what is an example of unexpected stuff that no one would just choose here and now, if left to their own devices?
And it's not a gotcha. I'm just puzzled by claim.
Not pemerton so I can't speak for him, but one difference between 'choosing stuff [that happens]' and 'choosing to do stuff' might include characters feeling a certain way or knowing certain things but not acting on it.
Surely you can see that anything the player chooses to happen, by definition was chosen by the player. So such choices cannot ever be truly unexpected or surprising. They are an internal, not an external, factor.
I'm not
@pemerton either, but, to quote Vincent Baker, it's "things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create" -- "outcomes that upset
every single person at the table." It's "things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject." I hope that helps.
Here's an example, from Rolemaster play, that I just posted in another thread:
in one of my long-running RM campaigns, one of the high-level mage PCs had a romantic partner who was a Mystic in the RM parlance, which meant that (inter alia) she could shapechange herself and others.
<snip>
the romantic partner was cut in half by a single blow from a rogue Sword Demon that another PC, also a high level mage, had summoned but lost control of. That was a sad moment. It also triggered the use of the Depression Crit and addiction rules
Left to our own devices, no one at the table would have chosen that the romantic partner was cut in two by a single blow from the rogue demon. It was too horrible, especially because the PC in question had already gone through a terrible arc of degradation and hopelessness, which had come to an end when (at one particular low point), he was rescued by the NPC (who had been spying on him, and thus had the opportunity to rescue him) and the two fell in love. Her dying in any fashion brought the PC's apparent change in fortune to and end; it was all the worse because the PC summoner, whose rogue demon did the killing, had been dominant over and manipulating of the suffering PC during the prior period of despair. The PC's recover by way of love had, to an extent at least, liberated him from the summoner PC's grip; now the summoner PC had (indirectly, via his rogue demon) restored the circumstances (utter sorrow and despair) that restored that grip.
So, as I say, that's something that no one at the table would have chosen, out of sympathy for the player of the suffering PC
and sympathy for his character. But it happened, because that's what the mechanics (in this case, in particular, the crit mechanics) dictated.
Another example is one that I've already pasted in this thread:
With the morning mist rolling in, it was time to clean out the innkeeper's cash box.
<snip>
Aedhros entered the room at this point, with Heart-seeker drawn and ready for it to live up to its name.
<snip>
[The GM] insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder. This failed, and so I hesitated for 4 actions. Handily, that is the casting time for Persuasion, and so Alicia "told" Aedhros not to kill the innkeeper. The casting check succeeded, but the Tax check was one success against an obstacle of 4. With only 1 Forte left, that was 3 Tax which would be 2 overtax, or an 8-point wound, which would be Traumatic for Alicia. But! - the Tax check also was the final check needed for her Forte 3 to step up to Forte 4 (wizard's get lots of juicy Forte checks because of all their Tax - in this case from the three spells cast), which made the overtax only 1, or a 4-point wound which was merely Superficial. Still, she collapsed unconscious.
Aedhros opened the strongbox and took the cash. We agreed that no check was required; and given his Belief that he can tolerate Alicia's company only because she's broken and poor, and given that it aggravates his Spite to suffer her incompetence in fainting, he kept all the money for himself. He then carried out the unconscious Alicia (again, no check required). He also took the innkeeper's boots, being sick of going about barefoot. But he will continue to wear his tattered clothes.
Aedhros enters the innkeeper's room, intent on murdering him. The Steel check drive home the sense of what is happening here - me (Aedhros), black metal long-knife in hand, looking down at the inn-keeper in his bed. The failed roll, and resulting hesitation, doesn't "yank me out of my immersion". It reinforces the sense of being there, hesitating to commit such a terrible deed.
Left to my own devices, I would not have had Aedhros hesitiate: I, playing Aedhros, was intent on murdering the innkeeper. The GM, left to his own devices, wouldn't have stipulated that I (that is, Aedhros) hesitate, and thus give Alicia the necessary time to use a Persuasion spell against me (that is, Aedhros): there is no provision in the rules for that, and even if the rules were completely freeform it would be a type of "playing favourites". And for more-or-less the same reasons, left to our own devices we wouldn't have had Alicia collapse from the Tax of her spellcasting. The intersection of failures in ability to follow through on desire is not something that anyone at the table would have chosen.
Here's a third example, also from Burning Wheel. Like the Aedhros example it also involves failure, which in the context of Burning Wheel should be no surprise because on a success in BW the PC succeeds at the task and achieves the intent that their player specified for them, and so the outcome
is something that someone (ie the player) would have chosen. But unlike either of the previous two examples, it doesn't involve despair or degradation on the part of the PCs:
My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.
At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.
Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.
<snip>
Friedrich took them as far as the next tributary's inflow - at that point the river turns north-east, and the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Relationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)
There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but you, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.
I don't know what we would have chosen, as the events that occurred in Auxol when Thurgon returned there, with Aramina, keeping any eye out for his family members. I'm pretty confident, though, that it wouldn't have been what actually happened. No one would have wanted to break Rufus: for the GM, Rufus was his NPC he'd introduced in service to "the master"; and for me, Rufus was Thurgon's brother with whom he was hoping to be reunited. And as a player I don't think I would have chosen for Aramina to be so nasty (or at least pointed) at the end, except for what the mechanics had already delivered up. And it was the mechanical result that gave the GM licence to choose to make Rufus so hostile towards Aramina.
Here's Vincent Baker's account of what is going on in these sorts of instances of RPGing:
As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create. And it's not that you want one person's wanted, welcome vision to win out over another's . . . what you want are outcomes that upset every single person at the table. You want things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject. . . .
The challenge facing rpg designers is to create outcomes that every single person at the table would reject, yet are compelling enough that nobody actually does so. . . .
An interesting part of this challenge is judging the threshhold of your target audience. When I play with Emily and Joshua, you can kick us in the [freaking] face and we'll abide by it, if it's even a little compelling. When I play with Emily and Meg, give us even a little shove and it had better be damned compelling, or you've lost us. How punishing is your vision, and how much of your audience are you prepared to sacrifice?
I have friends I play RPGs with who won't play Burning Wheel, because they regard it as too punishing. But they'll play other RPGs that can still treat the PCs pretty harshly! So I think it's not just about
degree of punishment, but
dimension of punishment and/or
tone of punishment - eg
when we played Wuthering Heights pretty bad stuff happened to the PCs, that none of us would have chosen (one died early in the session, and was played for the rest of the session as a ghost; the other brought the session to an end by burning himself alive in his bookshop, with the suicide instigated in part by the PC ghost); but it's a light-hearted game that (at least as I experienced it) doesn't draw one into the emotional life of the characters in the way that Burning Wheel does.
