Why I don't GM by the nose

[Raven Crowking]

Who explained sandbox play to you in that way?

AFAICT, in sandbox play known elements are not intended to be changed. I.e., if it established that X is Y, then X should not suddenly become not-Y without reason.

It is not expected, however, that the GM prepare ahead of time how many fleas are on the right ear of each dog, in the event that the players should ask.

Sandbox play as you seem to understand it, and sandbox play as anyone I have ever met who runs what they would call a "sandbox-style game" seem more often apples to buicks than anything else!


RC

 

[Mark CMG]

I regard this approach to play as a non-sandbox alternative to the railroad.

That does seem to fall somewhere in between with elements of both (or perhaps more like avoiding specific elements of each) but also with an element during chargen that pre-arranges much of the campaign in spirit if not in detail. What shall we dub this approach?

 

[howandwhy99]

In your example, you could have just as easily ignored his suggestion. In a more sandbox style game, I think you're almost obligated to do so, since belonging to the cult wasn't part of the scenario design and, as I understand it, changing elements in play runs counter to sandbox play. At least as I have had sandbox explained to me.

To me, I think you did exactly the right thing. The player showed some initiative, actually BROUGHT character elements into the game (good for him) and you rewarded him for doing so. Fantastic. The player is happy and you get a better scenario for it.

But then, I have no problems with rewriting things in the middle whatsoever.

As I understand it, you're saying a sandbox game obligates the GM to say no to any player attempts, which are not part of the scenario design. That's is the complete opposite of the desired effect I strive to engender in my games. ANY player PC attempt in the game world not covered by the code behind the screen receives a yes answer from me. The action is defined and immediately incorporated, though it is not able to be contradicted after the fact.

I am not here to limit players' imaginations, but press them to both study and perform the social role they selected. It is the role play simulation point of view, the analytic, question asking study of the world they are part of.

As long as the focus is on character and narrative elements in games, then I think the purpose of sandbox games is missed. Those two elements are always in every game from Chess to Gin Rummy to Monopoly, so a player is not necessarily adding character or narrative where none existed. But these elements are largely irrelevant to the game's focus and design. It is as asking two football teams why they don't choose to work together in order to tell a better story instead of competing against each other. After all, the game of football is also a storygame about expressing fictional personas and quality narratives, no?

I've said before I run my game as a reality puzzle game, a cooperative simulation game with the rules hidden behind a screen. Think of it like the blueprint of a Rubik's Cube. I do not need to know how to solve that puzzle, only relate its current configuration and move the pieces according to the code/rules and as the players dictate. It is an attempt to relate without personal preference and I am obligated to say yes, just as in a situational puzzle, to any PC attempt not covered by the rules. As the reality puzzle game I run (RPG) is very, very broad in details covered, yet small and elegant in its design, rarely are the players expressing something not covered by that code.

I understand your worries about power. The Foucauldian ethics of unending power struggles as the natural state of humans is in large part the current cultural absolute truth. However, if you are so worried about issues of power as to never engage with a puzzle game, then I think you may wish to back off it a little. Otherwise such fun activities as Suduko, trivia games, and any computer games will fall into the same interpersonal struggle of oppression-by-other. Heck, using a computer software written by others incorporates the same risk.

Games are, in almost all respects, attempts to create a pattern for players to explore and demonstrate recognition thereof. It's currently an unpopular opinion, but I do believe the vast majority of gamers are looking for just that. I do not know anyone who plays chess strictly for its ability to express fictional persona and tell quality narratives. It is the same in my game. Mine does not require people to express a fictional persona when playing, that isn't roleplaying anyways as it was originally defined back in 1920. Will they be doing so anyways? Yes, in the same way they are expressing one when performing math or acting as if anything else they don't believe in exists.

So how can I act honestly, sometimes called objectively, behind a screen as a referee and still end up being subjective? It's about fairness and how balance is built into the game, like spotlight time in many contemporary storygames. As in the game Mastermind I relate elements like color and spatial positioning, both of which are included in my codeset, and allow the players to decode the pattern. Memory matters here as does quality communication, but as in any communication it is subjective understanding on all our parts. Like Mastermind my RPG is largely a semantic language game with repetition coming from adequately relayed meaning. It's beer & pretzels not rocket science, but the communication is only a power struggle when chosen to be viewed as such. Unless you believe every interpersonal engagement is so, then playing the game is morally OK.

