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

[AnotherGuy]

Right. I've talked about my techniques. They're not identical in every RPG, because the RPGs I play are different. Talking about just 3 of them:

*BW uses frame scenes based on player-determined PC priorities, intent-and-task and say 'yes' if nothing is at stake (as per the previous two principles) or otherwise roll the dice.​

​

*TB2e differs from BW in multiple ways, but one of the most salient here is that it also uses random events tables to introduce new scenes and scene elements.​

​

*Prince Valiant differs from BW in that it doesn't call for express player-determined PC priorities; rather the scenes/situations are constructed on the basis that they will prompt knights errant into some sort of action.​

But while recognising those differences, some things are the same. I will decide where NPCs are, and when they do their thing, based on framing concerns. So, for instance, in the example I posted upthread of the PCs in Prince Valiant meeting an abbot being accosted by bandits, I wasn't tracking the abbot and the bandits on any sort of map or time chart: I just narrated the scene.

The passage of time and distance in (my group's version of) Dark Ages Britain is not so precise that it makes on sense that such an encounter should occur.

And resolution is always by applying the rules. This is important, because in all 3 of these RPGs it is failed rolls by players that are one important prompt for the introduction of new complications into scenes, or the framing of new scenes, that make the game "go". Compared to other approaches that I have read about or experienced, this reduces the "GM guidance" aspect of how play unfolds: there is less of the GM just narrating, and saying "yes" to stuff that the GM thinks is easy or low stakes, and then narrating some more; and there is more of a focus on the PC's orientation to the current situation, and wanting something out of it.

This is also helped by relatively clean/simple resolution and consequence mechanics. For example, consider these from Prince Valiant (a couple of snippets of what I posted upthread):
The first paragraph here shows how the in-fiction circumstance of being hungry due to bad luck hunting can easily be resolved and expressed in mechanical terms: roll Hunting against an appropriate obstacle, and if it fails take a -1 to Brawn until you eat properly. There is no need for complex systems of tracking days and rations and the like; the focus of play does not get shifted to wargame-esque logistics and resource management. The focus is on the characters and their growling stomachs.

The second paragraph shows how prior events (including in this case the snipped account of how the PCs helped the abbot over the outlaws) can easily be brought home through crisp framing. There is no need to track details of the PCs' movement on a map: we know that they're travelling to Castle Hill; the map (we are using the map on the inside cover of Pendragon 5.2) shows that that is a bit of a way; undoubtedly there are villages en route, and the PCs will be riding through them; and the framing here brings one of those villages to life.

Again, the focus is not on the logistics or management of the journey, but on a vivid situation that reflects what has gone before. The peasants are revolting! The failed Oratory roll could have been ugly, but Sir Gerren's play has his certificate, and chose to cash it in.

Relating this to what I posted above about there being no "finish line" - because there is no "adventure" here, and no GM-determined trajectory, the player doesn't need to worry that he is "wasting" his resource at the wrong time. This situation is just as salient, just as important, as any that has preceded it and any that might follow. And instead of ending in bloodshed (had the PCs fought and won) or robbery and ransom (the likely outcome of the peasants winning a fight), it ended with the knights and peasants in a type of (feudally-mediated) solidarity.

The techniques I used in these episodes - clear and deliberate framing, following the players' leads, applying the action resolution mechanics - all combined to produce (if I do say so myself!) a vivid sense of the setting, the people, the social relationships (knights, abbots, peasants, outlaws) and the deeds of the PC knights. And that's deliberate - that it what I was aiming for, and within the limits of amateur hobbyism I was satisfied that it was achieved.

Thanks for these examples! I take a certificate in your valiant games is a meta-resource for that system.

The 5e DMG lists 2 approaches on page 106 for bringing wilderness to life.
Travel-Montage approach - where the destination is more important than the journey and they provide techniques which attempt to do so; and the
Hour-by-Hour approach - where the journey deserves as much time and attention as the journey.

The D&D system leaves much up to the DM to adjudicate which to use. Similarly one can decide how to run downtime activities in a city:
Day-by-day where PCs declare their course of action/s for the day, a DM could roll for random city encounters and have those roleplayed out...etc; or
Use the downtime activities as provided in the DMG.

This is very different to your Prince Valiant and thus your comment about clear and deliberate framing is apt.

As I understand it a Living World does not use such deliberate framing which process can move the story fairly rapidly but while still producing as you say a vivid sense of the setting.
Generally resources and logistics matter in a Living World, and thus the days of poor hunt are accounted for as well as the travel through the various villages and roleplaying through the encounters such a system would produce.

One of the differences as I see it is where you use deliberate framing following the fiction established (you've called it players' leads), a Living World GM may either rely on the system by using RE tables or run deliberate encounters.
Whether those deliberate encounters were players' leads or not would depend on the encounter.
In any event the encounters would be plausible and internally consistent with the setting, just as your deliberate framing was.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ah, yes, the Abu Salim special.

