D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[Balesir]

Authenticity? As a player, I find it disrespectful for the DM to alter events within the game world based on stuff that doesn't exist within the game world - stuff like player opinions, or wanting to make things more exciting.

But the GM makes up the stuff that exists in the game world!! What is the difference between making up the events and making up the stuff that makes those events happen? Seriously? If I make an event happen in the imagined world, how do you know I just made up the event, as opposed to made up the stuff in the imagined world that meant that the event happened?

 

[LostSoul]

A reasonable answer to the second question, again - but still not an answer to the original one (i.e. the first one in the bit you quoted).

I am not sure why it's not an answer to the original question (why is "bouncyness" necessary for the PCs to ride in and save the day). I don't mean to say that this mechanic the only way to make the game revolve around the choices the players make, it's just what I chose to go with. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Not as difficult as saying "the NPCs fail" every time would, surely?

I don't understand. It would be easier for me to say that, yes, but I think the players would feel cheated if they recruited NPCs to do something and they always failed. Maybe I'm missing the point?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Man, I am late to this very interesting and entertaining thread. I see many similarities in the different playstyles but after reading through 114 pages I am sure we now know where the differences lie.

Well, welcome to the great debate!

As far as I can tell, the player (through his PC) tells the DM in this way that his interest lies in a sort of "detective" story, a who-has-done-it. I cannot see how this is different from @pemerton's approach, as his style is basically based on following the players interest for where the game should go.
And since everybody at the table seems to be ok with this, conciders this genre-appropriate and an interesting subject for play, this is what this part of the session will be about.

The difference seems to be mostly in scene-framing, and player-driven. I consider my games to be more player-driven than pemerton, and I believe he assumes the opposite (as he seemed to call my style "GM-dominated"). But at the end of the day, both of our tables have the PCs pushing to investigate something, yes.

I see this as a freeze-frame-scene: why is the girl more persistent than the other beggars?

I rolled for it. Is there anyone at the gate? Most likely, and thus set the odds based on that. Were all the beggars there? Most likely not all, but most, so I set my odds based on that. Was she? Set odds and roll. Etc.

I knew the background of what had happened to R's mother. This particular beggar (the one that had been kicked ut by her family recently) was particularly desperate, and was positive she wouldn't survive on the streets. So when I found out she was there, and since she was new to being homeless and a beggar with her family abandoning her (with few street skills necessary to survive and deep depression already set in), she ended up being more persistent.

What purpose does this serve other than to serve as a clue (we are in a detective scenario, after all).

The purpose? That whole 'naturist' thing we've been talking about.

For all I knew, the players could've decided to give her money, taken her in as a companion, ignored her, or whatever else. That was totally on them. She was not placed there as a clue.

Now, what I find interesting is that the player has this thought about the role of the family of his PC with regards to the illness of the mother. Was that resolved by the roll of the dice? If so, who rolled?

No, there was no roll. The player knew how his noble house (and thus his family) interacted with the common folk. He knew his mother's common personality traits (which I did roll for). He then thought that maybe a beggar touching someone would be a good cover. It was something he arrived at all on his own (and that none of the other players suspected until he brought it up).

In 4E, an Insight roll (maybe Streetwise?) would be in order. Maybe in @JamesonCourage style the DM rolled the dice and looked up the result in a prepared table. If this is so (which I do not know but would like to) think the 4E approach protagonizes the players because the result of the roll is based on the abilities of the PC (which is also "gamist").

In my RPG, it'd be a straight Wisdom check, if it was appropriate.

Who checked if the PCs had to wait? Was this done with a roll on a table?

I checked, and essentially, yes, a roll on a table.

Or could (as the players have the power to in 4E) to press for a more sooner meeting time with a) a skill challenge b) with a simple roll for Diplomacy, Intimidate, Streetwise or Bluff or c) by the use of some powers (martial or otherwise)?

The players were told they had to wait. It's up to them how they act from there. They decided to wait instead of insisting that the captain attend to them immediately. If they had, it would call for other checks (Negotiation, most likely, but it might be augmented by other skills, such as Intimidate).

This part, in my opinion, highlights the real differences: the players decide to play a detective story. But they do not solve the mystery because the captain (an NPC) finds out the information. The PCs also do not fight the evil necromancer because the guards do that.

That probably is a major difference, yep.

This would not happen in @pemerton's game. And it would not happen in my games either. If the players show clear intent to play a detective story, why deprotagonize them by not letting them do what real detectives do: find the real clues, fight the person behing the murder etc.? And if all of this was the result of the roll of the dice on a prepared table: why make such a table at all?

I'm seeing what happens in the game by playing it out with the rest of the players. I'm not going to give them plot protection (I don't want to comment on 'protagonist', since they obviously are no matter what as the camera follows their actions). I'm not going to deny their accomplishments. I won't do the same for any NPC.

So, was the necromancer found off-screen? Yes. Why? Because that's how it played out. And I'm not going to change it just so the players can find her. Why? Because that's railroading, and I'm not interested in that for my fantasy campaign. I'm interested in seeing what unfolds naturally based on the actions of their characters (and other characters, or NPCs).

