Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Umbran]

Here's the most important thing: it is nobody's job to protect these characters or the game. Nobody gets to decide how things should go.

I disagree, insofar as this is stated as if someone is dictatorially declaiming all the details and results. Really, *EVERYBODY* gets to decide how things should go.

The idea that somehow, the play goes forward with *nobody having any influence* on how it goes would be... nonsensical and counterfactual. It files in the face of how, for example, the GM generally decides what the antagonists are, and what themes to introduce when they put up complications, and such. The GM has huge say in the way things go. So, while they may not determine all results, if someone is going to claim that somehow the GM has no influence on the path of the game, we can just stop now.

So, what we are really talking is a continuum of influence on the path of the game, raging from "zero" to "I am just writing a novel by myself". And any particular game will have some admixture of influences among the participants. We are quibbling over where the dial sits, but stating it in absolute terms of "all or nothing", which, as far as I am concerned, gets in the way of understanding.

 

[Lanefan]

Fundamentally, here's the thing: what kills the bugbear isn't loss of hitpoints, it's a swordinnahead. At low player level, where Joe has 35 hit points, it takes a few passes of reducing hitpoints to get to swordinnahead, but that's the bit that does the thing. Once we get to swordinnahead, Joe is dead. Now, at later levels, the heroes are way better at achieving swordinnahead, which is the relevant fictional endpoint for our poor Joe. Again, it's not loss of 35 hitpoints that kills Joe, it's swordinnahead. If we want to represent, in the fiction, the heroes' greater ability to achieve the swordinnahead state for poor Joe, then we can do lots of things. Maybe we have a system where the heroes now can do 35+ hitpoints so it doesn't matter that Joe has 35 hitpoints -- any hit will result in swordinnahead and a dead Joe. Or, we could reduce Joe's hitpoints, as they don't exist anywhere but as a pacing mechanism for achieving swordinnahead, and say that any successful hit on Joe will go straight to swordinnahead.

What this does is blow away the very real possibility that while the high-level heroes can do 35+ hit points that doesn't mean they're every time going to on a successful hit; the dice might say 24, meaning Joe gets one more chance at glory (or more likely, a chance to surrender or run like hell).

And if the heroes can guarantee giving out 35+ every time, that means you can leave Joe's numbers alone and still get the same end result...so why change them?

Hitpoints have no fictional reality in game.

No, but they are a representation of something that does: Joe's toughness. Not his toughness in relation to any specific thing else, but his toughness in relation to everything else put together. And as PCs count as part of 'everything else put together' no matter what level they might be, Joe's intrinsic toughness doesn't change.

They're a pacing mechanism to control how fast you get through a fight (or lose one). As such, they're as malleable as encounters per day or days for a trip -- the exact number has no reality, only the applied pacing does. This goes to minions not having fewer hitpoints being a violation of previously established fictional reality -- hitpoints never hit the stage in the fiction, so to speak -- but instead just being an alteration of the game pacing mechanisms. The fictional result is that the heroes cause swordinnahead to Joe, either at the end of his hipoints, where previous "successes" have no fixed reality except to move closer to swordinnahead, or because they're minions and any successful hit causes swordinnahead.

Realistically, Joe's up against swordinnahead no matter what - the question is one of the underlying mechanics that get him there, and how (or if, even) those underlying mechanics relate to everything else other than just the one particular combat between Joe and a 17th-level warrior.

Let's say the same 17th-level warrior, after finishing off poor Joe, rolls up the line and finds her next opponent to be Bob, a 1st-level PC with less going for him than Joe had; Bob's staring down swordinnahead probably faster than Joe got it. But because Bob's a PC his numbers wouldn't change in the slightest - they're locked in to what it says on his character sheet. So why in the name of mechanical and internal consistency isn't the same true for Joe? Joe's every bit as much an inhabitant of the game world as Bob is and deserves the same consideration - his numbers are what they are and are locked in, and if Ms. 17th can still chop him down in one swing then so be it. The only difference at the table is that on a hit Ms. 17th's player will have to roll the damage dice to make sure she gives out enough to finish Joe off.

 

[Lanefan]

Not to bang too hard on the same drum, but 4e is not a game in which the numbers "represent" or "reflect" any fiction. They are an action resolutoin device.