My own game design? I play a variant of Conway's Game of Life, which is ironically no longer considered a game by many of the top "let's define games" folks. To understand the next part and, if you don't know GoL, you may want to check it out. I start with positive and negative energy particles and create elements out of them. With those elements I create more complex constructs like solids and gases and blood and flesh. The most complex creatures are those sentient ones, the ones not only with maps in their brains that may be explored, but also are capable of incorporating what they interact with into those maps. (Think of a square in GoL becoming a brand new color of that next to it.) NPCs are the most complex configurations within the game, but PCs are not far behind. It's just the players are asked to remember and demonstrate recognition of the world in their own right. Play is largely as a blueprinted Rubik's Cube with player intelligence and skill demonstrated by manipulating events to their own desired ends. I do not determine those ends for them just as I do not tell the players that all the sides of the Rubik's Cube must one color. They will learn how it operates through play and perhaps maneuver to such positioning because they are intelligent enough to do so. The code is heavy in the scope defined within the social role, class, they have chosen, but not so much in other places. Learning how to be a good weaver isn't addressed, but it isn't promised to be. Does a player want to weave? I say yes, but then their description is added on for future reasoning.

This type of play is associative learning and a powerful technique in my opinion. It pushes players in many of the reasons I enjoy playing the game and I hope they do as well. I've posted them over here before, so I'll keep from repeating them. In the end I think those behaviors are why players play in my games. They aren't playing basketball because they will tell a great story. I think basketball is played because it improves players. In ways like eye hand coordination, strength, speed, agility, grace, and teamwork. But my game is a mental game and if it isn't helping the players in ways they've agreed to, it isn't worth much in my eyes.

 

[Hussar]

Two quick points from behind that wall of text.

The first:

ANY player PC attempt in the game world not covered by the code behind the screen receives a yes answer from me.

Really? So, if I declare that the coins we found in the chest are actually extremely rare coins from the Lost Civilization of Bazoooi, worth ten times what you say that they are worth, you say yes?

I'm not talking about player direct actions where the player states, "I do X". I've already agreed that the player has that power.

I'm talking about what Pemerton is talking about and the player stating, "That elven envoy we just met is actually part of my cult". Now, in Pem's game, the player asked, not stated. Why? Because the player does not have the authority to state that a member of his cult is included in this particular group of NPC's. That authority rests in the hands of the DM.

Let's not confuse apples and oranges.

Which brings me to my second point:

I understand your worries about power.

Again, why is everyone assuming that I have any worries here? Where have I stated a single concern? I certainly have no issues with this.

Heck, you state it yourself. You say "yes". But, that presumes that you also have the ability to say, "no". Until such time as the player can dictate elements to you, any suggestion the player makes is entirely under your control. You can veto anything you want at any point in time.

That still means that power rests pretty much squarely in the DM's hands.

 

[howandwhy99]

So, if I declare that the coins we found in the chest are actually extremely rare coins from the Lost Civilization of Bazoooi, worth ten times what you say that they are worth, you say yes?

I don't say anything, it isn't a declared action. But if the coins have a predetermined treasure value, as mine do, that is not then defined. As to their origin, that was just defined by the player. If they explore around next session something called Bazoooi can potentially be learned of and perhaps traveled to. Pemerton's example works as well. I define NPC or monster groups as factions. But... a secret organization, which includes members from other factions? Those are also defined and but not something likely defined yet in this case. So one of the members is a cult member.

Again, why is everyone assuming that I have any worries here? Where have I stated a single concern? I certainly have no issues with this.

What is your interest in power relations in these games then? If you have no concerns over unequal ability amongst players, why bring up the topic? This isn't snark. I admit I was assuming this wasn't desirable for you.