As for the table, it's a fairly simple and generic d% table with odds based on how likely an event is to occur (based on the GM's knowledge of the setting). On doubles, something else happens. I can also roll on some abstract charts for inspiration. I did not make a special table for the investigation in particular.

In my opinion, this example is, of course, a story in an RPG. And it is not a railroad (I do not consider the clue-giving freeze-frame-scene with the beggar girl a railroad at all).

Neither do I, but for probably different reasons (since it's not a freeze-frame scene at all).

But the intent of the PCs and their players did not matter much to the story at the table and how it resolved. Maybe this is naturalistic, but it is not exiting, at least not in my opinion.

So you shouldn't play with this style! My players like it, because it makes them feel like the entire world is alive and has motivations of their own. They can predict likely events with the knowledge that I won't throw a complication at them just to add "fun" to the session. They value what this style achieves more than they value "interesting" things that they find contrived. (The exception is in one-shot games.)

If random rolls on a table prevented me as a player with my character to actually be a detective because random rolls on a table decided that NPCs do all the work that actually make up a good detective story, the game would be bland in my opinion. Especially because the clear intent at the beginning of the session was: forget my moms letter, I want to find what/who killed her. Well, "I" did not, "the captain" did.

Yes, the captain that the players went to for help did indeed find many clues and help solve the investigation (though he wasn't present himself when the necromancer was caught).

Additionally, I'm not going to make the captain of this city incompetent just to serve the purpose of giving the players something to do. If he was incompetent, he likely wouldn't be captain (though of course exceptions exist; nepotism, bribes, influence, etc.). And even if he was, there are likely people under him more than capable (unless the whole city is rather corrupt, but I have stats for the city that inform me on that).

There is a difference between having to live with a missed DC/a wrong decision and having NPCs doing the work for you because the DM decided not to have the necromancer attack while the PCs are literally at the scene. I do not understand how this is this any less "naturalistic" anyways?

It's about NPC motivations. The necromancer didn't attack because she was hiding from the PCs (successfully, I might add). When the guards returned to tend to the baker's oven, she was gathering stuff to leave (so she wouldn't get caught), and put up a fight when they tried to detain her.

From the necromancer's point of view, why would she attack the PCs when it sounds like overwhelming numbers, and the conversation sounds like it is just the baker who is going to be led away? That wouldn't be prudent (and her personality dictates that she is). So she waited.

It's not a question of "what is most exciting for the PCs" when I'm making decisions. I rely on them to find things they find exciting. If they miss out on some exciting things because of their decisions (like cooperating with the guards to maximize their chances of success), then I'm not going to take away those consequences and force a situation. That sounds like railroading, to me (when the GM forces his whim regardless of what the players do).

Why not let the PCs fail forward instead of them being either not there or completely unable to obtain the really useful information? What is the DC for finding out more from the baker instead of "she is hiding something"? Where is the advantage of the naturalistic playstyle?

I don't understand what you're asking here. Why I don't utilize "fail forward" should be obvious, so I'm going to skip that for now. If it's not obvious how this conflicts with naturalistic play, let me know, and I'll try to explain it to you.

The DC to find out more from the baker depends on circumstances. In this scenario, the necromancer had her and some loved ones threatened, so she was extremely hesitant to speak (this would get factored into the Risk vs Reward portion of the Negotiation check DC to get her to talk). She might see the guards / PCs as allies, though, making it easier than if she saw them as enemies. So, I'd take all of these into consideration, and then set the DC based on what the books says. Then they could try to convince her (and even if they missed by 1-4, she might offer a counter-deal, or something along those lines).

Before they even left the first city, R's oldest brother didn't want to go, but R convinced him with a Negotiation check. While R was interested in vengeance, his oldest brother didn't want all three brothers to go on a dangerous mission and possibly die after the death of their mother, since it'd leave their older sister all alone in short order. But, with a successful Negotiation check, R was able to convince him.

I just play it out and see what happens. Which is why I don't purposefully push fail forward, push situations where the PCs must be present, etc.

I agree that all of this matters. But in my opinion, in this specific example all of this did not lead to a satisfying result regarding the nature of the intended subject of the story for the session: playing detective.

That's what you want. I don't care about what you want. If you don't like the style, don't play it. Play what you like! (See my sig)

My players wanted vengeance, and they got it. They were satisfied (because they enjoy this play style). Why should we switch styles?

So in the end, regardless of the PC background and naturalistic go-abouts, the players did not get what they said they wanted (whatever result).

Wrong. Just so wrong it hurts.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But the GM makes up the stuff that exists in the game world!! What is the difference between making up the events and making up the stuff that makes those events happen? Seriously? If I make an event happen in the imagined world, how do you know I just made up the event, as opposed to made up the stuff in the imagined world that meant that the event happened?

It's the difference between deciding that a PC gets impaled on a spear trap, and a PC getting impaled on a spear trap because of a failed Perception check combined with a successful attack roll.

