Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7326973" data-attributes="member: 42582">A lot of the action here seems to be in the "And so on . . ."That seems to depende very heavily on GM decision-making to which the players don't have even in-principle cognitive access.OK, that's helps - I think we are using puzzle-solving in slightly different ways.I'll try to elaborate on what I'm getting at - it may or may not work!When I say the classic dungeon is a puzzle/maze for the players to solve and beat, I'm not meaning that it's like a Call of Cthulhu mystery. The players aren't trying to gather clues to lead the to a conclusion. Rather, it's a collection of good stuff (treasure) that can't be gained except by (i) winning some combats (against wandering monsters who can't be avoided, or against placed monsters), and (ii) avoiding/outwitting/etc various tricks/traps that get in the way of that (like secret doors, misleading architectural features, stuff that looks like treasure but is really cursed, etc).So, unlike (say) a murder mystery, there's no single goal - there are lots of sources of treasure in the dungeon - and there's no single solution - there can be many ways to beat the monsters, to avoid the traps, to work out how to turn the teleport portal into a help rather than a hindrance, etc.But the situation is relatively static over retries, so that the players can learn and improve. To the extent that the situation is not static, its path of evolution is itself knowable and can be turned into a component of a solution.A rotating room where the number of turns corresponds to the number of times the PCs have passed through a certain door would be an example of this. But a room where the number of turns corresponds to the number of creatures that have passed through a certain door, where that number is something the GM works out secretly for him-/herself wouldn't be knowable in the right sense - from the players's point of view it would just be random.The reason I doubt that a world/setting with a large and verisimilitudinous scope can provide a maze/puzzle in the same way is that nearly all the situations are evolving rather than static, and nearly all are evolving essentially in accordancde with GM fiat/extrapolation that is not knowable to the players - like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s "And so on . . ." - the players can't control or manipulate that. All they can do is take rather generic steps like concealing their camp and mounting a watch. Whether there are 5 or 20 ogres after them; whether the ogres are searching in the spot where the PCs are hiding; whether the ogres have tracker dogs with them or not; whether the ogres include a shaman-type who can cast Augury; etc - all these things are important parameters of the situation which are entirely under GM control (assuming a GM-worldbuilding approach) and which the players don't know and can't effectively learn in a way that makes it exploitable/manipulable information.Understood. What puzzles me about T1 (and I've just pulled out my copy to have a re-look at it) is the 9 or so pages devoted to spelling out its contents like a dungeon. Eg what is the point, in the play of the game, of being told (p 11 of my copy) that the Chief Priest's chamber is no. 14 on the amp of the church of St Cuthbert, and that there is a secret compartment under the mantlepiece with a 10000 gp jewelled neck ornament inside it?Is this really a dungeon, that the players are going to explore and loot? That seems completely unrealistic for 1st level PCs, given the level of some of the NPCs. But if the Chief Priest is intended to figure as a NPC quest giver, or as an element of backstory, then by all means tell us that he wears a magnificent neck ornament with a bejewelled cudgel hanging from it, but we don't need to know about his secret compartment, do we? Well, different people have different views as to what counts as a railroad.An interesting discussion came up in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?607662-Should-the-PCs-try-and-capture-the-NPC-starship" target="_blank">this thread</a>, which I had started to get some ideas on the current situation in my Classic Traveller game.When [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] started suggesting some ideas about how the players might try and infiltrate and take the NPC starship, [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] replied by explaining why - given various elements of the GM-authored backstory that he was imputing (not based on anything I'd said about my game, but based on his own intuitions, I think, plus maybe some 1980s Traveller sourcebooks) - chaochou's ideas wouldn't work.Derren kept saying that the players should look for more information. chaochou and I made the point that, in the context of a RPG, "looking for more information" means, in effect, making moves that will trigger the GM to read out/paraphrase/make up more backstory. And the point of this seemed as Derren was calling for it seemed to be, in effect, to channel the players towards Derren-as-GM's preferred resolution of the situation. (Ie finding the "right" answer for how to defeat the NPC conspiracy.)chaochou described this as a railroad, on the basis that the GM has already conceived of a correct series of outcomes, and the players can't succeed unless they go along with that preconception. The fact that the players can declare other actions is ultimately neither here nor there, given that those actions will fail (if Derren is GM) because Derren has already come up with, or is making up as he goes along, backstory which explains why they are impossible. I agree with chaochou on this.One exampe that was discussed in that thread: chaochou suggested the PCs fake a mayday in their starship, as the pretext for getting aboard the NPC ship in a non-suspicious way. Derren said that this would never work, due to naval/scout protocols, etc, etc. chaochou responded "Well, maybe the NPC captain was himself generously rescued as a young spacehand, and so has a disposition to respond sympathetically and very proactively to mayday signals." Derren retorted that the PCs couldn't know that, and should have to do more research (ie trigger the GM telling them more backstory) in order to learn it.My view is that what Derren is describing is at odds with the game as written (I'm using Classic Traveller 1977, in a 1978 printing, but adapting a few elements of the weapons table and starship construction and misjump rules from the 1980 revised edition). The game as written has a reaction table - so if the players (as their PCs) fake a mayday, the way we learn what the NPC captain does is to roll on the reaction table. If the captain is surprisingly enthusiastic (given that he's a naval or scout officer on a covert mission), well then that must mean that some conjecture along chaochou's lines is correct - there is something about the captain that makes him unexpectedly sympathetic to spacefarers in trouble. Conversely, if the reaction is hostile then Derren is correct - he is following protocols about not risking his ship by allowing strangers on board.That's my own view as to what makes a game not a railroad - that the action declarations of the players can change the significant outcomes. And as the example shows, I think it depends upon leaving significant parts of the backstory open-ended until the action is resolved, so that it can be fleshed out and given content that makes sense of the results of resolution.And to head off an anticipated retort from Lanefan - obviously backstory that has been established in play is established. So if the NPC captain is someone whom the PCs have already dealt with and made an enemy of, then the mayday plan is unlikely to work (assuming that the captain knows it is the PCs sending the distress call). I'm talking about the introduction of a new element (in this case, the NPC captain), into the fiction.Also, upthread I asked about how the players (via their PCs) could go about instigating conflict in a religious sect - not meaning "How could the PCs do this in the fiction?" but "How could the players do this at the table?" One way would be Derren's approach - the players declare lots of "moves" that trigger the referee telling them stuff from his/her backtory, until the "right" solution emerges - or perhaps they learn that it can't be done. I would think of that as a railroad.The other way would be the approach that I prefer, and that chaochou seems to prefer: the players declare actions (like searching through the libraries to find accounts of theological disputes; or taking particular individuals to dinner to sow rumours of discord; etc) and if these succeed (based on the standard resolution procedures - if a game doesn't have these, then obviously my method can't work!) then the PCs learn about the disputes, get the rumours circulating, etc and achieve their goal of causing rifts in the sect.</blockquote>

Verification