Heck, you state it yourself. You say "yes". But, that presumes that you also have the ability to say, "no". Until such time as the player can dictate elements to you, any suggestion the player makes is entirely under your control. You can veto anything you want at any point in time.

That still means that power rests pretty much squarely in the DM's hands.

Like the guy behind the screen in Mastermind I don't get to veto any attempted action by the player. In fact, I don't veto any action. They can put those 4 pegs in any manner they choose. I simply respond with the consequences according to the code behind the screen. One of the few rules is I as referee cannot convey a failed attempt without the unchanging code as reference.

This is like being a messenger to a foreign king. The messenger relays his own king's message without claiming it as his own. But the foreign king kills him anyway. Because how can a person claim not to intend what they say? It's a fine line between sincerity and deceit. Hannah Arendt called it the banality of evil, doing one's job as if the result of it does not make them culpable. But does such a position of killing the messenger as morally good erase the line between sincere acts and deceitful ones? It's not a call I would make in such a black or white manner.

Of course, in my game I am the one who defined the code. But as long as the scope and game objective are well defined and such code remains the same the players can pragmatically puzzle it out and my own sincere responses.

 

[Hussar]

What is your interest in power relations in these games then? If you have no concerns over unequal ability amongst players, why bring up the topic? This isn't snark. I admit I was assuming this wasn't desirable for you.

If you swim WAY upthread, you'll see Beginning of the End describing how there was equal power between the players and the DM at a D&D table. I disagreed with that point. Since then, apparently, everyone thinks that I'm against the power disparity. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be blindingly obvious - the DM controls the lions share of power at a D&D table.

Like the guy behind the screen in Mastermind I don't get to veto any attempted action by the player. In fact, I don't veto any action.

So, I can sell those coins for ten times their value?

I can bring in my Battlemaster Battlemech into your D&D game?

I can sprout wings and fly?

Saying that you never veto an attempted action by a player may very well be true. I don't want to DM that way, but, hey, if it works for you. I have no problems with the idea of "say yes" and I do believe that's a great way to DM. But, there's the other side of "Say yes" which is "Yes, but" or "Yes, and".

But, in any case, the statement of "Say yes" includes the implicit meaning that you have the authority to say yes. After all, no other player at the table can. No other player at the table could declare that a cult member was included in Pemerton's example. Only the DM.

For the power to be equal, the player would have to be able to declare that there is a cult member in the delegation and the DM would then be obligated to adjust reactions accordingly. Lots of games do give power to the players in this way. Story games are based around the idea of this sort of power sharing to varying degrees.

But, at the end of the day, in D&D, the DM always has final say. The player can do nothing without the DM's explicit permission to do so. A player cannot even open a door to a room without informing the DM. A DM, OTOH, is under no such constraints regarding NPC's.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you swim WAY upthread, you'll see Beginning of the End describing how there was equal power between the players and the DM at a D&D table. I disagreed with that point. Since then, apparently, everyone thinks that I'm against the power disparity. I'm not. I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be blindingly obvious - the DM controls the lions share of power at a D&D table.

Well, then don't think about it in terms of power to tell a story. Think of it like a puzzle game. As I mentioned in that wall of text, if you think the NY Times crossword puzzler or Alex Trebek are there to oppress people, you're going to miss out on a lot of fun.

So, I can sell those coins for ten times their value?

I can bring in my Battlemaster Battlemech into your D&D game?

I can sprout wings and fly?

Saying that you never veto an attempted action by a player may very well be true. I don't want to DM that way, but, hey, if it works for you. I have no problems with the idea of "say yes" and I do believe that's a great way to DM. But, there's the other side of "Say yes" which is "Yes, but" or "Yes, and".

To be fair the vocabulary of literature is a wonderful ladder that can take people places few others can. But, like any vocabulary, it limits as well as enables. Choose to think in more than one singular viewpoint and you will find "good DM" can mean enabling people in vastly different ways than those possible in "games as literature". For one example, chess enables people in a manner poorly defined within strict literary terminology. It has no "Say yes", "Yes, but", or "Yes, and" rules, but players become so devoted to it some play it their whole lives.

