You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to try a different tack than I have attempted in my prior posts.

- I yearn for ice cream.
- I'm across the street from my favorite ice-cream parlor.
- The street is merely a crossing for or an obstacle to my attainment of my ice cream. That is its only known relevance (as obstacle/crossing) to my ice-cream yearning; eg * if, in my crossing, I am hit by a car, that is relevant to my ice-cream yearning.
- The street may be loaded with potential (post-hoc as or pre-destined) "as yet to be uncovered and made clearly relevant" elements to my ice-cream yearning beyond obstacle to attainment; eg an ice-cream truck comes down the road with a better offer than the parlor across the street.
- I cross the street. The shop is closed, burned down, being robbed, being raided by police, has raised their prices out of the range of what I'm comfortable paying, has the lights off with the door slightly ajar and a shattered window pane. None of these are may be loaded with potential; they are all inherently loaded with relevance to my ice-cream yearning. Getting the ice cream from this ice-cream shop (my expectation) is now clear and presently rendered untenable.

In this scenario, the street is just the desert, several orders of magnitude reduced.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm going to try a different tack than I have attempted in my prior posts.

- I yearn for ice cream.
- I'm across the street from my favorite ice-cream parlor.
- The street is merely a crossing for or an obstacle to my attainment of my ice cream. That is its only known relevance (as obstacle/crossing) to my ice-cream yearning; eg * if, in my crossing, I am hit by a car, that is relevant to my ice-cream yearning.
- The street may be loaded with potential (post-hoc as or pre-destined) "as yet to be uncovered and made clearly relevant" elements to my ice-cream yearning beyond obstacle to attainment; eg an ice-cream truck comes down the road with a better offer than the parlor across the street.
- I cross the street. The shop is closed, burned down, being robbed, being raided by police, has raised their prices out of the range of what I'm comfortable paying, has the lights off with the door slightly ajar and a shattered window pane. None of these are may be loaded with potential; they are all inherently loaded with relevance to my ice-cream yearning. Getting the ice cream from this ice-cream shop (my expectation) is now clear and presently rendered untenable.

In this scenario, the street is just the desert, several orders of magnitude reduced.

I appreciate the effort of the post, but I don't think it helped clarify things for me. Are you saying that the desert may be relevant, depending on context? And that the siege is, regardless of context? Because I feel like I've gone over these a few times.

Your ice cream shop complications are relevant -they relate to the ice cream shop. But, what about a complication that on the walk to the ice cream shop? People talking about how the shop was robbed and is closed until tomorrow according to a sign, for example. Are these complications irrelevant?

It seems like you're saying "no, it depends on context, while the stuff at the ice cream shop always is relevant." While that's probably generally true (but not universally), do you understand my problem with Hussar saying that "nothing in the desert can be too terribly relevant"? As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

Again, we're talking here about pre-play establishment of setting, backstory etc. Players work this out together. For instance, in one game I ran two player played samurai, cousins within the same clan. Each player, in working out backstory, also established backstory for the other. It's part of the collaborative task of setting up the game.

Just as the pre-play backstory is a collaborative effort, so is the play itself. That may mean that, in pre-play, I have to shelve my Goblin PC because this game will feature Goblins as prominent enemies. Or maybe in motivates my Goblin PC to link in somehow to that Goblin enemy, moifying my concept a little, or a lot. During play, I also have to collaborate, which doesn't mean insisting that, as there is something I look forward to, the game should immediately skip forward to that aspect, and ignore other aspects which the rest of the group is enjoying.

A hundred pages in, however, I remain puzzled by the binary "enjoyment" suggested by some posters. "I want to kill the grell, so nothing which is not about immediate combat with the grell is acceptable; I want to be in the city right now, and anything which delays me being in the city is unacceptable; I am either interacting directly with the immediate goal I have focused on or the entire game is mind-numbingly boring to the point I would rather sit at home until the game refers to my one issue of focus than play through anything else with my friends in the gaming group". I find this "it's either nirvana of gaming or the pits of boredom" binary switch very confusing.

For my part, I want the fiction to come first, rather than designing the fiction to spotlight niche choices.

So, for instance, I prefer the following approach: "We're going to play a game about fighting Orcus's undead hordes" "OK, cool, guess I'm playing a cleric!" rather than "I'm playing a cleric" "OK, then I guess I'd better stick in some undead encounters."

