Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6197667" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is a complete red herring. The player of an enchanter who tries to charm the Chamberlain isn't trying to create a bad experience for everyone at the table. That player is trying to engage the scene and resolve the confrontation.The solution to players who try to create a bad experience is to exclude them from the group. But I've personally never really seen this come up, because in my experience most people have better things to do with their leisure time than to try and create bad experiences for themselves and others.Sure, but that leaves open all the questions being discussed in this thread - what is the basis on which challenges are posed (thematic or procedural) and what is the basis on which action resolution unfolds (GM force or not)?This - although the awesomeness resides primarily in the struggle - the PCs might lose, but their loss is itself an awesome event.As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] suggested, I don't really feel the force of this contrast. The point of mechanics is to generate the plot, in roughly this way: the GM frames a scene; the players, via their PCs engage it by declaring actions; those actions are resolved; now we have some plot (what happened) plus some new threats/complications/possibilities (the outcomes of resolution + new material injected by the GM) and the process continues.Of course NPCs serve as antagonists to the PCs. The key issue is the nature of the antagonism, and how it is overcome. [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s example of the Chamberlain is not just an NPC serving as an antagonist to the PCs. As desribed, (i) it has no prior motivation or thematic heft (contrast: part of the thematic point of the game is to address the degradation of the nobility), and (ii) it is not amenable to being overcome via the players engaging the action resolution mechanics.(i) and (ii) are the key features of the Chamberlain example that make me (and, I believe, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) hostile to it. Not the fact that it is an instance of antagonism.The way I play is a version of what I characterised way upthread as the "indie" style. At that time I suggested that the various comment that you, [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] and others were making about spellcaster balance were viable for other styles (eg storyteller style) but not for indie style. Nothing in the intevening 100s of posts has changed my mind on that.I see. You are putting a weight on the word "preconceived" that I didn't intend it to bear - a better word might have been "chosen independent of the process of action resolution".In the sort of game play that I very strongly prefer, the GM has no conception of how the situation will resolve that is independent of the process of action resolution.If the play experience is suffering, that tells us that we need to do something outside the context of play to sort it out. That's not something to be addressed from within the game itself. (But as came up in reply to [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] upthread, I play a system which reliably produces a desired play experience without the need for GM force.)First, I am talking primarily about player protagonism - whereas your response is framed by reference (I think) to PC protagonism. I don't want to put undue weight on terminological choices, but I think it might have some significance here. In paticular, player protagonism does require approaching action resolution in a certain way. The player has to have a meaningful chance of determining the outcome of any confrontation.OK. But this sort of world-building tends to be in tension with thematic play (because there is a temptation to resolve the thematic questions already in the world history), and with an absence of pre-planning (because there is a temptation to push on with the pre-established dynamics of the pre-written gameworld) and with player protagonism (because there is a temptation to stop the players running rougshod over and imposing their will upon the gameworld).So there is your problem, from my point of view. First, your action resolution mechanics aren't robust enough to frame a dementia scene withou fiating, which then causes problems like the GM ruling that Diplomacy can't work (fine as far as it goes,if incling a little towards the heavy-handed) but not having the techniques or scope within action resolution to inform the players of what other action resolution options (like Insight + Heal) are open to them.The idea of curtailing the player by having his/her wizard detected by an NPC scryer is - as presented - an even greater burden on protagonism, because the outcome of the confrontation between PC and NPC is determined by a factor over which the player had essentially no control and no engagement via action resolution.Again, to focus on challenge is to focus on something that I think does not differ much over playstyles. The issue about GM force is not about challenge, it's about resolution. My objection to a Chamberlain who can't be talked to, or can't be charmed without being detected, isn't that these are challenges - it's that they're deprotagonising challenges, because as presented the player has no way to engage the scene and thereby impose his/her will upon the fiction.Protagonism isn't aways about successfully imposing one's will - sometimes action resolution mechanics deliver success to the players, sometimes failure - but protagonism requires