many issues. I just don't take that as an assumed style of play, because most games probably fall somewhere between the extreme examples.

People disagree strenuously about everything in the real word all the time, just look at the internet! There is no standard for "Naturalistic Logic" and I've seen many versions muted by different sources with huge variations. The failure modes of naturalistic logic in a game is particularly insidious as when the DM is adjudicating according to his or her own worldview, disagreeing with rulings implies you disagree with their worldview as well. Limited game bandwidth, misunderstandings, and differences of opinion mean that players can very much be surprised by the results of adjudication. The complex interactions of a set of simple rules or rulings can lead to unexpected places.

Along with "Common sense isn't common", I would add the observation that "Naturalistic logic isn't Natural" as both qualities are very subjective..

Statements like "I don't understand how you can misinterpret this situation, it's crystal clear to me", and "I don't need to provide explanations, it should be obvious" are symptomatic of such failures to communicate, and I've seen them again and again.

I think I see what you're saying here. I'll just reference you to the examples I gave though. Since fairy tale logic is surreal, each person at the table's version of it is probably going to differ more than each person's version of how gravity works in general. Disagreements about gravity in D&D are a classic, but they don't usually involve, "What do you mean he falls down!? He clearly just betrayed his evil master and turned back to the cause of good. When he stepped off of that cliff, he should have fallen straight up to the heavens!"

IMO this is yet another spectrum rather than a binary decision. The degree the gameworld is propelled by the interaction of a weave of logical cause-and-effect chains, or by grand sweeping themes and iconic NPCs can vary from campaign to campaign, sessions to session or even scene to scene.

Abolutely! It's another spectrum that shouldn't be confused with the naturalistic logic or fairy tale logic spectrum.

I prefer to use rules systems rather than personal opinions on "naturalistic logic" to run a game, as the former is accessible to everyone and can be debated, whereas disagreements as to the latter are immediately personal as potentially disagreeing with the worldview of the DM.

Yet another spectrum, rules weight and degree of application!

My own mantra as its evolved is that the DMs responsibility is to run an entertaining and accessible game for all involved and that versimilitude and fidelity to setting are secondary considerations. I've seen too many games where theoretical considerations have dragged the game to places that aren't fun for some of the participants.

Generally anything that stops the game isn't that great unless everyone is enjoying it. Verisimilitude and fidelity to setting might very well be an important element in what makes some games fun, and neglecting them could negatively impact that fun just as much as pausing the game for a discussion about math or physics. Personally I like to keep the game going, because it usually isn't too hard to fix potential inconsistencies by filling in previously undefined background information (I mean, people do that all the time with any sort of book, movie, or comic franchise), and I'm okay with a retcon if it absolutely can't be avoided. But I think avoiding the sort of situation you mentioned is a skill that comes with practice.

 

[pemerton]

Can you give an example of how this would play out? From the play example earlier in the thread, I got the impression that if you succeed in the task resolution mechanic, you are given a great deal of narrative control over the result.

I'm not 100% sure what the "this" is.

But when I talk about using the mechanics, I'm thinking of something like the example of play in Moldvay Basic. The PCs enter a room, the GM rolls for wandering monsters and some hobgoblins come into the room through a secret door. The elf PC, who speaks hobgoblin, says in a friendly way to the hobgoblins "It's OK, Gary sent us" (or words to that effect - I'm relying on memory). The GM rolls a reaction roll (2d6), adding a bonus for the friendly greeting. (I recall the bonus being +1; to give a sense of scale, the bonus for 13+ CHA is also +1, and for 18 CHA is +2.)

As it happens, in the example the reaction, despite the bonus, is poor, which the GM narrates as the hobgoblins first being non-plussed by the elf's remark, and then getting angry and attacking.

If the roll had been better, however, then the hobgoblins would not have attacked, and presumably some discussion would have ensued about who Gary might be, why the hobgoblins should care, etc.

To me, the idea that you can bump into a group of hobgoblins while raiding a dungeon trying to rescue a kidnap victim (which is the backstory to the example of play), and have a friendly interaction with them as if you'd all met at bar downtown, is pretty absurd from a naturalistic point of view - but the possibility of that happening is a premise of classic D&D play.

