# Should this be fixed



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2011)

My DM likes to give funky things as treasure instead of just dropping a ton of gold or gems in the game. Part of her fun is coming up with some strange items. 

We just defeated a major bad guy and we were expecting a nice pay off. We got some cool magic items. But there was only about 300 in coins and gems in his lair. 

He had on shelves a ton of oddities like beholder stalks in a jar a dragon's head stuffed and a bunch of small skeletons of various animals and magical beasts. When you looked at them they moved. Not in a menacing way they just moved as they would if they were alive.

I made a successful arcana check and I realized that these were a lost form of necromancy that used to be used to teach anatomy at magical and other colleges. 

I told the party this and the cleric detected evil and they were not evil. 

The party voted to take the items and sell them. I was going to cast tensor's floating disc to get them out. One of the party a dwarf follower of St Cuthbert kept protesting that necromancy is evil. Even though in the game world it is not.

Anyway we had to go take care of an ooze in another room and the dwarf took his greater invisibility potion went back into the room and smashed all the skeletons.

It turns out that those skeletons were worth around 30,000 GP the bulk of our reward.

I am annoyed but I am also like well we made our bed so be it. But there is some hostility over this and one player feels that it is not fair and the DM should find away to get us more treasure. 

I don't think she should. And to be honest she does not either she feels that we were given a lot of information which we were that these were valuable items and that we would have no problem finding a buyer and that they were not dangerous or evil. 

She tried to stop the player from doing it by having him make a wisdom roll but he was determined and she won't tell a player how to play. She also had the rest of us make listen checks and spot checks but we all failed. 

So do you think the fair thing would be to find a way to give us more treasure?


----------



## pawsplay (May 17, 2011)

I let my players get within 20' of the most valuable sapphire in the world, an essentially priceless gem that could fetch hundreds of thousands if not millions of gold pieces if you could find a wealthy-enough buyer, perhaps an ancient gold dragon or an emperor. Then the wizard carelessly destroyed it with a fireball. Oops.


----------



## falcarrion (May 17, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> My DM likes to give funky things as treasure instead of just dropping a ton of gold or gems in the game. Part of her fun is coming up with some strange items.
> 
> We just defeated a major bad guy and we were expecting a nice pay off. We got some cool magic items. But there was only about 300 in coins and gems in his lair.
> 
> ...




I applaud your Dm.  Creativity is what makes the game so much fun. 
But she needs to give out some gold too. Maybe every other session.
The dm in the group i'm in right now has given out less than 100 gold apeice.
and is very stingy on magic items.  and we are 5th and 6th level.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 17, 2011)

I could go either way on this.

On the one hand, its kind of sucky to go through a long story arc and come away with virtually nothing.  OTOH, if everything was done in character- and _in keeping_ with those characters' motivations, etc. (IOW, good roleplay)- I'd just let it stand.

Then again, I'm part of a group that stopped a BBEG while simultaneously getting Mordenkainen's baby killed (via my character's acting in character).


----------



## Mort (May 17, 2011)

Sounds like you have a very fun creative DM - this is a great thing and should be encouraged.

On to the question:

Should the DM replace the treasure in some way? If it were me, I probably wouldn't replace it, but I might beef up some future rewards to make sure players are not totally screwed (if the players are not having any problem with challenges and/or inherent bonuses are in place I'd leave it alone - actions should have consequences).

That said, I think the bigger question is: what the heck was up with that player, is this common?



Elf Witch said:


> Anyway we had to go take care of an ooze in another room and the dwarf took his greater invisibility potion went back into the room and smashed all the skeletons.




St. Cuthbert is a LG to LN deity; this act is both extremely chaotic and a bit nonsensical. I'd (if I were the DM) have a chat with the player and ask, why if they knew the skeletons were not evil they did what they did, and more importantly why in the extremely chaotic manner they did it. Heck the players is playing a *cleric of an extremely lawful god*. If I were the DM I would strongly consider a small punishment (big wart on the face for a week, loss of spell casting for a few days etc.)  Yes that's heavy handed but 1) Clerics (not just paladins btw) are held to a high standard 2) St. Cuthbert is a heavy handed, uncompromising deity. 

Probably not for a first offense though, and I would make sure I had all the facts. If, for example, this worlds clerics hate necromancy in all forms and tend to destroy it on site - well that's an expected outcome - but then it would be particularly rat-bastard to give them this type of reward!


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2011)

falcarrion said:


> I applaud your Dm.  Creativity is what makes the game so much fun.
> But she needs to give out some gold too. Maybe every other session.
> The dm in the group i'm in right now has given out less than 100 gold apeice.
> and is very stingy on magic items.  and we are 5th and 6th level.




She often gives out gold. But sometimes we get things worth a lot of gold that we have to sell and we often make allies doing so.


----------



## falcarrion (May 17, 2011)

Mort said:


> Sounds like you have a very fun creative DM - this is a great thing and should be encouraged.
> 
> On to the question:
> 
> ...




I totaly disagree. The player stated his characters view and stuck to his guns.
Nothing wrong with that in my view. He felt they where evil so he destroyed them. If they didn't move and jump around this would not have happened.
We assume that the dwarf is a cleric.Most likley he is but since it is stated as a follower he may not be.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 17, 2011)

Mort said:


> Sounds like you have a very fun creative DM - this is a great thing and should be encouraged.
> 
> On to the question:
> 
> ...




I know that she plans to make up for the loss in other ways by putting more treasure in later she just doesn't want to just hand wave away what happened. She is good at making sure we have what we need to succeed.

As for the player he is not playing a cleric but a rogue who is dedicated to St Cuthbert. His back story is that he was captured by the drow skinned almost to death and rescued by a cleric of St Cuthbert who gave his life for him. He has dedicated his life to service to St Cuthbert since then. Which he views as stomping out evil.

This is the second time his actions have gotten the party in big trouble. Earlier in the game we encounter a necromancer who was there to help us with information on  worms that were turning people into undead. 

We were being watched by evil clerics and snuck in to talk to this guy. When the rogue saw he was a necromancer he went nuts and killed him before the rest of us got up the stairs, he was scouting ahead. The necromancer was a member of my guild a group of lawful good wizards. I was able to find the information we needed in the wizard's notes.

We ended up arrested for murder and and the party had to cough up the gold to get the wizard raised. The dwarf  spent sometime in jail. We still work with the necromancer from time to time and I thought the dwarf was over his all necromancy is evil stand.

Out of game the DM has talked to the player and asked why, and he says he is playing the dwarf in a black and white way with no shades of gray. He knows the world we are playing in is not black and white and he is fine with that. He says he is having fun playing a fanatic to the cause of stomping out all evil.

Most of the time it is not an issue and we are real life friends and this issue does not carry out of the game most of the time.


----------



## wedgeski (May 17, 2011)

Sounds like a fun game, perhaps with a slight clash of expectations. The DM wants you to work for your rewards, and is putting stuff in the game which forces your characters to expand their social circle and will no doubt lead to many excellent adventure hooks. This player not only wants his gold and magic, but is playing a blunt instrument in a game where thoughtless deeds have serious consequences.

The PC in question will have to change, there's no doubt about it. Whether through the example of his comrades or via a game-changing error in judgement that makes him face his beliefs head-on. If he doesn't, it will get very hard for the other characters in the game to justify having him around. On the plus side, this sounds like excellent roleplaying fodder.


----------



## S'mon (May 17, 2011)

Fair would be for the party to fine the dwarf 30,000gp.  Nothing to do with the DM.

Edit: If he won't pay up, you should kick the PC (not the player) out of the party.  You should probably have done that after he murdered the LG Wizard.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 17, 2011)

I agree with Mort's assessment (though if this is a chaotic rogue worshiping a LN god and not fully understanding what that religion means...as could be the case with an ill-informed religious fanatic, then his actions make sense.)

I'd not expect anything from the DM. I'd expect the rogue, since he destroyed party treasure, to make up for it. That, or next time you find an item the rogue wants, break it in front of him "because it's evil". (EDIT: Breaking the item is a bit of a petty lesson, but what the rogue character did was going behind the backs of his friends...This is only something I'd do if your group's _characters_ are being petty, of course, and the _players_ are not.)



It bugs me when characters get away with doing crappy things to their party because the real life friends know it's "just roleplaying". The other characters, in many cases, if roleplayed as well would have negative reactions and consequences...people don't tend to hang out with others who consistently are a liability and treat them like crap. Friends will have a talk, work it out, stop hanging out together for a while, ask for monies to be repaid, as for apologies and promises of not doing it again, or more dysfunctionally will get revenge or act harshly.

Roleplay the consequences. That's my advice.


----------



## steeldragons (May 17, 2011)

Another "kudos" to your DM's creativity. Sounds like a nice, non-standard way to give the PCs a nice payout.

I would also say that "handwaving that it didn't happen" is absolutely NOT the way to handle this...as utterly infuriating as it must be for the other players.

The dwarf gets some "props" for role-laying his character and sticking to his guns...but, actions have consequences.

In this case (don't even get me started with murdering the LG wizard), I think booting the PC (again, not the player) from the group is neither drastic nor unwarranted. This is twice his alleged "beliefs" have caused the party serious loss! "Thanks, but no thanks, buddy. We'll do fine on our own. Go sequester yourself in a St. Cuthbert seminary where you can't do _us _any more damage."



Elf Witch said:


> I know that she plans to make up for the loss in other ways by putting more treasure in later she just doesn't want to just hand wave away what happened. She is good at making sure we have what we need to succeed.




Again, good (and kind) DM. I hope you bring her gifts and refreshment on all high holidays. 



Elf Witch said:


> As for the player he is not playing a cleric but a rogue who is dedicated to St Cuthbert. His back story is that he was captured by the drow skinned almost to death and rescued by a cleric of St Cuthbert who gave his life for him. He has dedicated his life to service to St Cuthbert since then. Which he views as stomping out evil.




That's nice he's keeping with his character/backstory...but if he's that..."fanatical", it seems he ought to be a looking to become a cleric...not that I think killing LG wizards is going to get him into Cuthbert's graces. But that's the PC's problem.



Elf Witch said:


> This is the second time his actions have gotten the party in big trouble.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> When the rogue saw he was a necromancer he went nuts and killed him before the rest of us got up the stairs, he was scouting ahead. The necromancer was a member of my guild a group of lawful good wizards. I was able to find the information we needed in the wizard's notes.




Yeah, I'm inclined to guess that finding it in his notes was your DM being kind again and thinking on her feet to get you the info you needed.

Again, this is...or may be "good" roleplaying...but it also seems to be the player is not paying attention to the world he is existing in. If it is known that necromancers are not necessarily evil, then he has no leg to stand on...IF St. Cuthbert's church says "death to all necromancers" in their dogma, then...yeah, it's justified. But you haven't made it sound like this is the case.



Elf Witch said:


> We ended up arrested for murder and and the party had to cough up the gold to get the wizard raised. The dwarf  spent sometime in jail. We still work with the necromancer from time to time and I thought the dwarf was over his all necromancy is evil stand.




If you want to take a less stringent stand than "pay up what you lost us or we're booting your PC from the party"...I'd say a "3 strikes and you're out...you have 2....2 reeeeally realllly big ones. Tread carefully."



Elf Witch said:


> Out of game the DM has talked to the player and asked why, and he says he is playing the dwarf in a black and white way with no shades of gray. He knows the world we are playing in is not black and white and he is fine with that. He says he is having fun playing a fanatic to the cause of stomping out all evil.




