Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7405447" data-attributes="member: 6778044">See, this is where you keep losing me. My assertion is that it should be at the player's/character's behest and actions that the skill come into play and have an impact, and you're telling me that not only is it the GM's job, but my approach in giving you the control is a burden on your player agency.It's absolutely to create a moment of importance in the game. Except that I think that moment should be driven by you.A figure approaches in the night, probably drawn by the light of your fire. Now as a GM I can make the figure act in a hostile manner, or timid manner, or all sorts of things. I tend to start with an unknown state where possible. So if the circumstances allow you to see the figure before he acts, then you have a decision to make.How you (and your companions, if awake) react to the figure immediately sets the stage. It's not my job to determine whether you act in a hostile manner, grabbing your sword and yelling to the figure to, "move on, there's nothing of value here," or to stand up, beckon over and say, "we have nothing of value here, save some fine wyvern stew. Let's share the fire and food for the night and whatever our normal inclinations are, we can share safety tonight and part tomorrow as friend or foe as you desire."To me, all of that should be driven by you, not me. That's what I consider a traditional so-called "GM driven" game. Well, sort of. I find that all too often, GMs are focused on "combat encounters" and the figure would approach in a threatening manner, or simply ambush the PCs, rather than leaving it open for interpretation. Instead, I might start with, "you see a figure, running toward you, sword drawn." My players understand that what I'll describe is the first impression, and just the facts. In this case, only what they can see, as the figure is hundreds of yards away. If one of the character's perception is high, or they ask, I would probably elaborate a little more, saying his sword is held low, and your impression is that he's not necessarily being aggressive.Where I, as the GM, would have influence here is in the world-building. Something I probably would have told you before, but would remind you specifically, that in this world of dangers, it is customary to set aside ones differences for the safety and comfort of the fire, and that it is a great insult to bring harm, or threaten to bring harm, to one's generosity, and that the law of the land allows one to defend themselves, to the death, when such an act occurs.What I don't do is, "A figured approached in the night, sword drawn, but you determined that he was frightened, not hostile. So, according to the customs of your land, you invited him to share some stew and the safety of the fire for the night." Where's the player agency in that?It's far from just color. And your skills would help improve your chances when rolling (including the use of passive skills), for reactions and interactions with others who share your wonderful food. It's a skill that can have many uses. As I said, it extends beyond just the cooking. In a town or city, I'd expect you might use your knowledge to strike up a conversation with a cook, a merchant, or a halfling, as an aid to interactions that might lead to other benefits, such as what's the Lord's favorite food, or what ale does the guard like best. In which case you can use that information when you approach the guard at his post, a mug in hand (and handcasks in the back of your wagon), and approach while having an obvious disagreement with your companion, "do you believe it, he insists that Arabel Ale is better than Berdusk Dark?" Eventually leading to getting him to sample several fine ales and stouts for his informed opinion, and access to the keep.All of that would be the PC utilizing their skills, not me doing it for them. With my world-building approach, I'd know that the custom is to share the safety of one's camp, and to part in safety until out of sight (from published materials). That the man has a homestead nearby (invented on the spot, although I know there are homesteads in this region of the north). The man is frightened because his family is missing, and his barn has significant damage to one wall (made up, although I know that hill giants and ogres are common in these parts, because I noted that earlier). He will welcome your food, he has been running for over an hour. All of this "engages" your skills and instincts, but only if you act upon them. If you see the figure running up with sword drawn initially, and choose to believe he's hostile, and your companion shoots a warning shot with a bow and tells him to come no further until you know their purpose, then he might not view you as a potential friend, and won't tell you of his plight. Or maybe you turn it around with your demeanor ("oh, don't mind Oleg, he's been skittish ever since that third ogre today" as I offer him some stew, "what brings you out alone in such a dangerous place at night?")To answer the last question - all the time. I can't possibly describe everything the PCs see, and in many cases don't describe everything because a person doesn't "see" everything when they walk into a room. It is extremely common for me to respond directly to those types of questions. With a yes, no or maybe. In fact, one of the things I tell them outright at session 0, and remind them regularly, are things like:I don't use miniatures (because I sold most of mine, and don't have time for another hobby) or battle mats. When using a map, it's a rough guideline, no squares, and we aren't counting squares. If you're fighting in the forest, then you can expect to find anything you'd find if you went out to the woods in the back yard - fallen trees, large trees, small trees, cover, rocks, uneven ground, etc. So during an encounter (such as a combat) you can tell me that you want to dive behind a fallen tree for cover, and attempt to stealthily circle around the orcs (using brush, rocks, trees, etc. for cover). "Oleg, see if you can run over to that tree and start shooting at then from behind the cover. I don't care if you hit them, I just want you to distract them."If I tell them they