Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

The animosity hit the advisor and now he has to scramble to try to overcome it. It's no different than if the party had failed and the baron had been upset with the party. The PCs could have come up with ideas to placate the baron's wrath, too.

If the players failed, the baron is angry at them. No retries. They have to somehow deal with the baron's anger. They can't just keep trying to persuade him otherwise.

It's like failing an open locks check in AD&D.

I said the advisor would have to catch a sudden case of retarded in order not to try to mitigate the damage.

And I said - multiple times now - that the advisor can do that if he wants. But, at the table, that is mere colour - like Wormtongue's sputtering after Gandalf defeats him in Theoden's hall. The matter has been resolved.

In AD&D, a player can declare as many attempts to bend bars as s/he likes. But if the first attempt fails, that settles all the following ones also.

That's what finality, or "no retries", means. In the context of this particular skill challenge, the finality was of success rather than failure.

If the fiction changes in some significant way that is adverse to the PCs (and, thereby, the players) then old successes might be re-opened. But on this partiuclar occasion nothing had changed in the fiction - it was just a break between sessions.

When the PCs ended up killing the baron's niece, that did affect their relationship with him, at least in the sense that he had a nervous collapse. That's an example of the sort of change in the fiction that can open up a previously-settled matter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Interestingly, when I suggested that [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] was making a category error, in attributing real causal power to NPCs, he (? I believe - please accept my apologies if I'm misremembering), Ovinomancer accused me (more-or-less) of engaging in ridicule, or deliberate distortion of what had been said.

But here we see Maxperson making exactly that claim!

And I will re-assert that it is a category error. NPCs do not "author themselves", and that sort of talk by authors is loose metaphor at best.

Well, you keep misrepresenting what I said, so, yeah, it keeps getting pointed out. You've done it again, here, as while I did accuse you of misrepresenting my point, I also clarified what I meant, but you're still here, using the same misrepresentation as if it hadn't already been addressed. This is the kind of thing that makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. You misrepresent a position, though error or intent, and then refuse all attempts to clarify or correct. If you'd acknowledged the clarification of my point -- that I thought I blatantly obvious that NPCs don't author themselves and was clearly speaking to DMs authoring the NPCs as if they had independent, pre-established agendas, then, perhaps, this confusion of yours would clear up.

 

[Imaro]

When the PCs ended up killing the baron's niece, that did affect their relationship with him, at least in the sense that he had a nervous collapse. That's an example of the sort of change in the fiction that can open up a previously-settled matter.

Ok I have to ask...why? What makes this "change in the fiction" capable of opening up a previously-settled matter... versus the advisor utilizing resources , connections, influence and even magic to mitigate his failure? Because without an explanation it just looks like DM fiat... in other words if you feel changes meet a certain criteria well then finality isnt really final.

 

[pemerton]

I thought I blatantly obvious that NPCs don't author themselves

I know. That's what I said in the post you just replied to: "Ovinomancer accused me (more-or-less) of engaging in ridicule, or deliberate distortion of what had been said."

My point is that I was neither ridiculing you nor deliberately distorting what you said. Indeed, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] then went on to say exactly what I had taken you to say: "NPCs do exercise that power over events." I don't agree with this, but given that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] actually said it, I didn't take it as ridiculous to intepret you (having nothing to go on but your post) as also saying it (less plainly).

Eg you said "The players were successful which means you have to honor their intent going forward -- the advisor cannot mitigate the result". Read literally that seems to posit the advisor (a fictional entity) mitigating the players' success (an event in the real world). You have since clarified that you intended this as a shorthand for something like "The GM cannot undo or lessen the result - ie the players' success - by having the advisor achieve some feat or feats of mitigation". But that was not evident to me upon my initial reading of your post.

Connecting this to the topic of the thread: I think it is a significant source of distortion in discussion/analysis of RPG methods to refer to elements of the fiction as if they have causal power. Yet it happens very frequently: eg you'll see someone say that the reason something-or-other happened at the table was [such-and-such], where [such-and-such] is not a description of events in the real world, but simply a recount of the fiction. And hence is incapable of being a reason that anything happened in the real world.

