Is D&D an illusion?

[CuRoi]

I guess my point is that I don't treat the game as serious business and thus do not stomp on a player's fun as long as it does not stomp on anyone else's.

Fair point. But in many ways, IMO, the jarring intrusion of "reality" can stomp on other players fun. Case in point: the other players were pretty incredulous and not interested in having Sir DoRight be a Paladin in their group. I did try to work with him and let him play something -similar- but told him the name was a bit much...and the mountie outfit just wouldn't exist (though some sort of comparable military uniform could be had). Maybe it was the regular voice mimicry of Dudley (which wasn't a half bad impression mind you), the other players ultimately ran that PC off and he brought in a less goofy concept. I guess the type of story my current group chooses to create demands some sort of internal consistency. Goofy is fine and has it's lace but they aren't interested in a farce. To each his own I suppose.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Fair point. But in many ways, IMO, the jarring intrusion of "reality" can stomp on other players fun. Case in point: the other players were pretty incredulous and not interested in having Sir DoRight be a Paladin in their group. I did try to work with him and let him play something -similar- but told him the name was a bit much...and the mountie outfit just wouldn't exist (though some sort of comparable military uniform could be had). Maybe it was the regular voice mimicry of Dudley (which wasn't a half bad impression mind you), the other players ultimately ran that PC off and he brought in a less goofy concept. I guess the type of story my current group chooses to create demands some sort of internal consistency. Goofy is fine and has it's lace but they aren't interested in a farce. To each his own I suppose.

If all the other players had an issue with it then it was stomping on thier fun in this case and it sounds like you made the right call.

 

[pemerton]

this thread is about whether what the GM decides to do in the game is all illusion or not.

<snip>

The ultimate point I'm making is that once you truly consider the impact of the vast level of decisions big and small that you make as a GM, you are exerting your will in the game space.

I once read a post on another forum that distinguished four forms of authority relating to the story in an RPG:

Content authority - over what we're calling back-story . . .

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material . . .

Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example . . .

Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens . . .

"how the story will go" (plot authority)​

When I GM, content authority is shared with the players, but more of it is in my hands than theirs (especially once we're going beyond PC backgrounds). Situational authority is primarily in my hands - I frame the scenes (following the leads/hooks from my players), the players engage them via their PCs. Narrational authority is shared, but I do the bulk of the heavy lifting. Plot authority is primarily the result of action resolution mechanics being applied.

Here are some examples from a recent actual play post. First, GM control over situation:

[T]he PCs cleaned up in the cultists' bathroom and then hurried off to dinner. . .
The PCs arrived late, and were the last ones there. On the high table they could see the Baron, and his sister and brother-in-law, and also Paldemar, their wizard enemy.​

Now, some player control over content, plot and narration:

At another point, when the conversation turned to how one might fight a gelatinous cube (Paldemar having explained that he had failed in exploring one particular minotaur ruin because of some cubes, and the PCs not wanting to reveal that they had explored that same ruin after beating the cubes) the sorcerer gave an impromptu demonstration by using Bedevilling Burst to knock over the servants carrying in the jellies for desert. (I as GM had mentioned that desert was being brought in. It was the player who suggested that it should probably include jellies.) That he cast Bedevilling Burst he kept secret (another Bluff check). But he loudly made the point that jellies can be squashed at least as easily as anything else.​

And some player control over plot within the context of my control over situation:

Around this time, the challenge had evolved to a point where one final roll was needed, and 2 failures had been accrued. Paldemar, once again, was badgering Derrik to try to learn the secrets of the minotaur ruins that he was sure the PCs knew. And the player of Derrik was becoming more and more frustrated with the whole situation, declaring (not speaking in character, but speaking from the perspective of his PC) "I'm sick of putting up with this. I want Paldemar to come clean."

The Baron said to Derrik, "The whole evening, Lord Derrik, it has seemed to me that you are burdened by something. Will you not speak to me?" Derrik got out of his seat and went over to the Baron, knelt beside him, and whispered to him, telling him that out of decorum he would not name anyone, but there was someone close to the Baron who was not what he seemed, and was in fact a villainous leader of the hobgoblin raiders. The Baron asked how he knew this, and Derrik replied that he had seen him flying out of goblin strongholds on his flying carpet. The Baron asked him if he would swear this in Moradin's name. Derrik replied "I swear". At which point the Baron rose from the table and went upstairs to brood on the balcony, near the minstrel.

With one check still needed to resolve the situation, I had Paldemar turn to Derrik once again, saying "You must have said something very serious, to so upset the Baron." Derrik's player was talking to the other players, and trying to decide what to do. He clearly wanted to fight. I asked him whether he really wanted to provoke Paldemar into attacking him. He said that he did. So he had Derrik reply to Paldemar, 'Yes, I did, Golthar". And made an Intimidate check. Which failed by one. So the skill challenge was over, but a failure - I described Paldemar/Golthar standing up, pickup up his staff from where it leaned against the wall behind him, and walking towards the door.

