D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[Balesir]

The situation where a PC encounters a powerful demon eating a corpse is entirely something that could happen in a game I run. It's just that, since I have no way to ensure that situation actually happens (without violating my role as neutral arbiter), the entire plot isn't going to hinge on that encounter.

I can't think of any variety of RPG (apart from a most extreme type of "railroad" in which the players have literally no freedom of action) in which the encounter could be ensured. A more serious objection, however, is that the "entire plot can only hinge on that encounter" only if the outcome of the encounter is fixed. That would be the very definition of "railroading" that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is using, and I doubt anyone here would disagree with the label for an encounter with only one possible outcome, regardless what the PCs do.

The vast majority of NPCs are not going to influence the story, one way or another, because the first thing that most people do in any situation is nothing, and one of the common traits shared by PCs (and important NPCs) is that they actually do stuff.

There's another decision point with no "real world" (by which I mean "game world as if real", not - neccessarily - the real real world...) analogue. By deciding who are the "important NPCs" you are arbitrarily selecting subsets of what could happen to form what will happen. By doing this, the GM is quite literally "contriving the world".

The DM should avoid protagonizing the PCs, because the players already do a good job of doing that.

It has to be two-way, I think. Players can't protagonise their PCs unless the GM lets them; the GM can't create protagonist PCs unless the players play them as protagonists. That applies to all styles and agendas, IME.

Yes, the difference is entirely in how the GM decides what will happen.

OK

It's an arbitrary choice only in that it is a binding decision by an arbiter, not in that the decision is made without logic or reason; the decision should make sense to anyone in that situation, and not feel random.

But this latter part is not unique to any style or agenda; it applies to all, surely? What happens feeling plausible and "making sense" (which I find is often a BS descriptor regardless, but nevertheless...) is just a given. Of course, what "makes sense" to different people differs - which can lead to some issues - and the range of what might be plausible is almost infinite (even though it excludes a great deal - and, yes, this is (mathematically) possible).

The naturalistic GM decides that the events which happen will be the events that would otherwise occur if the world was a real place, conforming to known details of that world (not subject to narrative causality). Imagine what's going on in the world, on a typical day.

The problem is that this is (a) stochastic and (b) immeasurably wide in its possible expressions. There is vast scope, within what might happen in such a world, for both interesting and uninteresting possibilities. Picking only to play out the interesting possibilities seems to me to be (a) only sensible, (b) almost inevitable, if the game is to become or remain engaging at all, with at the least something of interest potentially engaging the characters, and (c) inevitably contrived, since even picking a relatively boring possibility is a selection from an infinite number of possibilities.

An easy tip for making the world feel more realistic (less story-y) is to avoid all unlikely events. While it's certainly more realistic for some unlikely events to happen, unlikely events are also highly noticeable to players, and can make the world seem more contrived than it actually is.

Ah, this is interesting. So the aim appears to be to use the players' availability heuristic to make it appear that everything here is "normal"? But one good reason that the real world feels as if "unlikely stuff happens" - apart from that it really does - is that the availability heuristic is an illusion. For example, far, far fewer radical students become political activists or charity CEOs than become office workers.

A more advanced technique would be to imagine the most likely complication to any event, and then roll a die to determine randomly if that complication shows up.

Which comes back to picking which unlikely events will happen, again. "Most likely" is seldom something we have any data on, so heuristics kick in. And we end up with a contrived world that is based on our own set of heuristics. This can work OK (even though it is strictly an illusion) if all at the table share pretty much the same heuristic parameters. I, for one, however, would find many or most worlds modelled purely on heuristic "likelihood" both obvious and irritating. You might, of course, manage to stick purely to those heuristics that I both use and am unaware of using, but that would be either insanely lucky or infeasibly skilful

 

[Balesir]

One reason why I as a GM might decide to roll the dice to see what happens in a conflict between two NPCs would be because I didn't have any particular preference for what should and am therefore amenable to either result turning up.