are in a kitchen, I don't expect them to ask are their knives, bowls, plates, goblets, as well as foodstuffs, etc. They (and I) assume there are the usual implements and stuff you'd find in a kitchen. If there is something specific that they'd like to find and they are unsure, they'll ask."Is there a cleaver?""Sure, and a few 10" knives as well""What about some twine, or something similar?""Um, maybe, (I don't think cooking twine was much of a thing in the middle ages, but could be something, so maybe a DC 15 or 17 - something higher than their passive score, but not unreasonably high), go ahead and roll Perception. Failure."No, no twine or string that you can see.""Hmm. OK, I'll grab the cleaver anyway, and there should be something like a stake to roast beasts over the fire, I'll grab one to use as a short spear."That's what I've been saying all along. One of my jobs is to set the framework - it's a kitchen - and then serve as quality control. So yes, I am saying that in reaction to what you've posted:The player asked. That is, your response as a GM had meaning. Your approval, denial, or decision that it's possible if their perception is high enough is what allowed them to find a bowl. Not their statement. They didn't say, "there must be a bowl in the room, so I'm grabbing it," they asked. If you had said no, then there would have been no bowl (although if it's like my table, they, or somebody else, might have suggested that in such a room they might have bowls for use in certain religious rituals, etc. and it might alter my decision). But in the end, you, as the GM, made a decision. Then you set the DC. That assigns a probability. Had you decided that yes, there's a bowl, and it's in the cabinet on the left, and they have to choose the cabinet on the left or the cabinet on the right, then you'd be setting the probability at 50%.Yes, that's the product. What you describe is exactly correct in what I was asserting. That my part of the product (such as deciding yes, no or maybe to the bowl, or describing the approach of the figure, and the reaction of that figure to your actions) is the product. The product is not the completed fiction, the product is the experience at the table of creating the fiction. If the purpose was to create the fiction, we'd be working much harder to make the finished fiction the best it can be. It would be the process of writing a story together, brainstorming, writing, editing, etc. That's not to say we couldn't create an initial draft through a shared improvisation, with or without the rules of a game. But we'd be going If it was simply to "find out what the GM or author wrote down" then it would be a choose your own adventure, or a board game, or a video game, where the world and what's in it is set ahead of time, and can't be changed.That's not an RPG (to me anyway). An RPG is a shared experience of creating the fiction. While I can prepare a general story arc, such as the published APs, or purchase one, and work within that structure, they still allow more than just a "choose your own adventure" because the PCs are free to do what they'd like, and success, failure, or whatever other outcome might occur is free to happen. Can they be more restrictive? Absolutely. And many DMs make them that way. I've seen on more than one occasion a specific experience relating to Out of the Abyss related by DMs running it. A common one I've seen is something like, "We've been playing OotA and the players loved the first part, and now they've survived. But they don't want to continue with the second part. How do I encourage/force them to do so?" My friend ran the campaign, and found the exact same thing, although in his case described it as such, "they loved the first part, and there were some interesting things. But they had no interest in the second part and went and did (this)."They used the same tool, the AP, but as a DM used them quite differently. Personally, I don't particularly care for the direction adventures and APs have taken, where there's a big story arc to try to follow. I don't mind there being a story in a published adventure, but generally use published adventures for maps, and locations, NPCs and such. I just pull out and use what interests me. I've noted before that the general playstyle promoted by 5e is perfect for a more casual gamer, where it's essentially a self-contained game. Just not my personal preference, and while it does a great job of making it relatively easy for a new group to pick up the game and play, I feel they are also often missing the possibilities of such a game, getting stuck in the minutia of rules instead of the characters, setting, and story.And I'm asserting that when it comes to me fulfilling my part (and you as a player), having things in mind, written or not, before the session, doesn't necessarily degrade the experience. For some, like me, it improves things. My brain doesn't always work fast enough to provide a level of quality that I'm happy with. And it's been noticeable in the past when I was unprepared and not 100% in the moment as well. The worldbuilding and notes and such are at their most useful during those sessions where I'm not at 100%. It often needs something to act as a catalyst, to spark some ideas. Also, the amount of time it takes during the course of the game is important. I gave a toast for my brother once, a funny guy, and told everybody that I'm really the funnier of the two. The problem is, I think of the perfect punchline 15 minutes later. My approach to GMing is specifically to address this. I don't want to think of the perfect reaction, event, etc. 15 minutes later.Can such an approach be used as a hindrance? To limit the options, to impose a direction without considering the current circumstances within the game? Of course. How you use a tool is completely different than the tool itself, and it doesn't in and of itself validate or invalidate the usefulness of that tool. For folks that like all reasonable options on the table, that the players are in full control of the decisions and actions of their PCs, that they are presented with X, Y, and Z and they choose D, then I think that for a great many of us, these tools can be very helpful.</blockquote>

Verification