And that's great that that's the PC he wants...and that PC must exist in a NON-black and white world...with other NON-black and white PCs. His actions have consequences...like booting him from the party...or hiring a different rogue and keeping him back at camp to guard the horses or something...not letting him anywhere near anything that MIGHT be considered "treasure"...and obviously, paying back the party members for all of the treasure he looses them.

How does he respond to "the wizard you murdered wasn't evil? Those jars of copious wealth you destroyed were not evil"?...So in what way are you black-n-whitely "stomping out evil?"



Elf Witch said:


> Most of the time it is not an issue and we are real life friends and this issue does not carry out of the game most of the time.




MOST of the time I'm not watching 30,000gp getting smashed down the drain...Real life friends has nothing to do with it...this is PC actions...have and_ deserve_ PC ramifications. If _the character_ doesn't want everyone in the party mad at him, then he will need to curb his behavior in such a way as to not make them mad. From what you've told of the PC's attitude and background, I am inclined to believe the PC does not care if anyone is mad at him and exists in a self-created moral justification...hence, he is really not of use to the "good of the party."

Just my few coppers on the sitch.
--Steel Dragons


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 17, 2011)

After some more thought, if I were playing a character who had any ranks in knowledge religion, I'd realize that St. Cuthbert doesn't approve.

So (if I was this sort/feeling charitable) I'd sit down with this guy and tell him, nicely "I know you're very devoted to the church...but you're not well informed on their teachings. If you want to devote your life to their glory, you need to learn what to do and not do."

I'd then encourage him to go and study with the chuch until they felt he had a solid grasp on their teachings, so he could better devote himself to their service. In game terms, I'd require some roleplaying in this regard as well as him taking some ranks in knowledge religion (or halve the cost if it were only "knowledge, St. Cuthbert").


----------



## billd91 (May 17, 2011)

If I were the DM, I would *not* be making up for the 30,000 gp the dwarf destroyed. As DM, I set up the treasure, but it's up to the PCs what they do with it whether use it wisely or piss it away.

And if I were a player in that campaign, I'd try to get the rest of the players to agree to cut the dwarf out of shares until restitution on that 30,000 *he* destroyed was paid.


----------



## Oryan77 (May 17, 2011)

As a player, I wouldn't worry too much about what the DM does or does not do. I'd just stay in character and react the way I think the PC should react. If the money is important to your PC, then make the dwarf "pay" for his actions in some way. If the money isn't important, then let it slide and forget about it.

As a DM, I definitely would not do anything to _blatantly make up_ for the dwarf's actions. I would just move on with the game. There are plenty of opportunities to make up for the lost treasure down the road. If anything, I would see the dwarf's actions as a good thing. He's spicing things up for the game. Giving you guys your rewards is the easy part of D&D even if it means that you don't realize that the next bits of loot you find are payment for what you missed out on in the past.


----------



## steeldragons (May 17, 2011)

Having dwelt upon this scenario for a bit...and thinking of how I would think/act as a player and a DM...another couple of thoughts...

Specifically, are there other "Lawful Good" PCs? How did they react to his actions? How did they react to the slaying of a LG NPC? I think everyone in the party needs to take a hard lok at how their characters react, regardless of how they feel as players (I, personally as a player, would be ripshit!)

As a DM...and this totally goes to how your DM treats/how closely she charts  Alignment in her campaign...but for me, I would say, murdering a LG NPC is a Chaotic Evil act...this does not go towards any personal belief or justification the dwarf character believes...it is how alignment is treated in the game. If everyone of any alignment is allowed to simply create their own definition and act [what they feel is] accordingly, then alignment, obviously doesn't matter.

But, specifically for matters of religious belief, alignment (IMHO) MUST matter and, thus, actions be answered for.

As a DM, I would give the dwarf a single 1 more opportunity to act in such a manner...and then, he (or perhaps paladinic N/PCs will notice HE detects as "evil." Maybe the next time someone casts a "protection from evil", he feels some weakness...next time some casts "Detect Evil"...he shows up like a beacon...

In short, his actions are his actions...and they have caused an Alignment change...again, this is not what the character BELIEVES himself to be...but in the cosmic scales...it is what he has shone himself to be...

Some form of atonement or "penance" might be an interesting side-quest/plot. I also, heartily agree with Aborzanzorax's reccomendation that some "Knowledge" skills towards his religion be made mandatory by the party/church. Perhaps encounter an NPC cleric of St. Cuthbert to chastise him roundly about the ears...or beard...as the case may be.

Have fun and good luck.
--Steel Dragons


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2011)

At best the dwarf should be excluded from future treasure shares until the value of what he destroyed is paid off. At worst he should be beaten with rattan canes and booted from the group.

Your DM sounds cool and should not have to replace treasure that was willfully destroyed by PC stupidity.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2011)

Count me in as another giving Kudos to your DM.

I would not make up the lost treasure (although the PCs are always free to hunt down more).  I would consider how the dwarf's actions relate to his religion; if he tithes, someone from the upper hierarchy of the church might well admonish him for destroying "their" part of the take, and set him some "minor" task in restitution.

In a way, kudos for the player thinking more about what his character would do in-game than what is the wisest metagame move.  I would, however, agree with those who council for more discussion as to what the in-game milieu norms are.  It seems like this player strongly dislikes the idea of non-evil necromancy.

All in all, it sounds like a game I would have fun in.

But then, I think WbL guidelines have become a pulsating boil on the backside of the game, and don't care if they are followed or not, in either direction!  To the degree that you disagree with that assessment, YMMV and very likely will!


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 17, 2011)

My first thought is that the PC (not player) should be booted from the party. Literally. However, after reading SteelDragon's second post I agree that if Alignment means anything in the game world his suggestions should be adopted. And kudos to your GM, she's doing a bang-up job as far as I can tell. Good gaming!


----------



## baradtgnome (May 17, 2011)

The DM put the treasure in the game and the players flushed it out.  I recommend you let it stand, and the DM should NOT replace the treasure.

Its fine for the Dwarf character's player to role play situations, but should expect the other party members to role play back.  The other characters (not the players) should have been outraged!  Think of what could have been done with that treasure value.  Whether you are selfish neutral and spent it all on yourself, or some good alignment and put it to use in making life better for others, that was a tremendous resource to lose.  The group should not be looking to the DM to 'fix' this - the characters should fix it.

If there is no repercussions to outrageous behavior - you'll get more of it.  Possibly up to the point where the players (rather than the characters) get outraged.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2011)

Thanks for the input. My DM is also my roommate and she was feeling a little insecure about her decision to let what happen stand. Her one flaw as a DM is that she sometimes bends over backwards to give the players what they want. 

Now I know that does not sound like a bad thing. But sometimes she has let players do things that have hurt the game. We have a player who is such a powergamer that he won''t notice that what he wants effects all the other players negatively. When I DM I never say yes to his request without taking time to really think about them. 

As for ingame consequences. There have been some. Our lawful good cleric of Heirneous attacked and almost killed his character when he killed the necromancer and he was the one who turned us in to the authorities. My lawful good wizard told my guild what happened and they took a contract out on his life. They dropped it when the wizard was raised. We also got forced into a mission by the crown to rescue hostages as part of getting the dwarf out of jail. 

Back when the murder happened we had a bigger group playing it was two years ago. Since then we lost four players they were married couples one set moved and the other split up. At the time the rest of the party was against saying anything to the dwarf and wanted it dropped saying it was a natural mistake. 

The player does keep a record of all treasure he gets and does tithe 10 percent to the church of St Cuthbert. The sticky thing about the church of St Cuthbert is that in my DMs game they are fanatics against evil. Their priests often have the attitude kill them all and let St Cuthbert sort it out. In their eyes his killing of the necromancer was an innocent mistake and his intention was good. So they gave him forgiveness.


Part of the issue I think is the player himself. When he DMs his game is full of gray areas and heaven help you if you take the easy way out and kill a prisoner or even an evil NPC if you are in a town.  

But as a player he will kill everything in sight if it might be evil. And he won't stop and listen to the rest of us. 

Sometimes it can be a PITA.


----------



## frankthedm (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> But there is some hostility over this and one player feels that it is not fair and the DM should find away to get us more treasure.



 that! The party paid the price for having an ignorant zealot with. The Bones were not evil unto themselves and they had non nefarious uses to justify their value. Whether they share the loss or take it out of the zealot's share it up to the party.

Related topic with a different situation.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-evil-magic-items-he-wants-has-destroyed.html


----------



## CAFRedblade (May 18, 2011)

I just hope the party is keeping a tab that the Dwarf keeps running up.  

Sounds like some interesting items to give as treasure.  And although the Church seems to have a kill evil on sight, the world you're playing in recognizes that Necromancy isn't inherently evil..  .. so perhaps a chat with a parish priest of St. Cuthbert is in order.  Otherwise when next you visit the local charnel house to get a friend raised/preserved to be raised. and they use some necromancy to help keep potential disease down, the dwarf may find himself once again on the wrong side of the law.  

It's one thing to view the world as black and white, it's another to act rashly/impulsively upon those views depending on his alignment.  
Perhaps it's time for the PC's to reconsider his acts, and allow the law to arrest and jail him.  

As someone above mentioned, his alignment may no longer be what is written upon the character sheet.  If this keeps up, and he continues his rash acts in the name of the church, perhaps an excommunication or worse is in order until he atones.  Even a church with an aggressive stance against evil has to have limits/guidelines, unless the church itself is evil/corrupt.  

Hope I didn't ramble too much.


----------



## Aeolius (May 18, 2011)

A DM who enjoys creating original monsters, magics, treasures, and settings should be encouraged, not discouraged. 

As for the dwarf, the next time he sneaks off alone for selfish motives replace him with a doppleganger.


----------



## haakon1 (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It turns out that those skeletons were worth around 30,000 GP the bulk of our reward.
> 
> I am annoyed but I am also like well we made our bed so be it. But there is some hostility over this and one player feels that it is not fair and the DM should find away to get us more treasure.
> 
> ...




I agree with the DM's call on this.  With a "wisdom save" to tell him he's being an idiot, there should be no backsies on this.


----------



## Celebrim (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> So do you think the fair thing would be to find a way to give us more treasure?




No.  But the fair thing might be for the party to deduct 30,000 gp from the destructive party members share of the treasure.

And while I'm at it, let me say I really dig the old skool style of your DM.


----------



## Rel (May 18, 2011)

Yeah I think it's pretty cool to roleplay your character right up to the point where you violate Wheaton's Law, which is a line I think this guy crossed.

The thing is that it's probably uncomfortable for the players at the table to have to confront the question of, "Should our PC's boot your PC from the group?"  Because they'd not be roleplaying their own PC's if they weren't pondering that question.  So any good player should be making an effort to steer clear of that question.

Almost every time I've ever seen somebody throw the, "I'm JUST playing my character!" card, it's been when they were, as a player, being a dick.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 18, 2011)

The DM really has nothing further to do - she gave you treasure and you destroyed it.

"BUT it was the rogue, HE destroyed it!" I hear you say.

No - you (your character that is) destroyed it by adventuring with a nutcase. You've already paid for his previous mistakes, and now it's happened again.

Why is your character putting up with it? I don't mean to say that you should definately boot him - just that you should consider, in character, what it is that causes your character to stay with this guy. And if the answer is nothing, your character should either move to boot him or leave the party.