In the example of actual play that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted - which is more literally a fairy tale (my PC was sucked into some sort of dreamworld by the Night Hag) - the GM tells me:

Thurgon finds himself on a battlefield. You appear to be a battle captain in the King's army, embedded in viscious hand to hand combat with a terrible foe. You see the King leading the charge on your flank...but something is...off. Something is terribly wrong here and the battle isn't going in the direction it should be...or some important detail is slightly askew. What is this battle? What is wrong? Why is it so afoul of the real world account? The King is being pressed on all sides. The answer must come and come quickly.​

The night hag is making a psychic attack (as per the stat extract that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted) - ie it's trying to defeat the PCs by breaking them with fear and despair. That's what the dreamworld is about. Hence, I first frame the context for my action declaration:

This battle isn't a real battle. It's a battle of the heart. (Like when Lancelot stabs himself while sleeping in John Boorman's Excalibur. Or when Jean Grey "timeslips" under Mastermind's influence.)

This dark fey is trying to change our hopes and memories. Instead of remembering the king's successful charge against the armies of chaos (can they be gnoll armies? I like the idea of this king as a version of Elidyr of Nerath) - which kept the city and its homeland free even though Adir and other marchertowns had fallen - the enemies now want us to remember the Battle of Nine Sons as a defeat. To believe that there never was a time when righteous strength had triumphed.​

Because this was play by post, I spelled all that out in longhand. At a table, I think it would be communicated more in the back-and-forth between GM and players.

But you can also see - by framing the issue as one concerning memory - I'm getting ready to declare my action. After all, I know that I'm in a skill challenge, trying to rack up successes without racking up failures. So I review my PC sheet for resources, and my conception of my character for motivation and in-fiction capabilities (and hopefully the two reviews complement one another - otherwise there is a problem with the game's design!) - and on this occasion I see that I have History skill, and so want to take advantage of that to win this battle of the heart. So I declare my History check:

Luckily my memory is sound. I have the advantage of having heard the old men of the court - who rode alongside the then-young king, and his 8 brothers - speak of the battle when I was a boy. And later I read the chronicles that were preserved in the Iron Tower. I still remember the description of the the bold knights forming a wedge and riding their magnificent chargers through the unruly ranks, driving deep to reach its monstrous heart. [Thanks Robert J Schwalb, Dragon Magazine Annual p 11.]

If I now am living the experience of one of those old men, and facing a great demon before me as I lead my cohort of knights and sergeants in the charge towards the heart of the gnoll army, I will recall those accounts I heard and read and live the truth, not some lie. (History check: +13 skill, +16 on the d20, for 29 vs Easy (? for advantage) DC.)​

Notice that the word "advantage" is bolded - that's because that's a mechanical device for reducing the DC (in this case from Medium to Easy). So I'm supplying the narrative - my PC, who (it is well-established) is of a noble, knightly family, heard stories from the old men of the court - that warrants gaining such an advantage. And then I make my check, and succeed in recalling things as they happened (in the tales of the old men), not the loss and defeat that the night hag wants my character to imagine.

Finally, I add some description (with mechanical features of the character pointed to, as warrants of plausibility) of how it is that, having remembered the truth, my character lives it out in the dream:

With Honour and Glory (+2 power bonus to attack rolls of adj allies) my men and I will defeat this demon, who was not there when this battle really happened (NB those who flank it with me also gain a +1 power bonus to attack it as I Draw the Eye of Friend and Foe). And having defeated it, we will take our places next to the king and continue on to victory.​

Honour and Glory and Draw the Eye of Friend and Foe are both traits of my character (the latter due to being a Noble (theme), the former due to being a Knight Commander (paragon path)), with the mechanical effects mentioned. They don't make any difference to the resolution of the History check, but they provide the mechanical warrant for me colouring my success in the way that I do: as (in the dream) leading my men to victory over the (dreamworld) demon, just as the tales that I recalled tell of how, at the real battle, the knights rode to victory on their chargers.

