Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

[Numidius]

Just as an aside. The only thing the PC did was draw the FG's attention to him and hold out his hands, as if receiving the item back. The giant ignored this gesture and carried on with main negotiation. That is all that happened. The player was stumped - he did not attempt/declare anything further at that point as he did not want to jeopardise the primary negotiation with the Frost Giants.

He has every intention of getting the artifact back when and if they next meet, including the giant's own shard (I'm sure). Right now they are travelling to the Misty Forest and the FG are north of Icewind Dale.

In a typical MMI pose!

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Just as an aside. The only thing the PC did was draw the FG's attention to him and hold out his hands, as if receiving the item back. The giant ignored this gesture and carried on with main negotiation. That is all that happened. The player was stumped - he did not attempt/declare anything further at that point as he did not want to jeopardise the primary negotiation with the Frost Giants.

Well, in that case: fair enough, I say. He'll learn from it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok this is interesting.



Diplomacy say for 5e



This sounds like the DM sets DC with degrees of failure - just in the different format. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I have not read the material.



Okay so player can negotiate to increase the DC to obtain a higher degree of success. I would even allow that in D&D, depending on the situation.



Ok, so depending on what the character says or does the DM might decrease/increase the DC or degrees of success of failure. Again based on DM opinion on the fiction, right? Which is something the anti-MMI crowd dislike.



Agree it does make a stark difference for the character to be allowed an opportunity for every action declaration made. Does that make sense to you though? For there never to be a hard no. Essentially you can always attempt to talk down your enemies. Always! Can you negotiate with zombies? Where is the limit, if there is one? It is hard for me to critique it properly since I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics.



I'm lost with the countdown clocks.

No. In Blades (and all PbtA), odds of success are always fixed. In Blades, you roll a number of d6's based on skill and take the highest. 1-3 the action fails and the GM imposes a consequence. 4-5 and you suceed, but with a cost or complication. 6 you suceed. Position determines the degree of consequence the GM can impose, very bad for desperate, bad for risky, and minor for controlled. Effect determines degree of success, as is fairly self explanatory. There are a few other interactions (pushing for more effect, criticals, etc) but this is the core mechanic.

Clocks are tools for extended success/failure. I could have a six segment clock set for "the alarm is raised" and apply ticks against that clock for failues/costs. Same for successes in complicated tasks, like conning a noble, where successes tick that clock. You can have competing clocks - finish this before that - and even have some things remove ticks from a clock. Clocks are really just player facing status monitirs. They work very well to highten tension and foreshadow things.

The upshot of the above is that success chance is always known to players, so stakes become the focus of play - what are you hoping to achieve vs what are you risking by trying.

 

[Sadras]

While at the same time declaring "i attack the FG" would be a legal action?
Or you'd need more details before allowing dice rolls?

In my opinion this is the big shorcoming of d&d: combat triggers too easily, everything else not so.

I think you have missed the point. How do you attack?
Are you casting a fireball from a distance (Save DC), closing in and using a rapier (DEX) or are you grappling your opponent (STR)?

Each will have different effect and use different mechanics. Some will have success some will not. If the creature is immune to fire then your action fails no matter if the creatures saves or not on the fireball. Is this combat now a MMI situation?

 

[Imaro]

No. In Blades (and all PbtA), odds of success are always fixed. In Blades, you roll a number of d6's based on skill and take the highest. 1-3 the action fails and the GM imposes a consequence. 4-5 and you suceed, but with a cost or complication. 6 you suceed. Position determines the degree of consequence the GM can impose, very bad for desperate, bad for risky, and minor for controlled. Effect determines degree of success, as is fairly self explanatory. There are a few other interactions (pushing for more effect, criticals, etc) but this is the core mechanic.

Clocks are tools for extended success/failure. I could have a six segment clock set for "the alarm is raised" and apply ticks against that clock for failues/costs. Same for successes in complicated tasks, like conning a noble, where successes tick that clock. You can have competing clocks - finish this before that - and even have some things remove ticks from a clock. Clocks are really just player facing status monitirs. They work very well to highten tension and foreshadow things.

The upshot of the above is that success chance is always known to players, so stakes become the focus of play - what are you hoping to achieve vs what are you risking by trying.

I thought Position (controlled, risky, desperate) in this game changes the chances for certain effects (Yes I know 6 is always a success but other results are determined by the DM setting position aren't they?)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I thought Position (controlled, risky, desperate) in this game changes the chances for certain effects (Yes I know 6 is always a success but other results are determined by the DM setting position aren't they?)

Depends on what you mean by certain effects. If you mean leaping at a gang of thugs brandishing blades with your fists being a desperate action that enables the GM to say you suffered a mortal wound on a fail vice a contolled mugging of an unarmed man doesn't enable a sudden mortal wound on a fail, then, yes, kinda.

If you mean it ever shifts odds of success/failure then no. 1-3 fails, 4-5 succeeds with cost, 6 succeeds is hard coded and never changes.

 

[Numidius]

I think you have missed the point. How do you attack?
Are you casting a fireball from a distance (Save DC), closing in and using a rapier (DEX) or are you grappling your opponent (STR)?