----------



## pemerton (May 18, 2011)

I think I have more sympathy for the player of the dwarf PC than most of the other posters here.

If one of the players in the game has made it crystal clear that his PC is resolutely opposed to all necromancy (and even if not all necromancy is metaphysically evil, that is presumably a tenable position - it's not as if toying with the remains of the dead is an act that it would be irrational for a person to have a strong evaluative response to), then by placing such a valuable necromantic treasure the GM seems to me to have set up this situation.

I'm not sure that the GM is therefore obliged to compensate for it. But equally I'm not sure the player of the dwarf deserves punishment (whether out of game or in game, by having his PC ostracised).


----------



## Nightson (May 18, 2011)

This is a good article everyone should read

Giant In the Playground Games


The player who wants the GM to include more treasure is probably pissed off about what the other player did but doesn't want to cause drama by going after the dwarf in game or out of game.

What you need to do is get the players together absent the dwarf's player and talk to them.  They may be all for things like this happening, or this may be something bad enough to threaten to kick the dwarf's player out of the group for, it's going to vary from group to group.

Remember, the point is to have fun.  If his behavior is negatively affecting everyone's fun then he needs to cut it out.

I've seen plenty of cases of this happening where one character chooses a concept that does not mesh, the GM just doesn't feel confident enough to tell them no, the character clashes, everyone else is unhappy but doesn't feel like they can kick him out of the group.

I have seriously seen this happen twice.  

To use a actually very similar example from the game I was playing.  We had a paladin in the level three party.  The party needed access to magic for a player driven goal.  The only source of magic in the town they were in was a lich.  All of this is known.  The party, reach the majority consensus to go and talk with the lich, the paladin didn't say anything.  As soon as the party (again, level 3) reaches the lich's chambers, the paladin pulls out his sword and charges.

And I was floored, while the player had been clear upfront about his hatred for undead, I just didn't think it would manifest in such a suicidal and party harming way.  I had the lich simply paralyze him with out of character mercy and the rest of the party thanked the lynch, and scurried off.  None of the other players were happy with the paladin, in game and out of game, but it was the party so nothing came of it.  And the paladin acted the same way again, and again, and finally on his fourth or so case of doing something likely to get the party killed, he quit after I the DM told him I wasn't going to let him do it.


----------



## Dross (May 18, 2011)

I applaud the DM's style in providing interesting treasure and how the situation has been handled so far.

As a DM I wouldn't "fix" the problem because it wasn't one that I made (for the record, I wouldn't have provided that type of treasure if I thought that the dwarf's necromancy=evil problem was still there, I'm assuming that Elf Witch's view was shared by the DM). As long as they had enough tools for future jobs I'd let it slide or adjust some things, bit I would not "replace" the treasure.

As a player I'd be miffed about the murder and more miffed about destroying the treasure as, from the viewing gallery at least, the dwarf seems to have a problem reconciling same basic St. Cuthbert beliefs. The murder would not be lawful, and it wasn't punishing evil. I know a couple of my PC's would have said something along the lines of: "And just what does St Cuthbert say about leaving allies, party members or maybe even friends during a battle to rob them of items that they have gained through blood and toil?"

I'm also happy with the player of the dwarf having a background and characterisation out of it. 
Where I do question the player is where the total hatred of necromancy comes from (with what we know, such hatred for Drow would be more acceptable). Given that it is not a in-game world view it has to be a character (or maybe religion) specific view. Since there has been 2 major instances I don't feel it is out of line for another PC to ask: 

"Why do you equate ALL necromancy with evil?" 

Then you could move forward in game about how to handle this.


----------



## Dross (May 18, 2011)

On a slightly different topic, how does the dwarf deal with all the necromancy in the game world? Why are there not more actions to destroy such things? Surely there has been more than 2 actions in two years.

It would seem that the party would run into more than 1 non evil necromancer in more than 2 years of playing. And since he was mentioned as being part of a guild, why is the guild not perceived as evil by the dwarf?

Spells (3.5) such as Blindness/deafness, cause fear, chill touch, death ward, Disrupt undead (necromancy using positive energy) are all 3rd or lower level. As is Mark of Justice, a 4th level paladin spell, and Undeath to Death, a level 6 Clr/Wiz spell used to destroy undead. There should be problems with using these spells near or by (with UMD) the dwarf.

I wonder if the dwarf should deny the protection from a cleric/druid/paly's Death Ward because it is from the Necromancy school?


At some stage (pre-3.5) weren't the Cure spells in the necromancy school?


----------



## steeldragons (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Thanks for the input. My DM is also my roommate and she was feeling a little insecure about her decision to let what happen stand.




Ummmm whyyyyy? Tell your "roommate" that she is totally doing the right thing!



Elf Witch said:


> Her one flaw as a DM is that she sometimes bends over backwards to give the players what they want.




hmmmm...well, tell her from me, KNOCK IT OFF!!!! YOU ARE THE DM! YOU CONTROL THEIR UNIVERSE! What the PCs do, the PCs do...YOUR job is to give them the consequences of their actions...so GIVE 'EM! 



Elf Witch said:


> As for ingame consequences. There have been some. Our lawful good cleric of Heirneous attacked and almost killed his character when he killed the necromancer




And why didn't he? He would have been totally justified.



Elf Witch said:


> My lawful good wizard told my guild what happened and they took a contract out on his life.




ComPLETEly justifiable...how did a cadre of wizards not find and kill this retch?



Elf Witch said:


> They dropped it when the wizard was raised. We also got forced into a mission by the crown to rescue hostages as part of getting the dwarf out of jail.




OK....so if I'm clear...the party had to do/take on a quest to get the nutcase dwarf out of jail...ummmm and at what point did anyone in your party say, "HELLLLLLS NO!!!!!" I won't do dick for this crazed nonsensical zealot!



Elf Witch said:


> Back when the murder happened we had a bigger group playing it was two years ago. Since then we lost four players they were married couples one set moved and the other split up. At the time the rest of the party was against saying anything to the dwarf and wanted it dropped saying it was a natural mistake.




Welll then...the rest of the party can take the "natural" consequences for the dwarf's actions...I recommend dropping a half dozen ice demons on them...that seems to wake people up. 



Elf Witch said:


> The player does keep a record of all treasure he
> gets and does tithe 10 percent to the church of St Cuthbert.




Well then, maybe his accountant ass should note the fact that he just annihilated his portion of 30,000 gp worth of tithe. Um, dwarf player...no mo' treasure for you....til the party is paid back...n' even after. Just...grrrr, I want this dwarf dead.

100,000 gp to the first PC who kills this obNOXious dwarf who believes himself a follower of St. Cuthbert. So sayeth the Steel Dragon.



Elf Witch said:


> The sticky thing about the church of St Cuthbert is that in my DMs game they are fanatics against evil. Their priests often have the attitude kill them all and let St Cuthbert sort it out. In their eyes his killing of the necromancer was an innocent mistake and his intention was good. So they gave him forgiveness.




Bollux. Bollux n' ! Killing a LG NPC is not "accidentally" good. It's not an unfortunate "mistake"....it IS KILLING a LG NPC!!! Again, your DM is toooooo kind. 

Be thankful to your gods, and shower your DM with frankincense and myrrh, that I do not DM your game. This dwarf er wouldn''t stand a chance in Hades.



Elf Witch said:


> Part of the issue I think is the player himself. When he DMs his game is full of gray areas and heaven help you if you take the easy way out and kill a prisoner or even an evil NPC if you are in a town.
> 
> But as a player he will kill everything in sight if it might be evil. And he won't stop and listen to the rest of us.
> 
> Sometimes it can be a PITA.




It is not a PITA, it is contradictory to a)his persona as a DM and b) his persona as a PC, unable to work for the good of the party.

Flays 'im up by 'is toenails says I....arrrrgh.

--SD


----------



## Blue (May 18, 2011)

Applaud the DM for fun and interesting treasure.

Applaud the dwarf for sticking to his beliefs.

4e divorces treasure parcels from specific acts, instead tying them to levels.  I've always seen that as a (needed) step away from "we kill it and take it's loot".  You killt he bandits, you get a few treasure parcels.  You scare them away so they never come back, you get a reward worth ... a few treasure parcels.

4e ties magic items and the magic item economy so tightly to characters that you can't mess with it too much before you need to adjust other things.

On the other hand, if player actions demand consequences, good and bad.  If player choice is meaningless, why play?

So ... I'd make sure that the player choice was meanignful, in terms on not giving the party liquid cash.  But I would replace the treasure parcels over the rest of the level.  First big of that would probably give the dwarf a divine boon (DMG2: Alternate Rewards) from St. Cuthbert for following his beliefs instead of something that would line his own pockets but could glorify necromancy (even if all necromancy isn't bad).  Maybe "Strength of Devotion: gain +2 to saves vs. charm and enchantment, and +2 to diplomacy and intimidate for goals aligned with St. Cuthbert.  Take -2 to bluff."

The rest I would work out as we go along.  Maybe contacts worth a significant discount (or a "I'll boost your item by +1") to those who can make good arcane/religion rolls to help others rediscover this lost necromantic art, etc.

It's tough - first priority would be to keep the dwarf's actions relevant.  But 4e item economy is so tightly a part of game balance that it's hard to penalize the party several parcels worth because of one character's action.


----------



## falcarrion (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Anyway we had to go take care of an ooze in another room and the dwarf took his greater invisibility potion went back into the room and smashed all the skeletons.




I curious how the rest of the party found out that he did it.  Did his character tell them? Did they question him? How did they role play this out?


----------



## steeldragons (May 18, 2011)

Blue said:


> Applaud the DM for fun and interesting treasure.
> 
> Applaud the dwarf for sticking to his beliefs.
> 
> ...




By the gods, how thankful am I that I shall never play 4e? Wow...every single point here sounds likes torturous nonsense. "Take -2 to bluff"? Dwarf killed a LAWFUL GOOD WIZARD who was there to HELP the party!

The dwarf's actions ARE relevant...he caused the entire party to loose 30k gp of value....I would say that is "relevant" to, ya know, every other person in the party.   

"But 4e item economy is so tightly a part of game balance that it's hard to penalize the party several parcels worth because of one character's action."

Wow. You really don't play any game I am remotely familiar with, do you? Not your (or anyone's) fault. Just a commentary on where the game has come...or  gone...and, it is, gone.  

--SD


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2011)

Just got a chance to sit down and read this thread tonight.

I know some one brought up how things are done in 4E  we are still playing 3.5. 

Our characters don't know that the dwarf smashed them to pieces. We came back and found them destroyed. Since one of the minions escaped we are guessing they did it. Out of character we know he did but we are pretty good at separating the two.

The one player who was upset over everything has calmed down and has told the DM not to worry about it.

I will admit that some of this is getting on my nerves. The whole necromancy thing does not make any sense to me. It does not fit his background wanting to kill every drow in sight yeah I understand that but not this. Personally I think the entire necromancy things is the player's view that all necromancy is evil and that comes from his years of playing. No matter how many PCs and NPCs tell him that necromancy in of itself is not always evil. The DM has come out and said in my game there are good necromancers.  


