Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

Yeah, I wasn't really talking about the archetypes of horror. Those already inform a lot of the Monster Manual anyway, but I'd agree that taking one of those and trying to make it a centerpiece isn't that interesting. I was talking abut the common elements of horror fiction - (paraphrasing the interwebs here) it explores 'malevolent' or 'wicked' characters, deeds or phenomena. It arouses feelings of fear, shock or disgust as well as the sense of the uncanny – things are not what they seem. There is a heightened sense of the unknown and/or mysterious. These elements are present in a lot of games, I just lean into them a little harder than some people. I also tend to include some elements of body horror - gross parasites, strange conditions, pernicious poisons. Those, used somewhat sparingly and often in conjunction with expanded exhaustion rules, tend to puncture some PCs sense of invulnerability without killing them.

Fair enough. Yeah, the archetypes inform a lot of what people call "monsters," but as you say the archetypes themselves tend to underwhelm in play--if only because the players recognize them as horror-monsters. I think there's a space where there are elements of horror but the setting is not unrelentingly depressing. I suspect we both aim for it, but our approaches (and possibly reasons) are probably different-ish. For every arc where the PCs are dealing with contagious derangements that can reshape bodies as well as minds (in at least one instance literally pulling the skin off a corpse to walk around) I try to arrange it so there's at least one where they're doing ... more conventional D&D things. If nothing else, the "conventional D&D things" are closer to what the players expected when they joined up.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup, if you lean in too hard it looses it's punch for sure. I often use the PCs base of operations, if they have one, to serve as a counterbalance, where things are familiar and normal. That's not to say I don't occasionally puncture that sense of normalcy by threatening hearth and home, but that also needs to be done sparingly. I also mix in a healthy leavening of more normal D&D activities. I think we're mostly on the same page, I just might have a greater fondness for messing with the players' sense of control and system knowledge. Veteran players know the rules and stat blocks inside out, and so making them afraid and inculcating a sense of mystery takes a different tool set.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson

I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?

Okay. Because some of us like things to make sense within the fiction and it makes sense that if the king has strong knights and needs that place defended, he would put them there. A lot of DMs design the world from the ground up or use settings that are well detailed like FR. There are only so many ways for the fiction to grow from those details.

 

[Maxperson]

No, as Campbell has pointed out....I'm not asking for the fictional justification of having the knight there. I am asking why the DM has decided to place that NPC in that location. This is something the DM has chosen to do, and he should be aware of what that choice means.

Is it to discourage the front gate as being a viable option? If so, then we're touching on what I'm talking about. If this is done as a challenge to the PCs, to make them think of another route into the castle, that's not a problem. If this is to act as a block, and then one by one the PCs find blocks for every other route they try until lo and behold they have to enter the sewers as their only option.....then it's a problem.

I think maybe you're looking for things that may not be present. A lot of DMs look at the fiction to help them decide what happens in the fiction. If I have a king in a castle with 7 strong knights and a need to defend a gate, he's going to have Sir Mixalot, Sir Ancelyn, Sir Butwecantakehim and the others there on rotation. I'm not necessarily looking to discourage the gate as a viable option for the players, challenge the PCs, make them take another route, etc. I'm just doing what makes sense for this portion of the fiction.

If you say so. Personally, I'd probably help them winnow that list down from 10 a bit by sharing what their characters would be reasonably able to learn or intuit about the situations.

They have skills, knowledges, etc. and investigated. They learned quite a bit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think maybe you're looking for things that may not be present. A lot of DMs look at the fiction to help them decide what happens in the fiction. If I have a king in a castle with 7 strong knights and a need to defend a gate, he's going to have Sir Mixalot, Sir Ancelyn, Sir Butwecantakehim and the others there on rotation. I'm not necessarily looking to discourage the gate as a viable option for the players, challenge the PCs, make them take another route, etc. I'm just doing what makes sense for this portion of the fiction.

I think that in that case, the DM is being kind of thoughtless toward the game, no? Shouldn't at least some consideration for the game and its mechanics come into play when making these design choices? If you're not using a published setting, then there aren't things that "just make sense" because the DM is deciding all the details. He decides how many standard guards there are, how many knights, how they rotate guard duty, the number of entrances that need to be guarded, the presence of ways in that are unguarded......and so on. The entire scenario is decided by the DM.

I mean, what "makes sense" is a perfectly impenetrable castle...that's what every lord would like. However, that's rarely the case due to limits on resources. But the DM decides such limits......so if the DM decides that the gate is heavily guarded to the point that attempting an assault is suicide, but that there's a sewer entrance that's unguarded....then the DM is pushing toward the sewer as being the means of PC entry to the castle. Which may not be a bad thing, it simply is the case.

You can't say "this is only the way it is because it's what's been established in the fiction" if it's also true that "the DM is responsible for what's established in the fiction."

If no consideration is given toward how these elements will interact with the PCs, that would be very odd to me.

Likewise, if a DM is running a pre-written adventure, these kinds of factors have already been considered, but the DM should still give more thought to them and their specific group of players and the characters they're playing.

I think that's one of the lessons to learn from this thread.....if the pre-written elements don't create a satisfying scenario for the PCs, then the DM should not hesitate to make whatever changes he thinks will help improve the game.

They have skills, knowledges, etc. and investigated. They learned quite a bit.

Sure, and most of it doesn't seem to matter, ultimately.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that in that case, the DM is being kind of thoughtless toward the game, no?

No. Thought different, sure. Thoughtless no. It depends on the kind of game the players are looking for.

Shouldn't at least some consideration for the game and its mechanics come into play when making these design choices? If you're not using a published setting, then there aren't things that "just make sense" because the DM is deciding all the details. He decides how many standard guards there are, how many knights, how they rotate guard duty, the number of entrances that need to be guarded, the presence of ways in that are unguarded......and so on. The entire scenario is decided by the DM.