Here is another example, from the same scenario but a bit earlier on (when, in the throne room, our PCs were confronted by a war troll) - I'll spoiler-block it for length:

[sblock]

The War Troll is bound and shackled in chains with links as thick as a man's leg. It ducks out from under the entrance to the lower tunnels, shambling up with the accompanying rattle and clatter of a chain gang. Behind it, a troll-drawn, heavy wooden open wagon features a large brazier and a vat of acid. Rounding out the grisly precession are several armor-clad men featuring shields and torches. The metallic shuffling echoes off the walls of the huge entrance hall. The troll is commanded to stop and it does.

Looking on, the Lord Chamberlain smoothly reaches into a pocket of the inner lining of his coat. He pulls out a tin, removes a delicate blue flower from it and deposits it on his tongue. "Move these people to the lower tunnels. I'll not be held responsible for any collateral damage that may ensue due to this temperamental beasts flailings." He looks directly at Quinn and Lucann, "I'm well aware of the exploits of Thurgon and Theron. I assume that the two of you are either members of Thurgon's Order or at least useful in some capacity. The 4 of you may not see the King but you may loiter while the War Council does its business. Make yourself useful and you will be handsomely rewarded if gold is your master."

As the people are being ushered into the lower tunnels, the woman that Theron saved beseeches the Lord Chamberlain "Let them see the King!..." A rally cry breaks up as other courageous voices break in as well "Let the noble Knight see the King...Please, by the Gods..." As if on cue, the beast menaces the few that dare to open their mouths nearest him. He can't get to them but he flings his chains around one of the great columns, catches the either side and yanks with all of his giant might, attempting to rend the column in two, hopefully causing maximum carnage on those nearby.

"Your beasts are causing trouble, my lord", Quinn says as he works his magic. "Perhaps you should deal with them."

[Intent: I want to know if the Lord Chamberlain is directing these beasts against the people here. Task: I'm casting the Charm of Misplaced Wrath to draw the war troll towards the Lord Chamberlain and having it attack him, and then I'll watch his reaction.

Roll: Charm of Misplaced Wrath (1d20+18=26)]

That passes the Medium DC and is a success.

You twist the great beast's sense and fill its mind with unbridled rage; rage that is controlled by your will. Its binding chains prevent it from its normal explosive athleticism, but the reach of the chains is severe. The creature swings them twice around its head for momentum and roars to the sound of hushed gasps as the surveyors take in a macabre scene. The chains slam into the chamberlain, centrifugal force winding them around his body...to which he looks on with detached bemusement. A great tug, the sickening sound of evisceration, and the upper half of the torso of the Lord Chamberlain is airborne, its lower half still in place. It rolls near your feet where it stops. With the formal attire removed, you get a good look at a torso that has been stitched and restitched many times over. Where red blood should flow, only a thick, black ichor comes forth. As it comes to a stop, you get a look at the nape of the neck; the same Arcane Glyph you saw on the men outside meets your eyes.

The husk, flesh golem, whatever it is, spits out an epithet that is barely audible with the twisted mouth and the waning power that animated this thing; "You fools. The dragon will have its kingdom and I will have my army. You gain nothing here, save for my vengeful ire."

A moment later, the Troll, now regaining its faculties, roars in protest and its bindings finally relent under the weight of its otherworldly strength. Dogs bark viciously, men with torches back away fearfully, and screams of terror and confusion fill the grand hall as the noble families stampede for the front of the hall, away from the loose, mottled horror before them. Apparently unconcerned, the creature picks up the vat of acid and prepares to launch it in the direction of your motley crew.

2 Successes

1 Failure

6 Advantages Remaining

That was unexpected!

(At least by me.)

<snip>

Thurgon is somewhat confused. The Lord Chamberlain has turned out to be some sort of gebbeth, but why are we fools? Because he was working with the dragon, who will succeed anyway? Because he was working with strange forces against the dragon, and now that he's been cut in two the dragon will succeed? And what's the army - an army of trolls and giants?

There's no way I'm working any of that out while this troll is up and active. I'm going to cow it so that Theren can take physical control of it and Quinn can read its mind to try and work out what is going on.