In practice (at least my practice) the causal chains are more complex, with iterations back and forth in both directions, but the first approach is still the overall direction I'm aiming at. System matters to this, too - @AbdulAlhazred on these boards has frequently made the point that the broad 4e skills tend to do a clearer job of framing a PC with a thematic and story orientation, which tends to mean there's less need for tailored "spotlight" encounters to permit the use of a niche skill. (4e rituals are more niche in this way, but the system makes them very cheap as a resource, so it's not that purging for a player to be able to pop out a given ritual only occasionally when the fiction calls for it.)[/QUOTE]

 

[pemerton]

Just as the pre-play backstory is a collaborative effort, so is the play itself.

But not necessarily in the same way. In pre-play planning, for instance, what my PC should be concerned with - eg, what makes for a good goal - is in part a matter of group discussion. (Eg the classic "No, I don't think an assassin-for-hire will fit into this game - what about a Punisher-style agent of vengeance instead?")

In play, though, my PC's goal is something I start with, not something that's up for negotiation. I encounter limits to my PC's goal not through collaborative negotiation with my fellow players, but by meeting ingame resistance to my PC's achievement of it.

That may mean that, in pre-play, I have to shelve my Goblin PC because this game will feature Goblins as prominent enemies.

Perhaps, although that's going beyond what I said. "Having a reason to be ready to fight goblins" doesn't entail goblins as major enemies (though in my game that happened to be how it turned out). It doesn't even entail actually fighting the goblins when they turn up - that reason might change in the course of play, for instance.

The actual situation I was committed to running in the game in question was the PCs being in a stockade defending it from goblin attack. In my own experience with my players, it would be pretty unusual for them to join with the goblins in attacking the stockade. But it wouldn't be unusual for them to reach some sort of agreement with the goblins in return for the goblins stopping their attack. And, in fact, something a little bit along those lines is what has actually happend in the campaign, although over many levels and episodes of play rather than early on.

During play, I also have to collaborate, which doesn't mean insisting that, as there is something I look forward to, the game should immediately skip forward to that aspect

In the sort of approach that I prefer, in play the playes are pushing their PCs hard at their goals, at the things they are engaged with. What's interesting about play, to a significant extent, is seeing where that leads.

Given that focus of play, having the players pull back from those goals, in order to explore some bit of the setting that the GM finds interesting but that doesn't itself touch upon them, is simply a needless distraction. It doesn't add anything to the play experience. It becomes pointless filler.

 

[Manbearcat]

@JamesonCourage Here is what I'm saying regarding the above crossing the street to get the ice-cream in the ice-cream parlor scenario:

(I am the GM, nephew is the player)

- My nephew has been a good boy. I say; "I'm proud of you. Let's get some ice-cream."
- My nephew is excited about the getting ice-cream and he knows our ice-cream shop that we usually visit is just across the street.
- We go down to the street and I'm looking around, spending time exploring the ice-cream prospects on this side of the street or listening hopefully for that familiar ice-cream truck tune.
- My nephew be would wondering why we aren't crossing the street and getting directly to the ice-cream. He would probably be standing there, hand in mine, with a question mark over his head. He would assuredly ask me why we aren't crossing the street to the ice-cream shop.
- If I say to him, "we're on the street", it would quickly turn into an Abbot and Costello skit.
- If I say to him, "we're on the street...perhaps if we're lucky we will find a street vendor over here selling ice-cream...or maybe an ice-cream truck will come along and sell us ice-cream."
- I am certain, beyond all doubt, puzzled at this exploration...this "ice-cream prospecting"...that he would say "why don't we just cross the street to the ice-cream shop?..."

Given how difficult this conversation has been, I'm going to leave nothing to implication or inferrrence:

Table handling time on the desert crossing (Desert as Action Scene rather than Transition Scene to City Action Scene) = Real life time exploring the ice-cream prospects on the street (Street as Action Scene rather than Transition Scene to ice-cream shop Action Scene).

Both, might be interesting and fun and per chance there may be "ice-cream relevance" that manifests at some point (such as the ice-cream truck song playing on the horizon and the truck coming over a bend). However, neither are * spatially or ** temporally associated with "city mcguffins" or "ice-cream" except in that they are * transit requirements which impose ** later attainment.

 

[N'raac]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - I don't think anyone is arguing that the nephew (players) would be focused on anything other than getting to the ice cream store (city). What we are saying is that, if something unexpected shows up between them and their destination, it may very well distract them.

So if, as we round the corner heading for the ice cream shoppe, there is a brand new toy store which has just opened up and is prominently displaying [whatever toy your nephew's current favourite TV show happens to be based on], thoughts of ice cream may well be delayed or dispelled. Something the nephew (players) did not previously know about has attracted his attention during the trip. Was it relevant to the immediate goal? Not in my example. It may be relevant to another goal, or it may become a new goal.