I mean… Valkos was a badass, but still.

 

[Faolyn]

No one is "reducing" anything:


And from here: "Stance is very labile during play, with people shifting among the stances frequently and even without deliberation or reflection."

In terms of stance, what happened in my game is identical to what you describe here: the player declares an action (in actor stance, because the PC needs a cup and so looks around for on); and then that action declaration is resolved.

In your description that I've just quoted, the action ("I look around for a cup") is resolved by the GM deciding. In my example, it's resolved by rolling a Perception test. Neither of those is relevant to stance - stance is about the context/manner/upshot of a player's declared action, not how the declared action is resolved.

In both your case and my case, if the upshot of the declared action is that a cup is narrated that was not previously an element of the shared fiction, then we have had a moment of director stance (because the action determines some aspect of the environment - here, a vessel - that is separate from the character's ability to influence events).

The fact that in your example the cup would be there because the GM decides it is; and that in my example the vessel was there because the player succeeded on their roll; doesn't change anything about stance.

OK? It's still more logical than a player rolling to see if the cup exists, simply because the GM forgot to mention it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I said for practical purposes it is possible. It is clear to me that my mind works in ways that are impractical for most people.

I suppose I'm more concerned with applied gaming than theoretical gaming in this context.

 

[pemerton]

OK? It's still more logical than a player rolling to see if the cup exists, simply because the GM forgot to mention it.

Why is it more "logical"?

Why is resolution by GM decision-making more "logical" than resolution by a roll?

 

[Hussar]

This same principle applies to other complex, hard-to-quantify domains like diplomacy or politics.

The distinctions I use, most likely, probable, and possible, also apply when assessing outcomes in a tabletop roleplaying campaign. While realism may influence outcomes, the framework remains useful even in more fantastic settings like Pratchett’s Discworld (see GURPS Discworld).

And since I’m not trying to write a PhD thesis on outcome assessment in TTRPGs, I keep it simple: I focus on what’s probable (which include the most likely outcome). I ignore what’s possible as these low probability outcomes are to numerous to assess during a tabletop roleplaying session.

I'm still rather failing to see how this is different than what any DM does. I never questioned your methods. Your methods I agree with. Where I disagree is with this idea that your methodology results in some sort of independency of the setting from the DM. Since you are focusing on what is probable, but you are also the sole source of determining what is probable, any choice you make will always be the result of you and your personal views. There is no objectivity here at all. There cannot be.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is it more "logical"?

Why is resolution by GM decision-making more "logical" than resolution by a roll?

If you don't know after I've told you probably twenty times by now, then there's no point in my telling you a twenty-first time.

But ask yourself what's more logical: the room is the type of room that would have a cup, or the player needs one and rolls well enough that one appears. BW doesn't strike me as that kind of fantasy.

 

[Hussar]

You cut out the part where he clarified that it was extremely unlikely that two groups would make exactly the same decisions. Which is what I've seen. Same setting, same NPCs, factions and initial opportunities, different campaigns. The only thing in common was the initial setup.

I cut out nothing. @Lanefan claimed that both groups should have similar results, which is in direct contradiction to what @robertsconley stated.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because he can't determine was is or is not plausible. He can only say what he thinks is plausible. If my fighter swings a sword at an orc, a plausible result is a hit or a miss. The DM can't say that as a result of my sword swing, the moon explodes and have it be plausible just because he said so.

What is or is not plausible can be seen by everyone. It's not something the only exists within and is determined by the DM.

Everyone may have an opinion on the plausibility of any development in play... but since the GM is the one deciding what the development will be, it would very much seem that they can determine what is plausible.

Players may disagree... but that may or may not matter, depending on if the GM is open to discuss and potentially revise things.

Then when the PCs were there, everything would have been packed up and the store closed. There would be signs of the impending move. If any merchandise was still on the shelves, the merchant would be like buy it now, because it will be gone tomorrow because I'm leaving town.

There would be clear signs and roleplay around such a move.

Maybe, maybe not. Can a plausible reason be crafted to explain all this? Yeah, probably. Since there is no actual causality at play, the GM can make up whatever they want. That flexibility gives them a lot of leeway.

Now, having said that... I agree that the example offered was poorly handled by the GM. I really don't even get what he was going for or why he did what he did. But I think the GM absolutely determines what is plausible in a given game or setting.

There have been several folks posting exactly that for dozens of pages now.

The Forgotten Realms is an implausible mess! It's a bad example to go to for plausibility.

 

[SableWyvern]

Everyone may have an opinion on the plausibility of any development in play... but since the GM is the one deciding what the development will be, it would very much seem that they can determine what is plausible.

Players may disagree... but that may or may not matter, depending on if the GM is open to discuss and potentially revise things.

A game where the players' opinions just don't matter is a dysfunctional one, and I am confident that no one in this thread is advocating for dysfunctional games. "This playstyle won't work if the GM doesn't care what their players think," is a given, as far as I'm concerned.