Each will have different effect and use different mechanics. Some will have success some will not. If the creature is immune to fire then your action fails no matter if the creatures saves or not on the fireball. Is this combat now a MMI situation?

No, it's not. Because combat does have clear mechanics.

Recently i had the opportunity to try the opposite: running a fight using rulings instead of rules.
Roleplay instead of mechanics.

This barbarian elf pc boldly entered the arena to prove himself against that half orc pro fighter
The pc lazily worded "i attack him". Me: he simply evades your attack... Pc: why? Me: because... define better your attack
Pc: i pin him against the wall with my sword and roll! Me: No, he steps sideways and runs around you in circle

He could not believe that and started arguing about it with genuine surprise depicted in his face. I replied: the half orc is a pro: if i can think of a counter to your attack declaration, you're not going to hit him, so surprise me.
I don't remenber how he did, but in the end his fellow pcs wizard and thief helped without being noticed and he eventually killed the poor pro venting his anger on the dead body.

Anyway the same person asked me in later session, in front of an obelisk: "may i strike it?" Me: "why you asking? Smash it down if you will! It won't dodge" LOL

 

[innerdude]

Due to the very nature of the RPGs, the GM has broad discretion with regard to what's happening. Under normal circumstances, I expect a GM simply to determine what's going to happen based on his understanding of the game world. Of course that is not the same as a real simulation - but it needn't be. So if you're going to a bar or whatever and want to see if a member of some organization is present, I would expect the GM to determine the likelihood of that being the case and giving the dice a roll (which, btw, is part of why I consider percentile dice the best). 30% chance of one or more members present? Alright, let's roll d100.

This isn't an entirely unreasonable way to look at it, and I certainly do this regularly, though since I use Savage Worlds and don't get to roll a d20 that often anymore, I typically do a straight d20 roll instead of a d100, but the basic effect is the same.

The real issue, and the reason I started this thread in the first place, was because I wanted to get ideas on how to do it better. Meaning, instead of just pulling out the d20 and saying, "Okay, on a 14 or higher, you get what you want," I wanted to find ways to make those "GM determinations" more connected to players' interests. I wanted to find ways to introduce scenes/fiction/obstacles that allowed my players the freedom to really pursue what they wanted without me as the GM simply throwing up roadblocks all the time.

Part of brainstorming for me meant asking how and where and why other GMs make these sorts of decisions. In some ways my situation is a bit . . . paradoxical. I find myself leaning towards less "traditional" GM-ing methods these days, preferring to allow the players more freedom to create more of the game world and to actively pursue character goals and trajectories. I'm very much NOT concerned with trying to create the "illusion" of a living breathing world, or adhering to some standard of "world simulation." Our group only meets twice a month for approximately 4 hours. We are all working adults with families. We don't have time to waste spending an hour of a game session "hunting for that one secret door" or aimlessly roaming through town looking for adventure hooks.

Yet despite my current GM philosophy, my preferred system of Savage Worlds is a fairly "traditional" sort of system in terms of action resolution. It does incorporate degrees of success and does give players some meta-game control with "Fate" points / Hero points / "Bennies", but the core mechanic follows a fairly straightforward action/task resolution paradigm ("I want my character to do this" / determine trait or skill that relates to declaration / roll and see if it succeeds, wildly succeeds, or fails).

Yet I'm fairly committed to Savage Worlds now, because my players want the discrete level of combat-based and skill-based rules that Savage Worlds has. We actually tried Dungeon World for 3 or 4 sessions at the start of the current campaign, but switched back to Savage Worlds when it became clear that they really did want to have a more tactical combat focus than Dungeon World really provided.

At some point I'm actually somewhat anxious to try Genesys, as it seems to fill a similar niche as Savage Worlds, but moves another step in the "narrative gaming" spectrum while still giving a solid groundwork for task resolution and combat.

 

[Aldarc]

Ok this is interesting.

First, I am incredibly thankful for [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s cogent response. I hope that clarifies some of the matters for you. But I hope that I can expand on that excellent post with some additional points of my own.

Diplomacy say for 5e

Sure. But one of the interesting things about Blades is the decision of what Action (out of typically 12 total) to use for a situation rests with the player. The GM does not get to decide that. In a game of Blades the player could decide to use Sway (i.e., Persuasion/Diplomacy) or maybe Command, though the GM may believe that Sway would actually be more effective than Command. The PC could even try to use Wreck if the player felt that if Frost Giants would show greater respect with a show of force or strength, which may or not be true depending on the GM's sense of the fiction. An example from the BitD SRD:

The GM’s choices for effect level and position can be strongly influenced by the player’s choice of action rating. If a player wants to try to make a new friend by Wrecking something—well... maybe that’s possible, but the GM wouldn’t be crazy to say it’s a desperate roll and probably limited effect. Seems like Consorting would be a lot better for that. The players are always free to choose the action they perform, but that doesn’t mean all actions should be equally risky or potent.

Agree it does make a stark difference for the character to be allowed an opportunity for every action declaration made. Does that make sense to you though? For there never to be a hard no. Essentially you can always attempt to talk down your enemies. Always! Can you negotiate with zombies? Where is the limit, if there is one? It is hard for me to critique it properly since I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics.