Now we use a houserule (perhaps, in light of DMG2, not so much a houserule as a precisification of a suggestion in that book) that a PC can spend an action point to make a secondary check to give another PC a +2 bonus, or a reroll, to a failed check. The player of the wizard PC spent an action point, and called out "Golthar, have you fixed the tear yet in your robe?" - this was a reference to the fact that the PCs had, on a much earlier occasion, found a bit of the hem of Paldemar's robe that had torn off in the ruins when he had had to flee the gelatinous cubes. I can't remember now whether I asked for an Intimidate check, or decided that this was an automatic +2 bonus for Derrik - but in any event, it turned the failure into a success. We ended the session by noting down everyone's location on the map of the Baron's great hall, and making initiative rolls. Next session will begin with the fight against Paldemar​

I don't know how this relates to the players succeeding or failing - even if the player of the wizard hadn't spent an action point, and hence the skill challenge had failed, and hence Paldemar had just walked out (contrary to the wishes of Derrik's player), the players would still have succeeded in creating an interesting story. And their PCs would still have got a lot of what they wanted (the Baron onside, their secrets safe from their wizard enemy).

It is an example of the play that is not illusionist. That is, the apparent impact of the players' choices on the direction of the game is not illusory.

 

[Umbran]

The DM is truly the Storyteller in a typical DnD game. Period.

The first mistake in this statement is that D&D is not a story crafted by the DM, who coincidentally is not a storyteller, a DM is simply a referee or moderator between the players and the game world.

Both of you err in that you try to define what a GM is for everyone else, as if anyone who doesn't follow your pattern is doing it wrong.

The GM, at their best, is what they need to be for their particular group. Some GMs are storytellers, some are simply referees. Both are perfectly valid ways to run a game. A mixture is a valid way to run a game.

Stop trying to define what a GM is or is not, and instead work on what tools a GM can use for their group, and you're more likely to get to something constructive.

 

[CuRoi]

The first mistake in this statement is that D&D is not a story crafted by the DM, who coincidentally is not a storyteller, a DM is simply a referee or moderator between the players and the game world. It is not the DMs job to tell a story, it is not the DMs job to make sure the PCs get from point A to B in the adventure. It is not the job of the DM to control what the PCs do, where the PCs go, or how the PCs act within the game. The only job the DM has, is to interpret the consequences that occur due to player interaction.

This seems contradictory. So a DM doesn't tell a story as you say. Yet, a DM gets players from point A to point B in an adventure? Ok, just so I'm clear (as I'm having all kinds of trouble lately understanding things, seriously bear with me here) who defines point A and point B in the adventure? In fact, who defines the "adventure"?

If you say "the players" to the above, well... If you haven't defined the adventure let's say, and the players have, what exactly are you doing? Sure, players can choose whether to go to "point A" or not but presumably you are the one that knows what is really at "point A". (Though I suppose you could be using randomization for all the setting elements...)

So, if you do in fact run a game where the players define all the story and plot elements and wander through a world entirely of their own creation, then yes, you as DM are just the head dice roller as it were. Or, I suppose you could be running random dungeons, random NPCs, random city generators, etc. etc. leaving everything to dice rolls. I suppose then you would also be removed from a position of "storyteller".

For me, I run a fairly open campaign but I'm a bit skeptical of the numerous completely "hands off" DMing claims. I'm willing to bet more DMs take control of story, plot and campaign direction than they admit. I let my players wander anywhere they want in the chosen setting, but I'm the guy that really knows what is at "Point A" and "Point B". I'm the guy that tells them what happens at those points and lets them know how their actions play out at said points. To me, this is part of being the one responsible for the story.

Also, in my games, there are plenty of times where events they can't control may sweep them up (I don't run high powered Epic level campaigns so there's always something out there more powerful than the PCs), or things they want to do just aren't possible. Call me a meanie, but I make those calls By making those calls, I am the prime "Storyteller".

Not sure why it is presumably a dirty word to admit to telling a story.

The GM, at their best, is what they need to be for their particular group. Some GMs are storytellers, some are simply referees. Both are perfectly valid ways to run a game. A mixture is a valid way to run a game.

Yes, you are correct, anyone can play the game in anyway they wish. Though, if we settle there, having any discussion about the game becomes immaterial.

GM perhaps, DM I'm not sure I agree. I know it is splitting hairs, but the thread specified DnD. On the whole, DnD seems a poor platform for a completely collaborative story-telling game as typically, the DM makes many decisions regarding advancement, treasure placement, etc. and a whole host of things that tend to be limiters to a player's ability to assume the role of "head story teller". If you want true collaborative storytelling something more like Fate or Risus is a better platform. Can you make DnD do it? Sure, but just I don't think as many people are doing it as they claim to be.

I get the feeling it's just popular to SAY you aren't a storyteller for whatever reason. I've ascribed to the "sandbox" crowd in the past here but there seems to be this interesting move to completely divorce DM responsibilty for the plot which I find a bit over the top.

 

[Janx]

By the way if you, or anyone else, wants to disagree with what I just pointed out about human science and technology and invention then go ahead. It was just my opinion anyway.[/FONT]

You do raise a good point. But where Nethack illustrates the point I was making, is that it makes consistent decisions. Despite the human bias, the human bias is applied consistently once it is coded.

