Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheFindus" data-source="post: 6594191" data-attributes="member: 75791">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.A few questions and remarks to clarify this for me, if that is ok: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 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'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.I see this as a freeze-frame-scene: why is the girl more persistent than the other beggars? What purpose does this serve other than to serve as a clue (we are in a detective scenario, after all). 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? In 4E, an Insight roll (maybe Streetwise?) would be in order. Maybe in [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] 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"). A roll on a table, however, deprotagonizes the player, because it is based on just a random roll without any influence on the player(PC part. Then again, maybe a "say yes" approach was used.That said, as the play example does not say who rolled, there does not have to be adifference in play styles because in [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]'s game the player could have also rolled for his PC's ablities. Then there would be no differences at all in playstyles, if you ask me. You can also "say yes" in any style, really.Who checked if the PCs had to wait? Was this done with 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 advantage of this approach being that it is all about what the players want the game to be about: maybe they like to play detective stories and built their PCs accordingly and want to use those skills. But as this could have been done in [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]'s game as well, there might not be a difference in playstyles worth mentioning.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. This would not happen in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'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?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). 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. 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. 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?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"? 4E offers a skill rolls, skill challenges and a clear fail forward approach.Where is the advantage of the naturalistic playstyle?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. 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). And that would not happen in a narrative/gamist game.</blockquote>

Verification