I want my actions to matter

[mamba]

Experienced climbers......really anyone with even a couple brain cells and common sense...generally do things carefully and with safety foremost in mind.

I said experienced climbers because inexperienced ones would not think of tackling a cliff

 

[Lanefan]

Let's say the DM has an idea for a story about a dragon invading a kingdom. But the players become more invested in purchasing and running an inn. That means the majority of the table wants to play a game about running an inn, not about fighting a dragon.

When there is a disconnection between the game the DM wants to run, and the game the players want to play, there are a few ways to resolve it:

1) Railroading. The DM can ignore whatever else the characters are doing and just keep charging through their plot.

2) Permissive Play. The DM lets the players do whatever they want, but there's not overarching narrative or escalation of conflicts.

3) Working Together. The DM and players talk about what they want out of the game. The DM provides the framework and runs the world, and the players pursue their goals and make meaningful decisions.

4) Let It Run. As 3 but without the meta-conversation; the DM provides the framework, runs the world, and reacts to what the players do with/to it, the players pursue their goals and in turn react to whatever obstacles the DM throws at them.

EDIT: Another thought I had about this is that the DM can use the Inn as a site for adventure hooks, as a stake in adventures, and as a way to reward the characters.

For example, travelers at the Inn could be refugees fleeing towns ravaged by the dragon. The dragon could be on a path towards the city the Inn is built within, putting their business at risk. The characters can use the dragon's hoard to purchase upgrades for their Inn.

To me, all of this could very well fall under 4) above. Without any meta-conversation, the DM just reacts to what the players have done by - while leaving established fiction intact e.g. there's still a dragon on the loose out there somewhere - for the time being focusing prep around what happens at/with/to their inn, safe in the knowledge that that's the prep most likely to be of any use in the here and now.

As a DM I love it when a party sets themselves up with a home base like this. It gives their PCs a solid grounding in the setting and also gives them something to care about.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This is the default.

But this does not answer the question. Ok, everyone all agrees to play D&D 5E and if you must have the limited focus game, everyone agrees to do the Undead Army Story Plot. Ok: everyone agreed to that.

So your example was the players....just randomly say "ok day...we want to buy an inn and run the inn and do all sorts of inn related stuff". So.....then the players are wrong to "just do this in a game, right?" I mean it's one thing to show up on game night and call a Special Meeting to say "we the players with to officially declare that we will stop playing D&D 5E and now wish to play Inns and Outs, the Hospitality Management RPG!" But for the players to just buy and inn, or take any other such "side" action in the game is WRONG. Right?

So the DM is 100% right when the messenger shows up with the "ok, lets forget about your dumb inn and get back to the game....the undead army as been spotted near the coast"

The problem with your examples is that you are always using Bad Players, and Bad Players will always play badly no matter what. In this example, the players agreed to one kind of the game, and then switch to another without talking with the DM.

But why can't the DM be flexible and adapt their game to what the players do? The DM is also being a Bad Player by dismissing the players' choices as "your dumb inn." Why not pull their inn into the plot? Their inn happens to be built on the site of an old temple that could be delved into to discover secrets about fighting undead. Their inn becomes a safe haven for refugees fleeing cities swarmed by undead near the coast.

Why does it either need to be 100% controlled by the players or the DM?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think it's silly at all. One of your motivations for revealing target numbers at all times is to prevent the DM from taking sketchy actions. That implies a lack of trust, which tells me you must not like DMs much if you assume they're going to abuse any power they have.

Transparency is much more about allowing all participants to be aware of the figures. I’ve said this quite a bit. It also removes doubt regarding fudging and so on. But that’s a secondary concern.

However, as a GM, I’ve fudged plenty of times. Far more often in favor of the players than against them. I did this to curate an experience. Which is still common advice offered by significant figures in the hobby. It’s also common practice as is clear from threads on the topic here.

It’s not about sketchy actions. I don’t judge anyone who fudges rolls… perfectly fine to do so if all the participants are fine with it. It’s not what I want, and it’s not what I’d suggest, but I don’t want to label it as sketchy.

But if they’re not, then why not roll in the open? Why not share DCs and so on?

 

[BookTenTiger]

4) Let It Run. As 3 but without the meta-conversation; the DM provides the framework, runs the world, and reacts to what the players do with/to it, the players pursue their goals and in turn react to whatever obstacles the DM throws at them.

To me, all of this could very well fall under 4) above. Without any meta-conversation, the DM just reacts to what the players have done by - while leaving established fiction intact e.g. there's still a dragon on the loose out there somewhere - for the time being focusing prep around what happens at/with/to their inn, safe in the knowledge that that's the prep most likely to be of any use in the here and now.

As a DM I love it when a party sets themselves up with a home base like this. It gives their PCs a solid grounding in the setting and also gives them something to care about.

I think this is an example of players having meaningful actions. Investing in the inn creates new opportunities for adventures.

The meta-conversation really is only needed if the DM and players seem to be antagonistic to each others ideas, as seems to be happening with the games @bloodtide is running.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Transparency is much more about allowing all participants to be aware of the figures. I’ve said this quite a bit. It also removes doubt regarding fudging and so on. But that’s a secondary concern.

However, as a GM, I’ve fudged plenty of times. Far more often in favor of the players than against them. I did this to curate an experience. Which is still common advice offered by significant figures in the hobby. It’s also common practice as is clear from threads on the topic here.

It’s not about sketchy actions. I don’t judge anyone who fudges rolls… perfectly fine to do so if all the participants are fine with it. It’s not what I want, and it’s not what I’d suggest, but I don’t want to label it as sketchy.

But if they’re not, then why not roll in the open? Why not share DCs and so on?

Rolling in the open and sharing DCs are not the same thing. I don't personally care for fudging.

 

[Lanefan]

The meta-conversation really is only needed if the DM and players seem to be antagonistic to each others ideas, as seems to be happening with the games @bloodtide is running.

To be fair, I've hit this in the past, where the players got their hearts set on doing stuff that bored me to tears as DM. In this case it was the PCs going into big-time business for themselves and wanting to get quite detailed about all the economics involved; meanwhile on the top-100 list of things that interest me economics comes in at about #437. So, a pretty big disconnect.

I ran it, but nowhere near to the level of detail the players might have liked and without any regard to actual economic theory; and eventually they got bored of it and (mostly) went back to adventuring.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Rolling in the open and sharing DCs are not the same thing. I don't personally care for fudging.

They’re both examples of transparent play.

Which… to bring this back to the point… allows players to know that their actions and choices matter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I ran it, but nowhere near to the level of detail the players might have liked and without any regard to actual economic theory; and eventually they got bored of it and (mostly) went back to adventuring.

So basically everyone was dissatisfied with play rather than have a “meta” conversation to sort this out?

How long did this go on?

 

[Lanefan]

So basically everyone was dissatisfied with play rather than have a “meta” conversation to sort this out?

How long did this go on?

The first go-round was a few sessions while they set everything up, after which it came up sporadically: every time they were in town between adventures for the next three or so real-world years we'd spend anywhere between half a session and a couple of sessions sorting out and updating that bloody company. That it did stupendously well* didn't help me any; as for a while their income from the company rivalled that from adventuring.

* - both the players' dice and mine were consistently very, very clear on this point, and I had to honour that.