Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

I think it was well detailed for the description of a particular section of street. Certainly it could have used a few colorful details, but as @Lanefan already stated (and which was my impression as well) it was just a brief write up of locations.

...

I don't get the sense of a tactical readout from his description, although I do think it could be fleshed out a bit. Given that in the original example the players are looking for assassins (who are in the orphanage) it seems like a good assortment of locations in the area. Of course, if you value expediance, you could just have them track the assassins to the orphanage and start with describing the orphanage they are standing next to. However @Lanefan was angling for more of an investigative scenario, where the players need to figure out where the assassins are hiding.

Aha! My red herring worked!

The Assassins aren't in the orphanage at all. They're in (behind) the Curio shop. (as per my original post of this silly example)

The orphanage connection is that the kids there are the only people in the area (other than the Assassins themselves) with complete knowledge of this.

I never described the shop keepers as "quest givers". Those are your words, not mine. I said that they don't need to be red herrings, and can serve purposes outside the assassin hunting scenario. I offered three possible uses that they could serve (resupply, information, and needing something). That wasn't an exhaustive list of possibilities, just low hanging fruit within the context of a D&D game, illustrating that it doesn't take much to transform these elements into more than just red herrings. Other possibilities might include a character taking an interest in an NPC as a friend or even romantically. The possibilities are quite open ended.

Perhaps more importantly, and IMO more sadly, these possibilities more or less don't exist if it's all skipped over and the DM puts (or frames) the PCs straight into the Curio shop.

Note that I don't do this for every possible NPC in my game (that would be excessive). Just the ones that I think might matter. Although that's somewhat misleading, as I tend to start by populating a town with some interesting NPCs and then having them be around town to interact with (or not). Sometimes the PCs latch on to a throw away NPC (an urchin they asked for directions) and I end up retroactively fleshing out an NPC who already exists because it was improvised. Even when I improvise though, I try to keep those three elements in mind.

Sometimes you just gotta guess who will end up becoming important and flesh those ones out, and some of those guesses will inevitably end up being wrong. So be it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Perhaps more importantly, and IMO more sadly, these possibilities more or less don't exist if it's all skipped over and the DM puts (or frames) the PCs straight into the Curio shop.

I think this gets right to the heart of things, and I snipped the rest. Yes, those details do not exist. Those possibilities do not exist. But some other set of details and possibilities exists that do not if those do. It's not 'these details or none in their place.' That I put a different focus on my games as to where play occurs doesn't reduce the level of detail or the scope of possibilities -- I just have a different set of them.

 

[Lanefan]

I would agree with that. My comments in this thread have primarily been about 5e D&D. So for that comment about difficulties and meaningful decision points, I meant something like a party being level 5 and very focused on combat (in D&D, imagine that!) looking at the front gate and the overwhelming forces there, versus considering the sewers which will likely require some locks to be picked and devices to be disabled, which is not their strong suit.

So they have to decide on the path to take, leaning onto their strong suit despite the odds, or taking a path that does not play to their strengths.

This is exactly the sort of choice I want to see them having to make.

From there, other choices arise: if they choose the sewer route do they then try to recruit a local "locksmith" to help out (this could lead to a whole series of interesting interactions on its own!) or go it themselves; do they try to do some research on the layout of the sewers or just wade in and rely on their direction sense; do they go now when the weather's dry and thus the "water" level will be lower or do they wait for tomorrow's forecast rainstorm and go then when the water level is higher but the contents are more diluted (and when the falling rain and added flow will help cover any unusual noise)? Etc.

Or if they choose the gate do they try to hire some locals to arrange a distraction or not; do they do anything to bolster their own fighting capabilities or not e.g. recruit a mercenary or two or just stick with their own selves; etc., etc.

Or - horrors - do they split the party, bolster each group a bit, and try both options at once in hopes that one will succeed? (if nothing else, a brawl at the gates will be a great distraction in aid of the sewer-waders...)

