Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Manbearcat]

Ok... number 1... I get and understand (actuallyI agree with it and it serves to illustrate a big component of whether certain techniques are a good fit having to do with players and type.

But you've totally lost me with number 2... I'm reading it but I think I may be having a hard time parsing exactly what you are saying, but I'm not sure why...

I'll give a shot at answering. Apologies if this is stuff you already know.

The phrase "Ask questions and use answers" is a principle of Dungeonworld GMing. One of the expectations of the game is the GM cannot know everything and will seek input to keep momentum going. Another expectation is the GM is curious how the situations will be resolved. So the GM is encouraged to ask questions and incorporate the answers into the fiction as it is playing out at the table. One of the easiest and most common questions is "Now that X has happened, what do you do?" but any time the DM doesn't know something, he is encouraged to ask some form of question to help fill in the blanks. So if the PCs declare they don't trust the chest in the middle of the room and prod it with a pole if might in fact be a mimic. It wasn't a mimic until the PCs decided to engage with it but now that they have, there it is. Dungeonworld play is best characterised by the question "What is going to happen?"

This principle conflicts with the base B/X DM stance which Is that is neutral adjudicator who primarily reacts to PC gambits. The chest in the middle of the room either is or is not a mimic as dictated by the map key and notes. B/X play is best characterised by the question "How well will we do?"

Play is engaging and fun for those involved for somewhat different reasons in the games.

Thanks Nagol. This is precisely what I was trying to convey.

I'm assuming the above sorts out your question Imaro?

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Sadras
we do not resolve every social conflict through the use of roles if there is no need for it. We follow the story organically and yes 'failure off-screen' (as well as 'success off-screen') does occur

<snip>

The player is/was rather confident of his character's abilities but was not permitted (by the party) through story-flow to act on them and so leaned towards using the Plot Point to force the issue and thus gain the reasoning required to act and get the other characters' buy-in.

So why didn't the rest of the table work with the player to try to establish some variant on what the player wanted that would force the issue without violating the fiction (eg maybe an underling comes in to see the boss, carrying the fingers of a couple more stool pigeons)?

If the answer is, the rest of the group didn't want the issue forced via Plot Point expenditure, then that suggests that that particular mechanic is a bad fit for that group and/or that game.

But that may not be the answer - as I said, I wasn't there and so don't know.

In any event, I don't regard it as a case against some mechanic that not everyone likes it or wants to use it. Not everyone likes chess, but that's not an issue for chess.

@Sadras , I think like pemerton I'm still trying to sort out what the issue at the table was. Was it:

1) The players at your table don't like resources that grant players Director Stance, period?

2) The players at your table thought this particular deployment of a Director Stance resource was a lame gambit because they prioritize different ways of defeating challenges (that don't entail or rely upon interacting with a metagame economy and deploying earned resources)?

3) The players at your table thought this particular deployment of a Director Stance resource produced lame or genre incoherent fiction?

If its something else, I'm not sure what it is. My thoughts on 1 through 3 are simple though.

(1) doesn't tell us anything about the fundamental nature of Director Stance resources (or even more tame versions of player authorship). It just tells us that your players in particular find them unpalatable. If such a system says what it does and is designed such that it does what it says (and yields the actual experience/impact upon play that is intended by the designers), then it is objectively good system machinery. Whether or not the experience is aesthetically or functionally

(2) is the most complex of the three because there is lots of context required. A metagame resource economy that isn't well-integrated into a system (holistically) may feel facile in the way it engages players (emotionally) or in the way it produces fiction (the fiction may not be particularly dynamic, the impact may be superficial, or the players may not feel "hooked into" their role in creating this new fiction because of the disconnectedness of the reward cycle; either the nature of the gaining of the resource, the nature of the resource itself, or the nature/results of the resources expenditure). (2) can easily be incoherently "bolted-on" design, over-complex design, or flat out poor implementation that is at fault.