But, in any case, the statement of "Say yes" includes the implicit meaning that you have the authority to say yes. After all, no other player at the table can. No other player at the table could declare that a cult member was included in Pemerton's example. Only the DM.

For the power to be equal, the player would have to be able to declare that there is a cult member in the delegation and the DM would then be obligated to adjust reactions accordingly. Lots of games do give power to the players in this way. Story games are based around the idea of this sort of power sharing to varying degrees.

But, at the end of the day, in D&D, the DM always has final say. The player can do nothing without the DM's explicit permission to do so. A player cannot even open a door to a room without informing the DM. A DM, OTOH, is under no such constraints regarding NPC's.

As in the example I gave I am adjusting reactions accordingly for a new cult member. It's now in the game, part of the code. And NPCs are not my PCs to play, they are more of the code. I do not improvise their actions or I would be breaking the rules.

As I said above in a few different places I play a code breaking game. It is what I believe most gamers want. It is what drives such devotion to games like Magic: the Gathering and many others. If you sit down to play a joint storytelling game with M:tG, I believe you will be missing out on all the fun in its design. It requires being open minded enough to perceive the game as designed for something other than self expression.

I've mentioned in other places that Tic-Tac-Toe is a good example of postmodern self-blindness. 1st a new player may attempt to win by perhaps going first, in the corner, etc. 2nd the player recognizes the underlying pattern, the eight ways to win. 3rd the game is so simple it is understood most all games will either end in ties, a mistake by one player or both, or an intentional loss. The 4th state, the postmodern one, is to claim there is no pattern and Tic-Tac-Toe designed so people can tell stories to each other.

This isn't because the narrative vocabulary is "correct". It is because the term story, like art, has been smurfed, for lack of a better word. All human experience, expression, and thought are story. They are stuff, in part and in whole. Preferring one vocabulary instead of another to talk about this story/stuff isn't wrong, but limiting yourself to one is, in the end, limiting your self.

 

[Hussar]

Well, then don't think about it in terms of power to tell a story. Think of it like a puzzle game. As I mentioned in that wall of text, if you think the NY Times crossword puzzler or Alex Trebek are there to oppress people, you're going to miss out on a lot of fun.

Again, you are assuming that I think the power relationship is a negative one. "Oppress people"? Why? You're right, Alex Trebek in no way oppresses the players. But, then again, they're playing a game where this is no player freedom whatsoever. All answers must be in a specific form and there is only one answer to a given question.

But, let's not forget, Alex Trebek still has all the power in that relationship. If the players choose not to follow the rules, he can disallow their answers. The judges (which Trebek is not one of) can disallow answers that are imprecise, and it's up to the judges to define "imprecise".

You cannot get around the idea that there is a power relationship at the table. It's always there. It has to be there really. Someone has to set the scenario, someone has to adjudicate the scenario and someone has to set up the next scenario. That someone is holding most of the cards.

And, again, that's NOT a bad thing.

But, just pulling another line out here:

As in the example I gave I am adjusting reactions accordingly for a new cult member. It's now in the game, part of the code. And NPCs are not my PCs to play, they are more of the code. I do not improvise their actions or I would be breaking the rules.

Hang on a second here. The presence of the cult member is entirely improvised. It wasn't there until the player asked about it (given the original example). By placing the cult member there, you've, to use your language, changed the code, not based on any in game action, but on a meta-game level because the player gave you a cool idea.

How is that not improvisation?

But, taking it a step further, unless you have scripted out every NPC speach and refuse to vary from that, you must improvise NPC reactions all the time. That improvisation is based on a number of factors, but, it's still improvised on the spot.

I think you are trying to reduce the DM down to some sort of Internet Bot that simply reacts in a predictable way every time. Again, to each his own, but, I certainly wouldn't want to play in a game where the DM never improvises.

 

[pemerton]

What shall we dub this approach?

Well, without meaning to be too cheeky (or to irritate HowandWhy99 too badly) I tend to think of it as vanilla narrativism with emphasis on character and situation.

