Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[pemerton]

I think I have a fundamental problem with the notion that the story just belongs to the PCs.

My problem with it is that, taken literally, it seems to imply some sort of breaking of the fourth wall; but when I try for some sensible non-literal meaning all I get is the PCs are at the centre of the action, which tells me nothing about how the fiction is actually being established in play.

 

[FrogReaver]

...then you're in Force territory and need to be careful about play. Just the GM writing these notes down (or keeping them in their head) does not turn this into a no Force situation. Unless the GM foreshadows these facts well, so that the players can make informed decisions, then this is really just expecting the players to guess at a random thing when they don't even know they need to guess. And, if that directs play, it's Force -- the GM's thumb is on the scale directing a result that the players didn't even know was possible.

I'm just curious and this isn't just to you. Why is it that posts like these make force sound like something bad that must be avoided (other concepts too) but I'm constantly reminded that no other playstyle is being condemned here and that we are just comparing how different mechanics work in different games?

 

[FrogReaver]

It seems to me that there is a great deal of disagreement around what should be labeled an impossible task in RPG terms.

I think to get to the heart of this situation we need to have two terms. 1. Established in the shared fiction. 2. Established in the DM's fiction. Anything in either of these categories can rightfully be called Established in the fiction (based on what those words naturally mean).

I would argue that the DM having things established in the his fiction that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction is beneficial to play - or at least a certain kind of play. Maybe the discussion should shift to also discuss how that benefits play? I think this discussion will feedback into the impossible task discussion. That is, if it's okay to have established fiction that hasn't yet been shared then some tasks are going to be impossible which the players may think are possible based on the currently shared fiction. The downside to this style is it can feel like a bad puzzle. Let's discuss the upsides for a moment.

 

[prabe]

I think I have a fundamental problem with the notion that the story just belongs to the PCs. The story belongs to all the players, and that includes the GM. The setting and the story are not the same thing at all, so notions of 'retaining ownership' really shouldn't apply. Admittedly, I'm coming from a more PtFOWH perspective. I can see how some GMs would struggle with ideas about retaining control of 'their' setting though. I can also see how in a heavily pre-plotted campaign the complexion seems different. However, that inability to let go probably indexes a propensity for GM force, and that's a slippery slope.

I'll answer this, and I'll try to address the problems @pemerton is having, as well.

In my instance, it's specifically about the PCs being the ones whose decisions shape the direction of the story. So in my Saturday campaign, while The Apostate, The Keeper of Secrets, and The Gleaming Dame all have interests in the party's actions, and the party can additionally turn for help to Barnett or the Cracked Shields or maybe the Primal Atoll, the decisions that drive and shape the story come from Mo, Joybell, Taman, Thneed, Orryk, and Fiona. I phrase it the way I do to remind myself of that--it's awfully easy for me to lapse and take possession of the story through any of those NPCs or groups, and that would be (by my lights) bad GMing. I won't argue with any reasonably similar meaning, though I think @pemerton is missing at least some of my inner context with "the PCs are at the center of the action." (Not that anyone outside my head needs to understand my inner context, of course.) While I don't run pre-plotted campaigns (I rarely prep more than a session in advance) I still have and have had issues with letting go of setting elements.

 

[Fenris-77]

My problem with it is that, taken literally, it seems to imply some sort of breaking of the fourth wall; but when I try for some sensible non-literal meaning all I get is the PCs are at the centre of the action, which tells me nothing about how the fiction is actually being established in play.

To me it seems fundamentally at odds with some basic concepts of what RPGs are and do. 'Authority' over a story, which I'm reading as doubling for 'ownership' is something that emerges from the back and forth between the players and the GM, regardless of the style employed or table conventions in use. This isn't about agency either IMO, as I think it applies to almost all games, both high and low agency, and from scripted to free play.

The fourth wall feel there might be part and parcel of needing to examine the meta of the rules that produces that story, and I think in this case that meta is being mostly ignored in favor of conflating 'authority' over the story with 'authority' over characters and their actions. The second is pretty standard fare for RPGs, mostly, but the first is highly contentious IMO. This could just be a product of my reading into @prabe 's post things he wasn't intending of course.

 

[Fenris-77]

@prabe - I think some of the difficulty here is that 'shaping of' and 'ownership of' are very different things. I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that PC actions should shape the story, set next to GM adjudication and reaction to those actions. I think the idea of 'ownership' is a little more problematic.

 

[prabe]

I think there is a bit of tension between the first and last passages, and the middle ones.

The middle ones - where you set out methods in detail - seem to be about the GM establishing the shared fiction, and the consequences of actions.

Then I'll try to explain them more fully. This may be another instance where we fail to communicate because our starting points are far enough apart that the same thing looks different to us.

In such an instance, the setting might belong to the GM, but what happens--that's the actual story--would belong to the PCs. The only way the GM can retain ownership is not to allow the PCs to change it.

