Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[pemerton]

So your worlds don't evolve at all without player input? Interesting. There is no "bigger than you" sort of plot or story that players could, if they choose, get involved in? The only plots that happen are plots they essentially create by their choices?

Sigh. Alright, I give up trying to understand this. You say you don't create plots or "big plots" even and that the world really only evolves as your players request it.

The verbs "create" and "request" in the last sentence of each paragraph aren't quite right.

The only plots that happen are plots that the players engage with via their choices. And these only evolve in so far as it is relevant to, and driven by, those engagements.

I used to use more general campaign timelines, which would explain how various events would happen according to the passage of ingame time in various regions of the gameworld. But then I noticed (i) that these events really only mattered insofar as they connected to what was actually going on, in play, with the PCs, and (ii) as a GM I wasn't paying any attention to those events other than those that were connected to what was actually going on, in play, with the PCs. So I decided to dispense with the campaign timelines, and just focus on play.

An example from my game: I bought a module online after reading a good review - I can't remember it's name - but anyway, it seemed in fact to be somewhat derivative of the old White Dwarf adventure The Lichway (not a criticism, but it would have been good if the reviewer had picked this up), but one thing that was new in it was an NPC who had the power to tell the names of the dead by touching them, and who was commited to burying all the dead to be found on a terrible ancient battlefield.

I liked this NPC a lot and had the PCs encounter him while they were making their way to tombs up a ridge which had been the site of a terrible battle in my gameworld. Various hijinks ensued that I won't bore you with. But at the back of my mind is this idea: various beings are trying to learn the Raven Queen's true name - which is a secret - in order to gain power over her; the Raven Queen is dead - she came to power after dying, going to Nerrul's realm, and overthrowing him; therefore her body is, in principle at least, recoverable; and this NPC could then be used to learn the name from that body. So this suggests a plot by some faction or other - Vecna, Orcus or both (either or both would fit into my game very well, because there is a wizard-invoker of Ioun, Vecna and Erathis, and a cleric and a paladin of the Raven Queen) - to kidnap the NPC, recover the Raven Queen's body, and thereby learn her name.

But until a context comes up in which this would be an interesting notion to put into action, I won't be doing anything with the idea. And if and when I do decide to do something with idea, the way that it unfolds will be driven by the way that the players interact with it. It's not about them requesting (or not only), but about them sending signals (with express requests being only a modest contributor to them) of what interests them, what doesn't, and where they want the game to go.

You don't create challenges and encounters ahead of time, and you freely adapt and create new challenges as the need arises. How again are Teleports and Divination a problem at all aside from circumventing a the 4e "x rolls required" mechanic for skill challenges? It really makes no sense.

The issue here, as I tried to explain in my previous post, is about removing the incentive to expedience at the expense of flair and excitement. I can run games with teleport and divination - I did so for many years in my first long-running Rolemaster campaign. Teleport and divination were mostly stripped out of the second long-running Rolemaster campaign at the request of the players, because they had experienced the sort of issue that I am talking about - that making those powers available created too big a gulf between making choices that were rational from the point of view of the PCs, and choices that actually made for an interesting and engaging game.

By your claims only your players are creating anything meaningful in your game yet you think use of powers that let them bypass your on the fly, off the cuff skills challenges somehow threatens the integrity of the game???

I don't know about "integrity of the game" - but learning what someone's motivation is by outwitting them in negotiation, and/or scaring them, and/or piecing together various fragments of information, is something my players generally enjoy. Learning by using mind reading is, too often, an anti-climax.

Anyway, I'd love to see more about the relationship maps. Feel free to PM one from your current campaign if you have it in electronic format! Thanks!

There's nothing very dramatic about it. I tend to just use notes that talk about who the different NPCs are and what their relationships are to one another, and what their history is. I've attached a diagram to this post which was actually drawn up my players in our last campaign - an Oriental Adventures-style Rolemaster game. By the end of the campaign they had a better grasp on some of the minutiae then I did! (The black squares represent enemies defeated by the PCs. And the label "so-called heavenly realm" reflects a fundamental feature of the campaign - that the main thematic issue was of the attitude that should be taken towards the heavens, and the gods' plans for and designs upon the world. And some of those boxes are PCs - Hiroshi, Sun Ki, Hidao, Kochi, and 2 members of the Tao clan.)

 

[BryonD]

Well, for me this links back to the much-debated skill challenge structure.

First, even conceding your point, that just makes it capable. "Far better" is a whole separate tier of debate.