Which is a perfectly fine and (IME) normal reason. But it seems tangential to the question, which was "Why is this bouncyness necessary for the PCs to ride in to save the day?" (my emphasis), not "Why might you be interested in adding rolls to see how NPC interactions work out?"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Which comes back to picking which unlikely events will happen, again. "Most likely" is seldom something we have any data on, so heuristics kick in. And we end up with a contrived world that is based on our own set of heuristics. This can work OK (even though it is strictly an illusion) if all at the table share pretty much the same heuristic parameters.

Of course it's based on whatever heuristic the GM is using. What else could it possibly be based on?

Both "contrived" and "illusion" have special meaning in this discussion, which don't apply here. The events are only contrived in as far as they're meant to be the logical outcome of the honestly chosen heuristic. They're contrived in that the GM is choosing to invoke a best guess at natural world expression, rather than taking narrative drama into account. In that way, it is not an illusion as has been discussed up-thread. It's just the GM trying as hard as possible to not be biased - which is an unattainable ideal, in much the same way that a human cannot generate a truly random sequence of numbers, but setting out with that goal in mind will get you a result that is close enough for all practical purposes.

 

[Balesir]

I think a lot depends on how the DM decides to frame the situation in option 3. If it was the result of choices the players made previously - in a skill challenge, let's say - then I think the case can be made that the players had agency. If it's out of the blue then I think you're leaning more towards railroading - I think it'd be better to have a scene that leads into the situation at the gate, even if it's just some rumours from an NPC.

On a couple of levels this puzzles me.

1) I can't easily see what possible "skill challenge" might lead to the PCs coincidentally turning up at the city gate as a chance revelation of a situation of which they had no inkling played out. How would they possibly set about contriving that within the fiction? They are being taken to come accross the scene by happenstance, not by some conscious decision of their own, or even by some design of another (although that might be an intriguing possibility!)

2) How does "agency" enter into it? In the sense that the players have the freedom to act, that is true in either case (they can remain in ignorance and go about their business or they can choose what to do about the revealed weapons and the fleeing driver). But if we are talking about "agency" in the sense of "freedom to act so as to either precipitate this specific encounter or avoid it" then they have none, either way. "Freedom to act" on something of which you are completely unaware is utterly nonsensical - you lack the capacity to act because part of such capacity is some possibility of incentive, which requires knowledge.

As to the incorporation of "rumours" - how is it any different to decide that, by happenstance, the PCs come accross rumours than it is to decide that they come accross the "accidental discovery" event playing out?

 

[TheFindus]

One reason why I as a GM might decide to roll the dice to see what happens in a conflict between two NPCs would be because I didn't have any particular preference for what should and am therefore amenable to either result turning up. I'd also suggest that it's a useful technique if you want to avoid playing the GM's story; if you can't know how things will work out - because the dice may not cooperate - then it's a lot less likely that you'll be tempted to adjust other things to ensure your preferred results are what get delivered. And frankly, I like to be surprised as a GM and rolling for what happens between two NPCs can lead to that.

I still do not see the use in rolling a die in this way and for this reason: if a conflict between two NPCs is relevant to the players/PCs than I would rather let them influence the outcome *because* the conflict is relevant to them. If the outcome of the conflict is not relevant to the players/the PCs then the conflict is only color and the DM can just choose any plausible outcome without having to consult a table (which needs to be made beforehand, which requires preptime etc.). Also, why waste valuable playtime on the resolution of a conflict that the players/PCs are not interested in in the first place? Why spend much time on such a conflict at all? A conflict whose outcome can be randomized in the way you describe does not seem to be worth the word "conflict" in my opinion.

 

[Bluenose]

Which is a perfectly fine and (IME) normal reason. But it seems tangential to the question, which was "Why is this bouncyness necessary for the PCs to ride in to save the day?" (my emphasis), not "Why might you be interested in adding rolls to see how NPC interactions work out?"