the possibility of imposing one's will.And here we have (i) a GM's preconceived plan, and (ii) GM force - in the Chamberlain encounter - to give effect to that plan.As I said upthread and earlier in this post, in my game there is not preconceived story. There is no "the story demands" that event (A) occur before event (B). The playes are invited to impose their wills upon every confrotation that is framed.You are drawing a distinction here between fiction and mechanics that is somewhat foreign to the way I play the game.Why would I, as GM, frame a scene with a crazy Chamberlain? Because it speaks to something that matters to the participants in this game, as expressed through PC build and past play. Upthread I've given the example of the degradation of the nobility.Suppose I don't frame the Chamberlain as crazy, but have the Chamberlain become possessed in response to a player's failure in action resolution - why would I do that? Because the player is a demon hunter; or, perhaps, a demon summoner whose magic misfired. Why does my actual game feature a lot of undead? Because half the party are Raven Queen devotees.I didn't say anything about verisimilitude. I said "the causal logic of the gameworld". These are very different things - verisimilitude as a constraint on introducing events into the fiction is barely a constraint at all, because nearly anything can be rendered verisimilitudinous with the right backstory.But challenging me to envision a game in whicht the GM strives for both thematic and causal-logical-constraind framing is like challenging you to envision a ruler-and-compass process for squaring the circle. It can't be done. If you are going to resolve events by reference to the causal logic of the gameworld you will sacrifice thematic framing. The illustrations are too numerous to list in a single post, but here are two (and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has given more upthread, a page or so above your post, with his discussion of Action vs Transition scenes): (i) causal logic requires that ammunition tracking, and encumbrane, be real constraints on action resolution, but I can imagine almost no game in which these have any thematic weight whatsoever; (ii) causal logic requires attending to the details of travel over great distances on foot, and in a game adjudicated by reference to causal logic the ability to teleport therefore serves as an important way to avoid all those elements of action resolution, whereas in many games overland travel has little to no thematic significance.Upthread I used the contrast between "prodedural" and "thematic" obstacles to capture this distinction.Not "if posible". Rather, "if nothing thematically interesting presents itself". And a GM who regularly has trouble thinking of thematically interesting challenges is a bad GM for this sort of play. (Likewise their is an onus on players to build PCs who have thematic heft. Luckily 4e mostly - not completely = takes care of this through the story elements that come into play via PC build.)What does this even mean?The PCs are fictional constructions within an imagined world. Anything awesome in that fiction only becomes part of the fiction because the participants put it there. What is the basis on which people get to put awesome things into the fiction? Primarily via the mechanics. If you are playing a game in which the mechanics impede rather than engender interesting choices (for instance, because they make choices about encumbrance and inventory management more important than choices about what to say to the demented Chamberlain) then that would seem to me to be a problem with your game's mechanics.Conversely, if your game has mechanics that engender interesting choices, what do you think you are contrasting in the passage I've quoted.I may be missing some context, but as I read it this instance of play seems to have almost no relevance to the overall dynamics of the campaign or the story development. In fact, while I'm not that familiar with the details of adventure path play, my general understanding is that the basic plot of the campaign has already been preconceived and written up by the adventure path author. That's pretty much the opposite of the sort of play I'm talking about.When I'm talking about "thematically driven play" and "no preconception", I'm meaning events like this:The PCs include servants of the Raven Queen and other undead hating gods, but one who also has an ambiguous relationship to Vecna. They promise to the baron, who is an ally of theirs and their host, to track down his missing niece. They find her, but discover that she is a Vecna-ite necromancer who is inadvertantly rousing Kas from dormancy. They therefore do battle with her, and in order to save her from Kas swear an oath to Kas to track down his nemesis from 100 years ago, who also happens to be a wizard whom, as an apprentice, they rescued from a magical trap when they were in the past on a time-travelling adventure. (Writeups <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?313724-Actual-play-the-PCs-successfully-negotiated-with-Kas" target="_blank">here</a> and [urlhttp://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?299440-Exploration-scenarios-my-experiment-last-Sundayhere[/url].)In other words, whether the PCs are allies or enemies of Kas and Venca, and how that will play out in the game, is up for grabs to be resolvd through actual play. The whole point of play is to discover, through play, what is worth struggling for and what not, which cosmological beings need to be opposed and which aided.</blockquote>

Verification