More evocatively and less Forge-y, you could call it the "button pushing" approach - the players build buttons into their PCs, and the GM's job is to introduce gameworld elements (NPCs, events, statues etc) that push those buttons, and then we all see what happens.

 

[pemerton]

I said, more than once, that there are two factors involved: (1) How obvious optimal choices are, or rather, options that have "good" results over "bad" results, and (2) How the choices made change the game.

By focusing the game only on choices you consider meaningful, you are strongly driving (2) at the expense of (1). It is equally possible to strongly drive (1) at the expense of (2), and produce an equally satisfying game.

I see now what you had in mind.

Given the rest of your post, I assume you agree that "equally satisfying" means in principle satisfaction for the right player/GM - I think I would find it less satisfying, because it tends to make (literal) exploration of the gameworld become more important, but I think there are a lot of players who like to explore the gameworld.

How, exactly, is "if his PC just walks into the bar and kills the barkeep, the PC'll be judged as a pretty merciless individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs" less about the ingame state than "if his PC just walks into the garden and is killed by the wisc, the PC'll be judged as a pretty foolish individual by onlookers, and perhaps also by the player's fellow players and/or their PCs"?

Really, this is an artificial divide.

Maybe. But it doesn't feel like one to me. On the other hand, I'm someone to whom Ron Edwards' GNS essays speak very powerfully, whereas a lot of people, at least on this forum, don't seem to find them very helpful at all.

The difference I feel between the two examples you give is that looking foolish for getting collared by the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is (I think) a bit like looking foolish for making a silly move in chess that needlessly allows a piece to be taken. The feeling of foolishness is a result of having played badly. In Edwards' terms, the stakes here are Gamist one - "Step on up!"

In my games, this sort of dynamic is certainly at work when the mechanics, and especially the combat mechanics, come into play. To a lesser but still noticeable extent it also informs character building. And even for me, as a GM, I like to present encounters that play well rather than poorly relative to the 4e mechanics set - this is less comparitive/competitive, obviously, but still buys into that sense of doing an activity poorly or well.

On the other hand, the feelings that are in play when a player has his/her PC ruthlessly cut down the barkeep are a bit different. This has actually come up recently more than once in my game. One particular player, whose PC is in many respects the most scrupulous of all of them (eg the PC's attitude to looting defeated NPCs is, by D&D standards, very constrained by a sense of who has prior ownership of the loot), has also had that PC kill unconscious hobgoblins at the end of a battle, not because prisoners couldn't reasonably be taken (there was a whole slew of NPCs who might have looked after them) but because the PC holds a bitter grudge against goblins and hobgoblins since they wiped out his home city, took his mother as a slave and then killed her rather than let her be rescued. And in a more recent session, as the players were fleeing a collapsing temple, having barely stopped a demonic ritual, the same PC magic missiled an NPC to death whom the PCs had met in the temple. The NPC was a devil-worshipper there to investigate growing demonic activity, and the PC in question killed the NPC (i) on principle, that devil worshippers, like demon worshippers, have forfeited their claim to live, and (ii) on the practical grounds that he was worried that too much exposure to devil worshippers might corrupt one of his fellow PCs (who had already shown some propensity to being influenced by an imp).

In both cases, the other players responded with some shock at the ruthlessness portrayed. But this isn't like the case of playing well or badly. It's not an emotional response based on a social situation in which one's prowess or ability is compared to another's, or to some ideal standard. Rather, it's a much more evaluative response to a fictional portrayal of a moral challenging situation. And the emotional dimension is amplified in the way that RPGs are particularly good, perhaps uniquely good (?), at achieving, because there is a blurring of the line between the PC's moral judgement, that it is permissible - even mandatory - to commit these murders, and the player's aesthetic judgement that it is permissible - even desirable - to portray and perhaps endorse such a moral judgement in a fiction.

So, to cut a long story short, my own experience fits with Edwards', that gamist and narrativist play are very similar in structure (the GM's job is to make meaningful choices by the players possible, and if this isn't happening then the game has gone badly wrong) but quite different in the sort of experience they aim at producing.