Part of the issue I found out is because of me. He does not like the way I sometimes play. He is basing this on several things. Back when 3.0 came out we were playing in a game and I played an elven sorcerer who tried not to kill things. I did a lot of subdual damage and  I often spared lives behind the party's back. The DM of that game really liked my character and how I was playing and rewarded it by showing that my mercy often made things better. For example a former prisoner of ours spared our lives and helped us escape execution because I had spared his life.

For some reason this drove him crazy and it bothered him that I was playing wrong. In his eyes you kill bad things in the game and if the DM puts them there they are to be defeated. 

So now 9 years later he is worried that I will do something stupid so he goes behind the party's back to make sure I don't do it. IE smashing the skeletons.

He also does not listen to what my character tells him. For example we were fighting dopplegangers and we came into a room where four people were tied up who looked like us. I yelled wait we need to think about this but he charged in and starting killing them. He killed two and they turned into dopplegangers but I had a bad feeling because we had been separated earlier. I cast web to try and slow him down. The cleric started saying don't listen to her kill them all, at that moment I just knew that one of the dopplegangers was with us and the other cleric tied and gagged in a chair was our real cleric.

I turned an attacked  what I thought was the doppleganger and the dwarf tried to attack the tied up cleric but he was asked to make a will save and couldn't follow through he kept trying. I killed the cleric I was fighting and he turned into a doppleganger. 

The DM to save the cleric's life had his god interfere and cast sanctuary on him so that he would not be killed. 

You would think that after almost killing a party member he would listen to me but nope he doesn't. 

It is just something I have to deal with in game. We have been playing together for 16 years and in real life he is a wonderful friend the type who would give you his last bit of money if you needed it. So I just cope with his gaming style.


----------



## Nightson (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It is just something I have to deal with in game. We have been playing together for 16 years and in real life he is a wonderful friend the type who would give you his last bit of money if you needed it. So I just cope with his gaming style.




I would strongly suggest for your next game, laying out a social construct for new characters.  Go over motivations and personalities and look for potential conflicts, and then talk about what keeps the group together and how those conflicts won't destroy party unity.  

I can see that helping, if you know he's going to be playing a homicidal hater of all things necromantic then you can for example, make your own character be sort of suspicious of necromancy.  Or it can serve as a way of discouraging him from picking character traits that sort of hinder and conflict with the party.


----------



## Griego (May 18, 2011)

The dwarf just likes being a jerk. Pick some flimsy excuse out of the air to kill his characters a few times until he gets the point. XD


----------



## Starfox (May 18, 2011)

I might be out on a limb, but let me present a different perspective.

That dwarf in an anti-necromantic activist. Just as various activists RL, this is controversial. Peace activists, environmental activists, anti-nuclear activists, abortionists and anti-abortionists - I am pretty sure they all see themselves as Lawful Good and doing the right thing. In my opinion, "activism" is in itself anti-establishment and therefore chaotic, but it is hardly evil. It is not until you start hurting other people that it approaches evil. Which he seems to have done, yes. But I can see how he still thinks of himself as LG.

That is the problem with alignments; once you get in under your character's skin, it becomes impossible for you as a player to tell the alignment of your own character. Of course you are doing the right and honorable thing;" if those fools would only realize what evils they are perpetuating in their mistaken beliefs."

As a player (in this case the dwarf's player)  in this situation you need to take a step back, breathe deeply, and try to see what you're doing from the perspective of those around you.


----------



## eamon (May 18, 2011)

I'm going to go against the flow here and say the DM does have a bit of a responsibility here.  Not to replace the lost treasure, but to manage expectations and for her part in the miscommunication.

So the dwarf hates necromancy, but in the DM's world this doesn't make sense.  _Before_ the dwarf killed the LG wizard, the DM should have pulled the emergency brake and discussed things.  It's quite possible that the dwarf would _still_ have killed that wizard, but that should only have happened with the out-of-character understanding that while the dwarf is justifiably traumatized and hates necromancy, that the PC's behavior is out of line.  The _players_ should agree with that - regardless of the _characters_.  I get the feeling that might not be the case based on the fact that you're surprised by the latest destruction of skeletons.

The ideal solution would probably have been to deal with the dwarf after the murder.  The dwarf's player should understand that the dwarf's inevitable downfall is not the player's downfall.  In fact, he might like the dramatic resolution of what sounds like a key part of his character.

Beyond that, it sounds like a fun bit of in-character gaming - hilariously fun from my uninvolved perspective!


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think I have more sympathy for the player of the dwarf PC than most of the other posters here.
> 
> If one of the players in the game has made it crystal clear that his PC is resolutely opposed to all necromancy (and even if not all necromancy is metaphysically evil, that is presumably a tenable position - it's not as if toying with the remains of the dead is an act that it would be irrational for a person to have a strong evaluative response to), then by placing such a valuable necromantic treasure the GM seems to me to have set up this situation.
> 
> I'm not sure that the GM is therefore obliged to compensate for it. But equally I'm not sure the player of the dwarf deserves punishment (whether out of game or in game, by having his PC ostracised).




The DM placed valuable treasure that was consistent with the game world as the players knew it to be. Just because one player refuses to accept certain realities of that world does not mean the DM has an obligation to alter that world to better fit the deluded view of a single PC. 



eamon said:


> I'm going to go against the flow here and say the DM does have a bit of a responsibility here. Not to replace the lost treasure, but to manage expectations and for her part in the miscommunication.




I don't see any miscommunication here. There was no mention anywhere that the player was not made aware of how the game world in this campaign operated. A choice was made to personally ignore what was acceptable to the rest of the world and act upon personal beliefs. Thats all well and good as long as the player understands that actions have consequences and doesn't complain when having to face them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see any miscommunication here.




Agree.

Indeed, from my reading, the DM went out of her way to ensure that the player understood the norms.  She informed the players that the items were not evil.  She gave the player the option to make a Wisdom save before taking his action (which, in any group I've ever been in, means you're doing something you might want to reconsider).  Ever indication is that she was as clear as is humanly possible.


RC


----------



## jasper (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> ...It is just something I have to deal with in game. We have been playing together for 16 years and in real life he is a wonderful friend the type who would give you his last bit of money if you needed it. So I just cope with his gaming style.




So he is PITAG. As in PITA Gamer type. You have two choices. One which you are doing is just sucking it up. Two tell PITAG you will not play with him unless he chills out.
I have did both. But as I got older and had less game time found that choice two does improve my enjoyment of the game.

Can I swap your roommate for a dog and two cats? I have a spare room and need a decent DM.  
But if I was DM I would not give the group any extra treasure. And maybe have the law on the dwarf for murder.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 18, 2011)

I started this thread to give my roommate some support. She really does not have the time to be on the computer. I wanted her to get some opinions besides mine on what she should do.  

The issues I have with some of the things that the player does in game is something I learned to deal with several years ago. I had to make a choice to either adapt or quit the group. So I adapted. I will admit that there are times I feel stifled as a player. But most of the time I look forward to gaming and seeing my friends. 

It is hard to find groups in my area gaming seems to be dying a slow death. 

It really does not matter what the DM says to the player about her world he does what he wants to. Most of the time it is not an issue. And she does adapt things for example knowing him she would never try to introduce a good drow. 

The reason she didn't think it would be an issue with the skeletons was because they were small animals and not a danger. The player has not attacked or tried to kill the NPC necromancer since he went to jail and the subject has not come up. 

She is going to adapt the game further and not make the mistake of introducing anything else like this in the game.


----------



## Mort (May 18, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It really does not matter what the DM says to the player about her world he does what he wants to. Most of the time it is not an issue. And she does adapt things for example knowing him she would never try to introduce a good drow.
> 
> The reason she didn't think it would be an issue with the skeletons was because they were small animals and not a danger. The player has not attacked or tried to kill the NPC necromancer since he went to jail and the subject has not come up.
> 
> She is going to adapt the game further and not make the mistake of introducing anything else like this in the game.




This is quite sad. From the way you phrase it, this player seems to be holding the rest of the group hostage to his way of playing (and his worldview, regardless of the DM). 

The simple fact that his actions have caused the DM to shy away from rewards like this in the future (and while she probably means necromancy, she'll probably double think any non-standard reward now) is itself a bad outcome.

Is your group really so small that the DM can't risk alienating the player by having a talk with him - specifically to stop imposing his worldview over that of the actual world as presented(which is clearly metagamey and not "roleplaying" anyway) to the detriment of the DM and other players?


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 18, 2011)

I've changed my mind. Just kill his character. While he's asleep and you're (improved) invisible. And if he brings in another delusional character, do the same. And keep on doing it until he gets the hint. He can either play in the world the GM has made for all of you to play in, or he can go play somewhere else.

PS: He is _not_ your friend. At least, not on game night.


----------



## GSHamster (May 19, 2011)

I think this is an out-of-game problem that needs to be handled out-of-game.

The player of the dwarf (the player, not the character) is a jackass. He is deliberately playing in a manner designed to inflict annoyance on the other players (not the characters, but the players), and justifying it in the name of "roleplaying".

"Roleplaying" is not a license to annoy the rest of the gaming group.

In my mind, you need to sit him down outside the game and tell him to play nicely with others. Call him out for his behavior, and refuse to accept "roleplaying" as an excuse.


----------



## Aeolius (May 19, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It really does not matter what the DM says to the player about her world he does what he wants to. Most of the time it is not an issue. And she does adapt things for example knowing him she would never try to introduce a good drow.




I would tell her not to change her DMing style one jot. A DM should not run a game they do not enjoy. The player sounds inflexible and selfish, like a thief who would steal from their own party. 

I also have problems with players who expect standard dungeon crawls, standard treasures, and monsters run verbatim from the Monster Manual. What's wrong with a good drow, a neutral troll, or an evil treant?

Have fun with it. If a player does not enjoy the DM's style, the player should leave.


----------



## baradtgnome (May 19, 2011)

Since this is a group of friends, a non-confrontational discussion about how the others feel about this kind of action might be enough to change the way he plays.  Something like, "You know, we were really disappointed in not getting any treasure.  The other characters could role play their reaction in ways you might not like.  Such as demanding compensation, or doing things behind your character's back.  We don't want this to turn into bad feelings."

I understand you are trying to make your DM feel better.  I think there was enough reinforcement in this thread that the community felt it was a clever and desirable way to offer treasure.  The reality is, even with the reinforcement, the DM is now going to alter her style to avoid offending people.  That is unfortunate.  Good luck with the game & your friends.  It is, after all, the friends that matter most.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 19, 2011)

If one player damages the fun of the group, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Or the one.

DTMFA.  From the game.  If that person is your friend, do something else with him.  Like bowling.

In any event, game long and prosper.


RC


----------



## Elf Witch (May 19, 2011)

The DM has decided to talk to the player. She has been talking to everyone she does not want him to feel singled out.

This last issue has caused things to bubble to the surface. Right now she is an inch away of taking a break from DMing.

This is just her second time and her first time DMing 3.5 so she she has made some mistakes that have come back to bite her in the ass.

For example she allowed the player playing the warlock to take the feat double shot and fire two eldritch blasts around. At fourth level he was doing around 35 points of damage a round. The dwarf rogue was giving a tattoo that allows him to have mischance of being hit of 40% every time.

She also did something I tried to talk her out of which was make the characters a 42 point buy at creation. 

I am ninth level and my wizard has a 24 intelligence because I build it with three levels of human paragon and I have a diadem of intelligence of plus 2. 

She brought up the fact that she is having issues challenging us and asked for advice. 