So first I need to get its attention: "War Troll!" I confront it with my mace, and Break Its Nerve (minor action, encounter power, it is marked by me).

"I am Knight Commander of the Iron Tower. You are nothing. You can surrender now or face death!" I want to roll Intimidate with +21 (I think the troll is opposing my right of command), +7 from Lucann's buffs, for a total of +28. If more oomph is required, and the action economy permits, I will use Thunder Smite (enc attack) to underscore my threat.

Intimidate roll on d20: 15, +28 = 43

Thunder Smite, if permitted/required: d20 roll of 2, +18 = 20 vs AC, +2 for enc power = 22 vs AC which isn't going to add much oomph to anything!​

Hoping that the troll is at least somewhat cowed, Theren - [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] - I hand the situation over to you to sort out the details!

The "right of command" bit is another feature from the noble theme (+4 to Intimidate those who dispute it).[/sblock]

The rules for making checks; for deploying resources (like Thunder Smite); for the number of successes needed - all shape the context of my decision-making as a player. The framing of the situation - "There's a war troll who's just torn the 'chamberlain' in half!", or "You've been sucked into an evil dreamscape!" - provides the context for making action declarations.

I wouldn't describe it as "a great deal of narrative control over the result". If anything, the control is being exercised at the point of framing the action declaration: This war troll is defying my noble authority, and I want to cow it!. Or, This night hag has pulled me into a dreamworld to defeat me with fear and despair; but I will remember the truth about this battle, and turn the dream into glorious victory rather than defeat. The check then determines whether or not the action declaration succeeds as the player hoped.

Much as in the Moldvay example: I want these hobgoblins to treat as as friends, not allies, so I tell them in their language that Gary sent us. The action declaration then tells us whether or not this succeeds.

The non-naturalistic feature of these examples comes in at various points: the GM doesn't decide, in advance, that the hobgoblins could never believe an elf who is raiding the dungeon; the cave troll doesn't just ignore my PC's claim to authority and try and eat him; the GM doesn't look up the campaign notes to see whether or not there was really a battle, the old veterans of which might have spoken to my PC as a boy; etc. These things are possibilities, but they would be ways of narrating failure of the check - not considerations to be brought to bear to forbid the check, or declare it an auto-fail.

That's the sort of thing I've got in mind when I say that the resolution mechanics are what enables the players to engage the situation, without needing to be concerned about unknown or unknowable naturalistic considerations.

An element that seems to be pulling a lot of the weight, if I'm reading things right, is the lack of downtime play.

Probably the easiest thing to do here is provide a link to an actual play report of how "downtime" activities have been handled in my 4e game.

It didn't create any particular pull to (eg) expand the geographical scope of the setting.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Sword of Spirit , thanks for always being congenial and friendly in our conversations. Even though we're typically on opposite ends of things, you're always a gentle(wo?)man. Its not typical. Anyway, on with it.

Regarding GM/player latitude, plausible inference (based on fairy tale logic), and bounded results:

Games underwritten by (a) (often fairly granular) task resolution, (b) causal logic grounded exclusively (or at least nearly) in worldly empirical observation or experience, and (c) significant GM latitude in adjudication/resolution is going to produce play outcomes with very binary/bounded results. However, as @Aenghus canvassed above, the marriage of (c) to (b) doesn't necessitate that the relationship of player inference from available information > subsequent player action declaration > GM adjudication will reliably produce results that the table agrees upon (even before we get to the mechanical resolution stage). As the proxy for their in-character observation and orientation to any given situation, players must rely entirely on (i) the coherency/utility/sincerity of the play conversation and (b) GM: player perception/understanding alignment. The problem therein is that all sorts of cognitive biases and holes in forensic knowledge base can create an awkward disparity between a/the player(s) and GM. Their proxy becomes hazy, unreliable. Immersion recedes while insecurity proliferates.

This will typically lessen with time. Sometimes, folks are miraculously on the same page from the word go. Sometimes, the social dynamics (the GM is an overwhelming alpha, folks are willing to cede full authority even in disagreement, folks don't take play too seriously, the group is able to solve disputes quickly and amenably) render the above moot.

