D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't really understand what you mean by a "mandatory encounter". There is no law that obliged your GM to run this encounter, and no Paizo operative even figuratively, let alone literally, holding a gun to your GM's head.

There is a code of conduct, to which GMs hold themselves. Every one might be different, but they'll have certain things in common, and can be categorized into some broad groups. One (fairly common) code is to try and run everything as written, to the extent that doing so is possible for a single human reading a fairly complex technical document. The merits and flaws of that choice, I think, are obvious to both of us. Yet, some (many) GMs choose that path, and the issues which inevitably arise aren't so antithetical to me (as a player) that I would choose to drop the game entirely.

In this case, the mandatory encounter had a few possible outcomes: 1) Defeating the demon means we get the password, so we can confront the Big Bad and possibly succeed in our quest; 2) Failure to defeat the demon means that we're all dead, and the game ends before we confront the Big Bad; 3) Failure to engage the demon means that we cannot feasibly get to the Big Bad, and the evil agenda is accomplished shortly thereafter.

From what you've said about your style, upthread, you would have the demon eat the corpse, either killing or ignoring the sole PC, and hence the tomb-infiltration adventure would come to a peremptory end.

In my style, when creating the backstory for the setting, I would not include such a tomb to which only specific knowledge held by one individual is required for entrance, nor would I seal a location with plot-grade magic that cannot be removed by any combination of mortal sorcery or mundane lockpicking.

If I created a world in which the Big Bad is likely to conduct all important business from a secure location, such that the only way to save the world is to access that location, then there would probably be other trusted lieutenants from whom the password could be extracted, and the door would be susceptible to brute force (or it could be bypassed with teleportation, etc). The concept of a door which is not subject to brute force is laughable.

If the GM reads from boxed text "You hear X, and therefore decide to do Y, and arrive at place P, where you observe Q and therefore choose to do R, which has consequence A, etc" then the PCs are exercising agency within the world.

The players want agency within the world, via their PC avatars. The GM does not have the power to make decisions for the PCs, or compel them to action (aside from very limited magical effects).

 

[Hussar]

The players want agency within the world, via their PC avatars. The GM does not have the power to make decisions for the PCs, or compel them to action (aside from very limited magical effects)

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?429542-The-Best-Thing-from-4E/page123#ixzz3Xkc4pKcW

That would be wrong.

"Orcs break into your room and begin attacking. Roll for initiative"

"Rocks fall from the ceiling and this path is blocked, choose another path" is a pretty easy way to compel them to action.

"You try that and it fails" - another way. ((the easiest form of this is to simply pile on checks until the party inevitably fails))

"That action is very much out of keeping with your alignment. If you do that, it will have consequences".

I could keep going. There are a million and one ways for a DM to compel actions.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think that (a) and (b) are roughly in place for Gygaxian play (at least til you get to the point where players are ostensibly barred from reading the rulebook). I think they're in play to at least some extent for [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s game, too, but I don't know how much his players are privy to his content-generation tables.

But once we are talking about secret backstory, in the form of timelines, or random tables the payers aren't privy to, as well as NPCs of unknown and generally unknowable level (I'm thinking back to the notorious chamberlain and the court magicians protecting him), then I think (b) is out the window and mostly (a) as well.

At that point, it seems to me that the GM who protests that s/he has "clean hands" is like the player who writes up and CN or CE PC and then defends his/her disruptive play by saying "I'm just playing my alignment." The player needs to own up to his/her choices; and so, in my view, does the GM.

Very much so. This is where a table's (or GM's without the authority of the rest of the table) drifting of a ruleset meant for one mode of play to a differing mode pf play, due to an agenda slightly or wholly at odds with the original ruleset, will often get them in trouble. "Trouble" meaning it will frustrate them into quitting and/or using extra-system means, such as force or copious house-rules, to create their table experience (while likely infringing on one part of their agenda as they prioritize another...as is the case with AD&D illusionism which alleges to support tactical/strategic player agency while it actually prioritizes "the right to dream" tourism story and subordinates "step on up" gamism). This is also where rulesets who build an incoherent agenda into their experience, with no real focus and moving parts that are at odds with each other, will ultimately require much force (usually of the GM variety) to yield the table experience they're looking for. I wrote a few posts on this upthread but I can't recall if Saelorn responded.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Says you. I would counter that they want agency WITHIN THE WORLD.