The warlock player says he is willing to change out the feat but  deep down he is being pissy. He got hit with acid last game. The DM did not in game require him to make save rolls for his item. He pushed the issue and lost two items. So now he feels resentful. The DM did not ask him to give up the feat she was looking for ways to beef up the encounters not to take way items or things she had already allowed.  


He feels my character should be nerfed as well. So I gave up the diadem but he also thinks my intelligence is still to high. I want to be fair but why should I have to rebuild my character at a lower stat point buy then everyone else? The human paragon classes gave me some nice things like a few extra hit points a plus 2 to a stat and the ability to use a sword. I also gave up a level of spell casting and three levels of wizard class for it. I may be a ninth level character but I am only a sixth level wizard.


What a mess. She wishes she had never said anything. 

It is funny I think the issues with the dwarf player are going to turn out to be the easiest to fix he has said to her that he wants to fix and he is sorry if he caused issues in the game.


----------



## falcarrion (May 19, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> The DM has decided to talk to the player. She has been talking to everyone she does not want him to feel singled out.
> 
> This last issue has caused things to bubble to the surface. Right now she is an inch away of taking a break from DMing.
> 
> This is just her second time and her first time DMing 3.5 so she she has made some mistakes that have come back to bite her in the ass.




Tell her to hang in there. We need more creative Dm's such as her. Besides she has the the backing from most us here. she can come here and ask for help or advice anytime.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 19, 2011)

falcarrion said:


> Tell her to hang in there. We need more creative Dm's such as her. Besides she has the the backing from most us here. she can come here and ask for help or advice anytime.




I think she has the potential to be a great DM she is creative concerned about making the game fun for everyone. She just needs more experience under her belt. 

To make things easier on her and to help smooth things over I am pulling my character out of the game and bringing a new one in. 

My wizard is going to be called by her guild on an important mission and they are sending a sorcerer to take her place. I am going to build her at a lower point buy. It is not totally fair but I am used to playing where you roll and you often have a variety in stats. And hopefully it will show that she is not showing me favoritism and that we both want to make the game better for everyone.


----------



## RedTonic (May 19, 2011)

Sounds like the drama in my high school gaming group. I'm so glad I'm past puberty now. But this is going on into... College? I'm just guessing--roommate thing n' all.

Recommend (kindly) to the DM that she set aside some time in the next session to address concerns about rebalancing the game. You shouldn't give up a character you enjoy playing because another player is overreacting about the DM's request for advice. I'm sure if the flippin'-out player can be plied with some pizza, beer, or xanax long enough for him to calm down, she can soothe him with the explanation that she really just wanted suggestions on how to scale the encounters better--or perhaps she actually wanted reassurance that you were all having fun plowing through battles. Nobody needs to give anything up in that situation. A sacrifice need not be burned.

On the other hand, I do think the dwarf's player needs to straighten up. Perhaps it's time for you and he to have a heart to heart about why he's sabotaging the game--and make no mistake, he _is_ sabotaging the game. That action is what a number of other commenters in this thread have described. He's worried that you'll have _badwrongfun_ and he's doing everything in his power to prevent you from having it. Besides taking schadenfreude, he's probably not really enjoying the game as well as he could be due to his own actions. Talk to him about why he's acting that way, and don't let him use "being in character" as an excuse. He controls his character; if he says differently, he needs to stop lying or seek therapy--perhaps both.

Meanwhile, consider the following: in character actions mean in character consequences. It sounds like your DM has done well on that score thus far--but your DM doesn't shoulder the entire weight of the game world. Eventually, your characters will learn that he did this. Or he will do something similarly heinous and he _won't_ be able to hide it. This should have been nipped in the bud once he killed a LG being; now he's running amok.

Next thing you know, the dwarf will be knifing halfling kindergartners.


----------



## RHGreen (May 19, 2011)

I know what I'd do if I was the party wizard.

Oops, scorching burst. Oops, scorching burst. Oops, scorching burst.


----------



## Nightson (May 19, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> This last issue has caused things to bubble to the surface. Right now she is an inch away of taking a break from DMing.




I was in a pretty similar situation, and I did the same thing, I took a break.  

Taking a break meant no gaming for almost a year and I definitely regret it.

So, is there anybody else who is interested in DMing, if so let them run a short adventure.

If not, maybe try a quick adventure in a different system.

Both those can help recharge the GM batteries.

And then the hard part, sit down with the group, risk tearing it apart and creating hard feelings, and try to get the group working towards the fun of everybody in the group.


----------



## Rel (May 19, 2011)

RedTonic said:


> Sounds like the drama in my high school gaming group. I'm so glad I'm past puberty now. But this is going on into... College? I'm just guessing--roommate thing n' all.




LOL...you're a bit short of the mark there mate.


----------



## RedTonic (May 19, 2011)

Oh! I see now. 

Then the dwarf's player really is overdue for putting on his big boy panties...


----------



## Elf Witch (May 19, 2011)

Rel said:


> LOL...you're a bit short of the mark there mate.




LOL Rel you know me so well. No we are not in college most of us are in our 40s and 50s. Which proves even adults can be big babies now and then.

I have just spent three and half hours on the phone with the warlock's player. I finally got pissed and hung up on him. Basically he just wants to hang on a cross not fix anything.

The DM knew she had allowed to much power in the game but she did not ask anyone to give anything up instead she wanted to find away to continue playing at this level. Find away to balance challenges to our power level.

He has taken his character got rid of the extra stuff he had redid his stats at a 29 point buy and he decided to get rid of most of his magic items. He is now being a frakking martyr and going on how his character is now legal.

Since we are not playing in a RPGA living game a legal character is what the DM says it is. 

He is also furious I won't admit to calling him the DMs pet last session. I have no clue what he is talking about. I have no memory of saying it or why I would say it. I will admit I said it years ago I think around 2006 when we were playing in another game and that DM made his character the "star" and the rest of us his minions. 

A few weeks ago we were talking about the game and I told him that his character's background was my roommate's favorite because it was so creative. And that I thought it was awesome. It was a freaking compliment on its originality and creativity. Just because his background is her favorite has not meant anything in game. She has given him nothing special over the rest of us nor has she ignored goodies from our background. His background is every player at the table's favorite we have all said that. It has been a blast watching a demon and archon fight over his soul and wondering which way he is going to end up going. We have been taking side bets out of game over it.

But he has chosen to take what I said as an insult.

And now he is also upset over me and the cleric's player being upset with the dwarf over killing the necromancer. He is comparing it to the cleric killing two evil clerics of Hextra who were still alive after a battle. A battle deep in a dungeon miles and days from any kind of settlement.  What were we supposed to do with them? Did I mention our cleric is a follower of Herineous and these clerics of Hextra had captured and tortured until they died fellow clerics of our cleric's order. 

He would not admit that it was not the same thing. We killed evil clerics in cold blood the same way the dwarf killed a necromancer who was lawful good in his own house in the middle of Greyhawk. According to him both were evil acts and the cleric and I are hypocrites. 

I have no clue what has set him off. I know he can sometimes be moody he has been through a lot in the past ten years. Hie wife died of brain cancer and before the end she didn't even remember him. It was horrible. I spent many a day sitting at the hospital with him. But it has been close to two years now. 

His complaints and actions are kind of bizarre.


----------



## S'mon (May 19, 2011)

*DANGER DANGER*

If the DM is struggling with 3.5 now, at 9th level, she needs to be aware it is only going to get MUCH WORSE.  I strongly suspect that you guys are not going to have much fun.

My advice to the DM would be: look to wrap up this campaign with an exciting finale at 10th level, take a break, then start a new campaign beginning at 1st or 2nd level, using lessons learned (Eg: don't go over 32 point buy).  She might like to consider E6; she might also like to consider Pathfinder which has somewhat better class balance than 3.5.  Another good idea is to halve XP awards so PCs are in the 3e 3rd-8th level sweet spot for longer.  And don't try to GM above 8th level unless she is very comfortable with a much more authoritarian style in terms of eg what sources are allowed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 19, 2011)

S'mon is right.

3.x assumes characters level at the same rate throughout their careers, but characters become exponentially complex to challenge properly.  This means that, as the characters gain levels, it becomes increasingly more difficult to DM.  In addition, decisions that seemed okay at lower levels might come back to bite the DM, as in this case.

One quick fix to make the game work better might be to play with the XP chart, so that characters require exponential XP to level past 2nd.  That way, you can have a longer time in the lower-level "sweet spot", and your DM can actually know what your characters can do before they get a whole slew of new powers.

Good luck.



RC


----------



## Elf Witch (May 19, 2011)

I am going to suggest that she wrap up things and we move on to something new. 

We have been getting all the Pathfinder adventure paths and everyone has been wanting to play a pathfinder game and in it as rules for slow XP progression.

I think it might be the answer that and make more realistic characters and basically don't experiment with the rules until she has more experience.


----------



## eamon (May 19, 2011)

I said:


eamon said:


> I'm going to go against the flow here and say the DM does have a bit of a responsibility here.  Not to replace the lost treasure, but to manage expectations and for her part in the miscommunication.





ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see any miscommunication here. There was no mention anywhere that the player was not made aware of how the game world in this campaign operated.





Elf Witch said:


> It really does not matter what the DM says to the player about her world he does what he wants to. Most of the time it is not an issue. And she does adapt things for example knowing him she would never try to introduce a good drow.



 Maybe "communication" has the wrong nuance.  It's a clash of expectations.  Is that a clearer term?  Neither the player nor DM are here, and as to whose fault it is... Well, the blame game certainly isn't going to improve matters, so avoid it.

As to how _not_ to solve the problem: 







Aeolius said:


> I would tell her not to change her DMing style one jot.



 You don't have to knuckle under, but with that attitude, you're unlikely to resolve anything either.  If you take this stance, you've basically decided you want to lose the player.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 19, 2011)

eamon said:


> As to how _not_ to solve the problem: You don't have to knuckle under, but with that attitude, you're unlikely to resolve anything either. If you take this stance, you've basically decided you want to lose the player.




If I had a player who played with the intent to be jerk to everyone else because the game world didn't work exactly like he wanted it to then yes the player can take his dice bag and dangle.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 19, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> If I had a player who played with the intent to be jerk to everyone else because the game world didn't work exactly like he wanted it to then yes the player can take his dice bag and dangle.




Indeed.   

Just because someone is willing to play, it doesn't follow that the person is worth keeping as a player.

I'm just sorry I can't XP ExploderWizard right now!


RC


----------



## Aeolius (May 19, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> ...the player can take his dice bag and dangle.




Anyone else get a mental image of a chrome dice bag hanging from a trailer hitch?


----------



## eamon (May 19, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> If I had a player who played with the intent to be jerk to everyone else because the game world didn't work exactly like he wanted it to then yes the player can take his dice bag and dangle.



If that's what you want... but it doesn't sound like it's the OP's preferred solution.  Except for the good feeling of telling somebody what's what, this course of action has nothing to recommend it.  Even if the player is being annoying, that may well be because, well, he's annoyed.  You're not playing the game he wants.  And if that's the case, you can just say so instead of making a scene.  And maybe if you ever meet at a different table, you can both enjoy a different game.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 19, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I am going to suggest that she wrap up things and we move on to something new.
> 
> We have been getting all the Pathfinder adventure paths and everyone has been wanting to play a pathfinder game and in it as rules for slow XP progression.
> 
> I think it might be the answer that and make more realistic characters and basically don't experiment with the rules until she has more experience.



