Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8346158" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Alright. I write long posts and this is a long post, so prepare to be crit by wall of text for over 9000.While I do have events I have considered in advance (not strictly "planned" since the players can prevent them from happening), I also always make room for player contributions. There have been multiple adventures I didn't plan at all. I am giving some drive to the group's efforts, e.g. they'll get a message from someone or find out an event has occurred in their absence, but I regularly consult them (usually out-of-game) about what they're enjoying, what they would like to see, what goals they have, etc. so that I can support that as much as possible. As noted, the stuff with the Ranger's clan, the Battlemaster's research into "high military philosophy," and the Bard's expertise in the field of esoteric zoology are all things where I expressly accept player input and follow the player's lead unless there's an important reason not to.This would not be acceptable to me. I would call this an illegitimate invocation of content authority, inventing a group that the PCs both could have reasonably learned about, and would have a great interest in doing so if they could have. In order for this to be a legitimate exercise of content authority, I would demand of myself that the PCs have some kind of opportunity to learn and do something about this second group before they succeed--but that opportunity could be ignored (player choices didn't make use of it) or botched in some way (bad rolls, they take the opportunity but don't "get" it, etc.)I guess my problem with it is that this exercise of situational authority requires implicit content authority to a degree I can't accept on its own. That is, by invoking this situation, you've made (what I consider) some very strong claims about what the world overall is and contains. You've significantly changed the "backstory of the world," in a way that the players can and should have SOME opportunity, no matter how subtle/small, to anticipate/forestall. This is where "fairy grove" and "monster den" differ from the "Addams Family-style" haunted house, aka my understanding of what the term "haunted house" in general meant: as long as the world has fairies in it, you're exercising essentially zero content authority when you exercise the situational authority to say that the fairy grove is there; since almost no D&D-type game lacks for monsters of some kind, it's basically guaranteed that you can invoke essentially no-content, pure-situation authority to say there's a monster den.Going back to the haunted house: the fact that the players can exercise other types of authority (narrational, content, whatever) after me-as-DM doing this (what I see as) "situation-that-mandates-content" authority does not absolve me of "fault" for exercising content authority under the guise of exercising situation authority.And this is absolutely the case in my game. Whenever there is a major conflict, I prepare (as much as I'm able, I'm only human after all) for a spectrum of results between horrific utter failure and insane superlative success. If my players really wanted to, they could abandon everything they've seen thus far and go off exploring in the Sapphire Sea or some such--they'd eventually hear about bad things happening "back home," but they retain the freedom to leave. I am very thankful that they are enjoying the game content I've offered, and that they respect and trust me enough to stay engaged.Overall, I try to avoid raising issues with player-proposed backstory unless it's a serious issue (like the aforementioned Session 0 conversation about necromancy in this setting). If  a player wanted to be a member of the royal family, I'd let them, though that comes with complications of its own. But I wouldn't let a player declare that they're actually the currently-ruling sultan(a). Other than stuff like that, though--exploitative or extremely contrary to/problematic in the already-established backstory--I try to give players as much of a free hand as possible.I do this a fair amount, yes. More in a bit.See, this is where I start to get confused. I do not understand how "the GM frames the PC(s) into a scene in which they can head directly to Evard's tower" is not railroading. I'm not saying it IS railroading, mind. I just do not see how that isn't, well, precisely identical to "As you are sitting in the tavern thinking you've solved all the problems, you see a dark cloud gathering above the temple of..." That is, I don't get how "framing" avoids the fact that you have simultaneously exercised situation and content authority to not only plonk Evard's Tower in a specific place, but further told the PCs they're already on the road to get there. The next quote below doesn't help resolving the two as distinct things.Okay...but that sounds exactly like the defense of railroading. A railroad is only a problem if the players want to go somewhere other than the tracks. If they never want anything that isn't on the tracks, then while I still think the DM is using poor practice, their players will be perfectly happy and they'll have a perfectly fine game. The problem is close kin to the one I mentioned earlier about illusionism: I find it absolutely, totally unbelievable that any DM can maintain such a perfectly pleasing set of rails that their players never, not even once desire to do something off of them, no matter how long the group plays. There's less danger than the illusion case, but it's still an ever-present problem and only takes one mistake for players to feel denied.Which is something I sometimes do. Or, with Discern Realities, I may ply the player with a couple questions of my own before giving answers, to know what it is they care about, why they'd be looking, what's really significant.I guess I don't understand what the difference is between "framing scenes blind" and proper framing. Are you saying you literally just...ask the players OOC what they want, and then...just IC recapitulate it to them? That sounds awful, so I can't imagine that's what you're saying, but I'm genuinely at a loss for what you could mean other than that.The bolded sentence is what confuses the hell out of me. How do you do that? Like, this is literally reading equivalent to "just give right answers on your test" or "just cut the crap and play good-sounding improv music." It black-boxes the entire idea of HOW you engage players in the first place. The quote from Edwards is similar, albeit softer: "just be trustworthy with your power, and everything's fine!" That's not helpful. HOW do you do that? HOW do you earn and justify trust? HOW do you make sure your players believe what you'll do with the SIS is interesting?And my answer to those "hows" is, more or less, "show my work." I'm not allowed to just frame any scene I want however I want. My players, on the other hand, very nearly are; I give them absolutely as much latitude as I possibly can. In contrast, I must be incredibly scrupulous with what I do. Because I'm the only thing standing between me and abusing my authority, even by accident. That's why I put such strenuous