Mechanical Decision making for GMs

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

I like things to make sense. If something doesn't fit or belong contextually, then it shouldn't exist.

If something is out of place, it should be interesting enough to have a purpose and reason to exist out of place. Even if that reason is as simple as the person who owns it brought it to a place it doesn't belong; like an ogre who collects left shoes.

I stick rather closely to the principles of cause and effect. Even though we may perceive things behave in a chaotic soup, there really is a million variables and causes which have derivative reactions which cause other reactions, etc etc.

My point is that random tables rob the creative flow for me. I think it serves as a crutch for GMs to lean on, or to fill unnecessary rooms with unnecessary details. I take a lot of examples from good screen writers/novelists as both a GM and a system designer, one shouldn't describe something unless it somehow adds to the story, tone, or spirit of the piece. If a particular player wants a more specific description, then the GM should have things that make logical sense.

I'll use the "tub of butter" example [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] cited earlier. If I'm GMing a game, and my party enters a room, I might say something like:

"You enter a quaint and relatively humble dining room. Despite the simple accommodations the remains of a rustic yet delicious meal wafts aromatically around the room, leaving a husky and humid atmosphere. Long bench-like seats surround the perimeter of the ten foot roughly hewn oak table."

Then my inquisitive and intelligent player, who let's say is a halfling sorcerer, wishes to be informed of the food on the table. They haven't eaten for nearly two days as they have been on the long journey, and his character has an insufferable appetite.

"The leftovers still seem fresh; there are the mostly eaten remains of several rabbits, two turkeys, a large crock of what appears to be some sort of mashed tuber, probably potatoes, and an assortment of other smaller pots of roasted and stewed fibrous vegetables. There is a large loaf of the honey-bread common in the region sitting beside a crock of butter."

The other players get bored of this description, but the exceptionally hungry halfling is watering at the mouth at this description. Seeing as how he has a deep love of all dairy products, especially butter, he jumps at the chance to consume copious amounts of fresh butter and bread.

And scene.

Now, I could have made the butter poisoned, or he could have checked it magically to see if it was an illusion, and other certain in-character interactions could have taken place due to the description. If he were to dive right in, exhibiting a lack of judgment due to his love of butter, and his character became exceptionally ill, that could have dire ramifications to the party.

If I had to roll random tables, it is obviously random. This is a cue to the party that it is either wildly chaotic (and thus not essential to the story) or I'm only pretending to be random (which slows down the story for no reason.) Either outcome I don't particularly like. Now you could argue that you want the story to be random, which is great. But I want the random elements to come from the players, not from crocks of poisoned butter.

If the party simply asked, "Is there food on the table?" And I said, "Yes." And then they said, "We check the food for poison." They would never have tested the butter-loving halfling's lack of willpower despite his normal intelligence.

In summation, random tables should only maybe be used when searching for inspiration. I don't believe in random encounters, I don't believe in pointless filler. Maybe this adds a lot more prep, but if everything you describe has a purpose, even just to create tone or to give clues, you won't have to waste time describing anything you don't need to.

 

[The Shaman]

I like things to make sense. If something doesn't fit or belong contextually, then it shouldn't exist.

Part of using random tables is fitting the results to the context in which they occur.

I stick rather closely to the principles of cause and effect. Even though we may perceive things behave in a chaotic soup, there really is a million variables and causes which have derivative reactions which cause other reactions, etc etc.

It's because there are a million variables and cause-and-effect that I like randomly-generated results.

I think it serves as a crutch for GMs to lean on . . .

I think only doing what's logical to you is a crutch for those who lack imagination.

Or maybe neither one is a crutch, and each is simply a different way of doing things, each with its own advantages.

Yeah, I like that last one a lot better. I'm going with that one.

I don't believe in random encounters, I don't believe in pointless filler.

Random encounters != pointless filler.

At least not in my campaigns.

 

[S'mon]

I think only doing what's logical to you is a crutch for those who lack imagination.

Or maybe neither one is a crutch, and each is simply a different way of doing things, each with its own advantages.

Me, I like crutches.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how you're going about it. I use whatever method I think is appropriate to keep the story going forward. Sometimes it's a die roll, sometimes it's me stepping in and saying, 'Okay, you talk to the old guy and he gives you the Magic Taco of Herpaderp and tells you that you need to go to Castle HungaHungaHee to defeat Evil Lord LordEvil.' Sometimes we roleplay it, sometimes we don't.

I have a player who absolutely hates roleplaying beyond the most basic sense because she thinks she's horrible at it. She tends to play Fighters and Barabarians because they're the easiest for her and she maxes out Intimidation. So, for her, roleplaying is always a die roll. For the rest of the group, unless we're in a time crunch, we'll roleplay it out.

I'm like [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] in that I don't worry too much about details. When I'm running something, I know the beginning, I know the end, and what critical encounters (combat and otherwise) happen in between. Everything else that happens is adlibbed or I'll add things as the players progress. Hell, the roleplaying is adlibbed. I generally know what information an NPC has to give the players, but not how they're going to express it.

If I throw in something completely random, it will serve a purpose, even if it's just to tell the characters 'Hey, there's something weird going on here.' I do like to be random, but I prefer my randomness to have a goal.