This sounds like the best solution, especially with what else has happened. Good luck and good gaming. And for what it is worth, I'd like to play with your GM. She sounds like a really good one!


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 20, 2011)

Regarding the dwarf, there is a big difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. If the DM says something isn't evil, then in her world *it isn't evil.* The dwarf's player insisting it is evil is just an excuse for being a PITA.



Elf Witch said:


> I am going to suggest that she wrap up things and we move on to something new.
> 
> We have been getting all the Pathfinder adventure paths and everyone has been wanting to play a pathfinder game and in it as rules for slow XP progression.
> 
> I think it might be the answer that and make more realistic characters and basically don't experiment with the rules until she has more experience.



Do it. Start at level one with regular characters. And I would suggest having the group collectively determine their origins--make the characters know each other, work for a common group (like the Pathfinder Society), and/or agree not to develop character traits and goals that harm the party in general and specific characters.

If one player wants to have goals that are detrimental to the party, I wouldn't allow it. Everybody needs to work together.


----------



## Blue (May 20, 2011)

steeldragons said:


> By the gods, how thankful am I that I shall never play 4e? Wow...every single point here sounds likes torturous nonsense. "Take -2 to bluff"? Dwarf killed a LAWFUL GOOD WIZARD who was there to HELP the party!




When you say "lawful good", you're referring to game mechanics.  You make your choice on that, you're meta-gaming.  When the dwarven believer says "necromancer" in a world where St. Cuthbert is shown to have no tolerance, that's roleplaying your character.



steeldragons said:


> Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually, my longest running campaigns (one I'm still running) were very-low wealth/magic 3.x homebrew world.  It has it's problems (3.x advances BAB but not AC with level, needing magic to keep that somewhat even), but it's workable with "non-standard" rewards.  4e on the other hand makes magic item economy less a reward system and more a secondary part of leveling.  This isn't saying that a good or bad design choice, just saying how the game is put together.

You do have choices in 4e, DMG2 introduced alternate rewards including inherent bonuses to make the math work out and magic much more optional.


----------



## Blue (May 20, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I know some one brought up how things are done in 4E  we are still playing 3.5.




I brought up 4e, my mistake.  I should read more closely.  If it's 3.5, by all means let it stand.  I'm still running a 3.5 game, second campaign in a homebrew world that started when the 3.0 PHB came out (MM wasn't even out yet).  3.x is a lot more flexible in terms of wealth.  I thought you were playing 4e where it's effectively part of the levelling up system and can't handle a big loss.

Good luck.


----------



## Horatio (May 20, 2011)

A good roleplayer does things in character while helping or at least not disrupting the party.
It isn't always easy to find "in character" solution that won't be "against" the party sometimes, but where is will, there is a way.

Being in character should be an opportunity for finding original solutions to (original or not) problems, not an excuse to mess with others (be it directly or indirectly). 


In this particular case, it would be quite easy to arrange meeting with St. Cuthberts representative, that would be able to buy the whole inventory and deal with it as they see fit. Want to destry it? Go ahead, it's yours now. Do you think it is not evil and could do some good in a medical school? Go ahead, donate it / sell it to them. Or even not buy it at all and let it in our hands.

As a loyal follower, I would see to it that the will of the church (not MY will or my ... understanding of the will, after all, I'm loyal, even fanatical FOLLOWER) will be done.


One last thing. In our history, there were plenty of people who said "I'm acting on behalf the greater good/religion/poor people/etc." . We all know how most of these finaly ended. In your game world history, there are probably similar figures. If the group sees a group member starting to act in a similar way, they should have a chat with him. In character, of course. And show him, how much evil can be done in the name of eradicating evil.


----------



## WHW4 (May 20, 2011)

"Dwarf, do that again and you can find another party to adventure with. Maybe you like begging for your meals on the temple steps, but some of us want to live by our own means."

Then continually shame him in front of other dwarves by calling him a beardless fool, who decided he was too good to worship the All-Father and can't hold on to a gold piece if his life depended on it. 

If he whines: "It's what my character would do! WHAAAAAAAA!"

Sounds harsh, I know, but our group has so very little tolerance for people's RP completely whacking game balance/overall group fun in the knees.


----------



## Griego (May 21, 2011)

Blue said:


> (3.x advances BAB but not AC with level, needing magic to keep that somewhat even)



Why don't you use the defense bonus or whatever it's called from Unearthed Arcana? I think it's in the SRD.


----------



## DumbPaladin (May 21, 2011)

wedgeski said:


> This player ... is playing a blunt instrument in a game where thoughtless deeds have serious consequences.
> 
> The PC in question will have to change, there's no doubt about it. Whether through the example of his comrades or via a game-changing error in judgement that makes him face his beliefs head-on. If he doesn't, it will get very hard for the other characters in the game to justify having him around.





+1 to this comment for sure.  I love realism in the party mechanics.  Just because someone is a player in the group does NOT mean the characters of the party HAVE to put up with that player's character's shenanigans.  They are under NO obligations to continue to travel with that person in a party, especially not if that person is regularly costing them money, getting them thrown in jails, making them enemies, or any other detrimental behavior.

He needs to straighten up and fly right ... or he'll soon find himself without a band of fellow adventurers ...


----------



## Jools (May 21, 2011)

Wow. This thread is like Dungeons & Dragons the soap opera. Its quite compelling. Will there be more instalments?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 21, 2011)

It sounds like this dm/group is a good candidate for E6.

E6: The Game Inside D&D (new revision) - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine

http://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf



(And by the way, when I googled e6, I accidentally typed ed. You get a whole lot of interesting results that have nothing to do with a guy named Ed.)


----------



## Elf Witch (May 22, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> It sounds like this dm/group is a good candidate for E6.
> 
> E6: The Game Inside D&D (new revision) - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine
> 
> ...




I really like E6 but the rest of the group hate it because it does not give them a lot of goodies and they want to experience high level play. 

The main issue here is if you are a newbie DM stick to the wealth by level suggestions, point buy suggestions and the RAW.

If you want to change things run it by a more experienced DM or in this case listen to your roommate.

I have found that players can sometimes be whiny babies. The player playing the warlock was very upset when she asked him to change the feat that she said he could use to have two eldritch blasts a round. He didn't see it as over powered. 

At fourth level it was doing 13D6 a round. I pointed out to him that most wizard spells max out at 10Dwhatever and that usually does not happen until very high level. 

He gave it up but was really upset over it.  

The soap opera does continue. I decided to retire my wizard because the warlock player felt it was unfair for me to be the only character in game that did not get a nerf. I made a 32 point buy sorcerer. The rest are still 42 point buy.

The cleric retired his character to bring in a paladin of St Cuthbert. He was hoping that having someone from the same church would help control some of the dwarf's more outrageous behavior.

The player playing the warlock and the dwarf made the role playing decision not to trust the new characters. They feel it is some kind of trick. It does not seem to matter that the prelate of St Cuthbert main temple who the dwarf trusts has vouched for the paladin. Pointing out to him that he is one of only 12 paladins in the order.

My new character is a member of the same guild as my wizard and was asked by my old character to take her place.

The in game reason for the departure of the other two characters was since they both followed Herineous they were called for a special mission.

Personally I will be glad when this campaign is wrapped up. Right now I think there is to many resentments and crap clouding a good group.

I might run a short game that is not DnD maybe Chill where the players play the monsters and get extra points for playing with their food. Something to lighten the atmosphere.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 22, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I have found that players can sometimes be whiny babies.



Truer words were never spoken... er... written.



> The player playing the warlock and the dwarf made the role playing decision not to trust the new characters. They feel it is some kind of trick. It does not seem to matter that the prelate of St Cuthbert main temple who the dwarf trusts has vouched for the paladin. Pointing out to him that he is one of only 12 paladins in the order.



The first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

These two haven't admitted anything yet. 

It seems like everyone else in the group has recognized that there is a problem and taken steps to try to fix it. These two have only reluctantly had slight changes forced upon them.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 22, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> Truer words were never spoken... er... written.
> 
> The first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem.
> 
> ...




One of the issues and it has always been here is that those two are best friends. They were college roommates and have known each other for over 20 years. I think they feed of each other. If one has a problem then so does the other. If one loves the game so does the other.

It was not as bad when we had four other players in the group. It kind of dilated the effect.

I do get it. My roommate and I have been roommates for 32 years and we have to be careful not to feed off each other. To try and avoid the knee jerk reaction of taking sides.


----------



## Mort (May 23, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> The player playing the warlock and the dwarf made the role playing decision not to trust the new characters. They feel it is some kind of trick. It does not seem to matter that the prelate of St Cuthbert main temple who the dwarf trusts has vouched for the paladin. Pointing out to him that he is one of only 12 paladins in the order.




I think this right there pretty much solidifies that this is absolutely not an "in game" problem but an out of game problem that the players are (poorly) framing as a character issue. Hopefully the two players will recognize they are being jerks and move on/get over it. Good luck!


----------



## Elf Witch (May 23, 2011)

Mort said:


> I think this right there pretty much solidifies that this is absolutely not an "in game" problem but an out of game problem that the players are (poorly) framing as a character issue. Hopefully the two players will recognize they are being jerks and move on/get over it. Good luck!




The DM tried to talk to them tonight. The player playing the dwarf said that it makes sense considering his character is paranoid and he used examples from his Shadowrun game about why he would consider not trusting his god. He thinks his god is being used by an evil god.

The DM pointed out that Shadowrun and DnD are two completely different type games and that in Shadowrun there are no gods. She finally got through to him. At least it sounded that way.

The other player is using the old role playing excuse. But she got kind of firm on the phone and told him if he didn't knock it off she was going to end the game. That seemed to get through to him.


----------



## RedTonic (May 23, 2011)

I really hope it works out for you all; I always hate it when an otherwise fun game ends due to bloody stubbornness.


----------



## Dross (May 23, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I have found that players can sometimes be whiny babies. The player playing the warlock was very upset when she asked him to change the feat that she said he could use to have two eldritch blasts a round. He didn't see it as over powered.
> 
> At fourth level it was doing 13D6 a round. I pointed out to him that most wizard spells max out at 10Dwhatever and that usually does not happen until very high level.




Although it should be used carefully, filling the serial numbers off a PC and using it as a foe can a good way to see how players react to the power level.


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the issues with the dwarf player are going to turn out to be the easiest to fix





Elf Witch said:


> And now he is also upset over me and the cleric's player being upset with the dwarf over killing the necromancer.



I'm sorry to hear about disagreements in any RPG group, and wish you good luck on sorting them out. I don't want to give any gratuitous advice on how you and your roommate should go about doing this.

The rest of this post is only picking up on some of the comments on this thread that indicate various approaches to playing an RPG.



TarionzCousin said:


> If the DM says something isn't evil, then in her world *it isn't evil.* The dwarf's player insisting it is evil is just an excuse for being a PITA.





Mort said:


> From the way you phrase it, this player seems to be holding the rest of the group hostage to his way of playing (and his worldview, regardless of the DM).





Raven Crowking said:


> the DM went out of her way to ensure that the player understood the norms.  She informed the players that the items were not evil.  She gave the player the option to make a Wisdom save before taking his action (which, in any group I've ever been in, means you're doing something you might want to reconsider).





Elf Witch said:


> It really does not matter what the DM says to the player about her world he does what he wants to.