And obviously from my point of view we are just back around to "pop quiz" gaming in which the players are backing fitting their narrative to match the mechanics.

One issue in GMing in an improv fashion - including the sort of improv described in the previous paragraph, of working with a loose backstory plus player concerns and interests revealed in actual play to shape and gradually unfold a "big plot" - is coming up with new and interesting ideas and incorporating them into the game.

A mechanic like a skill challenge, and other mechanics that it resembles like HeroWars/Quest extended contests, help with this issue by supporting the introduction of complications into scenes. They do this in two ways: (i) by mandating the introduction of complications at certain points in the game - they stop the GM from being forgetful or blase in this respect; and (ii) because of the triggers for this mandate, they help make sure that the GM has something interesting to work with (namely, the material provided by the players) to help shape and introduce those complications.

Exactly, those mechanical "mandates" are such a great thing.....

Seriously, I don't need these mandates to achieve the result you laud, and having the mechanics "mandate" something is exactly what I seek to avoid.

To me, this seems to be something like the opposite approach to RPGing to the one you articulated upthread, where the mechanics are in principle invisible and the fiction unfolds purely by its own internal logic. Are you able to say anything about how you improvise under that approach? Is it important to incorporate players ideas/contributions, or is the GM the arbiter of what fits into the fiction?

Honestly, your question seems bizarre and even smacks a bit of the RPG version of "have you quit beating your wife?"

The players are free to do pretty much whatever they want whenever they want. I usually have a fairly rail-roady "script" ready to go and somewhere between 15 seconds and not at all along the way the players hop the rails. And sometimes they stay on the rails but completely throw a given scenario into something I never imagined. And I find the best sessions happen when I'm caught completely flat footed and start making things up to respond to the players unexpected plans.

I don't remotely claim it is an all parties are equal dynamic. The DM can throw a dragon at the party when he wants to. The DM puts the dragon where it "fits". The players are not permitted to declare they are going to go around that hill, find a cave and go talk to the dragon living in it. But they could certainly declare that they needed to consult a dragon and lay out a plan for getting there. And I'd happily support that by sharing information their characters may know which would help them devise a plan.

Bottom line, in the strictest terms, your question really does not compute. "Mandates" are not part of this and the idea of a conflict of control isn't a consideration. Again, I really don't believe you are describing a successful model for making a game vast numbers of people will even want to play. DM power is a fundamental part of a good system. And a good DM using that good system will work with the players to make everyone have fun and that constitutes a good game session. Your dynamic of us vs. them (or equal or controlled) is on the wrong track from the start, so it doesn't have a meaningful answer.

As with so many other elements of 4E, it charges me a price (mandates) in exchange for giving me something I already had, and when it gives it to me it really isn't as high quality as what I had to begin with. It comes to down to the very kind or presumptions about DMs you have offered. I don't see 4E as presuming great DMs. Again, I think WotC made that clear when they promoted easy to DM, great for people who have never DM'ed before, etc... Instead of looking to what can be achieved and seeking to push that boundary, they assume problems and see to use mandates in the rules to mitigate the harm.

I readily admit that 3E doesn't have a safety net. It can be played badly in a heartbeat. And if that is what you have experienced, and the starting premise of your position suggests maybe that is the case, then of course anything that mitigates the harm is going to be "far better". But if you are getting along without a safety net then that is a whole different level.

Improv happens all the time in my games. It happens with no mandates and it is great. Ultimately the DM has power, but everyone at the table feels empowered and enjoys being inside the story and feeling like they are making the story just happen with mechanics just there as support.

 

[BryonD]

I think about all the typical ways that the play in question would be shut down by simulationist priorities - "You're not playing your character properly" or "You're violating your alignment" would be the standard shutdown techniques for the scenario you describe.

You see these as simulationist????

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well the classic one that still has my friend (who was DMing) pissed off is Speak With Dead. Imagine what modern murder investigations would be like if you had that spell. That was a pretty blatant "solve mystery" moment.

I was going to say, see the first episode of the first season of Torchwood. The killer knows they can, effectively, Speak With Dead, and has taken steps to avoid the problem. Likewise, there are many episodes of Medium where the main character gains the same sort of information one might from Speak With Dead, and yet the program still manages to make the outcome a mystery. And, in Medium, the protagonist doesn't even need a mostly-intact body!

