Something that 4e's designers overlooked? -aka is KM correct?

[Mallus]

I dig KM's 'Aspirations' idea, too.

What strikes me as important, though, with any time-as-resource schemes, is making the players aware of both the positive and negative consequences of each time-sensitive decisions. Which means, as far as I can tell, accepting a fair amount of metagaming (because the players need to know the consequences of spending their time doing X instead of Y. If they're unclear about the consequences, then there's no tension in the decision-making process).

For example, a good time-sensitive event would be: "The town of Fallcrest will fall to the National Orc Socialists if reinforcements don't arrive before Midsummer's Eve".

A less-good one would be: "The mage Quisling, who's rumored to work for the National Orc Socialists, is traveling to Fallcrest around Midsummer's Eve."

Now Quisling is probably up to no good, but how much? It's hard to quantify, and thus the mystery actually reduces the tension of any decision involving Fallcrest, because what's at stake isn't known, unlike in the first example.

It's a common problem I've seen in campaigns using event time lines. The player's were too in the dark about the effects of meeting or missing the time line events. These have to be clear (even if that means sneaking the players information their characters wouldn't necessarily have).

 

[Raven Crowking]

What strikes me as important, though, with any time-as-resource schemes, is making the players aware of both the positive and negative consequences of each time-sensitive decisions. Which means, as far as I can tell, accepting a fair amount of metagaming (because the players need to know the consequences of spending their time doing X instead of Y. If they're unclear about the consequences, then there's no tension in the decision-making process).

I disagree. I think that they need enough information to infer the consequences, in many cases, but they do not need to know that their inferences are correct. There is, IMHO, more tension in making a decision where the consequences are uncertain (within a given range) than where the consequences are known.

Much like real life.

The trick is, I think, to make the consequences where the PCs fail add to the interest of the game, rather than end the game world.



RC

 

[Scribble]

It's a common problem I've seen in campaigns using event time lines. The player's were too in the dark about the effects of meeting or missing the time line events. These have to be clear (even if that means sneaking the players information their characters wouldn't necessarily have).

I disagree. I think that they need enough information to infer the consequences, in many cases, but they do not need to know that their inferences are correct. There is, IMHO, more tension in making a decision where the consequences are uncertain (within a given range) than where the consequences are known.

Much like real life.

The trick is, I think, to make the consequences where the PCs fail add to the interest of the game, rather than end the game world.

I think they either need that info, or be given ways to get that info if they want. I don't mind, possible world ending scenarios, but they'd better be able to discover just how serious the threat is...

IE if the town of Fallcrest will most likely fall, the PCs should be given clues, as part of the rumor of the Orc Army arriving, and it doesn't need to be meta.

"I don't know what we'll do if that orc army arrives... We're down a number of men in the town guard, and the leadership squable ain't doin recruitment any good... we'd never be able to take that army in a head to head..."

"Yeah, and what with the storms been ragin to the south... there's no way any reinforcements would make it in time..."

(I also do not mind ramping up the importance of something the PCs HAVE chosen to do though... Or ramping down the threat level if the PCs haven't chosen to intervene... I know some dislike this, but my players have seemed to find it fun.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

My general view is, "Don't introduce a world-ending scenario, unless you are prepared to allow the world to end."

My expansion on this would be: "Don't introduce X as a consequence of failure, unless you are prepared to allow X to occur, regardless of what X might be."


RC

 

[firesnakearies]

I'd say, don't introduce a scenario that will actually force the game to end. But scenarios which are extremely undesirable for the in-game world, such as some kind of apocalypse, but which don't actually force the end of possible gameplay within the campaign, could be very cool. Failure should lead to interesting stuff, not an end of play. The "world ending" might suck for the characters in the world, but it could be very, very "interesting" stuff for the game and players, out-of-character.

 

[Hussar]

The problem becomes RC, what is obvious to the DM is certainly not always obvious to the players. Without being very explicit (and probably meta-gaming) it's not all that hard to run into communication issues. So, while I the DM think I've given all the information to the players, the players don't pick up on the cues and wind up failing, not because they tried and failed, or chose to ignore the issue and failed, but simply because of mis-communication.

I think this is a very common issue. The DM is thinking about the campaign likely all the time. There are lots of players out there who have trouble remembering what happened last session, let alone being able to parse out the importantance of three differenent (or more) plot threads, all of which require concious decisions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem becomes RC, what is obvious to the DM is certainly not always obvious to the players. Without being very explicit (and probably meta-gaming) it's not all that hard to run into communication issues. So, while I the DM think I've given all the information to the players, the players don't pick up on the cues and wind up failing, not because they tried and failed, or chose to ignore the issue and failed, but simply because of mis-communication.

I think this is a very common issue.

I don't think it is an issue at all.

So long as it doesn't end the game, failure can be as fun and engrossing as success. In fact, the way my game is set up guarantees a level of failure as well as a level of success. Some things will get changed to benefit the PCs, others to make their lives harder.

IMHO, a lot of the fun of the game is based upon consequences, witting and unwitting. The players see that, through action or inaction, they have an effect on the world.


RC

 

[Scribble]

The problem becomes RC, what is obvious to the DM is certainly not always obvious to the players. Without being very explicit (and probably meta-gaming) it's not all that hard to run into communication issues. So, while I the DM think I've given all the information to the players, the players don't pick up on the cues and wind up failing, not because they tried and failed, or chose to ignore the issue and failed, but simply because of mis-communication.

I don't think it is an issue at all.

So long as it doesn't end the game, failure can be as fun and engrossing as success. In fact, the way my game is set up guarantees a level of failure as well as a level of success. Some things will get changed to benefit the PCs, others to make their lives harder.

IMHO, a lot of the fun of the game is based upon consequences, witting and unwitting. The players see that, through action or inaction, they have an effect on the world.

This is one of those areas where the "ramping up or down" the consequences I mentioned earlier comes into effect. If the players "miss the clues" I tend to take a look at what's going on, and try my best to analyze if it was my fault (IE the great clues I was throwing out to them weren't actually so great) or if they were just being dumb.

If I feel after all I wasn't going about things in the right way, I'll definitely ramp things down.


But also, if it seems like it would make a good adventure, and they completely missed it through dumb luck, and didn't consciously avoid it... sometimes I'll also toss it back into the bag of future plot hooks as well.

Shrug.