RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Old Fezziwig]

(Seriously, I have the PDF open and I have glanced it, and this really is not the sort of game I have least bit of interest in playing.
And not because of the mechanics.)

Slight digression, but if it's not the mechanics but the default setting, Baker did grant permission for a release of the rules with the Mormon gunslinger setting filed off. It's available on DTRPG in PDF and as POD. It's not strictly the same as DitV, but it might be of interest if the mechanics/system are of interest.

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure I see the difference. We of course can come up with examples of situations where either the success of failure can be derived from prep. This will happen occasionally, maybe even often. If the GM frames things towards their prep, which seems sensible, this likelihood rises. But this does not remove the possibility of rigid prep coming in conflict with the player's intent.

Here is a list of games that Ron Edwards identifies (i) as narrativist, hence involving some form of conflict resolution, yet (ii) "rock steady based on preparation":

Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein, HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, The Whispering Vault​

(He doesn't discuss DitV in this essay, as it had not yet been published.)

Do you think he just missed the problem that you've diagnosed by the application of logic, without even needing to play these games or read their rules? Or do you think that, perhaps, there are techniques and procedures in these games for ensuring that the problem doesn't arise.

So it actually isn't any sort of failure like you previously claimed. Just something you move past if it is not important to get to the actual meat of the game.

Here is what I described as a failure:

To close this thread, let me reiterate this: in classic D&D play, there is nothing degenerate about an action declaration to listen at a door, or to search for a secret door, even though the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. In DitV that is a degenerate situation: it would be a sign that the GM has made some sort of error in their play of the game.

If the GM is doing the things that I quoted in the post that you replied to, no such action declarations will be happening because the GM will frame into conflict. There will be no listening or searching even thought the GM knows that there is nothing to be discovered by doing so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The quality of the performance was.

No, there is no performance and a has no quality, not even narratively since it was replaced with a toss of dice. This is all just color as it has no effect on the trajectory of play and depends on nothing but dice. That's pretty basically what I referred to as 'baking cupcakes play'!

 

[pemerton]

In any case, you now seem to be agreeing with my overall point that loose and malleable fictional reality is a logical partner for conflict resolution.

Here is one instance of you posting the point that I disagreed with:

The issue is with the opposite. We are trying to solve a mystery and the GM has pre-established the facts of the case. Players do not know these. I don't see how this is compatible with conflict resolution. There could easily arise a situation where the "GM's secret facts" would unbeknownst to the player make the goal of their announced action impossible. "I.e. the clue is not there, the butler did not do it, etc."

I am pointing out that it is not true that this could "easily arise". I've explained in some detail, with reference to the rules of DitV, and some other RPGs, and various imagined and actual examples of play, how in fact this can be easily avoided: ie that there is no contradiction between GM prep and solving the mystery in a conflict resolution game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here is a list of games that Ron Edwards identifies (i) as narrativist, hence involving some form of conflict resolution, yet (ii) "rock steady based on preparation":

Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein, HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel, The Whispering Vault​

(He doesn't discuss DitV in this essay, as it had not yet been published.)

Do you think he just missed the problem that you've diagnosed by the application of logic, without even needing to play these games or read their rules? Or do you think that, perhaps, there are techniques and procedures in these games for ensuring that the problem doesn't arise.

There probably is a reason for why basically all the newer narrativist games are low myth. They're designed that way for a reason.

If the GM is doing the things that I quoted in the post that you replied to, no such action declarations will be happening because the GM will frame into conflict. There will be no listening or searching even thought the GM knows that there is nothing to be discovered by doing so.

So conflict cannot occur in a room where some doors are just set dressing? I simply do not believe this.

 

[pemerton]

There probably is a reason for why basically all the newer narrativist games are low myth. They're designed that way for a reason.

Torchbearer 2e uses conflict resolution. And is not no or even particularly low myth.

Agon 2e uses conflict resolution. It is not no myth, and some of its conflicts have the relevant fiction established as part of the prep of the island.

In any event, this doesn't actually respond to my point: which is that some of the most important and influential narrativist games - DitV, Sorcerer, HeroWars/Quest, Prince Valiant - are not hostile to prep of the key fictional elements around which the conflict will revolve.

They use techniques other than improvisation. Actively revealing the fiction in play is one of those. Agon uses it, for instance.

So conflict cannot occur in a room where some doors are just set dressing? I simply do not believe this.

I don't know what you have in mind. I mean, of course conflict can happen in a room where doors are set dressing - eg an argument might take place between a PC and a NPC, or between two PCs. But I assume this is not what you have in mind.

