Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6103361" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's not my preferred approach either. There's a big difference between "full details" and "clear stakes".Also, my own experience is that once the GM has established a reliable ability to frame scenes having regard to player-flagged stakes, the players will be willing to enter a scene with the stakes perhaps a little less clear at the start. Of course, if such a scene ends up falling flat because the GM misjudged things, that's mostly on the GM's head.I don't understand the sense in which you are using the word "stakes".Until you've told me what the crossbowman is doing, and what orders are being given, I don't have any sense of the stakes at all. You haven't framed an engaging scene.Again, I don't know what sort of process you are envisaging here, nor what connection it bears to GMing D&D or any other game.In D&D, for instance, you frequently know what the odds are in a fight - if the AD&D orc you're facing is wearing studded leather and wielding a spear, and if you have cast Detect Magic and know none is present, then you know the orc is AC 7, has a THACO of (from memory) 19, and does 1d6 damage on a hit.As to results of success and failure, they may or may not be known, depending on the details of the situation - if what we're testing is your save against an 88 hp dragon breath, for instance, then the results are pretty clear - take 44 or 88 hp of damage, depending on the results of your save.The comment of yours that I responded to was "relevance having crystal clarity". You're now restating that back to me as "odds and results known in advance". But the two things are barely related. In the orc or dragon breath example the odds and results might be crystal clear, but I still have no idea of why it's relevant to the game.Conversely, if my PC spots an NPC in the distance and then suddenly recognises her as his long-lost mother, the relevance is obvious even though the upshot of the scene is completely up for grabs.Tell me more about the situation, the players' goals, the table expectations based on past play, etc. Until you tell me all that how am I meant to know?But here's one way in which the two scenarios could be importantly different. If the guard challenges me at the castle doorway, then a range of options is available: jumping over the guard, giving the guard the password, distracting the guard while my invisible friend sneaks past, etc. Other options are open to the GM, too - for instance, if I fight the guard and the guard is winning, or wins, I might end up jumping or falling into the moat - and from there have the opportunity to find another way into the castle.Whereas if the GM frames the challenge from the guard away from the castle entrance, then the range of options open to both players and GM is quite different. And potentially - depending, as I said, on a range of contextual factors - more narrow or less interesting relative to the known set of player concerns.It's not, in general, impossible. But for this table, here and now, it may well be - for the reasons I gave above.I don't understand how you're envisaging the scene.Suppose it starts like this "As you guys are taking your kit from the stables up to your rooms, you see two furtive figures talking in a corner of the inn. Silverleaf, with your keen elven hearing you think you hear one of the saying something about the duke riding out of the castle alone tomorrow night."At that point the relevance is clear, and assuming the GM hasn't completely misjudged his/her players engagement will follow.The bit in quotes is the worst form of railroading. It's the complete opposite of what I'm talking about - which is the GM taking the players' hooks, not players taking the GM's hook.As for relevant characters walking up - probably not, but tell me more about the context and the game rules (for instance, if the PC is a name level fighter or ranger who hasn't yet gained any followers, then perhaps that is what should happen). But in AD&D the standard mechanism is a combination of GM fiat ("Are hirelings available") plus (optionally) an offer and a reaction roll, plus the deduction of the relevant money from the PC's pile of loot. A 90 minute interview is nowhere mandated or even hinted at in any edition of D&D I'm familiar with as the appropriate way to resolve the taking on of mercenary soldiers.Not the Grell recruiting - the Grell having an ally.The PCs having allies is interesting too. But recruiting them is not.Are you saying that you don't see the difference between having mercenaries, and the process of recruitingmercenaries? The first can be important to the game without the second being important. Just as being at full hit points might be important, but the actual process of healing might not be, which is why some groups use various devices to make healing itself take next-to-no-time at thet table.You are referring to my example of the GM having a hireling show his/her cowardice, or tendency towards aberration-worship, when the grell is confronted. That doesn't make the recruitment high stakes - the recruiting will already have taken place when this happens. It makes the confrontation with the grell, and the use of hirelings in that process, high stakes - but that's what the players wanted.(There are other issues around the GMing of cowardice or treachery by hirelings - it's particularly important, in my view, to use a light rather than a heavy touch here, and to be open to the players turning things around, eg via Intimidate or Diplomacy checks against the hireling - but that's orthogonal to the basic point about getting the scene framing right.)There is no general answer. My preferred approach is one in which the GM does the job of scene framing following the cues sent by the players. Those cues may be formal and/or informal, depending on circumstances and system.The reason for following player cues is to ensure a player-driven game. The reason for giving the GM the actual job is to allow the GM to bring various elements of backstory, foreshadowing etc into the scene which the players aren't in the same position to do (because it is hard to frame a challenge for yourself, or to pose to yourself a question with a secret answer).On my preferred approach, to frame a desert crossing scene in circumstances where no player has expressed any particular interest in such a scene, and in which the players have expressed clear interest in getting to City B, would be bad GMing.They're not situations - they have no conflict. They are not emotionally laden.Because that's where the action is. That's where the players want to be.Of course, the GM might do a bad job of City B. That's always a risk. But then there's no reason to think that a GM who does a bad job of City B was going to do a better job of anything else. (Unless the GM has a blind spot for city scenarios in general. In which case s/he should be taking steps to avoid them. I take steps in my own GMing to try to avoid having to frame and adjudicate scenes at which I know I'm not very good - mass combats are one example of that.)On my preferred approach the GM doesn't "write an adventure". The GM has some notes on backstory, some ideas or possible lines of development sketched out, and the tools - monster lists, standard action resolution guidelines etc - to come up with mechanically detailed stuff as needed.I also prepare particular encounter outlines - maps, antagonist descriptions, etc - to drop in at appropriate points.I don’t have my copy ready to hand, but from memory the Chaotic priest in the Keep will takes steps to infiltrate the party and thereby betray and kill the PCs.Also, I think the hermit will give the PCs certain information, won’t he.Both these are situation – or, at least, have situation inherent in them. The module also clearly envisages the GM creating situation around the material (eg so-and-so has been kidnapped by the orcs and needs rescuing). I think whether GMs and groups approach the Keep primarily from the point of view of setting, or from the point of view of situation, probably varies from table to table just as much as everything else about playstyle does.Are you suggesting the fact that Hussar is still gaming is evidence that he must be misdescribing his approach here? Frankly I find that bizarre – but maybe I’ve misunderstood you.Hussar’s approach, set out in this thread, makes perfect sense to me, and sounds like the sort of person I would like to play with or GM for. I don’t find it at all bizarre that such a person should be still gaming.I’m not Hussar, but upthread I posted links to a range of sessions that I’ve run, and that I consider reasonably well run (in some of those posts I point to issues or difficulties I had). Hussar has also replied in at least one of those threads.So at least as far as I am concerned, it shouldn’t mysterious to you what I am looking for in a game. What I am still puzzled by is what you are trying to show in your posts. Are you trying to show you have different play preferences from me or Hussar? That’s not in dispute.Or are you trying to show that a playstyle different from your preferred on is impossible? That is in dispute, and frankly experience has taught me that it is not true.</blockquote>

Verification