Different priorities, though.

"IN THE GAME" "WITHIN THE WORLD", hard to see a difference between those phrases, TBH. I really can't say what you're trying to get at. Making decisions without knowing the consequences isn't agency, it may be interesting some of the time, and players don't need perfect agency of course, there ARE other considerations, as I've stated before, but its fair to say that if the game world is too opaque to the players they will have a hard time enjoying it, and that's mostly an agency issue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe think of it as a limit rather than a budget. I would posit that there is some limit, beyond which things are too silly for you to suspend disbelief. It might be high enough (in your case) that nobody is in danger of reaching it accidentally. It's definitely not a set amount, though; it would vary from person to person. And for some people, it's a lot lower than for others.

It would of course be ridiculous to argue that there aren't preferences that players have. Personally though, I think if people open up a bit they can enjoy a wide range of games. Certainly believability isn't a hard and fast requirement. I'm sure you've played in 'silly' RPGs of one sort or another. I've played in a LOT of rather unbelievable D&D games. The thing is, its the character that matters. You're not 'living a life' in a game, just exploring some aspects of life and personality.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"IN THE GAME" "WITHIN THE WORLD", hard to see a difference between those phrases, TBH.

A game is defined as a series of meaningful decisions. Roleplaying is the act of playing a role.

When you're acting in character, then you don't necessarily know what consequences your choices will lead to, but your choices still matter within the world. That's the level where the GM trying to put you into interesting situations is a violation of agency.

The types of meaningful decisions you describe are mostly constrained to the game level. Or rather, it seems that you would consider a decision to be meaningful if it operates on the game level, at least, though it may also operate on story level.

I'm saying that I consider a decision to be meaningful even if it only operates on the story level, and doesn't impact the game level at all (because the player doesn't know the consequences ahead of time). It has meaning within the world, even if it doesn't have meaning as a game​.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A game is defined as a series of meaningful decisions. Roleplaying is the act of playing a role.

When you're acting in character, then you don't necessarily know what consequences your choices will lead to, but your choices still matter within the world. That's the level where the GM trying to put you into interesting situations is a violation of agency.

I just disagree, there's no loss of agency involved in how the DM frames the situations the PCs find themselves in, unless such framing is directly subverting decisions and/or mechanical results. You seem to feel somehow that the ONLY input allowed into the fiction of the game is what the players decide to do. That is simply ridiculous to be frank. Just because the DM makes some decisions doesn't step on player agency, they don't own all the agency in the game! The DM is a participant as well, not just in the authoring of the world but in the playing of the game.

The types of meaningful decisions you describe are mostly constrained to the game level. Or rather, it seems that you would consider a decision to be meaningful if it operates on the game level, at least, though it may also operate on story level.

I don't see how a game-mechanical decision can have no impact on the story level. Can you give me an example of such a thing?

I'm saying that I consider a decision to be meaningful even if it only operates on the story level, and doesn't impact the game level at all (because the player doesn't know the consequences ahead of time). It has meaning within the world, even if it doesn't have meaning as a game​.

I'm mystified as to what the difference is here, I am PRIMARILY concerned with the narrative, not game mechanics. I want mechanics that don't interfere with, and actively support, interesting and fun narrative. They should allow the players to mechanically express narrative elements because, well, why not? If the mechanics DIDN'T support the narrative that you like, then there'd be no reason to use those mechanics! I mean they might be good from a purely gamist viewpoint, but in that case I'd think you'd adapt the narrative to them instead of vice versa, which for that agenda is fine.