This way of approaching the game is all fairly foreign to me. I'm used to the GM having the primary responsibility for presenting the gameworld, but the players having the primary responsibility for interpreting it in moral/political terms - so, for example, if the GM establishes a group of wizards who are both necromancers and (ostensibly) lawful good I assume that it is up to the _players_ to decide whether they morally approve of those wizards or regard them as wicked defilers of corpses.

This sort of judgement by the players is where the energy and direction of the game then come from.

Likewise, I think it's up to the players rather than the GM to decide what counts as loot (ie not just stuff that someone in the world might conceivably value, but stuff that their PCs are prepared to value). So if the GM places (for example) a Sphere of Annihilation or a life-draining intelligent sword or a Talisman of (forgotten adjective?) Evil I think it is up to the players to decide whether the PCs keep, sell or destroy.

How the GM should respond to these decisions - in terms of maintaining some notional "balance of treasure gained" - turns on the details of the rules system and campaign in question. As far as 4e is concerned, I agree with what Blue said upthread.



GSHamster said:


> The player of the dwarf (the player, not the character) is a jackass. He is deliberately playing in a manner designed to inflict annoyance on the other players (not the characters, but the players), and justifying it in the name of "roleplaying".
> 
> "Roleplaying" is not a license to annoy the rest of the gaming group.





Horatio said:


> A good roleplayer does things in character while helping or at least not disrupting the party.
> It isn't always easy to find "in character" solution that won't be "against" the party sometimes, but where is will, there is a way.



These comments resonate strongly with me. Particularly if individual players decide to present their PCs as engaging in some sort of moral or political disagreement, then there is an obligation - in order to preserve peace at the table, and in D&D also to preserve the viability of party play - that those conflicts be played out in a way that doesn't completely disrupt the party, and the other players, and thereby ruin the game. Given the degree of emotional investment that an RPG can generate (in my experience, at least), I think reciprocation, generosity and forbearance by all players should be the starting point here.

Part of the difficulty in conventional D&D play is that stuff that is really important to the basic play of the game - like getting treasure - is often very much at odds with conventional real-world evaluative judgements (which tend to frown upon killing and looting, and might also find trading in necromantic teaching tools somewhat distasteful). In my experience, this can tend to increase the likelihood of intraparty evaluative conflict if even one player has decided to play a character with strong and non-mercenary values. As a GM, my approach is therefore to downplay the signficance of looting by having treasure come from other sources (patrons, gifts from the gods, etc).

So like I said at the start of this post, I don't want to stick my nose into another group's intragroup disagreements. But considered in the abstract, I don't find the situation described in the OP to be an outrageous one. And I've had similar situations occur in my game, in which evaluative disagreements between PCs, which in part reflect differing evalauative (moral and/or aesthetic) responses by the players, have caused problems in working out what is an item of loot and what an evil artefact to be destroyed. In my view, that such a situation occurs does not, in and of itself, show that a player is being unreasonable. And I personally don't feel it's the job of the GM to "resolve" the situation by telling one of the players how to play his/her PC (whether via a Wisdom check mechanic or some other device). It's primarily up to the players to resolve, whether ingame (ie by roleplaying) or at the metagame level.


----------



## Mort (May 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This way of approaching the game is all fairly foreign to me. I'm used to the GM having the primary responsibility for presenting the gameworld, but the players having the primary responsibility for interpreting it in moral/political terms - so, for example, if the GM establishes a group of wizards who are both necromancers and (ostensibly) lawful good I assume that it is up to the _players_ to decide whether they morally approve of those wizards or regard them as wicked defilers of corpses.
> 
> This sort of judgement by the players is where the energy and direction of the game then come from.
> 
> ...




I actually agree that it is primarily the players' job to determine their role/interaction within the DM's world and that it does not have to necessarily agree with what the DM "intends" or be consistant with the other players (Heck in my recent campaign I presented the PCs with a bunch of symbiotes as (very icky but valuable) treasure - their reaction was 100% up to them). *But* it is also the players' job to moderate the interpretation in such a way as to not consistantly and intentionally cause friction between players at the table. Essentialy the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Even with the small amount of information seen here, the players presented seem to have crossed that line (Seriously, turning invisible running into the other room and destroying the treasure while the others are occupied?).



pemerton said:


> So like I said at the start of this post, I don't want to stick my nose into another group's intragroup disagreements. But considered in the abstract, I don't find the situation described in the OP to be an outrageous one. And I've had similar situations occur in my game, in which evaluative disagreements between PCs, which in part reflect differing evalauative (moral and/or aesthetic) responses by the players, have caused problems in working out what is an item of loot and what an evil artefact to be destroyed. In my view, that such a situation occurs does not, in and of itself, show that a player is being unreasonable. And I personally don't feel it's the job of the GM to "resolve" the situation by telling one of the players how to play his/her PC (whether via a Wisdom check mechanic or some other device). It's primarily up to the players to resolve, whether ingame (ie by roleplaying) or at the metagame level.




In the abstract character friction and even conflict is fine, as long as the players are the ones moving it along and are all fine with it. What's not fine is one (or two) player(s) pushing their playstyle on the rest of the players and DM and essentially running roughshod/hijacking the scenarios - campaign be damned. Again it boils down to if the player is being a jerk and the campaign is suffering as a result - there is a problem and it's not an in game one.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 23, 2011)

I have to agree that the players not the DM get to decide how their PCs react to the world. 

If the player wants to believe that all necromancers are evil and anything to do with it is evil that is his right. 

But the DM runs the world and gets to decide how the NPCs in the world react to what PCs do. She didn't interfere when the player chose to have his PC kill the necromancer. Which he did over other party member's yelling at him not to even causing the cleric to attack him to try and stop him.

He went to jail because the cleric told his order what dwarf did and I told my guild. 

He was upset that his character was arrested for murder. As a player he had every right to play his character the way he wants but he also needs to accept the consequences of his actions.

The reason she had him do a wisdom roll was not to stop him from destroying the statues but to see if he would really do so behind his party's back. And when he choose to do it she let him.

I am all for role playing. But it is important to remember it is a game being played and you are not playing it alone.


----------



## The Shaman (May 23, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> My DM likes to give funky things as treasure instead of just dropping a ton of gold or gems in the game. Part of her fun is coming up with some strange items.



I like your referee already.







Elf Witch said:


> So do you think the fair thing would be to find a way to give us more treasure?



Hell no.

Adventurers reap what they sow. The dwarf owes the rest of the party restitution, not the referee.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This way of approaching the game is all fairly foreign to me. I'm used to the GM having the primary responsibility for presenting the gameworld, but the players having the primary responsibility for interpreting it in moral/political terms




So "the DM went out of her way to ensure that the player understood the norms" is foreign to you?  IMHO, the norms of the game world are part of the presentation of that world.

"She informed the players that the items were not evil" is foreign to you?  Again, this is part of the presentation of the milieu, in a game where "evil" has an actual, concrete, detectable meaning.

Or is it "She gave the player the option to make a Wisdom save before taking his action (which, in any group I've ever been in, means you're doing something you might want to reconsider)" that is foreign to you?  One assumes that the Wisdom save doesn't mean that the PC cannot take the action suggested, but merely that the GM will give the player additional information, including, possibly, some insight into the consequences of the suggested action.

If a player announces that his character attempts to leap a 200-foot deep chasm 200-feet across, do you just say "Roll a jump check" and shake your head, or do you first make certain that the player understands that the character cannot make the jump, and that you are playing for "keepsies"?

Interesting.

Especially in light of your comment upthread to the effect that it was the GM's fault due to failing to communicate the campaign norms, which those items you quoted were in response to.


RC


----------



## WHW4 (May 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> If a player announces that his character attempts to leap a 200-foot deep chasm 200-feet across, do you just say "Roll a jump check" and shake your head, or do you first make certain that the player understands that the character cannot make the jump, and that you are playing for "keepsies"?RC




In our games it never even gets to the DM saying "Are you SURE? Really Sure?" Using the 200-ft wide chasm example (because we did have someone once who tried to do anything and everything, all the time.... and do it first, mind you), one of us would have invariably piped up with "Be sure to tie a rope around your waist so we can haul your battered corpse back up and loot it."

When you threaten someone's magical goodies/ancient family heirloom sword/holy underwear they suddenly get deadly logical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 23, 2011)

Cool!

My point in posting that was merely to point out the problem with (1) claiming that the DM didn't give enough information for the player to make rational decisions, and then, (2) claiming that it was "fairly foreign" for the DM to provide information affecting decision making.

I mean, how is the DM supposed to "win" against such logic?  She's damned -- and the player is "right" -- no matter how much or how little information she provides!

Thank you, but No.

The DM did fine in this situation, AFAICT...better, in fact, than many would do.  


RC


----------



## haakon1 (May 23, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> This is just her second time and her first time DMing 3.5 so she she has made some mistakes that have come back to bite her in the ass.
> 
> For example she allowed the player playing the warlock to take the feat double shot and fire two eldritch blasts around. At fourth level he was doing around 35 points of damage a round. The dwarf rogue was giving a tattoo that allows him to have mischance of being hit of 40% every time.
> 
> ...




Wow.  I think a reset might be needed, unless you like gaming like that.

When I DM, I stick mostly to the "core rules" (3.5e DMG + PHB + Monster books + setting), to avoid issues like this, where power levels are off compared to how the games was originally intended, and it's hard to figure out the right challenges.


----------



## WHW4 (May 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Cool!
> 
> My point in posting that was merely to point out the problem with (1) claiming that the DM didn't give enough information for the player to make rational decisions, and then, (2) claiming that it was "fairly foreign" for the DM to provide information affecting decision making.
> 
> ...




You're right, of course. In fact, the very notion of what constitutes a "rational decision" is subjective. Here's where group consensus is important. By that I mean the group sitting at that table.

You can lead a horse to water... but you can't make him see that, no, he probably shouldn't attempt forging the rapids in a canoe he just fashioned from his (poor) Nature/Survival check.

Or something to that effect.

We eventually just stopped trying to group-correct ours and grabbed another beer and settled in for the inevitable comedy that was unfolding before our very eyes. Hey, dinner AND a show!


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> "She informed the players that the items were not evil" is foreign to you?



Yes. I play a game in which the players' make the evaluative judgements.



Raven Crowking said:


> Especially in light of your comment upthread to the effect that it was the GM's fault due to failing to communicate the campaign norms, which those items you quoted were in response to.



You may be mistaking me for Eamon. Upthread, I said that a GM who places necromantic treasure in a game with a player who has made it clear that his/her player hates necromancy has (whether deliberately or carelessly) seeded a conflict. I did XP Eamon, but for the post where s/he suggested that the description "miscommunication" was perhaps not quite the right word.


----------



## billd91 (May 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This way of approaching the game is all fairly foreign to me. I'm used to the GM having the primary responsibility for presenting the gameworld, but the players having the primary responsibility for interpreting it in moral/political terms - so, for example, if the GM establishes a group of wizards who are both necromancers and (ostensibly) lawful good I assume that it is up to the _players_ to decide whether they morally approve of those wizards or regard them as wicked defilers of corpses.