In either case, the spear trap only exists because the DM decided on it. In the latter case, you were unlucky. In the former case, the DM is just a jerk.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What choice are the player's trying to make that is being overridden by the DM?

That's not what I said. At all.

 

[Balesir]

I agree. I wasn't thinking about such a simple choice, I was picturing it in the overall course of game play: goblins are breeding in the mountains and worshipping some alien creature but there's a plot afoot in town, so what should we deal with? Something like that.

Yeah, in that context the objection would be fine, but, as I said, in that case I think the accidental revealing of contraband weapons just as the PCs came to the gate would be "one happenstance too far" for me. Just have a suspicious waggon entering as they approach - with weapons, or with an x% chance of weapons (rolled when the waggon is searched, to keep the GM from giving any "tells") - and leave it up to the players what to do about it.

 

[TheFindus]

A few points:

1. I don't want to have the responsibility to have to determine which NPC-NPC conflicts are relevant to the players. If the PCs are there then those conflicts are obviously relevant; if they're not, then I make a few rolls and let the NPCs soak up the consequences.

2. Sometimes the NPCs are PC resources (hirelings). Those NPC-NPC conflicts are always relevant to the PCs.

This does not explain why the dice rolls are necessary. It just describes which conflicts the DM thinks are relevant to the players. Which any DM will know if the conflict is played out at the table because he can see the reactions of the players/their PCs, knows their backgrounds and at least some of their motives etc.

3. I could have the PCs use their own skills or abilities in an NPC-NPC conflict but I want to keep action resolution on a more personal level.

As far as I understand this, by "personal level" you mean that the DM is playing the NPCs and the players the PCs, is this correct? If yes, then this is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the simple fact that the DM (and not the players) chooses to make all rolls for his NPCs. I am talking about the players influencing the outcome of the conflict through the use of their PCs abilities (the obvious being social skills, but maybe the use of force as well or other things). Now, there are situations in which PCs cannot influence the outcomes of NPC/NPC-conflicts.
But again, the question remains why a die roll is necessary to find out a plausible or believable result on a DM table. The roll could end up with any result on that table so why not just pick one without rolling? Why not mak something up on the fly that fits the development and the reactions of the PCs in this particular situation best? Why the need for more mechanics and tables, preptime and dicerolls when a narrative that takes the PC's involvement into account would do?

So let us say that there is a conflict between two NPCs that the PCs can only watch, have a vital interest in but cannot engage with because (just as one plausible example) they must not be detected at all costs (they are hiding somewhere to find out about this conflict). The conflict is resolved not through force but negotiation. I imagine you playstyle to go through with this as follows: a) you have a table that you roll on who wins the argument. Or b) you use an existing mechanism (just as one possible example: Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy, the higher result wins). The result does not matter to you, so you roll and narrate the result accordingly. Is my understanding correct?
If so: why not just pick a result from the table in a) or pick a winner in your head in b)? What is the added value? All I am seeing is more preptime with a) (and maybe b) because you would probably have to stat out the NPC) and more dice rolling a) and b).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, I didn't think so - I thought we were talking about whether player decisions made for their characters (either in the sense of 'advocating for' or in the sense of 'acting in the position of' their character) were fundamentally and, indeed, meaningfully different from choices made by the player either based on reading the GM for game advantage or essentially acting as a glorified random number generator.

I used to term "uninformed" over and over again. I said that in this hypothetical, the players were uninformed. I was commenting on whether or not their choice is meaningful (in that it has a significant effect on the fiction and/or game).

But, if you thought it was merely a semantic argument I guess I can see where the disagreement might have arisen.

You're completely correct that I'm talking about the definition of "meaningful" in our conversation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'd be really curious if Saelorn would examine my short DW play example above and scrutinize it for (a) player agency and (b) content generation...especially the generation of the conflict in the half-frozen bog.

Dungeon World makes me nauseous. It was difficult for me to read beyond the "Marking off 1 Adventuring Gear," line.

That being said, the example clearly demonstrates extra-character player agency and negotiated content generation. Whatever is out there that's "worse than a snow leopard" is out there because the character failed a check and the player decided that this potential consequence was preferable to possibly sinking in a thawed area.

Presumably, the player is fine with wielding this level of power, and that's why he or she agreed to play Dungeon World in the first place.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't see that that follows at all.

I know you don't.

Just because there are bad ways to GM does not mean that there is only one good way; there are a myriad ways to act well and to play football well, and yet there are most assuredly "bad actors" and "poor football players".

RPG play is nothing like football. What a terrible comparison.

So, you define "railroading" to include presenting the players with a situation and accepting any outcome from that situation that the resolution mechanisms of the game generate, if that situation was created by selecting the off-camera events leading to it by any means other than one that adheres strictly to your own aesthetic preferences?

Mkay.

If you don't want to read what I wrote, you don't have to. But I'm not going to give my thoughts on something when you're purposefully trying to restate what I've written very clearly. That's just a dick move.