Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Scott Christian]

Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes. That's stuff only you as GM will ever know. The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.

What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it. That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world. I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player. I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.

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.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are parts of adventures that heavily feature social interaction where I essentially encourage my players to treat NPCs themselves like a mini-dungeon. Learn as much as you can about the who, why, and whatnot before hand- what do they want, what are they afraid of, do they have weak spots, etc etc. Going into an SI with some prior knowledge of likely avenues for overcoming objections and dodging intractable traits is solid gold for RPing - the characters feel like they have a lot of agency. Obviously this isn't always possible, but even then I like to use things like insight and/or simple observation top provide some of the same information. Figuring out how to overcome an obstacle is way more fun than guessing what that obstacle might be.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So, do you think that a minor NPC is typically going to have:
a) such a detailed background
b) that also relates to potential actions in the present game
c) that will effectively shut down a very possible action?

It seems a lot more likely than you suggest. Maxperson’s example involved the Csptain of the guard, who is more likely to be a major NPC than a minor NPC.

If the players want to burn an orphanage, there is probably an in-game reason for it (heck, if there is an orphanage in the adventure, there is probably an in-game reason for it). Stands to reason that the DM would have q pretty good idea about how most NPCs (both major and minor) feel about the orphanage.

 

[Manbearcat]

Don’t have time to catch up and/or respond, but just a note of clarification:

My post above was intended as possible action resolution outcomes for Epic Tier D&D PCs.

 

[prabe]

I have done this too with a sandbox and hexcrawl approach. But as a player and GM, I find that having a thought out and well crafted story with a variety of milestone points that can change the ending to be more fluid for storytelling. Having things always open seems to create a disconnect for some players. Not saying they don't have fun, but it's like talking a class and then finding out the curriculum is different for everyone. The cohesiveness of the class seems to not be a strong.

Do you do both ways? Or rather, did you used to do it one way then switch? Always curious as a GM so I can learn.

I try to run campaigns where the PCs have multiple goals they can pursue and they choose which to pursue and in what order. I never intentionally prep more than the session I'm about to run (so, my prep for this evening's game doesn't go too much further than I think they'll be able to get tonight). That doesn't mean I haven't thought about the goals they're pursuing (and the goals they're putting off), nor does it mean I don't have ideas about things that might arise between the PCs and their goals; I have. As I say often, I am fortunate to the point of blessed to have excellent players in both the campaigns I'm now running, one of whom is my wife, who takes copious notes and shares them with the table via Google Docs (Campaign One is 600 pages through 52 sessions; Campaign Two is 180 pages through 19 sessions); it's easy to keep things consistent with that much information.

I have in the past tried to run campaigns with overarching stories, and with roughly everything improvised. I find that the middle ground I've settled on works well for me, but your experiences may differ.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Interesting.

I'm almost the opposite, in that I prefer a campaign to be open-ended and NOT to have an obvious visible end-point until and unless we reach it. Even when I'm roughly planning ahead as a DM and can see a possible end-point, there's no guarantee we'll ever get there (which is the state in my current campaign; I've a vague end point in mind but for all I know it'll never be reached). Side quests, unrelated adventures, player-driven adventures, extended downtime activities - all of these quite nicely divert from any progress toward an end state, and that's fine with me.

That said, defineable goals and end-points and even quasi-hard-APs can certainly be embedded within a larger campaign; but the end of the AP merely turns those characters loose to go do something else in the setting - join other parties, carry on together, retire, or whatever.

Come to think of it, of the last two quasi-AP's I've had in my campaign one was entirely a long side-quest (literally, as in three characters got Quest-ed to do something) and the other's relationship to the overall plot didn't become apparent until quite some time afterwards.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It seems a lot more likely than you suggest. Maxperson’s example involved the Csptain of the guard, who is more likely to be a major NPC than a minor NPC.

If the players want to burn an orphanage, there is probably an in-game reason for it (heck, if there is an orphanage in the adventure, there is probably an in-game reason for it). Stands to reason that the DM would have q pretty good idea about how most NPCs (both major and minor) feel about the orphanage.

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?

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

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?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I disagree, in that a DM can (and IMO should) put all kinds of things 'in play' and leave it up to the players/PCs to sort out which might be relevant and which are either red herrings or window dressing.

Thus, if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:

"Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks. On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [deity]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."

So now there's an orphanage in play. Is it relevant? It it window dressing? Is it a red herring? The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree, in that a DM can (and IMO should) put all kinds of things 'in play' and leave it up to the players/PCs to sort out which might be relevant and which are either red herrings or window dressing.

Thus, if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:

"Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks. On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [deity]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."

So now there's an orphanage in play. Is it relevant? It it window dressing? Is it a red herring? The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....

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.