It is also part of Edwards' view that play can't simultaneously be both gamist and narrativist. I guess it depends on what is meant by "simultaneously", but I know that in my game both sorts of pleasures are aimed at, although typically at different times, or using discrete parts of the game system. (And thus there can be a particular pleasure in using the mechanics in a very skilled way to produce a thematically very satisfying or provocative outcome in the game.) I've never had the time to read through all the Forge threads where Edwards explains his view, but I suspect it depends upon imposing a certain sort of analytical framework on play whereby some elements of what is aimed at become subordinated as mere "techniques" whereby the ultimate elements of what is aimed at are to be achieved.

It is only a game where the intended options are obvious, and the game results are the same regardless of what is chosen, that meaningful choice becomes impossible.

Agreed.

In order to lead the PCs by the nose, it is necessary to tell them what is important. Regardless of the amount of extra detail a milieu might contain, ensuring that the players have some means to know what the GM considers important is paramount. You cannot lead without some form of reins, after all.

Consequently, while removing "extraneous" detail doesn't mandate that you lead the PCs by the nose, it is a good first step, and is certainly liable to lead many inexperienced GMs in that direction.

I'm pretty confident I follow your first paragraph. I remain uncertain about your move to the second paragraph. The removal of detail will only cause problems if the GM also isn't prepared to let the players respond as they see fit (taking for granted that they don't break the implict or explicit understandings at the table as to genre, tastefulness etc) to what is important. Hence my little rant in my earlier post, that in my view the vice of D&D GMing advice (and a lot of GMing advice in general) has not been to emphasise removal of detail, but to emhasise to the GM the importance of controlling and shaping the story, which one way or another entails that the player's will not be free to choose how they respond to the situations the GM set up for them.

it is generally undesireable to respond to player requests for more detail with "That's irrelevant! Why don't you deal with the barkeep cultist instead?".

I strongly agree with this.

Given the dynamics at the typical RPG table - of which I (naturally enough!) think my own is an example - there is always going to be some (social) pressure for the players to go along with the GM. That's why, as a GM, I am always doing my best to make sure that the situations I'm presenting are ones that the players want to engage with independently of any feeling of such pressure. I also try as best I can to make sure that the situations I present offer clear ways in, but don't dictate any given way out - thereby trying to ensure that when I have made a mistake, and the players have their PCs enter the situation only because it's the one the GM offered up, that they at least have the freedom to exit the situation in the way that they want to (and hopefully, the manner of their exit will then help me get back on track with my GMing).

An example of this which came up upthread was when Mal Malenkirk said that, if he found himself in the courtyard with the Aztec statue and the oranges, he would try to pick the lock on the door to get out. I think it is bad GMing to respond to that sort of player choice by trying to obstruct it, in order to try and force the players to deal with the situation in a manner that the players clearly are not interested in.

This also hooks into the discussion of improvisation in this thread. In the courtyard-escape scenario, if the PCs are level 1 and the DC for the lock has been set at 40, then it is mechanically impossible for them to leave the courtyard via such means. I therefore think that the GM is under an obligation, in setting DCs in that sort of situation, to consider not only the ingame logic - "How difficult a lock would the builders of this courtyard have put into place?" - but also metagame considerations - "What are the consequences for the potential flow of play if I make this option mechanically impossible for the PCs?" Even if the GM thinks that it would be cool to reuire the PCs to do some trick with the oranges that will lower the DC from 40 to 20, it may be that this is (or turns out to be) a mistake, because the mechanics impede the optimal (from the players' metagame point of view) flow of the game.

Of course we all make mistakes of this sort from time to time (or at least I do - and in the past I have probably been guilty of deliberately constructing situations that I now regard as mistaken in this way). Rolemaster is a game system that, due to features of both its character build and action resolution rules, in particular makes these sort of "mechanical dead ends to play" easy to stumble into. I find that 4e, with its clear guidelines on combat encounter building, DC setting and skill challenge resolution, helps me to avoid these mistakes more easily, and also to negotiate my way out of them without having to fudge (which I strongly dislike), take things back (which can spoil the flow of play and tends to utterly spoil immersion) or otherwise exercise non-mechanically-mediated GM power.