The other aspect of (2) is having "challenge-based" play priorities competing simultaneously with other priorities. If the game is supposed to prioritize "skilled play", and the attainment of the metagame resource isn't costly/difficult, then you've got an incoherent/mismatch of play priority and game design (which sounds like what may be happening here).

(3) is simple enough. Don't create lame or genre incoherent fiction through your resource deployment. Lame is going to be subjective so the table will have to sort that out. Genre incoherency is more easily ascertained.

 

[Manbearcat]

On a side note I find [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s (and I believe [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s as well) way of playing (at least as they have described it and given examples of it in this thread) to have the same type of dissonance for me (the feeling of not having the ground beneath my feet)... where my chance to spot something, instead of determining whether I see it, actually determines whether it exists in the fiction or not at all... and/or whether my brother is evil. How do I determine what the consequences of failure for an action are when it can be anything deemed appropriate by the DM.

This goes all the way back to the Shrodinger's Gorge conversations of yesteryear.

I think what is happening here:

1) You possess a mental framework and attendant play preferences that prioritizes (a) Actor Stance, (b) classic Gygaxian "skilled play", and (c) task resolution that is discretized/granular enough (to meet your threshold), rather than abstract, and is underwritten by process simulation. I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of other posters in this thread (and that post on EnWorld these days) follow suit.

2) You enjoy story, but it needs to be an emergent outgrowth of the above. Play agenda, GMing principles, GMing techniques, system agency, and PC build tools/resources that are at tension with/compete with any of (a), (b), or (c) above must be muted or outright gutted. Genre coherency, dramatic trajectory, dynamic play moments/results are great, but if they are systemitized and they conflict with (1) above, there is a problem.

So you're wary of things like:

* Principled, abstract conflict resolution mechanics that are predicated upon metagame concepts like "genre logic", "snowballing danger", "action always", "play to find out".

* Following directly from the above, the GMing technique of Fail Forward whereby the fictional fallout of action resolution is governed by "intent" (along with the other principles directly above). For example:

Intent - I want to get us out of this hot, horseback pursuit through the badlands and into the safety of the forest's embrace.

Fictional positioning/danger - Gaining large force of enemies. Treacherous badlands topography. Ranged weapons and spells whizzing by our heads. Tiring horses.

Task - "I'm going to try to locate the hidden trail that got us into the badlands and will lead us out to the forest."

Failure result - "You crest a rise and nothing looks familiar. The sound of running water greets your ears and then the sight of a great gorge greets your eyes. Dead-end. An 80 foot plummet leads to a rushing river. The forest lies on the other side with the landing some 10 feet below your height and a 25 - 30 foot span of empty air between you and it."

 

[Maxperson]

This is like saying, "The orc was reduced to zero hp, but it seems quite reasonable, viable and fun for it in fact just to be a flesh wound, so the orc gets up and keeps on fighting" I mean, maybe some people would find that fun, and maybe in some RPG systems that is reasonable and viable, but as I prefer to play that would clearly be a violation of finality in resolution.

No. No it's not like that at all. It's like saying you hit the cleric for 6 points of damage without knocking him out, and then deciding that he heals himself for his action. Two separate actions, the second of which does not prevent the first from being successful. You successfully hit, and then he decided to mitigate the damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

a mental framework and attendant play preferences that prioritizes (a) Actor Stance, (b) classic Gygaxian "skilled play", and (c) task resolution that is discretized/granular enough (to meet your threshold), rather than abstract, and is underwritten by process simulation. I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of other posters in this thread (and that post on EnWorld these days) follow suit.

Sure, all three of those points are how people have been playing D&D for decades - if you couldn't find ways to cope with that you left the hobby or moved on to more obscure niche RPGs, and different chambers with different echos, like the Forge (thus Actor Stance, rather than just playing your character).

So there's this divide in attitude and perception that renders various aspects of RPGs, even when darn near universal, all-consuming to one side and/or utterly repugnant to the other, and a preference here or style there gets blown up into an irreconcilable/inconceivable gulf.

