The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[billd91]

I am not sure why you think a successful intimidation check leading to an interrogation in 5E would make 5E players flip out.

I see you're new here (here meaning ENWorld, the internet, discussions about D&D...).

 

[Reynard]

(This is not helped by the fact there's a strong current in trad game culture to consider challenging a GM on things like this a faux pas) .

Is there? I don't know any GMs like that. Most of the GMs I know are so busy with all the balls their juggling that they appreciate it if a player brings up a misinterpreted ruling in good faith. I know I offload as much rule checking as is practical on the players, especially the ones waiting for their turn or otherwise not immediately doing something else. It keeps everyone engaged, keeps the game moving, and frees me up to do the important work of targeting the gnome. Again.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is there?

If you haven't seen that, you're extremely fortunate. You'll see people hopping on to fora and the like to bitch about it regularly, and I've seen people act like it was an act of lese majestie. Its particularly common in the D&D sphere, but it exists well eslewhere.

I don't know any GMs like that. Most of the GMs I know are so busy with all the balls their juggling that they appreciate it if a player brings up a misinterpreted ruling in good faith. I know I offload as much rule checking as is practical on the players, especially the ones waiting for their turn or otherwise not immediately doing something else. It keeps everyone engaged, keeps the game moving, and frees me up to do the important work of targeting the gnome. Again.

"In good faith" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this paragraph. There are any number of GMs who are unwilling to assume that's what's happening there, or consider the interruption in speed and flow unacceptable even if it is.

 

[Mannahnin]

If I ran 5e in the someway as I run Apocalypse World the players would rightfully freak out. Like as a hard move for a player character pulling a gun on the leader of the territory they are in who fails their go aggro roll I can precede right to the next scene of them being interrogated, surrounding by that leader's men.

Do something like that in D&D and most players would flip out. I know because I have done it and seen the response.

We just do not tend to see the constraints we are used to as real constraints.

How do you mean? What things happen in a PbtA game that would make 5E players "freak out"? Moreover, whoa re these "5E players" you are speaking of?

I am not sure why you think a successful intimidation check leading to an interrogation in 5E would make 5E players flip out.

I think you've misunderstood. I believe in Campbell's example the player failed their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in. And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.

I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you've misunderstood. I believe in Campbell's example the player failed their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in. And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.

I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.

Yeah. Honestly, most players will assume they can throw one solution after another at a problem until they're satisfied, and even if none of them work they'll often resent being put in the situation at all. In other games, that sort of result is just assumed to be part of the price of doing business.

 

[Reynard]

I think you've misunderstood. I believe in Campbell's example the player failed their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in. And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.

I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.

Gotcha. I did in fact misunderstand. And in this case, I do think most trad players would balk, with good reason. I think most trad players would prefer to play out the consequences of that failure, rather than be told the story of what happened.

I don't care for some core conceits of PbtA games (as I have enumerated) so I don't have much experience with them (I played Dungeon World once and tried to run Monster of the Week once) so I admit I could be wrong, but it seems to me the goal is "to tell a story" as opposed to letting one emerge. I don't want to be told a story and I don't want to tell my players a story.

This goes back to the core component of this thread. I want to discover the story with the players, and upon choosing a system I want that system to be the mechanism of that discovery alongside the input of all the participants.

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't care for some core conceits of PbtA games (as I have enumerated) so I don't have much experience with them (I played Dungeon World once and tried to run Monster of the Week once) so I admit I could be wrong, but it seems to me the goal is "to tell a story" as opposed to letting one emerge. I don't want to be told a story and I don't want to tell my players a story.

This goes back to the core component of this thread. I want to discover the story with the players, and upon choosing a system I want that system to be the mechanism of that discovery alongside the input of all the participants.

To be fair, I think that example Campbell gave is still letting a story emerge. If the player had passed the check, presumably his intimidation attempt would have worked, and the emergent story wouldn't have involved the PCs being interrogated.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, I think that example Campbell gave is still letting a story emerge. If the player had passed the check, presumably his intimidation attempt would have worked, and the emergent story wouldn't have involved the PCs being interrogated.

Yes. While I have issues with PbtA, its not a top-down "tell a story" game; its an interactive "tell a story" game. Its very much emergent. Its just very big into cutting out what the design ethic considers the cruft of trad games in getting to that aim. One of the consequences is that a single roll embodies a lot of things that would involve many more rolls in most trad games, because they don't find that extra process option valuable.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you've misunderstood. I believe in Campbell's example the player failed their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in. And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.

I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.

Indeed.

It's not the end-result outcome that would be at issue, but rather the (lack of) level of detail and perceived arbitrariness in jumping straight to said outcome without any intervening play and-or opportunities for the players/PCs to change their situation (for better or worse!). Further, the jump as written assumes none of the PCs act independently (e.g. to try to escape, or to suicide-rush a guard to cause a distraction so others might escape, etc.) and that they are all captured en bloc.

 

[Mannahnin]

Indeed.

It's not the end-result outcome that would be at issue, but rather the (lack of) level of detail and perceived arbitrariness in jumping straight to said outcome without any intervening play and-or opportunities for the players/PCs to change their situation (for better or worse!). Further, the jump as written assumes none of the PCs act independently (e.g. to try to escape, or to suicide-rush a guard to cause a distraction so others might escape, etc.) and that they are all captured en bloc.

Right. It's reliant on the players understanding the potential consequences of blowing the roll and giving (what I understand to be) a Hard Move to the GM.

When the player decides to whip out a gun in that situation, he and the group presumably know the potential level of consequence. He's escalating the situation considerably.