Anyway, your definitions of force and meaning remain so incredibly idiosyncratic that it is really tough to even fathom what you're getting at sometimes. Its not 'force' just because the DM introduces something that didn't follow directly from a PC decision in the fiction, and its not 'meaningful' when a PLAYER makes an uninformed choice. Its possible for a character to be ignorant and not the player however. If you want to narrate characters taking blind guesses, this is usually the best way to do it from a purely narrativist standpoint. However, I think we all like a good game, and sometimes we DO enjoy a pure wager. However, I think its best if such wagers are made on throws of the dice, as its then more of a pure game. I don't think the game should mostly consist of that however, and its not inherently superior to other techniques. IMHO the fetishistic worship of 'natural process' just degrades the game, its overrated.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm mystified as to what the difference is here, I am PRIMARILY concerned with the narrative, not game mechanics.

Things that happen on the story level are different from things that happen on a narrative level. The story is just our report of what happens, within the world, when the characters do stuff. If the character goes to the store and buys some milk, then that's the story.

If a character chooses to go left instead of right, and finds a dead end instead of something interesting, then that decision is still meaningful on a story level because it informed what happened next. It might not be meaningful in the narrative sense, if it was entirely uninformed, but it's meaningful in terms of directing the story. If you go left, then you hit the dead end. Why? Because you went left. If you went right instead, you would have found something else.

Or maybe I'm just going back to my premise of the story as simulating a naturalistic world, free of narrative causality.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A game is defined as a series of meaningful decisions. Roleplaying is the act of playing a role.

When you're acting in character, then you don't necessarily know what consequences your choices will lead to, but your choices still matter within the world. That's the level where the GM trying to put you into interesting situations is a violation of agency.

Meh. Do you really want to play a character that nothing interesting ever happens to. Like a Luke Skywalker who never bumps into R2-D2 & C3PO or Ben Kenobi, and just works on moisture vaporators his whole life?

Also, if you do play a character who goes out in search of adventure, finds it, and ends up with some treasure and a great story to tell, how do you /know/ whether it was because of the decisions you made leading you to interesting situations, or the DM putting them in front of you?

You don't, right?

Wrong. If you had an interesting adventure and survived, the DM used some force, either that inherent in the game's assumptions, or in the more forge sort of sense. He put you in those situations, and the rules either slanted them enough in your favor relative to how they appeared for you to survive, or the DM did. You know that because you had an adventure and survived.

If you'd gotten what you said you wanted, you could have played through that character's entire life without ever finding a single dungeon stocked with weird monsters, cunning traps, and ancient treasure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Things that happen on the story level are different from things that happen on a narrative level. The story is just our report of what happens, within the world, when the characters do stuff. If the character goes to the store and buys some milk, then that's the story.

If a character chooses to go left instead of right, and finds a dead end instead of something interesting, then that decision is still meaningful on a story level because it informed what happened next. It might not be meaningful in the narrative sense, if it was entirely uninformed, but it's meaningful in terms of directing the story. If you go left, then you hit the dead end. Why? Because you went left. If you went right instead, you would have found something else.

Or maybe I'm just going back to my premise of the story as simulating a naturalistic world, free of narrative causality.

Again, I don't find your definitions to be in keeping with commonly understood meanings. 'story' and 'narrative' are IMHO synonymous. If the character's go down a dead end nothing happens, they might as well not have been given a dead end to go down at all, they just turn around and go back the other way. Its 'color' at best, there's no 'story' there that is worth even talking about, it has no real plot, there's no dramatic need being filled, no character progression, nothing. The DM can JUST AS WELL say "you wander around for a while in an almost maze-like area with several dead ends, searching produces no evidence of any other passages or other features, after an hour you arrive back at your starting point, the right hand way beckons..."

And note, there's no separate 'narrative causality' here. Its exactly the same as any other technique, except the DM is taking into account the narrative place of things, so that the story attains some pacing and stays close to a plotline of some sort. Now, perhaps the DM might, in 'Pemertonian' style decide that the dwarf is really interested in stonework and loves tricks and traps, so the maze actually has some false shifting walls and sloping passages. Unbeknownst to the party (or maybe not if they detect it) they end up on a lower level at a junction that LOOKS exactly like the one they passed before, but isn't... Pemerton might arrange this at the time the characters arrived at the original junction simply because he knew that what was already to the right wasn't something they would be too interested in. THAT you might call 'narrative causality' if you wish, though in the actual narrative the 'cause' will be the sloping passages and shifting walls.