Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7354135" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, the DM doesn't decide the moves that are sufficient.  The DM sets some of the fictional positioning required, yes, but not the moves.  If the players take a hostage and ransom the map from the others, they can go get the map and the players never have to be in the study.  There's a difference between establishing a bit of the necessary fictional positioning and dictating the only moves (action declaration + fictional positioning) that can achieve the goal.I'm rather confused as to why you decided it was helpful to fisk my example.  Are you looking for a similar fisking of your examples where someone tells you the obivous things rather than focusing on bits that are interesting?As for relating bits of pre-established backstory, I had no backstory as to how the orcs would respond to a parley attempt, as I did not make such notes or prepare for that eventuality.  I set the minimum situation for a combat because that's the hard thing to prep in 5e, and the players chose to engage a different option than combat, so, at that point, I was 'off script' and reacting to player action declarations for the parley attempt.Why is it not framing, as the players change their fictional positioning?  How is this different from an invisible opponent?  Note that this information was provided in response to action declarations that changed the characters' fictional positioning and wasn't used to negate any action declarations.  In effect, the players declared an action that I agreed to without using the mechanics and then I introduced a new complication that they could then engage.  I don't see how the fact that I wrote it down earlier would have changed anything.  Also, the DC for spotting the trap was low enough that only extremely reckless action by the players would have failed to notice it well before it became a threat to them.  It was literally set dressing -- a terrain feature on the encounter map to possibly provide dynamic play during combat by both sides and not a secret lurking to trap players.  My 'notes' said that the traps were obvious to all who approached from a distance that would allow easy avoidance.The players set them with their goal of engaging in trade with the orcs.  The orcs were known to be hostile creatures who fight at the drop of a hat, so the stakes were obvious:  success moved towards the players trading with the orcs, failure moved towards a fight.Hmm.  I suppose if I wrote that down, sure, but I decided it on the spot.  The orcs upped the ante because the players had failed a roll.  The player was wondering if they should engage this action because it seemed fishy to them, so they made an insight check and the result was that the orc was pushing for individual gain in classic bully manner, a result that was presented because the check succeeded.  A failure would have provided a different answer, likely that the orc required a bribe in order for the parley to continue.Yup.Yup.I'm not sure what you think the difference is.  The players established there was a warboss and that they could achieve their goals if they found him.  I agreed with this and provided some new, made up in response, fiction to do so that also pointed to new challenges.Nope.  The characters were aware of the orcs in the keep and could see them, so it was part of the framing.  The stealth check was made specifically to keep the orcs in the keep from noticing the characters.  The check failed, and the orcs investigated.  The players had choices on what to do and chose to remain hidden, which, since it didn't counter the orc move to investigate, escalated the situation as the orcs moved closer and may now discover the hidden characters.It was more transition narration to move to the new scene of the dungeons below the keep.  I didn't play this out, I narrated it.The traps were initially to stop intruders, but the reasons for the traps changed due to player comments to separating the orcs from each other.  The players changed the fictional reasons for the traps to exist at all through their play.The stairs were blocked in my notes, yes, as I had also prepared an encounter map of the dungeons below the keep and the inhabitants were not allies of the orcs, so it made sense to have a barricade between the two.  The fictional reason for the barricade changed, even though the existence of it did not.The entire point, I thought, of your complaints about secret backstory was that is was pre-authored ficiton and it could be used to thwart player action declarations.  Backstory that was presented as framing, even if prepared, and made known to the players was acceptable.  Yet you've repeatedly commented that the notes employed, despite not thwarting player actions or even being secret (almost everything was known to players and the few things that weren't were trivially discovered and made known before having an impact), are pre-authored, secret backstory.  It seems your goalposts are shifting, but I'm not sure as you may have just failed to make your points clear.If I had to guess, what you mean is 'secret backstory is stuff the DM does that prevents players from introducing new fiction.'  I say this as you seem very dismissive of play that doesn't have the players telling the DM new fiction.  That's coherent, but not in line with many of your previous statements -- or, rather, your previous statements do not say this but also don't preclude it.They have staked their achieving their goal of establishing peaceful trade with the orcs on finding the fate of the warboss.  I say fate because they now believe that the warboss was killed by the inhabitants of the dungeon after having to retreat from a fight was was going poorly for them (mostly due to very bad dice).  They have stated they believe the warboss was killed, but plan to return to the dungeon after resting to recover any remains, as they want to follow through with their promise to find the warboss.  Since I had no notes on the warboss, and had not decided his fate, I'm planning to go with the warboss indeed being killed by the inhabitants below and his body recoverable once they overcome the challenge currently blocking them.  The orcs have already agreed to these stakes, so I'm not going to renege that.  Not that I considered doing so at all, that's not my style to renege on deals established in play unless the players take actions that cause such (like being themselves untrue to the deal and that being known to the other party), but I wanted to make it clear.</blockquote>

Verification