Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Numidius]

Nonetheless, if a pub is present in the scenario, start from there. Always.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally speaking only, but that example of play is absolutely not something I'd enjoy. I'm tolerant of a wide range of play, but the oversupply of detail with intent to obfuscate and confuse just isn't something I want to spend my leisure time unravelling. It's not rewarding to me as a player and when I abandoned the concept as a GM my games improved dramatically (pun intended). I'd rather make the game about what happens when the PCs get to the assassin's hideout than a long description of random street addresses just to make the players sift through the dross for the treasure.

YMMV, I'm speaking only of my personal preference, and I'm actually glad such different-to-my-tastes styles are both out there and enjoyed.

This seems to run counter to your claim yesterday that your style of game is virtually impossible to distinguish from a prepped game as far as verisimilitude goes. What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.

I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you are correct. But in my experience, a cohesiveness among the group over a shared long term goal (stop the plague, find a way to slay the dragon, build a pirate fleet, or whatever) is lost. I have played in many states, with a lot of different groups, and most had outstanding GM's (incredible and incredibly lucky on my part). The ones that create as they go and let players follow their whims vs the ones that have an end game and steps (choices on which steps, but steps nonetheless) are very different. The frustration felt by players in the former is always greater if they don't have an end-goal. They may have ten adventures to go on, but that doesn't change the fact that they really only want one that matters to their end game. Just my experience.

I'm not convinced the correlation is as tight as you seem to claim. I'm running a 5e game where all of the PCs have their own agenda, but they have great cohesion -- acting to help each other's agendas and/or following team agendas. Even in games that are fully story-now, they don't have to fracture this much. Blades in the Dark and Dungeon World are fantastic examples of team games that don't feature GM plotting.

Can you lose cohesion? Sure. Is it perhaps easier to do so in a game where the GM caters to individual goals and doesn't push or help develop team goals? Sure. Is it an outcome of allowing for more player input into the fiction? No, I don't think so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This seems to run counter to your claim yesterday that your style of game is virtually impossible to distinguish from a prepped game as far as verisimilitude goes. What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.

I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.

If you claim that adding irrelevant details in an effort to confuse and frustrate player goals is verisilimitude, then our fundamental difference is one of definition.

My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings. I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don’t understand why you would conclude that speaking to the Captain is pointless simply because he refuses to burn down the orphanage.

There could be a dozen reasons to speak to the Captain that are not arson-related, like there could be a dozen options for dealing with the orphanage that are not arson-related.

Why are you saying that a “hard no” on one of those 144 possibilities (ask the Captain to set fire to the orphanage) is railroading or bad encounter design?

The discussion is premised on this detail being present because it does matter to play -- ie, the presentation of the Captain's feelings about orphanages was presented in a case where that detail mattered to play. It's fairly obvious that if orphanages don't come up in play, this detail of the Captain will also not come up in play. That's uninteresting to discuss. The discussion, then, is about how this works when it does matter to play -- when this detail is important.

I think this is a poor detail to follow for this discussion because it is contrived and was presented more as a counter to a premise rather than a fully coherent play example on it's own, so it's pretty flawed for the purposes of discussion. However, it was followed and the core assumption of following it is that it has impacted play. We're past the point where it might not come up -- it has come up, so how does that work.

Also, if it doesn't come up, then it's not a great example of prep that helps the GM play an NPC more fully because it's an irrelevant detail.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If you claim that adding irrelevant details in an effort to confuse and frustrate player goals is verisilimitude, then our fundamental difference is one of definition.

My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings. I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.

I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.

Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all. The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).

 

[Fenris-77]

I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.

I think you're both right. Rich detail can indeed add depth to the game world, and it should be a goal of any DM. However, the oversupply of detail, and especially irrelevant detail, is indeed confusing for players and indeed quite bad for the fiction. When you drop too much info, especially if it's all the same type (most DMs default to what you see, rather than hear or smell) then the problem arises for the players of what parts they are supposed to be paying attention to. Also, because the players only hear the description, and aren't actually engaging all their senses, there is an upper limit to how much detail they can process at once.

I tend to aim for occasional points of rich detail connected together by more sketched out detail. The ability of the human brain to achieve closure from a finite set of data is really quite astonishing, and I try to use that whenever possible.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, but this is my point.