So, I've been in groups that did dungeon-crawl-ish adventures effectively backward--we found what was supposed to be the exit and went in through it and jumped the Big Boss while we were fresh, then crawled our way out. If the GM had had us go in through the exit and find Room 1A (or however it was keyed) so we had to encounter the elements of the dungeon in the order he wanted (or at least that the writers expected), that would have been along the lines of not allowing the PCs to own the story.

I agree that prep can look very different from a keyed map. My own prep rarely includes anything like any maps. It's concerned far more with what has been going on before the PCs arrive, and what is likely to happen in their absence, and usually the consequences of what seem to me to be the most likely PC courses of actions (which are not of course the only things that can happen, but they do serve as something to base other reactions on).

So, yes, I was talking about my own methods, here. I don't map down to the room very often.

Or, if it's been mapped, and the PCs have encountered it. If a PC attempts to jump it anyway, it's probably worth making sure the player understands that this isn't some little groove in the ground, but an actual large-scale geographic feature. If that's clear and the PC attempts to jump it anyway, the possibility it's an out-of-game problem starts to rear its head.

If you're seeing tension between my talking about "if it's been mapped" here and my comments about my own approach to (barely) mapping, that's probably because I was talking more broadly, to include the possibility that the GM might map in that sort of detail. The mention of the PCs having encountered it previously was intended to convey that it was already an established fact in the fiction.

Basing the fiction on the outcome of the roll seems eminently appropriate for the games you've shared play examples for, but I don't think that having the in-fiction reality be more objective necessarily removes player agency--it just adds some burden to the GM that the players know the situation before they act (or at least, they know that's how the game is being run). If I'm running a mystery that I've prepped (where I know at least what the core situation is, if not all the details) and I run it honestly--I answer the PCs' questions forthrightly, skipping between player skill (roleplay) and character skill (Ability Checks, in 5E) as needed--I don't think I'm removing the possibility of player or character agency. It's plausible-shading-to-probable that you disagree.

So, I'm guessing the tension you see between this and the first thing you quoted comes to this: You think there's a big difference in player agency between (A) the PC's skill check determines whether the player gets to declare [FACT] and (B) the PC's skill check determines whether the GM reveals [FACT]; I don't.

 

[prabe]

@prabe - I think some of the difficulty here is that 'shaping of' and 'ownership of' are very different things. I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that PC actions should shape the story, set next to GM adjudication and reaction to those actions. I think the idea of 'ownership' is a little more problematic.

That's reasonable-ish. My thinking, unpacked a little more: The players own the PCs; the GM owns the setting (to include all places and NPCs and history). The PCs own the story; nothing that the GM owns does. Even the PCs' opposition is really part of the PCs' story (note the way the possessives point). I suspect it's probably indicative of my thinking that in my email missives to the players I always describe myself as DMing for them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm just curious and this isn't just to you. Why is it that posts like these make force sound like something bad that must be avoided (other concepts too) but I'm constantly reminded that no other playstyle is being condemned here and that we are just comparing how different mechanics work in different games?

Force is just a tool in the box. Some games live by it, some avoid it. It's pretty neutral by itself. However, it's a tool that's easily abused, and, in the worst cases, is the tool than enables very dysfunctional gameplay (like hard railroads). The post I responded to wasn't about bad gaming or a criticism of a playstyle, but instead being very clear that the tool being used in that situation was Force, specifically how it was Force where a pit trap usually isn't.

D&D uses Force, so I can see how you'd think it's a criticism of D&D, or your playstyle, or whatever. It's not. I'm prepping a 5e game for tonight right now, one we haven't played in a few months due to life and the current crazy (I got sick, other people had to take care of ill parents, I game with some police officers who haven't had much free time lately, you know, life). I'm going heavy on Force, at least at the start, because I need to re-establish the current conflicts as they were left and that setting and themes of the game, again. So, I don't have a problem with Force. If anything, my plans for kicking things back off could be considered a railroad -- at least to start. After that, after I've re-established the fictional situation again, then I'll relax back into the much more PC directed play I prefer, but, as it's D&D, Force is always in my toolbox.

On the other hand, if one of my players has to bail due to being on call, then I have Blades in the Dark standing by. We haven't played that in longer, but it kicks off with less.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, I'm guessing the tension you see between this and the first thing you quoted comes to this: You think there's a big difference in player agency between (A) the PC's skill check determines whether the player gets to declare [FACT] and (B) the PC's skill check determines whether the GM reveals [FACT]; I don't.

This is an excellent summation, but, like all summations, it's hiding a good bit of nuance. Like that the action declarations are different between these two, so there's some room to hide some agency there, and that the FACTs are different between A and B, so there's some room for agency to be hiding there. However, overall, that's a great way to put the functional differences between games like PbtA and D&D.