Sometimes those things come into play during adventure design and sometimes not. That's why I said, "I think maybe you're looking for things that may not be present."

I mean, what "makes sense" is a perfectly impenetrable castle...that's what every lord would like. However, that's rarely the case due to limits on resources.

Exactly. In the example above they messed up on the sewer and there's the possibility that someone inside can be bribed to weaken a defense, and more.

But the DM decides such limits......so if the DM decides that the gate is heavily guarded to the point that attempting an assault is suicide, but that there's a sewer entrance that's unguarded....then the DM is pushing toward the sewer as being the means of PC entry to the castle. Which may not be a bad thing, it simply is the case.

Assaulting the gate by simply rushing into it can be suicide. Maybe they start a fire nearby and see if some or many guards can be pulled away by an emergency in the city. Maybe have the wizard launch a fireball at the gate to get attention and resources pulled that way and try a different gate while things are chaotic. Maybe...

The DMs job is to set things up and if the basic set-up has only the sewer as the easy way in, it's really up to the players whether to take that easy path or try something else that might work. It's not a railroad if the players decide not to challenge the basic set-up and take the easy path.

You can't say "this is only the way it is because it's what's been established in the fiction" if it's also true that "the DM is responsible for what's established in the fiction."

Why not? I fully admit that I am responsible for setting things up so that they make sense with the fiction. Seems compatible to me.

Likewise, if a DM is running a pre-written adventure, these kinds of factors have already been considered, but the DM should still give more thought to them and their specific group of players and the characters they're playing.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but I find that statement to be truly funny. I can count on one hand with 4 fingers and a thumb left over how many pre-written adventures I haven't had to change due to things not making sense or not being considered. They give away too much info here, too little there, don't account for X in this place, and Y in that. It's more work for me to use a pre-written adventure than it is for me to just make one up myself.

I think that's one of the lessons to learn from this thread.....if the pre-written elements don't create a satisfying scenario for the PCs, then the DM should not hesitate to make whatever changes he thinks will help improve the game.

As I just noted, I learned that lesson decades ago.

Sure, and most of it doesn't seem to matter, ultimately.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion? Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?

 

[prabe]

No. Thought different, sure. Thoughtless no. It depends on the kind of game the players are looking for.

Agree-ish. I think the GM who considers the possibilities ahead of time is maybe thinking more than the GM who is intending to see where the players wanna go (and I think the GM who's intending to see where the players wanna go is likely to be thinking--or at least creating--more during the session).

Sometimes those things come into play during adventure design and sometimes not.

And sometimes those things have been previously established in the fiction, so the GM is ... kinda stuck with what he's said before. I do not doubt there are different preferences for that kind of internal consistency, but there's nothing inherently wrong or thoughtless about it.

Assaulting the gate by simply rushing into it can be suicide. Maybe they start a fire nearby and see if some or many guards can be pulled away by an emergency in the city. Maybe have the wizard launch a fireball at the gate to get attention and resources pulled that way and try a different gate while things are chaotic. Maybe...

The DMs job is to set things up and if the basic set-up has only the sewer as the easy way in, it's really up to the players whether to take that easy path or try something else that might work. It's not a railroad if the players decide not to challenge the basic set-up and take the easy path.

That doesn't sound railroady at all. I dunno how obvious the easy path is--the adventure/scene might have "find the easy path" and "succeed at the hard path" as roughly-equal difficulties. Success available either way. Plausibly ways for the PCs to shift their odds with prep and/or research, regardless of path.

I can count on one hand with 4 fingers and a thumb left over how many pre-written adventures I haven't had to change due to things not making sense or not being considered. They give away too much info here, too little there, don't account for X in this place, and Y in that. It's more work for me to use a pre-written adventure than it is if me to just make one up myself.

This has been pretty much my experience of published adventures, always. They don't make sense to me as a player, and they don't make sense to me as a GM. I don't particularly enjoy playing through them, and I do a horrible job of trying to run them.

I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion? Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?

If the PCs are never allowed to reach a wrong conclusion, it'd seem as though their choices didn't matter. For some people, not being able to lose is as frustrating as not being able to win. Sure, there may be things the characters have a better sense of than the players--because it's their world--but that gets into a different kind of discussion.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Goodnes no, that can't be the choice all the time. Any buffet gets stale when there's only one item on it. As for Ravenloft, I've played it without breaking characters. That doesn't have to be the default state of play at all. I'd also probably suggest that either we're talking about 'horror' in different ways or we have very different definitions of what 'boring' means.

Having played CoS, even with a lighter side DM, it really is a module with a certain about of arbitrary diabolus ex machina and it does get wearing when you have to choose between bad and worse, or the good actions you do are arbitrarily negated by the Dark Powers.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't sound railroady at all. I dunno how obvious the easy path is--the adventure/scene might have "find the easy path" and "succeed at the hard path" as roughly-equal difficulties. Success available either way. Plausibly ways for the PCs to shift their odds with prep and/or research, regardless of path.

So I'm going to look at this impossible castle except for the sewers from a player's perspective. That set-up is pretty much guaranteed to keep the players from using the sewer. I mean, a king who is highly competent and protects his castle from every conceivable circumstance, yet leaves an enticingly easy sewer entry?! Admiral Akbar would immediately start screaming in my head and I'd try looking for creative ways to break the "impossible."

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion? Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?

I agree. I’d go even further than Maxperson. Being consistent with the world and the tropes makes it easier for the players to play.

Going back to Maxperson’s castle example, if it isn’t the first castle the players have come across in the campaign (likely the case), they already know the front gate is going to be heavily guarded so they won’t waste time banging their heads against a sub-optimal option.