D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[The Firebird]

Let the players play the game.

Learning about the world in order to make intelligent choices is playing the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Once we move from metaphor to this sort of literalness, we can then look at how the things that players do (drawing on the rules of the game and what is on their sheets), and the things that GMs do (drawing on the rules of the game and what is in their notes), interact.

Just wanted to reemphasize this! How we use things, what they're for, and why we do what we do is what is important.

 

[pemerton]

Couldn't the PCs get a hold of the guard schedule somehow, and learn when the shift change occurs? I've seen this done in various media all the time.

How would this be resolved?

If it takes (say) an hour or two of play time at the table, where the player is just moving through scenes framed by the GM based on the GM's ideas about the guardhouse, who knows the schedule, etc, and the player is declaring low-risk, low-stakes actions to try and prompt the next scene so that, eventually, the GM will present the outcome of the PC learns the scheduled - then, that it the sort of play that I regard as highly GM-driven. I mean, we're talking about an extended episode of play where all the fiction comes from the GM, and the player is just receiving it.

 

[pemerton]

In many RPGs, Gimli could have chosen to break with the Fellowship and gone to the Mines himself. He chooses not to do that. In BW, he (and his player) don't get that choice.

Why not? Is this based on your extensive reading of the rules of the game, and your experience of play?

 

[pemerton]

It’s wide open to abuse by amoral GMs too.

I thought the mantra of this thread was "trust the GM"!

 

[pemerton]

His method for advocating his agenda feels particularly pushy to me, and insulting to those who disagree with him.

I spend a lot of time in threads with @pemerton , who seems to really enjoy bringing him out.

This is getting bizarre. I mean, do we think we can seriously discuss film-making without thinking about what (say) Scorsese or Almodovar has to say? Are Jeremy Crawford and Matt Colville the only approved commentators on RPG design and play?

 

[pemerton]

This gets back to why I don't like the term color. It artificially divides gameplay into "important" and "unimportant" prior to it hitting the table. But it can be hard to know what is going to be important until it has played out.

I said your last sentence way upthread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Look, if you dislike it. That is you.

Please stop telling me what I like and dislike. I have told you repeatedly that I sometimes play games very much like the ones you're talking about.

It's not about liking or disliking. It's about recognizing what is happening at the table, and what the design choices allow to happen at the table.

But I think this sort of ability by the GM to do strong characterization of NPCs is vital for the players engaging with the setting. That is what makes it interesting when they march up to a gambling hall with aims of brow beating the proprietor: maybe they know about the guy and have heard he is a tough cookie, maybe they haven't heard anything and it is a surprise, maybe they gathered information and learned he is stubborn but also found out what kinds of things impress him. Real people are going to sometimes have hard lines, and I think these kinds of moments, where PCs are negotiating or coming into conflict with other characters are greatly enhanced if there are sometimes hard lines in place that the players have to work with or around. Part of having agency is dealing with the world in front of you.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. No one is saying that the GM can't or shouldn't give his NPCs strong traits. What we're saying is that those traits impact how the play of the game can function and so must be considered.

In and of itself, it's not really a problem to make a guard totally loyal to their liege. Indeed, such people are likely to exist. However, the way that this is presented in play, how it impacts the interactions of the players with this NPC, how it interacts with other setting elements, and most importantly how it interacts with other decisions that the GM has made... all of that matters.

It's my contention that the GM should be very aware of these things.

It doesn't have to be secret. It simply depends on the situation. A lot of guards who have traits like this, those will be discoverable facts in the setting. But it might not be. It depends on the NPC. You are trying to give the GM the greatest freedom possible to invent characters. And there are other principles in play. The GM isn't expected to just take this and use it to be a jerk to the players. If that is a problem, it is a problem. But I find it very unpleasant to play systems where the problem of bad GMing is solved by limiting what good GMs can do. And I am not saying such systems are bad. I am sure people like them. But try to understand some of us see value in this approach

I don't think that the GM considering the play implications of NPCs he designs to be all that restrictive on his creativity.

And it's not about being a jerk. Might someone willfully block players? Yes, of course... that person's a poor GM or is GMing poorly in that moment, at least. I'm more concerned with those who create these situations without realizing it. And given the lack of understanding about this topic in this thread, I think that's a relevant concern.

Now, again... if what you're talking about is what you prefer, then that's perfectly fine. But from my view, it's placing the GM's freedom above that of the players, and the setting above the game.

Interacting with NPCs is part of the game

Yes, and to what purpose?

Someone recently asked me, is the setting there to serve the game, or is the game there to serve the setting? That seems valid here.

Player agency within the setting is the main antidote to railroading, so it seems odd that some of the most strident anti-railroaders are also eager players of systems that intentionally deny some of that agency.

Looked at from a different angle it's almost like low-grade system-based railroading instead of DM railroading. I fail to see how one is any better than the other.

Sure, I get that you fail to see it. But do you think people who are saying that they enjoy such games are lying to you? Or are they just wrong about what they enjoy?

Maybe consider what they're saying and accept that it's true for them, and then maybe try to imagine why it would be so.

If you can't, then sure, stop worrying about it and ask again in the next thread.

 

[pemerton]

Which, absent any other information, on a failed roll comes across as the game stone-cold telling me how to play my character

Do you mean like how failing in combat in D&D requires you to play your character as dead?

 

[Faolyn]

Upthread, didn't you say you want the GM's imaginative decision-making about the setting, and the outcomes of actions that take place within it, to be unconstrained by rules?

Now are you saying that that sort of "GM imagination time" is not a game?

Rules in a game keep it from devolving into the way kids play:

Kid 1: Hah! I shot you with my laser eyes!

Kid 2: No you didn't, you missed!

Kid 1: No I didn't, I hit you!

Kid 2: No you didn't, you missed.

And so on.

I'm pretty sure these are the types of rules @Micah Sweet was talking about.