This is where Effect would come into play. One example they use is that a character could attack a stone wall. There is no "Hard No" with that action; however, using a standard side arm weapon, the Effect would be Limited, if not negligible. But this would likely be understood through the conversation between the GM and players.

I'm lost with the countdown clocks.

I apologize for not explaining clocks. I was in a bit of a rush to wrap things up. Here I will quote Ovinomancer's explanation so that it's readily available.

Clocks are tools for extended success/failure. I could have a six segment clock set for "the alarm is raised" and apply ticks against that clock for failues/costs. Same for successes in complicated tasks, like conning a noble, where successes tick that clock. You can have competing clocks - finish this before that - and even have some things remove ticks from a clock. Clocks are really just player facing status monitirs. They work very well to highten tension and foreshadow things.

I mentioned Countdown Clocks for the Frost Giant encounter because it would have been one possible way to adjudicate the stakes of the negotiations. The PC had something the FG wanted, and the FG had something the PC wanted. Their interactions and the Countdown clock make the stakes become clearer for the PC such that the issue becomes less a matter of pulling the rug out from under the PC by having the PC's heirloom taken.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This isn't an entirely unreasonable way to look at it, and I certainly do this regularly, though since I use Savage Worlds and don't get to roll a d20 that often anymore, I typically do a straight d20 roll instead of a d100, but the basic effect is the same.

The real issue, and the reason I started this thread in the first place, was because I wanted to get ideas on how to do it better. Meaning, instead of just pulling out the d20 and saying, "Okay, on a 14 or higher, you get what you want," I wanted to find ways to make those "GM determinations" more connected to players' interests. I wanted to find ways to introduce scenes/fiction/obstacles that allowed my players the freedom to really pursue what they wanted without me as the GM simply throwing up roadblocks all the time.

Part of brainstorming for me meant asking how and where and why other GMs make these sorts of decisions. In some ways my situation is a bit . . . paradoxical. I find myself leaning towards less "traditional" GM-ing methods these days, preferring to allow the players more freedom to create more of the game world and to actively pursue character goals and trajectories. I'm very much NOT concerned with trying to create the "illusion" of a living breathing world, or adhering to some standard of "world simulation." Our group only meets twice a month for approximately 4 hours. We are all working adults with families. We don't have time to waste spending an hour of a game session "hunting for that one secret door" or aimlessly roaming through town looking for adventure hooks.

Yet despite my current GM philosophy, my preferred system of Savage Worlds is a fairly "traditional" sort of system in terms of action resolution. It does incorporate degrees of success and does give players some meta-game control with "Fate" points / Hero points / "Bennies", but the core mechanic follows a fairly straightforward action/task resolution paradigm ("I want my character to do this" / determine trait or skill that relates to declaration / roll and see if it succeeds, wildly succeeds, or fails).

Yet I'm fairly committed to Savage Worlds now, because my players want the discrete level of combat-based and skill-based rules that Savage Worlds has. We actually tried Dungeon World for 3 or 4 sessions at the start of the current campaign, but switched back to Savage Worlds when it became clear that they really did want to have a more tactical combat focus than Dungeon World really provided.

At some point I'm actually somewhat anxious to try Genesys, as it seems to fill a similar niche as Savage Worlds, but moves another step in the "narrative gaming" spectrum while still giving a solid groundwork for task resolution and combat.

I think savage worlds is a good system. There are lots of different tools available in it you could use. You can always expand the function of bennies for example if you think that might help.

I think a lot of what Pemerton suggested handles the non-traditional side, but if you do want some traditional methods, and if what your primary interest is is connecting things to what the players interests are, you could simply talk to your players prior to the adventures about what they are interested in seeing, then build those into things like encounter tables or even tables. Even if you mix it up a bit, if you take player suggestions and use 60% in your prep, you will probably end up with something that connects to what the players like. You can also do this at the world building stage of the campaign (talking to players as you build organizations for example and incorporating their characters into them----either as potential stories or by doing things like having a key relative in their family be an important member of the order).

Another thing I've done, and not sure if you will find this useful, is I take the idea of the 20 year back story from wuxia, and do one every campaign. Basically, in every campaign, 20 years ago there was some big event involving lots of sects, people, artifacts, etc. Something that was maybe scandalous or shook up the martial world in some big way, but no one really talks about any more. You can do it one of two ways. You can have it as background stuff that might emerge if players bump into it, or, and I've done this, you can directly tie it to player histories and backgrounds. Get an idea of the kind of campaign they want, and tie some of those elements to the backstory. So for example, I had a group whose mother was secretly a great heroine involved in the 20 year back story. But she was in hiding and married to their father an apothecary. The players didn't know, but when I baked that in, I knew it was the sort of thing they were interested in seeing. When it came to light, it was a genuinely dramatic and cool moment in the campaign, and then the campaign shifted because a bunch of pepople they saw as enemies are now cast in a new light when they learned the backstory (and behaviors on the part of certain NPCs that were interepeted one way, were now interpreted another). The campaign became more about protecting their mother from being found as they tried to rebel against local authorities.