 

[Lanefan]

Then tell me that. @Lanefan's description doesn't give me any sense at all of what that street is like.

There's a reason for that.

I-as-writer ahead of time have no way of knowing what time of day or year the PCs will first see the street (if ever!), nor do I know such details as temperature, weather conditions, or any other day-to-day variable. That street even at first glance is going to look quite different in each of these:

--- the PCs arrive at the street just after noon on a warm summer day (the shops are open, there's activity all over the place including people just using the street to get from A to B, lots of noise and bustle)
--- the PCs arrive at the street just after noon in a driving rain with a stiff chilly breeze blowing up from the harbour (the shops are open but nobody's outside who doesn't absolutely have to be, and it's probably a slow day for business)
--- the PCs arrive at the street in the middle of a clear frosty winter's night (the shops are closed, the streets are pretty much deserted and very quiet, there's a light on at the Wit and Wisdom but even it's been closed for an hour now)
--- [etc.; I could bang out three dozen different situations without even putting any thought into it]

All these variables mean the only things I can legitimately write ahead of time are those things that are pretty much permanent - the buildings, their full-time occupants, and a scrap note or two on their ongoing interactions (e.g. the orphans always stealing pies from the Pie Shop). It's on the DM to fill in all the variable details based on when (and perhaps how) the PCs arrive on the scene and under what conditions e.g. weather.

In my write-up the only assumption I made was that the PCs would arrive from the Market Square at the top of the street; easy enough to spin it around if they first see the street from the bottom e.g. they approach from the harbour side.

 

[Lanefan]

I think this gets right to the heart of things, and I snipped the rest. Yes, those details do not exist. Those possibilities do not exist. But some other set of details and possibilities exists that do not if those do.

Where and how?

It's not 'these details or none in their place.'

Actually, yes it is: it's 'these d+p's, or these d+p's plus a bunch of other d+p's'.

The details in the Curio Shop/Assassins' guildhouse are always going to be there (whether discovered or not); ditto for the details of the street around it. Jumping straight to the Curio Shop does two things: one, it forces discovery of the details and possibilities that are there (which discovery otherwise may or may not happen, or may happen in ways unforeseen); and two, it denies the opportunity to discover and (maybe) interact with all the other details and-or give rise to all the other possibilities.

Further, it also completely skips the whole investigation and deduction process (and potential associated risks!) around finding where the guildhouse really is.

That I put a different focus on my games as to where play occurs doesn't reduce the level of detail or the scope of possibilities -- I just have a different set of them.

I'm sure the level of detail is excellent in those places where you choose to give it; and the scope of possibilities is complete at that time and place.

What you're reducing is the number of times and-or places where those details and possibilities can exist at all.

My guess - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that you're looking at maximizing table-time efficiency before anything else.

It matters not to me as DM whether they take four sessions sorting out what's going on in that street, figure it out (maybe after some gnashing of teeth and scratching of heads), and then go after the guildhouse itself in sesson five. It seems, however, that your preference would be to get the whole thing done and dusted in one session.

I don't get this at all. If a situation can give me five sessions of good play instead of just one I'll take that all day long!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Where and how?

Actually, yes it is: it's 'these d+p's, or these d+p's plus a bunch of other d+p's'.

The details in the Curio Shop/Assassins' guildhouse are always going to be there (whether discovered or not); ditto for the details of the street around it. Jumping straight to the Curio Shop does two things: one, it forces discovery of the details and possibilities that are there (which discovery otherwise may or may not happen, or may happen in ways unforeseen); and two, it denies the opportunity to discover and (maybe) interact with all the other details and-or give rise to all the other possibilities.

Further, it also completely skips the whole investigation and deduction process (and potential associated risks!) around finding where the guildhouse really is.

I'm sure the level of detail is excellent in those places where you choose to give it; and the scope of possibilities is complete at that time and place.

What you're reducing is the number of times and-or places where those details and possibilities can exist at all.

My guess - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that you're looking at maximizing table-time efficiency before anything else.