Now, had it been a new shoe store, I'm guessing your nephew would have dismissed it as having no relevance. But the toy store would likely attract his attention whether it is right when you turn onto the street, a couple of blocks from the ice cream store, right next door to the ice cream store, or even a kiosk display newly set up in the ice cream store itself. Of course, we may also have a player conflict if you were also looking forward to that ice cream, and had no desire to stop and look at the toys (or if you are distracted by something of no interest to him).

 

[Manbearcat]

@N'raac Yup. All of that looks good and I agree with it under your premise:

1 - There may be ice-cream on the street or stuff potentailly related to ice-cream.
2 - There may be awesome "other stuff unrelated to ice-cream" on the street.
3 - Not only may there be awesome stuff on the street, it may be even "awesome-er than the ice-cream in the ice-cream shop".

Its just that some folks (Hussar in this case) may not want to engage in any of 1, 2, or 3. They may just want to get to the ice-cream in the ice-cream shop directly across the street (I know my nephew would! And that is not me equating Hussar's interests to that of a child). And then after that, get to something else they deem exciting (or whatever their emotional metric is for their interests). That is a legitimate playstyle and they should be playing a system and playing with people that deliver that expectation.

 

[N'raac]

1 - There may be ice-cream on the street or stuff potentailly related to ice-cream.
2 - There may be awesome "other stuff unrelated to ice-cream" on the street.
3 - Not only may there be awesome stuff on the street, it may be even "awesome-er than the ice-cream in the ice-cream shop".

Its just that some folks (Hussar in this case) may not want to engage in any of 1, 2, or 3. They may just want to get to the ice-cream in the ice-cream shop directly across the street (I know my nephew would! And that is not me equating Hussar's interests to that of a child). And then after that, get to something else they deem exciting (or whatever their emotional metric is for their interests). That is a legitimate playstyle and they should be playing a system and playing with people that deliver that expectation.

Sure - and your nephew might well walk past the toy store with nary a passing glance to get to the ice cream shop. But when he is finished the ice cream, he knows that toy store was a block back. If we skip over the street (desert) - just fast forward to the ice cream shop (city), your nephew is unaware of the toy store's existence.

So, if there was a cactus that glowed purple and green and smelled like roast mutton in the middle of the desert, we don't mention the players scooting straight by it, because they want to get right to the city. Then the priest in the city needs a ritual plant, so rare and difficult to find, do we now mention "hey, you remember passing one of those on your third day of centipede riding"? Or should the players have been given the option of stopping to investigate, even if all they chose to do was race by? Or, since they are now interested in the ritual, did they retroactively bring that strange plant with them? Or is this just bad GMing in general - the plant cannot exist until the priest introduces it?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Sure - and your nephew might well walk past the toy store with nary a passing glance to get to the ice cream shop. But when he is finished the ice cream, he knows that toy store was a block back. If we skip over the street (desert) - just fast forward to the ice cream shop (city), your nephew is unaware of the toy store's existence.

So, if there was a cactus that glowed purple and green and smelled like roast mutton in the middle of the desert, we don't mention the players scooting straight by it, because they want to get right to the city. Then the priest in the city needs a ritual plant, so rare and difficult to find, do we now mention "hey, you remember passing one of those on your third day of centipede riding"? Or should the players have been given the option of stopping to investigate, even if all they chose to do was race by? Or, since they are now interested in the ritual, did they retroactively bring that strange plant with them? Or is this just bad GMing in general - the plant cannot exist until the priest introduces it?

The player has asked, just once, to entirely pass the desert. They want absolutely nothing to do with it, and that includes "Hey, there was something back there that's useful to an NPC." Introducing the need for the plant in the first place (or keeping it after the request to skip the desert if it was planned in advance) could be thought of as disrespecting the wish of the player to ignore the desert.

That's not to say the DM couldn't go over the ritual and say that the priest is low on a certain kind of plant and that the players could get brownie points if they brought some back, but I would hope the players realize that it's entirely optional and up to them to go for it and if they don't want to, that's totally fine.

