Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LepcisMagna" data-source="post: 9523419" data-attributes="member: 6750753">Would that not be ignoring the most likely outcome of the original suggestion?  As you admit, players may unconsciously or gradually do this very thing, so it's hard to see how a broad application of this style wouldn't generally lead to it.So, you have the answer to your thought experiment, then?The less snarky (though still quite opinionated) part of my thoughts:I think there are two variations of the original premise being argued about here.  First is Reynard's, where soft facts are just always agreed to (the definition of "soft" facts being the point of argument for most of this thread†).  Second is DEFCON 1's, where at any point there might be a chance of failure, there isn't (which I would argue means there are no rules to begin with).  Regardless, in order to engage with the original proposal, I think both of these approaches have roughly the same outcome when taken to their extremes: a collaborative story with no cohesive (or self-consistent) world where the GM is nothing but another Player.  There's nothing wrong with that - it's just one type of game, and for the right group of players it could likely be quite fun.There's a discussion I recall about two styles of GM-ing: matter-of-fact gameplay, where the GM sets up the world and PCs and attempts to simulate the world realistically to one degree or another, and collaborative storytelling, which seems (essentially) to be what is being discussed here.  I'm of the matter-of-fact camp, so I'll try to lay out my reasons (in terms of the hypothetical) as to why.A good GM will say no (or ask to roll dice, as has been mentioned) in matter-of-fact gameplay (setting aside railroading, which is also a whole other kettle of fish) typically when the question is "unrealistic."  For example: "Is there a musket under this tarp?"  "No, because muskets haven't been invented yet."  Could the GM instead have said yes to that?  Easily (maybe aliens crashed on the planet and left it there, maybe it's a one-of-a-kind prototype, etc., etc.), but that changes the setting in a pretty fundamental way.  For the collaborative storytelling GM, though, whatever is under the tarp is undetermined until someone looks under it (or asks if there's a tarp in the first place).Neither of these approaches is "wrong" - but for some people (myself included) the latter feels "fake" somehow.  This isn't to say the matter-of-fact GM is supposed to have absolutely everything set up beforehand (which would be impossible) or to have anticipated the party's every move (which would probably either turn into pure railroading/Schrödinger's Troll anyway) or to even have a predetermined "plot" beyond the goals of the NPCs.  For the GM in this style of play, rollable tables, random encounters, and other such devices make it so not everything has to be predetermined and in return are left to accurately portray the world's reactions to the player's actions.  For the player, they retain authorial control over their character within the bounds of the fiction and - I would argue - a good GM will probably let them have that uncle in town as long as it didn't lead to self-inconsistencies.It's walking that line that I think may have inspired your initial proposal.  Stray too far one way and you're railroading your players.  Stray too far the other and there might as well not be a GM since generating and defeating the challenge is essentially up to the players anyway.  I've found myself on both sides of that line (both as player and GM), and neither is good.  The first will quickly disengage the players and the second will quickly disengage me as either a GM or a player.  The line varies from group to group, as what is unrealistic to one might be perfectly acceptable to another: I've run a 5e group where jumping 11 feet into the air and kicking a ghost was just a cool idea, and I've run a 5e group where I spent an hour researching perched water tables so I could have an underwater dungeon on a hill (and yes, my players asked about it during the session).That's my answer to your hypothetical - and why I avoid it generally - as best I can write it.---†So much of this discussion seems to be focused around what the GM says yes to and what things are adjudicated by the "rules," and I wanted to suggest a reason that might be.  Any given ruleset might systematize a different set of things, given what is considered "realistic" by that group (see above).  I play Pathfinder 2E for the most part, for example, and there are definitely rules for social interaction (which, come to think of it, 5e has as well).  So, if a player said "I ask the king for his best steeds" I could point to the king's current disposition of Neutral and say that they can't Request anything from them at this point.  It could also be that the king's current disposition is Helpful, but I set the DC to 50 since he really likes those horses (which a level 20 Mythic PC could still make).Now, do I use any of those rules?  No, not generally.  But that's the point of contention I think is confused - since different things are adjudicated by "rules" rather than the DM in any given system (or the same system from table-to-table), no one will be able to agree on what, exactly, the DM is saying "yes" to by fiat rather than by rule.</blockquote>

Verification