If there is an orphanage in play, there's likely a reason for that. The reason may very well call the PCs to action in some way.....apparently in this case, to burn it down.

Placing a NPC in play for the PCs to interact with, but then flat out blocking one of the potential ways in which they'd interact with him....I'm not saying there can never be a reason for it, but generally speaking I don't know if they're going to be the most meaningful of interactions. You're actively removing one of the avenues available to the PCs.....which means you're favoring/pushing towards specific avenues.

Which may be fine.....sometimes, you put a monster in their way just so they can fight him. Sometimes you put a guard in play so that they have to sneak past him. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want.

But if it's not what you want, then you probably don't want to do that. So a NPC that the PCs have to speak with but whose traits make speaking to him pointless.....it's kind of a recipe for dissatisfaction, no?

Again, I haven't caught up with the thread nor have I come close to reading every reply with a critical eye. I'm basically skimming right now as I have a moment.

Just going to use this post to springboard some analysis. We've talked about Force a lot in the past (which is a specific instance of play), but I'm going to say something about the broad issue of Railroading.

This is how I look at the issue:

"Railroading is a phenomenon that occurs in proportion to a GM (or an adventure) encoding a winnowing of player decision-points."

As such, a session (or a campaign that features such sessions) that has encoded in its "DNA" a surplus of meaningful gamestate interactions whereby decision-points and attendant outcomes are narrow is "more railroady" than one where where breadth is encoded (and therefore significant branching if you instantiated the starting conditions of the session, say, 100 times).

Force, is a singular instance of this encoding and the encoding is complete (the encoding can occur preemptively by the GM or in the spur of the moment when play trajectory is wrested from the GM's designs); meaning a singular outcome imposed by the GM.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally speaking only, but that example of play is absolutely not something I'd enjoy. I'm tolerant of a wide range of play, but the oversupply of detail with intent to obfuscate and confuse just isn't something I want to spend my leisure time unravelling. It's not rewarding to me as a player and when I abandoned the concept as a GM my games improved dramatically (pun intended). I'd rather make the game about what happens when the PCs get to the assassin's hideout than a long description of random street addresses just to make the players sift through the dross for the treasure.

What you call "sifting through the dross" I call exploration and investigation.

Part of the mystery (and thus, challenge) lies in simply finding the guild in the first place - why would anyone want to skip that?

My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings. I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.

The real world does this all the time!

Leave your GPS and phone and other electronic geegaws at home, then go to a strange city and try to find something that doesn't go out of its way to make itself obvious - for example, the local Masons' lodge.

Guaranteed that unless you're crazy lucky you'll be chasing red herrings from breakfast to Tuesday, and might never find it.

Now make it fictional, and throw in that those Masons don't want to be disturbed and have the means to (and at least by reputation are more than willing to) quietly, violently, and permanently back this up.

Finding that place ain't no slam dunk, and I want specific details as to how you're going about it (i.e. no let's-just-make-it-one-big-skill-challenge copouts). In order for you to give those details, I-as-DM an obliged to provide you with enough detail and description of the setting and surroundings to make those detailed actions worthwhile; hence an in-depth narration of the street you think the guild is on.

 

[Lanefan]

Just going to use this post to springboard some analysis. We've talked about Force a lot in the past (which is a specific instance of play), but I'm going to say something about the broad issue of Railroading.

This is how I look at the issue:

"Railroading is a phenomenon that occurs in proportion to a GM (or an adventure) encoding a winnowing of player decision-points."

As such, a session (or a campaign that features such sessions) that has encoded in its "DNA" a surplus of meaningful gamestate interactions whereby decision-points and attendant outcomes are narrow is "more railroady" than one where where breadth is encoded (and therefore significant branching if you instantiated the starting conditions of the session, say, 100 times).

Force, is a singular instance of this encoding and the encoding is complete (the encoding can occur preemptively by the GM or in the spur of the moment when play trajectory is wrested from the GM's designs); meaning a singular outcome imposed by the GM.

Sorry, old chap, but somethng here isn't making sense...maybe due to my poor parsing of your words?

Are you trying to suggest that games with more decision points are more railroady than those with less? If yes, please explain your logic. If no, please explain what you're trying to say otherwise.