Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6594775" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Well, welcome to the great debate!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 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.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.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 my RPG, it'd be a straight Wisdom check, if it was appropriate.I checked, and essentially, yes, a roll on a table.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).That probably is a major difference, yep.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.Neither do I, but for probably different reasons (since it's not a freeze-frame scene at all).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.)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).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).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.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?Wrong. Just so wrong it hurts.</blockquote>

Verification