I'll requote from Vincent Baker to emphasise the point:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

What Mr. Baker fails to note in that quote (though for all I know addresses it elsewhere) is that the numbers serve another purpose: they provide the framework via which the players (and GM) can quantify elements of the fiction that need quantifying in order to give a playable game: base stats, combat skill levels, toughness, armour, etc. Put another way, you say the numbers in 4e aren't a model of the fiction, but if they aren't then how are the players (and the GM, for that matter) expected to mechanically interact with the fiction on any sort of internally-consistent basis - what model can they use, if not the numbers?

The numbers aren't always absolutes in and of themselves, but what they do accomplish is to define relative differences between one thing and the next...and (here's the key bit) the next and the next and the next, all at once.

This is the key bit why, you ask? Because, using good ol' Joe the bugbear from the last post, Joe's 35 hit points tell us his relative toughness in comparison to every other creature in the game world...including but by no means limited to whatever he's fighting at the moment. Joe's 7 intelligence gives us a good idea of how smart he is not only in relation to other bugbears but in relation to the world at large. His current AC of 15 (or 5 if using descending AC)* tells us how difficult it'll be to get through his amrour and hurt him, no matter who or what is attacking.

* - of these three examples, this one lines up best with narration and imagination: it's pretty easy just on simple first glance to narrate armour so as to give everyone a reasonably good idea how well-defended a creature might be...which means by extension if a creature's AC changes later, there has to be a corresponding change in the fiction to account for this - better armour, or some (maybe lootable!) magical protection, or something. Changing the AC without suitably changing the fiction makes a mockery of it all - it's like a codified version of a GM pulling numbers out of thin air just because she can.

Now, how does this relate to locking in the numbers? Simple. Joe might be a pushover when faced with a 17th level warrior but his toughness relative to the rest of the world hasn't changed; and the GM can't just change that on a whim without a good in-fiction rationale.

But that's only part of the equation here...

4e's combat mechanics - hp, to hit numbers, damage, defences - are an action resolution framework. They are not a model of the fiction.

The numbers in 4e are a resolution system. When the resolution is different - eg the bugbear is facing PCs who are far more powerful than it - a resolution system is adopted that gives expression to this. All the numbers - defences, to hit, damage and hp - are changed. (You seem to be focusing only on the hp - I don't know why.)

4e's mechanics have nothing to do with "consistently interacting with the rest of the ficitonal world". That is not action resolution. It is not establishig the shared fiction by way of negotiation. Given that 4e is a relatively traditional RPG in its allocations of authority, the GM just makes that stuff up.

Bugbears are made of flesh, not sand.

And as has been mentioned a few times in this thread already, 4e is ficiton first. The players' know the fiction in the same way that they know the fiction of a film or novel - from imagination and description.

And the other part of the equation is this: all too often imagination and description simply aren't good enough, even if the GM gives the most in-depth narration you can conceive. Why's that? Because narrating the same scene to four different people is almost certainly going to paint four different pictures, one each in the imagination of each listener. And when you add that none of those pictures might match the actual picture the narrator is trying to describe, unless the narrator has a drawing or photo of the scene to bring everyone together you're inevitably going to get questions and misunderstandings; which IME can lead to some thunderous arguments if players base their actions on imagined or mis-interpreted scene elements that differ from what the narrator had in mind.

Numbers can help with this, and maps, and all those other so-called fiddly things. Still probably not perfect, but better than before.

And that's just a scene. Now think about trying to narrate things that can't so easily be pictured, such as (on first observation) a creature's toughness or intelligence or combat skill relative to the rest of the world. Here's where numbers become essential, not so much to help the narration but to guide the GM (usually, but sometimes the players) in playing and-or interacting with that creature and in what makes it tick, just like a player uses the numbers on a character's sheet as a mechanical representation of what that character's all about.

And for this mechanical representation of the fiction to work in any sort of consistent and trustworthy manner, the numbers, once set, have to remain so unless something materially changes about the creature**. The players have to be able to trust that the setting is internally consistent enough in its mechanics that the ogre they met (and fled from!) at 1st level is mechanically going to be the same when they meet it again at 15th level, or when they go back to town and send their bosses out after it.