Sometimes when PCs ride in to save the day, it's too late, or it's already been saved/didn't need saving. And while sometimes I want the PCs to have the opportunity, sometimes it's fun to see them figuring out what to do when they're not in time. PCs whose plans aren't working out as expected often do interesting things, in the Chinese sense of interesting.

 

[Balesir]

Of course it's based on whatever heuristic the GM is using. What else could it possibly be based on?

That's my point - we are talking about the difference between two heuristics, here. Like all heuristics, they are not true models of the situation, they are merely vague rules of thumb. The difference appears to be that one is claimed to be a (sufficiently) true model of the situation while the other is not - it is just claimed to be fun. The second of these I find to be a tolerably plausible claim.

Both "contrived" and "illusion" have special meaning in this discussion, which don't apply here. The events are only contrived in as far as they're meant to be the logical outcome of the honestly chosen heuristic. They're contrived in that the GM is choosing to invoke a best guess at natural world expression, rather than taking narrative drama into account. In that way, it is not an illusion as has been discussed up-thread. It's just the GM trying as hard as possible to not be biased - which is an unattainable ideal, in much the same way that a human cannot generate a truly random sequence of numbers, but setting out with that goal in mind will get you a result that is close enough for all practical purposes.

"Illusion" I will agree is superficially similar to "illusionism", which has a specific meaning in this thread which the sort of illusion I am talking about is not related to. Nevertheless there is no better explanation of the way we tend to think of heuristics as accurate than to describe the assumed situation as an illusion.

"Contrived", however, I think I am using in precisely the same way as it is being used in general. Some individual contrives to make something the case in the fiction. In this case, the GM contrives either to make the fictional situation dramatic or to make it comply with the range of heuristics that we fondly imagine to represent "realistic" or "naturalistic" situations or turns of events. This second state is no less contrived than the first, and with just as scant support from any objective reality.

 

[Balesir]

Sometimes when PCs ride in to save the day, it's too late, or it's already been saved/didn't need saving. And while sometimes I want the PCs to have the opportunity, sometimes it's fun to see them figuring out what to do when they're not in time. PCs whose plans aren't working out as expected often do interesting things, in the Chinese sense of interesting.

All granted - but that still doesn't speak at all to the original question. It answers the alternative question I gave (again), but that (still) wasn't the original question.

 

[TheFindus]

Of course it's based on whatever heuristic the GM is using. What else could it possibly be based on?

Both "contrived" and "illusion" have special meaning in this discussion, which don't apply here. The events are only contrived in as far as they're meant to be the logical outcome of the honestly chosen heuristic. They're contrived in that the GM is choosing to invoke a best guess at natural world expression, rather than taking narrative drama into account. In that way, it is not an illusion as has been discussed up-thread. It's just the GM trying as hard as possible to not be biased - which is an unattainable ideal, in much the same way that a human cannot generate a truly random sequence of numbers, but setting out with that goal in mind will get you a result that is close enough for all practical purposes.

I understand that "neutrality" is the leading goal here. What I do not understand is what the added value of this is. What does it bring to the game table that any DM picking something plausible without consulting a table but instead focussing on what is the players/PCs clear story focus does not?
So you have a table with 20 different scenes for entering a city and number 17 is a fallen cart of hay with hidden weapons. You roll a d20 and 17 comes up. What is different from just picking 17 without rolling but knowing - based on your knowledge about the players taste, their PC constructs and backstory etc. - that this result will be interesting to them while number 2 (guards controlling travellers with not much going on) will not?
Why roll a d20 at all if the players have clearly stated that they are *not* interested in any scenes outside the city because they want to spent the session finding out about the death of one of the PCs mother within the city?

 

[TheFindus]

Sometimes when PCs ride in to save the day, it's too late, or it's already been saved/didn't need saving. And while sometimes I want the PCs to have the opportunity, sometimes it's fun to see them figuring out what to do when they're not in time. PCs whose plans aren't working out as expected often do interesting things, in the Chinese sense of interesting.

I agree. But that is what the failing forward technique is for. You still do not need to prepare a table in advance and roll on it. Less preptime, same result?