However, that doesn't even scratch the surface. In D&D, even the humble Disguise can allow you to look like Bob's Uncle Joe, and won't Uncle Joe be surprised when he discovers he's been named as the killer!?!?!

In Prince of Persia, the title character is seen to hand the king the poisoned garment that murders him. He isn't the actual murderer, but Speak With Dead would be more damaging than helpful here.

Finally, and obviously, it takes only one or two examples where Speak With Dead is misleading before the information it provides is seen merely as a clue, and less as a resolution.

Speak With Dead limits the DM in having murder mysteries no more than fingerprinting does in a modern setting.

And, as should be obvious, spectral evidence isn't necessarily evidence, in a world in which the common man simply doesn't know if you cast Speak With Dead or some illusion that merely says what you want it to say.



RC

 

[BryonD]

Speak With Dead limits the DM in having murder mysteries no more than fingerprinting does in a modern setting.

Good post

IMO these types of concerns put the priorities out of sequence. If the game is set in a world in which Speak with Dead is a reality, then dealing with that, both for good and for bad, is part of the FUN of the experience. Complaining that different conditions require different actions seems to really miss the point.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Remember that time in LotR when Gandalf teleported to Mount Doom, dropped the ring in, then teleported back? And the book was over in like three paragraphs?

No?

 

[BryonD]

Or the time they just rode on Giant Eagles and tossed the ring in....

Or maybe the time when Gandalf explained that there were downsides to using magic, such as the major bad guys knowing where you are and reacting to you.

There are answers if you look for them. I assure you my games are working great without these problems. I get the impression not everyone else is having this success. That is a shame.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Prior to 3e, there was no guarantee that any wizard would get access to teleport. That said, it should be no surprise to anyone that magic is less flashy in LotR than in any edition of D&D, 4e included.

Of course, I don't remember Aragorn being a Wuxia Hero, either.


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Far far better improv: huh?
wildly creative? I guess, as long as you only retroactively create things that fit the results dictated by the mechanics.
And it is pretty funny considering how frequently 4E powers are built around precisely "pushing" figures around a battlemap.
I'd actually agree that you can do very cool stories in 4E. But the context that it is refreshing in this sense as compared to 3E is boggling.

Wildly creative, but only so long as "the math works".

For my part, I find that is what helps encourage creativity. The DM having some guidelines (such as via page 42) that let them find easy but balanced ways to resolve a creative action is refreshing. Whereas in the past, when a player finds some creative use of a spell, it often feels more like finding a loophole to trivialize encounters more than anything else.

That isn't to say you couldn't have creative resolution of actions and effects in 3.5! But I just never found that the rules encouraged it as much as in 4E. In my experience, of course.

Anyway, I know this is somewhat tangential from the main discussion at this point, but what I really wanted to comment on was the comment about 4E powers that push people around. You mention it like it is some sort of problem or impediment to creativity. But... we're talking about powers that let you know enemies around, hurl them back ten feet and knock them to the ground, and stuff like that.

That seems ripe with opportunity for creativity. I think you are being put off by presentation over content. 4E describes a power as "The target takes 1d10+4 damage, is pushed 2 squares, and falls prone." Would that feel more creative if it instead ready: "You make a basic attack, which hurls the opponent backwards 10 feet and knocks them to the ground!"

Or are those equally problematic in terms of interesting or creative powers?

 

[BryonD]

For my part, I find that is what helps encourage creativity. The DM having some guidelines (such as via page 42) that let them find easy but balanced ways to resolve a creative action is refreshing. Whereas in the past, when a player finds some creative use of a spell, it often feels more like finding a loophole to trivialize encounters more than anything else.

I'm not as hung up on balance and I don't consider clever solutions to be trivializing the challenge.

Seriously, creative and balanced are completely different elements of consideration.

Anyway, I know this is somewhat tangential from the main discussion at this point, but what I really wanted to comment on was the comment about 4E powers that push people around. You mention it like it is some sort of problem or impediment to creativity. But... we're talking about powers that let you know enemies around, hurl them back ten feet and knock them to the ground, and stuff like that.

Actually, Perm brought up the term as if it was an impediment. I simply commented on the irony of his using the term.

I think you are being put off by presentation over content.

Ok. You are not correct. I don't know if you have read comments I've made in the past regarding "pop quiz" gaming, but that, amongst many other issues have a lot more to do with the problem. I have also mentioned many many times that creative descriptions can easy be placed on top of the 4E mechanics, which is what you are doing here. But that does nothing to actually solve the problem.