** - just like a PC.

Re the bolded bit in the quote above: I focus on h.p. as it's the most egregious and obvious change to a creature's stats caused by minionizing it.

 

[Lanefan]

I think your metaphor is not that helpful.

Taken on its own terms, it presupposes that we are in the boat trying to get somewhere. But what if we're not? What if we just want to enjoy sitting in a boat? Then there's no need to steer.

Fair enough, but if nobody steers the boat (which by implication also means nobody pays attention to where it's going) then one of several things will inevitably happen at some point:
- the boat will aimlessly drift on the tide*
- the boat will get pushed into danger, or run aground, by the tide or by its own propulsion
- the boat will, assuming the presence of the right equipment, steer itself on autopilot*

* - until either the boat runs out of fuel/wind or those sitting on said boat run out of beer.

But more importantly, I think it's inapt for RPGing. There are options in RPGing other than setting out to author a story or passively doing nothing. [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] said "follow the fiction like a dog after a bone". I don't know much about dogs, but that doesn't sound passive to me. It seems active. And single-minded. And focused on a here-and-now rather than a long-term project or an ultimate destination.

Depends how far away the bone is, I suppose.

 

[Lanefan]

The published numbers and game stats are, I think, intended to be a decent general purpose representation. I don't think they are intended to be "the best" for all scenarios. When I assemble a particular encounter, I'm going to choose the representation that fits the need of the moment, not necessarily the Monster Manual standard.

I agree with this, as long as there's some consistency in the end result and that exceptions are or become clearly evident as such.

For the most part, unless there's a good reason, sure. I'd agree that, once I've rolled initiative, I'm not going to suddenly change it from a standard bugbear to a mook bugbear. I'll be using whichever representation I started with for the rest of that fight/encounter to represent the creature.

But, if something in the narrative calls for it, I might change the bugbear's status between encounters, especially if those encounters are notably separate in time. The Mook, if they earn a name, might become a standard bugbear. And then might even get enhanced stats or even class levels if the interactions with the party warrant a more prominent state in the fiction that calls for a more detailed representation.

And this is fine, as the changes you're making in the numbers reflect a material change to the bugbear in the fiction: it learned how to fight and gained some skills, just as would be the case for a PC. All is cool.

1) I think the "invalidate the setting" is hyperbole. You may violate their expectations if the overall and long-term effect is markedly different. But one encounter is not going to suddenly dash the whole setting on the rocks. Players are smart. They can get the idea that a thing may have different mechanical representations.

And at the same time be thoroughly put off by it.

2) Why we'd do this was noted a long time back. The full representation *has more bookkeeping*, and bookkeeping is pretty boring, and slows play down.

If it serves the integrity of the game to do the bookkeeping then do the flippin' bookkeeping.

So, we might choose to ditch the full representation when it doesn't actually add much to the game. It is a solid reason related to the quality of play for everyone at the table.

As long as it's done in full awareness of all involved that the cost of doing so is paid via integrity of the fiction (and thus, the game) and believability of the setting then fill yer boots. Problem is, that's a cost that many aren't prepared to pay and that many more don't even realize is being levied.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What this does is blow away the very real possibility that while the high-level heroes can do 35+ hit points that doesn't mean they're every time going to on a successful hit; the dice might say 24, meaning Joe gets one more chance at glory (or more likely, a chance to surrender or run like hell).

And if the heroes can guarantee giving out 35+ every time, that means you can leave Joe's numbers alone and still get the same end result...so why change them?

No, but they are a representation of something that does: Joe's toughness. Not his toughness in relation to any specific thing else, but his toughness in relation to everything else put together. And as PCs count as part of 'everything else put together' no matter what level they might be, Joe's intrinsic toughness doesn't change.

No, they don't represent Joe's toughness. They're an arbitrary number meant to provide pacing. This is why it's so hard to actually define what hitpoints are in the fiction -- are they meat, or skill, or divine protection, or armor, or luck? Or all of that? If luck, why can't luck change because you've run into seriously powerful heroes and your luck has run out?