It matters not to me as DM whether they take four sessions sorting out what's going on in that street, figure it out (maybe after some gnashing of teeth and scratching of heads), and then go after the guildhouse itself in sesson five. It seems, however, that your preference would be to get the whole thing done and dusted in one session.

I don't get this at all. If a situation can give me five sessions of good play instead of just one I'll take that all day long!

This last is weird. Why is a situation that takes five sessions better than one that takes one, if everyone enjoys the situation and it moves the game along? Why is one situation taking five days better that five situations each taking one day?

My answers to those questions: It's not, to both. It's different.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The worst rpg session I've ever experienced was one in which it took us the whole session to scale an ice cliff. I prefer a fast pace both as a player and as a GM.

I can't remember many of the details, probably because there weren't very many. The system was 2e AD&D but the DM had hacked it to use the Rolemaster skill system. This was around 1990. My PC was a rogue, the most skilled in the group at climbing, in fact I think I'd maxed out my climb skill under his system.

Gordon, the DM, would've been a boring DM no matter what system he used. I remember players having to declare their actions about five times before he'd respond. His preference was for challenge oriented play.

 

[pemerton]

Its so difficult to get a read on exactly what is happening under the hood during play with the way some folks talk about their games.

<snip>

It would go a long way toward clarity if people posted excerpts of what is happening during a moment of play in a way that captures (a) the actual GMing ethos of play and how that intersects with the framing of the situation at hand, (b) the resolution machinery, (c) player orientation toward the situation (habitation of their PC to the fiction, their personal cognitive workspace when managing the demands of the actual game component, and how their action declarations interface with all of the prior) that undergirds how play is propelled from one gamestate to the next.

<snip>

Please, when anyone is posting an actual excerpt of play, or even a hypothetical one, meaty, precise information about how and why a gamestate evolved is extremely important to having these kinds of discussions. Focus on a very small chunk of play like a laser beam and give good information on how it evolved to its next state.

I try to do this. Sometimes it's tricky because (i) the actual play reportage gets quite lengthy quite quckly, and (ii) other posters aren't always familiar with the system being used (especially if it's not D&D or some version thereof).

But for some recent posts of mine in this thread that try to do what you ask for, there's the post that talks about taming the bear in a 4e D&D game, and the post that talks about the interaction between PCs and the giant steading in Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy.

What I try and focus on (though probably with varying consistency and thoroughness) is how was the framing established, and what exactly was that framing and then what actions were declared by the players for their PCs and then how were those actions resolved, with what resulting affect on the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

The worst rpg session I've ever experienced was one in which it took us the whole session to scale an ice cliff. I prefer a fast pace both as a player and as a GM.

<snip>

Gordon, the DM, would've been a boring DM no matter what system he used. I remember players having to declare their actions about five times before he'd respond. His preference was for challenge oriented play.

I'm not very good at challenge-oriented play either as player or GM.

I hope I'm not as boring as Gordon was, but I do struggle to bring the challenges alive and have things progress with good pacing.

The closest I've come in recent times to running something challenge-oriented (at least that I can think of) is the Aliens-inspired Annoic Nova variant in my Traveller game. But when GMing that I try to minimise the logistical aspects of the challenge - by saying "yes" to attempts to set up choke points and cover points where corridors intersect, and otherwise trying to very quickly establish details of the ship layout, whether walls run all the way to the ceiling etc - and make the exploration of the situation and its consequences loom larger (eg how many aliens are likely on the ship? what can be inferred about the mysterious cargo? cool, you've taken off your vacc suit and are going to the upper floor on your own, etc).

 

[pemerton]

The only way it has anything to do with making a mistake is if the PCs don't want to fight the guards, or if they would prefer to enter quietly.

OK. So if we're agreed that the notion of "mistake" or "making the wrong choice" is basically inapposite, why are your bringing it up?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely puzzled as to where it's coming from and what you're trying to get at.

(As the thing about action resolution seems to have generated some more traffic I will read that before making a separate reply.)