Contrast with typical scene-based games. They are usually underwritten by (a) a focused play premise, (b) transparent GMing principles/constraints that bind GMing latitude, (c) abstract conflict resolution with play procedures which include stake-setting for the conflict (if the implication isn't overt enough) and telegraphed intent (what I'm trying to accomplish...not just how) during the player action declaration phase, and (d) genre logic. While they still certainly rely on it, these games fundamentally rely less on GMs as proxy for in-character observation and orientation to any given situation. Players do have more latitude (that is pretty fundamental) merely because GMs have less. Micro results within the macro conflict resolution definitely become less bounded (they don't approach anything near binary). This is actually much of the point of play; "to find out what happens." "Story NOW" games are meant to have hard-framed scene-openers (Exposition - premise establishment/stake-setting) of which the PCs inherently have buy-in (its stuff they care about - "always go to the action"). Beyond that hard-coded input however, the Rising Action, Climax, Falling Action, and Denouement are entirely up for grabs. Play is meant to produce a dynamic outcome and attendant play/character fallout whereby if you started over from the scene's opener, you're likely to produce fairly significantly different results (at least micro-results within scene) if you ran it (let us say) 10 times.

On the perceived barriers to logical (be it genre or worldly empirical) inference inherent to games underwritten by genre logic, let us consider the small component of the scene upthread. The PC goal in that scene was to gain audience with the absent king and successfully beseech him to lead the beating back of the siege.

What you (meaning you SoS) aren't aware of is that the (typically revered, stalwart, and industrious) king has been curiously missing in action as his city has been besieged by a dragon and its forces. Rumors swirled that the queen was on her deathbed (or had already passed) and the enemy of his grief was more implacable than an orc horde. In his stead, his War Council, Court Mage, and Chamberlain have been running affairs. As the PCs arrive, things aren't going well and there is momentum gaining to surrender.

In the course of play, several other things have come to pass since the PCs arrived which cemented the fact that there is a conspirator in the city's power structure including the aforementioned Chamberlain revealed to be a flesh golem.

As all sorts of calamity ensues, two PCs rush to the king's quarters while the other two PCs confront the Court Mage in the Royal Gardens. Mechanically, we are near the end of our conflict. Here is the situation in the fiction:

* The king is asleep but clearly afflicted by something that is causing his life force to ebb.

Among other things, @pemerton 's PC is a Paladin. He is imbued with Divine power to take on the ailments/burdens of others, mending their spirits and their bodies in the transference. Presumably, pemerton intuited that either (1) the king is dying and perhaps I can save him or (2) the king is possessed/haunted by some unseeable force and perhaps I can cast it out. He is successful, mechanically, in his efforts.

So here I am as GM. Would the holy touch of a divinity-imbued Paladin cast out the spirit of a haunting Night Hag from a purely empirical perspective? Who the hell knows? Maybe? Likely? What I do know though...is THAT IS AWESOME and genre appropriate. So, of course, he does.

He could have inferred and declared any of the following actions:

* This guy is a big faker!!!! He isn't sleeping! He's just playing jokes! I start cracking jokes to see if I can get him to giggle!

A pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel on his pants, a peg leg and a parrot on his shoulder. The bartender says, "Hey, you've got a steering wheel on your pants."

The pirate says, "Arrrr, I know. It's driving me nuts." (Rolls Streetwise)

* I'm going to clean and jerk the bed with the king in it! Maybe my mighty lifts will inspire the king to wake the hell up and lead the charge! (Rolls Athletics)

* Oh crap! The old man just needs a nap. On my honor I will not be cause to his continued weariness! We tiptoe to the balcony and take a load off until he wakes up. (Rolls Stealth)


I don't know about you, but I don't think that is a coincidence

ps - We can discuss the next part afterward, but lets focus on this first. Also, I can link some other play examples of Dungeon World if this one doesn't suffice.

EDIT - Nevermind breaking down the second part. @pemerton and I cross-posted and he analyzed that!