Hit points just pace fights. They don't represent anything. You yourself are fine with variable hitpoints for the same creature type -- Joe's brother can have many more or many less hitpoints than Joe. This isn't because Joe's brother is less tough -- his stats otherwise are the same. Joe's brother has the same saves, the same damage, the same AC, all the same except Joe's brother's pacing time to swordinnahead is less.

Realistically, Joe's up against swordinnahead no matter what - the question is one of the underlying mechanics that get him there, and how (or if, even) those underlying mechanics relate to everything else other than just the one particular combat between Joe and a 17th-level warrior.

Let's say the same 17th-level warrior, after finishing off poor Joe, rolls up the line and finds her next opponent to be Bob, a 1st-level PC with less going for him than Joe had; Bob's staring down swordinnahead probably faster than Joe got it. But because Bob's a PC his numbers wouldn't change in the slightest - they're locked in to what it says on his character sheet. So why in the name of mechanical and internal consistency isn't the same true for Joe? Joe's every bit as much an inhabitant of the game world as Bob is and deserves the same consideration - his numbers are what they are and are locked in, and if Ms. 17th can still chop him down in one swing then so be it. The only difference at the table is that on a hit Ms. 17th's player will have to roll the damage dice to make sure she gives out enough to finish Joe off.

Joe is not the same as Bob. I mean, we can already tell this because Joe doesn't get XP, or have rolled stats, or a class. You're focusing on hp as if this is the one true thread throughout while ignoring all the other things that cut against this argument.

 

[Campbell]

I disagree, insofar as this is stated as if someone is dictatorially declaiming all the details and results. Really, *EVERYBODY* gets to decide how things should go.

The idea that somehow, the play goes forward with *nobody having any influence* on how it goes would be... nonsensical and counterfactual. It files in the face of how, for example, the GM generally decides what the antagonists are, and what themes to introduce when they put up complications, and such. The GM has huge say in the way things go. So, while they may not determine all results, if someone is going to claim that somehow the GM has no influence on the path of the game, we can just stop now.

So, what we are really talking is a continuum of influence on the path of the game, raging from "zero" to "I am just writing a novel by myself". And any particular game will have some admixture of influences among the participants. We are quibbling over where the dial sits, but stating it in absolute terms of "all or nothing", which, as far as I am concerned, gets in the way of understanding.

I did not say nobody influences the fiction. All players (including the GM) should have an impact on the fiction. I am saying that nobody should seek to take control of it or decide how it should go ahead of time. I am emphatically not talking about distribution of authority here. I am talking about everyone at the table making a principled decision to avoid story advocacy, play to find out what happens, be a fan of all the characters, and being curious explorers of the fiction. I am talking about the principles behind player (including the GM) decision making here.

I have no issues with a strong GM role. Most of the games I play and run assume a strong GM. Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, and Blades in the Dark all have a strong GM role. I think GM judgement is important in roleplaying games. I even run some more traditional games like Demon - The Descent, Exalted 3e, FFG Legend of the 5 Rings, etc. I have to ignore the story advocacy stuff there, but they all have a strong GM role. What's far more important to me are the principles behind the decisions the GM makes. Are they providing honest adversity? Are they trying to push the characters in a particular direction? Are they curious and excited about the fiction? Are they fans of the PCs?

It is my earnest opinion that a game that is centered on character advocacy and playing to find out what happens is a difference in kind and not degree from one that is focused on story advocacy from either the GMs or players and it mostly comes down to the principles of play rather than divisions of authority.

 

[pemerton]

I did not say nobody influences the fiction. All players (including the GM) should have an impact on the fiction. I am saying that nobody should seek to take control of it or decide how it should go ahead of time. I am emphatically not talking about distribution of authority here.

<snip>

It is my earnest opinion that a game that is centered on character advocacy and playing to find out what happens is a difference in kind and not degree from one that is focused on story advocacy from either the GMs or players and it mostly comes down to the principles of play rather than divisions of authority.

I think I have a pretty clear handle on what you're describing.

I'm curious about some applications.

I'll start with one sort of instance, which in my own experience I'm associating with Burning Wheel and 4e D&D play: the GM draws on PC relationships and belliefs/convictions (whether formally stated as in BW, or more likely informally presented as in 4e) to frame a situation, or to establish the outcome of a failed check, with an eye on provoking future conflict/adversity.