 

[pemerton]

No. No it's not like that at all. It's like saying you hit the cleric for 6 points of damage without knocking him out, and then deciding that he heals himself for his action. Two separate actions, the second of which does not prevent the first from being successful. You successfully hit, and then he decided to mitigate the damage.

Mzperson, what you say here is wrong. You are assuming that the hit for 6 hp does not reduce the cleric to zero hp.

In the episode of play I described, the skill challenge was over. The statuts of the fiction, vis-a-vis the standing of the advisor in the eyes of the baron and other important persons, was resolved. In the players'/PCs' favour.

 

[Maxperson]

Mzperson, what you say here is wrong. You are assuming that the hit for 6 hp does not reduce the cleric to zero hp.

Unless the advisor was rendered retarded(unconscious), he was capable(still had hit points) of attempting mitigation.

 

[Sadras]

@Sadras , I think like pemerton I'm still trying to sort out what the issue at the table was.

I don't believe that is a fair - Tony Vargas, Pemerton as well as Imaro all appeared to understand what the issue was if you look at their responses.

But to answer your question.

3) The players at your table thought this particular deployment of a Director Stance resource produced lame or genre incoherent fiction?

(3) is simple enough. Don't create lame or genre incoherent fiction through your resource deployment. Lame is going to be subjective so the table will have to sort that out. Genre incoherency is more easily ascertained.

So in the end you're saying DM judgement is what it comes down to, which is pretty much what this thread is about?
Auditing a player on this level is no fun at all for me. I can organically ascertain the response of NPC's given I know their (NPCs) motivations/limitations and I can determine the success of a plan carried out by a character/party through die mechanic BUT to tell a player your 'narration sucks' is just a line I'd rather not cross.

Even if you stipulate the table decides, it still does not appeal to me. Who do you believe would make the first objection? What if 2 out of 3 players object? What if the DM votes with the previous 2 and we have a tie? Even if one player has an issue it's messy any which way you cut it because we are messing with a player's immersion of the storyline.

As an aside, there is a post-apocalyptic RPG called Summerland, where a success (via the die) means the player narrates the success, while failures are narrated by the DM. That I find is more palatable for my group of players (specifically two who would be more troublesome with the former approach).

 

[Sadras]

So why didn't the rest of the table work with the player to try to establish some variant on what the player wanted that would force the issue without violating the fiction (eg maybe an underling comes in to see the boss, carrying the fingers of a couple more stool pigeons)?

If the answer is, the rest of the group didn't want the issue forced via Plot Point expenditure, then that suggests that that particular mechanic is a bad fit for that group and/or that game.

But that may not be the answer - as I said, I wasn't there and so don't know.

To be honest, they probably never thought of something along those lines. I remember some within the group did not want to resolve the situation via combat, it would have got messy, politically within the city, as it would have predictably resulted in negative repercussions for the party within the main storyline.

I actually did not want to evaluate the player's use of the Plot Point and so I was willing to allow it and explore the mechanic and new direction of the story, but the table (rest of the players) preferred not to, as the fiction seemed out of place for them, and so I complied with table consensus.

 

[Lanefan]

In the episode of play I described, the skill challenge was over. The statuts of the fiction, vis-a-vis the standing of the advisor in the eyes of the baron and other important persons, was resolved. In the players'/PCs' favour.

I'm unclear on something:
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to suggest that this particular challenge succeeding and revealing the advisor's secrets is but step one in what could then become an ongoing series of challenges as the advisor tries to mitigate his losses and save his own bacon.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] however seems to suggest that this particular challenge succeeding means the advisor's bacon is already cooked and he can do nothing further to bail himself out.

My question for pemerton is what's wrong with Maxperson's approach here? Why doesn't the advisor in effect get to mount his own skill challenge to see how well - if at all - he can limit the damage after being outed? On a broader scale, why pin the entire resolution of what seems like a very interesting scenario on the outcome of just one all-or-nothing challenge (along with, I can only assume, some actual role-play at the table) where there's such clear options to spin it out further and make the outcome less binary?

Lanefan