 

[pemerton]

Ok I have to ask...why? What makes this "change in the fiction" capable of opening up a previously-settled matter... versus the advisor utilizing resources , connections, influence and even magic to mitigate his failure? Because without an explanation it just looks like DM fiat...

If the players stake a previous success on something, and fail, then they might lose their success.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]

You've said a number of interesting things regarding playstyle categorization, but I think you're taking a very narrow view of the Robin Law's verision in insisting that they're sole, selfish motivations and not general tendencies, and in that they cannot be addressed in simultaneous fashion by a game. You're much more lenient in the application of your preferred model and easily grant that one can belong to multiple categories and that games can simultaneously address multiple categories at once. I think you're creating a false dichotomy in application.

That said, you make valid points between the categorization and motivation, which are separate things. However, I don't see how your preferred method teases out motivation, as it's categories are still things you do, not reasons why you do them. And many of those correlations are pretty weak (r=.45 isn't a very strong correlation, frex). Still, some of them make sense when hypothesizing motivation, like the above mentioned correlation between community and competition -- I strongly enjoy competitive games, and that makes me care about the community. If it's full of jerks, or people that are outside of my investment range (too many casuals or too many tweakers, depending), then I dislike that community and can't enjoy the competition. This, however, doesn't mean that if the game features both competitive and PVE play that I seek out community play in PVE. I tend to do PVE solo or with friends, as then I focus more on my action, strategy, and exploration desires. So the social field in that model doesn't always map correctly to motivation. It misses me, in large part, because it's correlation fails to capture what I want from social games.

This maps to tabletop extremely well -- I enjoy playing RPGs with friends because I enjoy sharing my exploration, action, and strategy with friends. I rarely play with strangers, for the same reasons as computer games -- even though I often enjoy it, it's not something high on my interest lists. I don't do social for social's sake. On the other hand, I love community, even strangers, in competitive games, like boardgames, wargaming, and CCGs. There, the facets of community I value are fair play, lack of jerks, and a relatively even level of available competition. Knock one of those legs out and I don't participate.

So, any model you pick is likely going to focus on outcomes and not motivations, because motivations are hard and complex and unique to individuals. You can stereotype a bit, like Robin does or your method does, but it still has large holes. The real point is to be aware of what your players value, and then work to weave that into your game, not one at a time, but as a tapestry.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know. That's what I said in the post you just replied to: "Ovinomancer accused me (more-or-less) of engaging in ridicule, or deliberate distortion of what had been said."

My point is that I was neither ridiculing you nor deliberately distorting what you said. Indeed, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] then went on to say exactly what I had taken you to say: "NPCs do exercise that power over events." I don't agree with this, but given that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] actually said it, I didn't take it as ridiculous to intepret you (having nothing to go on but your post) as also saying it (less plainly).

As far as RPGing is concerned, I think it is a significant source of distortion in discussion/analysis of RPG methods to refer to elements of the fiction as if they have causal power. Yet it happens very frequently: eg you'll see someone say that the reason something-or-other happened at the table was [such-and-such], where [such-and-such] is not a description of events in the real world, but simply a recount of the fiction. And hence is incapable of being a reason that anything happened in the real world.

You're still using semantic dodges, though. You're focusing narrowly on the idea that someone thinks that NPC actually do things, when they don't because they don't really exist instead of using a modicum of reason to suss out the obvious fact that NPC is a stand in for a fictional positioning of the DM/GM, and, as such, can have motivations and agendas assigned to them that can be narrated in game independently of PC actions, intents, and even knowledge.

If you'd stop with the silly semantics, the conversation might progress. As it is, it seems to be a circle of you narrowly interpreting something in the least favorable light, declaring it silly, and then ignoring the responses. Rinse, repeat.

 

[pemerton]

NPC is a stand in for a fictional positioning of the DM/GM, and, as such, can have motivations and agendas assigned to them that can be narrated in game independently of PC actions, intents, and even knowledge.

What is the force of the can here?

Do you mean "in accordance with the rules and procedures of play"? Then what you say is not true for the particular episode of play being discussed, where the players' victory precludes the GM simply going on to narrate the advisor improving his standing vis-a-vis the baron.