Eg in BW the PC (and the player of the PC) discovers a dark secret about an important relationship.

Is this too close to story advocacy for your taste?

 

[Campbell]

I think I have a pretty clear handle on what you're describing.

I'm curious about some applications.

I'll start with one sort of instance, which in my own experience I'm associating with Burning Wheel and 4e D&D play: the GM draws on PC relationships and belliefs/convictions (whether formally stated as in BW, or more likely informally presented as in 4e) to frame a situation, or to establish the outcome of a failed check, with an eye on provoking future conflict/adversity.

Eg in BW the PC (and the player of the PC) discovers a dark secret about an important relationship.

Is this too close to story advocacy for your taste?

Generally no. Framing is crucial and part of a GM's job is to sustain conflict and keep the fiction interesting, but I probably favor a somewhat more naturalistic approach when it comes to complications. The important bit for me is approaching it more with a sense of curiosity of what could happen. It should still be interesting. If characters are doing interesting things it will be. I like Burning Wheel, but I am at times a little wary of Always Drive Play Towards Conflict. Like sometimes it's okay to let things settle down so we can spend some time just getting to know these characters. That's my favorite part of Blades in the Dark downtime.

This post from Play Passionately kind of gets at it.

Walk, Don’t Run To Conflict


Fictional conflict is often the centerpiece of game design and as such the texts advocate “getting to the conflicts.” I believe that historically texts have over emphasized this central point from bad play experiences characterized by players spending whole sessions describing their characters shopping or having their characters sitting around chatting about their fictional lives. These kinds of play experiences were sometimes lauded as “incredible” because “we never had to roll the dice.” The central play skill was *avoiding* conflicts so as not to resort to “roll-playing.” These texts were written to show that dramatic confrontations that turned on die roll could be as emotionally engaging as any “pure” role-playing experience.


Unfortunately this idea of “driving to conflict” has been taken to a problematic extreme. What I’ve observed is groups struggling to introduce conflict into a scene if it appears that scene is about to end without one. The central play skill has shifted to *making* conflicts. This leads to all kinds of weird pseudo-conflicts over things like whether or not someone realizes something, or notices something or even feels one way or another or worse whether it’s ninjas or pirates that attack. They feel forced and contrived… and that’s because they are.


It comes down to the fact that play can be about “driving to conflict” without every single scene having a conflict in it. Indeed, for conflict to occur characters must have things over which they conflict. The difference between the kind of role-playing that early indie-texts were afraid of and good solid story building role-playing is that the scenes without conflicts point towards what conflicts will arise later. These non-conflict scenes establish key beliefs, priorities, loyalties, and passions which later elements of the narrative will threaten. With out scenes that first establish and then later update and develop these character elements “conflict” is essentially a meaningless term.



When you let go of the “must have conflict NOW” urge then play progresses much more smoothly and much more naturally. Establishing scenes becomes more about feeding curiosity, “I’d like to see how X and Y interact” or follow up action, “Given what’s just happened I’d like my character to do X.” The play skill involved becomes about *identifying* conflicts when they occur.


Sit back. Relax. Play Passionately.

 

[Manbearcat]

Its interesting [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. You've expressed more thoughts as of late on your playstyle preferences.

Its made me wonder whether you would enjoy playing in my games or not. I'm not sure you would. The codified part of games such as Reflection in Dogs, Downtime in Blades, Town phase in Torchbearer, and certain aspects of Seasons in Mouse Guard (tantamount to Downtime) express the sort of "slow down and don't drive play toward conflict" you're advocating for in your most recent post. I'm confident that you would enjoy the games I run in those systems (due to the phase-nature of play).

While we played that short 4e game and Dungeon World game together, I'm not certain that you would enjoy my home games in those systems (or Apocalypse World or Strike(!) ).

I think its very likely that the pace of play in my "non-phase games" is likely an extreme minority taste. Certainly most people on these boards wouldn't enjoy my games and, interestingly, I'm thinking that you likely wouldn't for similar, but somewhat different, reasons (in a Venn Diagram there would be some minor overlap).