My point is that, if the GM is doing the things that I quoted in the post that you replied to, then there will be no listening or searching even thought the GM knows that there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. To elaborate: suppose thatf the GM is actively revealing the town in play and is driving towards conflict, and is following the injunction that " If they ask for information, give it to them". In that case, if a player declares that their PC is listening at a door, the GM will ask what they are hoping to learn, and - based on that reply - will provide the appropriate information. With an eye towards conflict - so perhaps the GM narrates a conversation between two NPCs that the PC overhears, that will provoke the player into action.

In other words, it will not be the case that the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by listening. Because if the GM is doing the things they are told to do, then they will be providing information, piling it on with the goal of escalating, escalating, escalating.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am pointing out that it is not true that this could "easily arise". I've explained in some detail, with reference to the rules of DitV, and some other RPGs, and various imagined and actual examples of play, how in fact this can be easily avoided: ie that there is no contradiction between GM prep and solving the mystery in a conflict resolution game.

Well you certainly have lengthily lectured about it, I would say mostly besides the point.

Ultimately the matter is rather simple.
If the player is allowed to make an action declaration "I discover that X is Y" but the secret myth says X is not Y, then we are at an impasse.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As @pemerton just drew attention to, Baker says it's not about immediacy. Even parsimonious intents, if resolved are conflict resolution. If your intent of rolling for the blow is "does it land" and your method resolves that, it's conflict resolution.

player intentional act (strike with sword) > performance result (hit with sword) > intent resolved​

But - and I think this will be the objection in your mind - that's not quite Baker's example

"I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!"​

Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance?​

Roll: Loss!​

"He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins."​

We resolve the slash landing to determine if we get the effect of force off-balance. And that is what players actually intend with their strikes in D&D combat. It's

"I strike at the troll, like ha!" "Why?" "To deal my weapon damage!"​

Conflict Resolution: do you deal your weapon damage?​

Roll: Loss!​

"It ducks side to side! Avoids your slashes."​

I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that players strike for the sake of striking. I've never seen that. Baker too, muses on this point. I feel like it is better not to make it about immediacy, so as to avoid blurred lines and better see the utility of task resolution to play. I want to use task resolution when I want to decide outcomes on some basis other than - players aimed to do it.

And my response of course is why? If nobody aimed to do it then why have mechanics for it at all? It's like my game, HoML, there's no mechanism to adjudicate NPCs fighting each t, the very notion is pointless.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They use techniques other than improvisation. Actively revealing the fiction in play is one of those. Agon uses it, for instance.

Then it is not GM's secret backstory, is it?

I don't know what you have in mind. I mean, of course conflict can happen in a room where doors are set dressing - eg an argument might take place between a PC and a NPC, or between two PCs. But I assume this is not what you have in mind.

My point is that, if the GM is doing the things that I quoted in the post that you replied to, then there will be no listening or searching even thought the GM knows that there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. To elaborate: suppose thatf the GM is actively revealing the town in play and is driving towards conflict, and is following the injunction that " If they ask for information, give it to them". In that case, if a player declares that their PC is listening at a door, the GM will ask what they are hoping to learn, and - based on that reply - will provide the appropriate information. With an eye towards conflict - so perhaps the GM narrates a conversation between two NPCs that the PC overhears, that will provoke the player into action.

In other words, it will not be the case that the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by listening. Because if the GM is doing the things they are told to do, then they will be providing information, piling it on with the goal of escalating, escalating, escalating.

And this relies on low myth! Regardless of when or at what door the PC listens, they will hear something about what they wish to hear and it will be plot relevant. This simply is not what happens in a high myth game. In a high myth game the contents of rooms would be predetermined, and that would inform what the PC hears.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I've noted upthread, it changes the information state of the game. In D&D it may be a weak action, but it's not a degenerate one. Listening at the door is done to make it less likely (on silence) that it is dangerous to open it. If we open one hundred doors with random dungeon rooms behind them, and listen at all of them: that will reduce our dangerous-door-opening-rate.

Actually? Well, lets examine this further! My goal is to loot the dungeon, and I know (call it meta-game if you will) that the 'evil wizard' (GM) who built this death maze cunningly hid the good stuff here and there. So, I am bound to explore every nook and cranny! So what if I hear sounds at a door? By gosh I still have to open the thing!!! In fact this is exactly what we concluded quite early on. There MIGHT be mechanical reasons to listen (IE you reduce the occurrence of surprise checks against you) or maybe you will decide that you will chance opening a door where you heard nothing, but otherwise the party should go heal instead, that sort of thing. But in the end you basically open all the doors anyway, noises be damned. It was all just basically a sort of charade.