If the point is that, in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game, the same is not true - because Maxperson plays with different rules and procedures - well, yes, that is self-evident (or nearly so).

But as I posted upthread, this does not tell us about any difference in the role played by NPCs in these games. In both approaches, NPCs provide opposition/antagonism. Rather, it tells us something about differences in who enjoys what sort of power to change the content of the shared fiction.

I believe that [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] disagree with the previous paragraph (or, at least, with its first and second sentences). But they haven't stated the details of that disagreement. I also take it that you agree with them in disagreeing, but that is an inference - although I raised the issue at least once in reply to you (as a disagreement with something I took you to have said), you haven't responded to it.

 

[TwoSix]

I know. I know. There goes [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] with his data science and overanalysis!

Dude, your posts are awesome. I'm eating this up. Understanding the alignment between different play styles and which games support or stymie them is probably the biggest need to make the overall TTRPG experience better as a whole.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What is the force of the can here?

Do you mean "in accordance with the rules and procedures of play"? Then what you say is not true for the particular episode of play being discussed, where the players' victory precludes the GM simply going on to narrate the advisor improving his standing vis-a-vis the baron.

If the point is that, in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game, the same is not true - because Maxperson plays with different rules and procedures - well, yes, that is self-evident (or nearly so).

But as I posted upthread, this does not tell us about any difference in the role played by NPCs in these games. In both approaches, NPCs provide opposition/antagonism. Rather, it tells us something about differences in who enjoys what sort of power to change the content of the shared fiction.

I believe that [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] disagree with the previous paragraph (or, at least, with its first and second sentences). But they haven't stated what the details of that disagreement.

Better. I actually addressed this division in the post where you first responded with ' but NPCs aren't real'. It was the discussion about whether or not NPCs exist only to frame and oppose PC actions, or if they exist and PCs can pit themselves against them if they choose. I get that you're missing the distinction here, and, to be fair, it's somewhat subtle. In the former, which appears to be how you play, NPCs have no point except to act as foils to PC actions -- they only have enough form and substance to provide suitable obstacles (or perhaps allies) to PC intent. They do nothing except act in reactions to the PCs. An NPC in this model will never have it's own agenda that it pursues absent PC involvement -- any such agenda will only exist in the event that it's needed to oppose PC intent in a challenge. You've indicated as much with statements about keeping NPCs vague so that future changes to them due to player declarations and need to challenge them are coherent.

The latter concept, though, involves NPCs that are created as if they have PC level interests, motivations, and agendas. In this version, the NPCs are acting on the world independent of the PCs, and this may be the source of conflict. This is the proposed version Max is using, the NPC as alt-PC, not merely as foil to PCs.

To bring this analysis to bear on your play example, in your version the advisor only has merit as a foil to the PCs. He was framed as a challenge, and then the challenge was enacted, but the advisor is entirely bound to the results of the challenge. He only has an agenda in so much as it exists as a challenge to the players. In this model, it's right and proper that the advisor cannot engage in mitigation, because the advisor was only a toll to challenge PC intent, and when the PCs succeeded in implementing their intent through the challenge, the advisor was defeated. The advisor cannot initiate a new challenge that alters this success, only the players can enact a new challenge that might alter this success. The advisor only ever reacts to the players.

In the other method, the advisor still has independant agendas, so the player success at the challenge is now a setback, but the advisor can now plan steps to overcome the setback and act upon them, even without the players engaging in a new contest that stakes their previous victory. In this, the advisor can force the players to react to his advances -- he can initiate a new challenge that may adjust the success of the previous one. This is because the advisor has his own agency in the game and isn't only reactionary to the players.

You would call the second method DM driven. I've used DM centric, largely because I believe the -driven categories are too binary. But, regardless of terminology, I think the primary distinction between DM and player driven is the reactionary status of the gameworld -- if the world only every reacts to the players, it's player driven. If it exists outside of the players, and acts without player input, then it's DM driven. I'm okay with this, with the clear caveat that nothing is fully one or the other -- it's a spectrum. My games are both -- the macro is DM driven, in that there's a plot ongoing that will continue without player involvement, and on the micro in that I break my arcs down into sandboxes that largely react to the players.