 

[Quickleaf]

Is there value in letting the system/game mechanics decide things, rather than the GM's own internal decision process?

Someone made that random encounter table. If it was the DM you're back at the "problem" you describe. If it was someone else, how can you "trust" the results will be relevant and appropriate to your adventure...wouldn't the DM want to look them over first? And wouldn't that mean the DM's judgment was involved?

Don't get me wrong I looove random encounter tables, but for different reasons. As a DM for a quick inspiration when I'm stuck or when the players throw a curve all at me and I need filler. As a player, I like the illusion of a simulated world random encounters provide and the old school feeling of not knowing if there's a kobold or a dragon in the next hex.

People talk about GM/Player trust, but it's not that simple. I trust the GM not to pee in my coke when I get up to hit the head. I trust him to not steal my books either. I trust that he is TRYING to run a good game.

Well....that's a good start.

I do not trust that his decisions are not unconciously biased or mistaken because he and I have differing pictures of what I am attempting to do. I do not trust that if the GM is not using any mechanics, that his default impression of the situation is so bad that he decides I fail, whereas statistically, even applying the worst modifiers the game defines, I have a decent chance.

See, what you portray as negatives I see as positives that make face-to-face gaming unique and more engaging than a video game. When I can trust the GM I game with about these things I have more fun. Sounds like you got burned by a bad GM.

I mean you've got to trust the random encounter table is well designed, and you've got to trust that your GM will use random encounters responsibly (and not, say, throw two game sessions of rambling hack and slash as an obstacle to getting on with the party's quest...)

Some days that I suspect that the biggest problem with such mechanical tools for DMs is not the tools themselves but clearly communicating what they do, when to use them, and what their limits are.

A great point that speaks to the flexibility of having a living breathing GM.

 

[Janx]

Someone made that random encounter table. If it was the DM you're back at the "problem" you describe. If it was someone else, how can you "trust" the results will be relevant and appropriate to your adventure...wouldn't the DM want to look them over first? And wouldn't that mean the DM's judgment was involved?

Don't get me wrong I looove random encounter tables, but for different reasons. As a DM for a quick inspiration when I'm stuck or when the players throw a curve all at me and I need filler. As a player, I like the illusion of a simulated world random encounters provide and the old school feeling of not knowing if there's a kobold or a dragon in the next hex.

Bias in making a table is different from bias in choosing what the contents of the next room are if the GM is adlibbing.

When a GM makes a table, he generally does not have specific PCs or details of the encounter where the table will be used. He's just making a table that has the kind of random things he thinks a Level 2 dungeon room will have.

When a GM decides for himself, what's in the next room because the PCs went to someplace he hadn't planned on (no notes), his own biases are impacting the decision.

The decisions made in creating the table are far enough removed from the PCs compared to decisions regarding the PCs directly.

Bias isn't bad, but it tends to run in the direction of what the GM wants to happen, which might be opposed to what the players are hoping will happen.

Short of it is, tables aren't the enemy.

Though I would caution that applying the idea of mechanical decision making to everything would probably cause more rules bloat and require a zillion tables the GM would have to keep looking up to make the next roll for "what happens next"

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION]
Hmmm, I do something that seems like a hybrid approach... I write up my own encounter tables for areas of my Planescape campaign that are designed with a particular adventure in mind. For example, the PCs just visited the Clockwork Labyrinth of Mechanus. I created a small d8 encounter table with their quest (reaching the Orrery) and PCs (one is a rogue modron) in mind.

[sblock=Example Encounter Table]
1. Haywire modron unit attacking everything on sight. PCs are asked by decaton upon entering Clockwork Labyrinth to rescue the unit. This appeals to the player of the rogue modron PC.

2. Terrified monodrone stampede fleeing strange magic mouth spell cast by Hollow Woman inviting PCs to reach her at the Orrery using a "shortcut". This fits the story of the Hollow Woman corrupting the Clockwork Labyrinth.

3. Hollow Woman's scouts hunt down modron patrols and abducting victims for the gladiatorial games. This fits the story of the Hollow Woman corrupting the Clockwork Labyrinth.

4. Grinding gear rap activates as the Labyrinth self-corrects against the incursion of chaos. This fits the story of the Hollow Woman corrupting the Clockwork Labyrinth.

5. A moigno, a floating math equation calculating gear rotation rates, interaction intervals, and other aspects of Mechanus' gears.

6. Gear spirits threaten PCs, and are absorbed into weapons/implements if hit, controlling that device until the PCs leave the Labyrinth.

7-8. Portal teleport puzzle to advance further in the Labyrinth, or else PCs can navigate around it, but in that case they may stumble thru a portal or wander into a dangerous visiting planar creature. Two of the players really like puzzles, so this is for them.

Using this encounter table: The party makes a group orienteering check to navigate the Clockwork Labyrinth (DC 19; eg. Dungeoneering, Perception, Thievery). Auto-successes are possible with clever ritual, fast-solving the teleport puzzle, or rescuing squished quadron.
For each failure, roll once on encounter table. For each success narrate a quick benign "encounter" without conflict.


[/sblock]