If you and I both play and start with the same random seed, and make the exact same moves in our session, we will both end up in the exact same place.

Not so with a human GM. Where nethack stands as unbiased is that every encounter and every reaction is codified. It may be by a biased human, but once coded, the game plays identically, regardless of the player.

Whereas, the human GM may be having a bad day. he may not like one of the players ideas, or that player even. His human bias is constantly manipulating the situation.

Thus, his mood affects what he thinks is the rational consequence when the guards apprehend the party for not having a Pass.

 

[Janx]

It is an example of the play that is not illusionist. That is, the apparent impact of the players' choices on the direction of the game is not illusory.

Pemerton's example looks like the playrs get more control over what happens next. Probably to expedite play by post.

Folks on the track of Is D&D a story, are in the wrong thread
While I like me some story, it's not actually what I'm driving at.

The illusion is that what happens next being purely rational and unbiased. While good GMs strive for that, as in life, it is not entirely true that if X happens then Y is the consequence.

In pem's example, why did initiative get rolled for combat at the end of dinner? While it may seem a natural consequence that the party just called out the villain, and the fight starts. However, it's also possible that he might prevaricate. After all, what proof does the party have? Or that he migh have actually changed his robes (who goes to a fancy dinner wearing the same robes that he dungeon crawled in)

Ultimately, somebody thought it made sense to do a fight scene next. But it didn't have to be that way. and the choice for that was arbitrary.

For DMs who deny this phenomenon isn't occurring in their game, I hope you'll reconsider. The point is to reveal it happens, demonstrate it happens, and a better aware DM knows to use it to good effect, and to not abuse it.

Most of the stories of bad GMing (or disputes of bad GMing) are caused by this effect. a GM makes a call, that is ultimately arbitrary on its impact on the players, and the GM refuses to acknowledge that point and devise a fairer resolution.

Which brings us to back to nethack. if we were coding Pem's dinner scene in the FancyDinnerAccusation() function, we'd hopefully realize there's a number of ways it could go, and randomly determine which path is next (does the Villain draw his gun, run, or deny everything, or turn the accusation back on the party).

I suspect, there are some GMs who roll NPC reactions, and roll for "what happens next". Its still has human bias (it can only result in that which a human has thought of), but the actual decision is taken out of the human's hands.

In the original case of the crappy GM with the PCs Lacking a Pass, he had options for give them a warning, take them to get their papers because 'obviously the gate guards forgot", or haul them to a judge. he chose one extreme outcome, but there were others available.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Janx, no offense, but I really don't know where you're going with this, or what the point is. Can you help me? I've replied once before and am still here reading because I think it's interesting. Thanks.

 

[Janx]

Janx, no offense, but I really don't know where you're going with this, or what the point is. Can you help me? I've replied once before and am still here reading because I think it's interesting. Thanks.

It's about GM steering. I say the GM is steering, conciously or unconciously, whether they claim to be or not.

Remember that thread where you had the dumb party and the Lich. They got screwed by the Lich. Why, because you effectively steered it that way. I might have steered it a different way (that's what I suspect was the crux of Hussar's debate on that topic).

When EW made a comment about not being able to fail, that's at the crux of DM steering.

Either way, DMs are steering. So if the PCs fail, the DM is making a decision on whether to make that failure be a show stopper.

While too much leniency could lead to EW's loss of sense of accomplishment, leaning the other way, is also self-defeating. it does you no good to run a TPK every week.

So, when somebody was busting CuRoi's chops over story style, maybe they haven't considered this:
what if CuRoi is more than happy to TPK his party if they botch a combat
what if he is always adjusting things so the party has another chance, with non-combat failures, unless the party takes a different direction.

The result is, sure, he's trying to tell a story. So long as its the one the PCs are trying to move toward.

This is all within CuRoi's right as GM to use his ability to steer.

But this also means, as a player, your successes are also illusions. Which, to an extent, they may be.

In one of my thread a century back, about level-appropriate challenges, somebody implied a 1st level party could easily encounter an old Red Dragon in their game. If that party survived, was that really a Success? Or was it the GM steering things so the party wouldn't be dead, so they could keep playing? Because as easy as it was for the GM to decide to not kill the party, he could have just wiped them out as an afterthought. Which also would have been realistic.

I've indicated how this principle works for story oriented GMs. I suspect sandbox GMs may be in denial about this power they have and whether they use it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think you're talking about different things. Saying "I don't fudge rolls or situations" is not the same as arbitrarily determining outcomes. You seem to think any outcome is arbitrarily determined ("But it didn't have to be that way. and the choice for that was arbitrary"). If that's true, I disagree. I think that's where your thought process doesn't make sense to me. You're saying "GMs are biased and make arbitrary decisions" and I disagree. If you hold to one way of determining things based on a play style that you and your players prefer, it's not arbitrary.

ar·bi·trar·y
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

That's not what's happening. The decisions have reasoning, and the reasoning is consistent. To that end, I don't follow the path you seem to be advocating as logical. If I'm misinterpreting you or misrepresenting you, I'm not trying to. Can you help me?