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage Here is what I'm saying regarding the above crossing the street to get the ice-cream in the ice-cream parlor scenario:

(I am the GM, nephew is the player)

- My nephew has been a good boy. I say; "I'm proud of you. Let's get some ice-cream."
- My nephew is excited about the getting ice-cream and he knows our ice-cream shop that we usually visit is just across the street.
- We go down to the street and I'm looking around, spending time exploring the ice-cream prospects on this side of the street or listening hopefully for that familiar ice-cream truck tune.
- My nephew be would wondering why we aren't crossing the street and getting directly to the ice-cream. He would probably be standing there, hand in mine, with a question mark over his head. He would assuredly ask me why we aren't crossing the street to the ice-cream shop.
- If I say to him, "we're on the street", it would quickly turn into an Abbot and Costello skit.
- If I say to him, "we're on the street...perhaps if we're lucky we will find a street vendor over here selling ice-cream...or maybe an ice-cream truck will come along and sell us ice-cream."
- I am certain, beyond all doubt, puzzled at this exploration...this "ice-cream prospecting"...that he would say "why don't we just cross the street to the ice-cream shop?..."

I asked about going down the street on the way to the shop. This description, if we bring it back to the desert / city, is like saying the PCs have teleported to in front of the city, and are now waiting around. This isn't what I'm suggesting at all. What about my "walking down the street to the ice cream shop" thing? Is hearing "the ice cream shop was robbed, and is closed until tomorrow" irrelevant?

Given how difficult this conversation has been, I'm going to leave nothing to implication or inferrrence:

Table handling time on the desert crossing (Desert as Action Scene rather than Transition Scene to City Action Scene) = Real life time exploring the ice-cream prospects on the street (Street as Action Scene rather than Transition Scene to ice-cream shop Action Scene).

Both, might be interesting and fun and per chance there may be "ice-cream relevance" that manifests at some point (such as the ice-cream truck song playing on the horizon and the truck coming over a bend). However, neither are * spatially or ** temporally associated with "city mcguffins" or "ice-cream" except in that they are * transit requirements which impose ** later attainment.

I don't see what "chance" has to do with it, when the GM is responsible for framing complications, and can purposefully make something have "ice-cream relevance." Which makes me wonder, again, if you're agreeing with me that relevance depends on context. Let me see your take on this:

Siege
(1) Players Planeshift and are 110 miles from the city they want to go, with a desert between them.
(2) Players decide to cross the desert (centipede optional) to get to the city. There is nothing they'd rather explore (if they even know of it), so they don't mind getting to the city as quickly as possible.
(3) Players encounter a complication -a siege is at the city, which was not known about prior to the GM introducing it (thus the players could not try to interact with it up to this point). The siege is framed by the GM in such a way that the players can engage with it, "leverage" it towards their goals, and that it relates to player/PC goals inside the city (time pressure, etc.).
(4) Players enjoy the complication as relevant to their goals, even if the PCs see it as bad (this makes sense to me).


Desert
(1) Players Planeshift and are 110 miles from the city they want to go, with a desert between them.
(2) Players decide to cross the desert (centipede optional) to get to the city. There is nothing they'd rather explore (if they even know of it), so they don't mind getting to the city as quickly as possible.
(3) Players encounter a complication -there are nomads guiding city refugees through the desert who are being escorted by mercenaries, which was not known about prior to the GM introducing it (thus the players could not try to interact with it up to this point). The desert encounter is framed by the GM in such a way that the players can engage with it, "leverage" it towards their goals, and that it relates to player/PC goals inside the city (warning that their goal inside the city is under siege allowing spell preparation, advice, equipment, mercenaries to hire, etc.).
(4) Players enjoy the complication as relevant to their goals, even if the PCs see it as bad (this makes sense to me).

Moving away from the ice cream, what's the difference, here? And, do you understand why I've questioned Hussar when he's said that the Siege example is fine, but the Desert example isn't interesting at all?

N'raac Yup. All of that looks good and I agree with it under your premise:

1 - There may be ice-cream on the street or stuff potentailly related to ice-cream.
2 - There may be awesome "other stuff unrelated to ice-cream" on the street.
3 - Not only may there be awesome stuff on the street, it may be even "awesome-er than the ice-cream in the ice-cream shop".

Its just that some folks (Hussar in this case) may not want to engage in any of 1, 2, or 3. They may just want to get to the ice-cream in the ice-cream shop directly across the street (I know my nephew would! And that is not me equating Hussar's interests to that of a child). And then after that, get to something else they deem exciting (or whatever their emotional metric is for their interests). That is a legitimate playstyle and they should be playing a system and playing with people that deliver that expectation.

I agree with this. I'm not even saying what N'raac is saying. I'm saying what if the stuff on the street relates directly to the ice cream that you're heading to? Is that irrelevant? Hussar seems to want to skip this, but would be okay with the ice cream shop being surrounded by a SWAT team. I'm curious what the difference is, relevance-wise. As always, play what you like

Edit: Post number 1,000 of the thread. I don't know if that's cool or a very bad sign