requirements on what I allow myself to do, what I expect of the fiction I insert. I'm absolutely allowed to be devious, to present situations that look different from what they really are (there's even a Discern Realities question about that!), to put down pieces now that won't make a move for six months or more. But if I make a move, the players must, at least in principle, have some way of learning about it.Sounds more or less like how I handle things.Alright. Well, when I said that, what I meant was...the players in general can't "see" the world unless I describe it to them. They can't in general declare the current situation DEFINITELY IS <x> thing. In general, I can do those things. I place strong limits on myself in order to avoid abusing that power, because the players don't have general ability to declare things. Does that make more sense? Yes, at times, the players are empowered to insert things into the content/backstory or situation/framing, and I at least strongly favor letting the players control the narrative (I try to provide an interesting backdrop, they're the ones filling it).I mean, in principle this IS true of EVERY game. But that's literally what I'm saying: in principle this is true, thus I force myself to adhere to very strict rules about what I am allowed to establish, above and beyond even the limits required by the mechanics. That's why I do the things I do: so that the players can "signal me" within the fiction, rather than needing to signal me by talking to me-as-Ezekiel. (I also look for those signals OOG though. I follow up with at least one player after almost every session, in part because I am a whiny baby desperate for validation, in part because I genuinely fear my players simply show up because it's an obligation to a friend and not because they're having fun. Anxiety is fun like that!)I have decided some things in advance, yes. Part of the problem here is that I "reused" a world. My original group, I brought only a handful of things: an Arabian Nights setting with a major mercantile-heavy city-state (and de facto regional capital), ruled by a Sultana; genies that were powerful and mysterious but no longer active in the mundane world; a monotheistic religion opposed to necromancy and divided on the subject of other faiths. Nearly everything else about the setting followed from the first group of PCs declaring things, which we wove together into an interesting setting premise. But since we didn't get super far, many of those ideas remained undeveloped. Sorcerers being "sha'ir" and descended from genies (which potentially allows mixed elements like "sandstorm" if descended from both earth and air genies) is one example, as is the Kahina (spirit-magic users) being divided into Shamans who use totems and speak for the "dead" spirits and Druids who transform and speak for the "living" spirits.The second group, which has lasted far longer, has developed all of these ideas and added further ones; to this group, I brought some antagonist factions (the Raven-Shadow assassin cult, Shadow Druids, Cult of the Burning Eye, and black dragon's gang), and each player advanced further ideas about the world--e.g. the (former) Barbarian player brought into the world an entire culture of nomadic horse-archers living in the steppe beyond the eastern mountains, the Bard player brought a Robin Hood-y culture of noble community-building underworld types, the Druid brought in (well, we cooperated on this one) a now-defunct tradition of Sun and Moon Druids with special alternate abilities. Other than the main antagonist forces, almost everything about this world has derived from some player's contribution--some of it just came from players in the previous group.I had a long hard think about how to do Discern rolls, given the group I played with before, where failure on those rolls all too often had no sting to it (and a player exploited this for tons of free XP--not in a bad or game-breaking way, mind, but it was still exploiting a loophole.) The solution I came up with was that a player must still choose one question when they miss a Discern Realities roll, but they won't like the answer they get. It's technically a softer move than I'm probably permitted to take, but I tend to be a bit of a softie DM so that's not surprising. The idea being, a miss on Discern Realities doesn't mean you learn nothing, nor does it mean that what you learn is false. Instead, what you learn is totally true...and definitely not good. This avoids the temptation to metagame while ensuring failure still hurts.When the player is doing something (like Discerning Realities), yes, I absolutely give them narrative authority and then exercise content authority afterward to ensure things make sense, as long as their narrative authority is reasonable for whatever fiction has already been established (e.g. they can't narrate that they're suddenly on the moon for no reason) and whatever mechanics and resources are at their disposal (e.g. the Battlemaster can't narrate having Bardic Lore, the party can't narrate having a thousand dinars if they don't actually have that much, etc.) I support them as much as I am capable of because volunteering information means they're enthusiastic and engaged, and I see it as my job above all else to nurture that enthusiasm.But when I gave those examples, I wasn't talking about "the player did a thing" stuff. I was talking about me doing a thing. Framing, as it were, where there isn't yet a reason for the player to think they SHOULD do something. That's what is important here--the player ABSOLUTELY IS free to insert things when they want, and unless it's really REALLY jarring or illogical, I'm almost surely on board for it, because I love nothing more than supporting player enthusiasm. But if I insert things, especially things that the players can't know about unless they ask, then it's my responsibility to give then a chance to ask. If I don't, I feel like I'm cheating them, like I'm writing a mystery where it isn't even possible for the reader to figure it out no matter how eagle-eyed they are (like how Asimov was told that it wasn't possible to write a sci-fi mystery, because the author could always invent a BS fictional tech reason for things to happen--which spawned the Lije Bailey mysteries).I don't plan things like "there CAN'T be a secret door here." I plan things at the level of cosmology and factions, world-elements that don't really make sense for players to be "in the driver seat" for, but which players can (and have) absolutely contribute to, sometimes in truly beautiful and inspiring ways. I have invented entire dungeons (well, their premise and such) purely because a player was curious about how they might do something--and then never done anything further with them, because that player's priorities shifted to something else. Players have repeatedly caught me off-guard by noting that a feature should logically work in a way I didn't think of, and I have consistently respected their superior cleverness even if it meant (for example) short-circuiting a fight I worked super hard to make or turning an intended enemy into a staunch ally (both of which have actually happened in-game).</blockquote>

Verification