I don't see why what these other posters are saying should be foreign. Between being clear on what the game world norms are and giving a PC second chances to rethink courses of action that may not be ideal, the DM is still letting the player make the PC's decisions and act on them - deluded though they may be considering they are in opposition to actual truths in the game in question. I think there's less a difference than you seem to suggest in what's going on.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> You may be mistaking me for Eamon. Upthread, I said that a GM who places necromantic treasure in a game with a player who has made it clear that his/her player hates necromancy has (whether deliberately or carelessly) seeded a conflict. I did XP Eamon, but for the post where s/he suggested that the description "miscommunication" was perhaps not quite the right word.




I don't think she was careless or being deliberate. In game since the dwarf killed the necromancer and he was brought back we have worked with him. Including the dwarf. His stand on necromancy is evil has not been brought up in over a year. 

She really thought that at this point it was a nonissue. Also I don't think she expected the sneakiness that went on with it. If any other player did something like what the dwarf did that player would have thrown a screaming fit over it.

Most of the players were willing to let what happen stand it was one player who was upset over losing the treasure. And the DM was wondering if she should fix it some how by giving us some kind of extra treasure to replace what was lost.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 24, 2011)

haakon1 said:


> Wow.  I think a reset might be needed, unless you like gaming like that.
> 
> When I DM, I stick mostly to the "core rules" (3.5e DMG + PHB + Monster books + setting), to avoid issues like this, where power levels are off compared to how the games was originally intended, and it's hard to figure out the right challenges.




Some reset has been done. She's fixed the two eldrtich blasts per round, I have retired the wizard and brought in a lower point buy sorcerer. 

We will see where we go from here.


----------



## pemerton (May 24, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't think she was careless or being deliberate. In game since the dwarf killed the necromancer and he was brought back we have worked with him. Including the dwarf. His stand on necromancy is evil has not been brought up in over a year.
> 
> She really thought that at this point it was a nonissue.



That's fair enough. Like I said upthread, it's not my goal and is none of my business to pass judgement on your friend(s) or your group, and I apologise if I seemed to fail in that. I was only trying to comment in a more abstract way on the issue as it came across in your earlier posts.


----------



## pemerton (May 24, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Between being clear on what the game world norms are and giving a PC second chances to rethink courses of action that may not be ideal, the DM is still letting the player make the PC's decisions and act on them



Again, to be clear, I'm wanting to respond here not to the particular course of action that Elf Witch's roommate took - I wasn't there, I don't know any of the people involved, nor what the dynamics of the group are, nor how they like to play RPGs - I'm just trying to present my own reflections on GMing practice which have been triggered by the OP.

To me, a Wisdom check suggests that the GM is trying to resolve something in the gameworld - a niggling urge, for example, at the back of the PC's mind, or the hairs standing up on the back of the PC's neck. I prefer a game where that sort of thing is reserved for Perception and Insight/Sense Motive, but _not_ for issue of moral/aesthetic evaluation, in respect of which as GM I leave matters up to my players and as a player I want the GM to leave matters up to me.

If I'm playing and the GM thinks I'm doing something that is silly either in the sense that it has obvious consequences ingame that I may have forgotten about (eg I mention my PC bringing out a ham sandwhich because I forgot, last session, that we were told the duke is  vegetarian) then I would rather the GM just say something - a stat check seems unnecessary (given that the forgetfulness is clearly on the part of the player, not the PC). Or, if the GM can see some player conflict brewing among the players and wants to issue a caution, just do it - again, calling for a stat check is not how I would generally go about it. Again, the problem here is not the PC's lack of insight or awareness, but the _player_ being about to do something silly. So why punt it back into the gameworld and the PC's stats?

More generally, the approaches that I described as somewhat foreign to me seem to be premised on an approach to the game where the norms/values of the gameworld are determined by the GM, the players' role is to accept and explore them, and conflicts of value among the players and/or GM are sublimated into ingame issues via alignment rules, Wisdom checks etc. Obviously I'm aware that such approaches to the game occur - when I say they're foreign to me I don't mean that I've never heard of them. (For example, something like this approach seems to have been dominant in letters to Dragon magazine at least around the mid- to late-80s, and also seemed to be fairly standard in a lot of 2nd ed play.)

When I say that it's foreign to m, I mean that it's very different from the way I prefer to go about RPGing. I've never seen any evidence that the "sublimation of conflict via alignment rules" approach to handling disagreements at the table is an effective one. And as a GM, I want my players to decide what is valuable in the gameworld, and what is not (so, for example, and as has happened in games I've run, the PCs, whether indvidually or as a group, can decide that prudence requires compromise with Vecna, or that their duty is to oppose heaven and work with a god exiled by heaven, or that the slaughter of unconscious hobgoblin captives is a legitimate response to depradations inflicted).


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2011)

Yeah, I'd chalk this up to Newbie DM Learning Curve.

One of the most, absolute most important things you can do as a DM when you start a new campaign is sit down with the entire group and hammer out what I've heard called a Group Template.  Before anyone picks up so much as a D4 to start character generation, have a lengthy, detailed conversation about what everyone expects from the game.

Because, looking at this, what I see here is a failure in communications.

People at this table are pretty obviously at odds with expectations of what the game entails and how the game world words.  They are at odds with each other and at odds with the DM.  

Yeah, I'd go with, "Let's end this campaign right now." as advice.  Start over (possibly with the new system) and make absolutely sure that everyone has this conversation.  Character generation should be a group endevour.  If one player wants to play an extreme "activist" (to borrow a term used earlier in the thread) type character, make sure that everyone at the table is groovy with the implications of that.

So many of these issues are avoidable if the group sits down before the campaign starts and discusses these things.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Yes. I play a game in which the players' make the evaluative judgements.




Hmmm.

How does making clear the norms of society mean that the players don't make evaluative judgements?



RC


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2011)

A thought about the Dwarf's POV.

People have made a big point about the fact that society in this setting doesn't see necromancy as evil.  Does that mean that every player must see necromancy as a non-evil thing?  Can't a character be wrong?

The dwarf player, to his credit, is sticking to a consistent play of his character.  He's made no bones about the fact that he sees necromancy as evil and that he's playing a "hanging judge" sort of Cuthberite.  Not exactly out of line for a non-cleric Cuthberite.  He's dispensing justice in his view.

Granted, his view is whacked and quite possibly evil (as per 3e alignments) but, it's still his character.

I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character, now spin around and would boot a player for playing his character in a consistent, established manner.  So much for the vaunted player freedom.  More like, "You can do whatever you want, so long as I like what you're doing.  Otherwise, there's the door."

The DM has to wear some of the blame here for not nipping this in the bud a LONG time ago.  This is a lengthy campaign - it's 9th level, so they've been playing for a while.  If the dwarf's player was so far out of line with the rest of the group, this should have been dealt with a long time ago.

Instead, it's been left to fester and now it appears that everyone is getting annoyed.  This is why it's so important to talk about this sort of thing LONG before it gets to this point.


----------



## S'mon (May 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character...




As DM I tend to "PCs can do whatever they want"; but as a player I don't see why I should have to put up with the jerk PC.  If he can do whatever he wants, then so can I, including stickling a dagger in his head.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 24, 2011)

S'mon said:


> As DM I tend to "PCs can do whatever they want"; but as a player I don't see why I should have to put up with the jerk PC.  If he can do whatever he wants, then so can I, including stickling a dagger in his head.




This is it exactly.

Imagine that you were running a game using Ye Olde Framework.  The players decide what they want to explore, plan which players/characters to bring (because in Ye Olde Framework, the GM runs multiple adventuring parties), and then a time for the expedition is negotiated with the GM.  If more than one group wants the same potential game time, the GM usually goes with the larger group.

Now, imagine that jerk player again.  Natural selection occurs.  No one wants to invite him on expeditions.  He must either change his behaviour, or play when the GM is willing, but no one else wants to....and in those circumstances, he disrupts no other players.

Natural selection can take place in Ye Current Weekly/Monthy/Whatever Group Model, too.  It just takes a little more work.  And the jerk player ends up with no game at all.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2011)

Hang on a tick here though.

Why is the dwarf player a jerk?  He has established a character and no one in the group, in character and, up to this point, out of character, said anything to the contrary.

Again, I just find it funny that people who claim to be all about player choice are the first ones to eject a player from a group for making choices that the DM doesn't like.

Me, I'd much rather have sorted this out months ago.  This should have been dealt with before even the murder/death of the LG necromancer.  Arguing that the player is now a jerk for playing in a consistent manner that no one took him to task for beforehand is a bit like closing the barn door after letting the horse loose.

Now, if the player was playing his character inconsistently, I could really see your point S'mon.  But, apparently, he isn't.  He apparently didn't realize how disruptive he was being and (at least judging from what Elf Witch has posted here) has amended his behaviour once it was pointed out that it was disrupting the group.

I just find it rather sad that people jump up and down and point fingers at the player, calling him a jerk, without really knowing a great deal more context, actually getting any more information other than what Elf Witch has provided and simply branding the player a "problem player" rather than making any attempt to drill down to the root issues here.


----------



## billd91 (May 24, 2011)

It's not that the dwarf's player isn't doing what the DM wants, it's the dwarf player not listening to the other players that makes him a jerk. Let's put it this way: If that dwarf were in your adventuring party, would you get rid of him for what he's done - including committing murder and destroying valuables all of the rest of you were interested in selling? I certainly wouldn't be that keen on having him around and I don't really care how consistently he's being played. Consistently being an ass is worse than occasionally not being one.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 24, 2011)

When we started the game we sat down and talked about what we all wanted. The DM talked about the campaign and what she wanted.

This game started in 2008 we used to play every other week but we have also had breaks due to real life stuff. We have only played three sessions this year because of my back injury in December.

Over this time there has been a change in the amount of players at the table. And some real life stuff has happened to all of us.

I don't consider the player of the dwarf to be a jerk at all. He has only done two things in the game that most of the party have objected to.

I thought the ingame consequence for killing the necromancer was funny. The dwarf who has no sense of humor spent three weeks trapped in a cell with gnome who drove him crazy.

As for this last thing it was only one player who was upset and that was because of the lost gold he needed for some magic items he had commissioned. In the last session the DM fixed it for him by letting him borrow the money from a money lender.

My character was miffed with the dwarf but me the player was not. For me it was more of a roll of the eyes moment. My concern was more for my roommate and helping her make a decision of either fixing this loss of treasure or letting it stand.

Now the other issues of two much power has been brewing as we leveled. The DM was honest about this and most of us are okay about fixing things. Again one player not the dwarf is having issues.

To be honest the other player is the one we have the most issues with at the table. He is an immerse kind of role player and sometimes this has caused friction at the table.

I know some of my frustration has come out on this thread. As someone who loves the role playing aspect of the game I have now come to believe that there can be such a thing as to much role playing.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 25, 2011)

Way back, in first edition Warhammer FRP, there was a player who would have no clue as to the value of things.... He gave away a 50 gallon barrel of Brettonian brandy, and a literal _ton_ of tobacco, destroyed trapped boxes after the traps had been disarmed and the keys found.... Even after other players told him that those things _were_ the treasure.

Eventually the other players made sure that he had no say in the redistribution of wealth. He just could not grasp that the money was not liquid, even though in the case of the brandy it kind of was....

The Auld Grump


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 25, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I know some of my frustration has come out on this thread. As someone who loves the role playing aspect of the game I have now come to believe that there can be such a thing as to much role playing.



As long as everyone is having fun most of the time and enjoying being with each other and playing the game, I think you're doing well.


----------



## pemerton (May 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> How does making clear the norms of society mean that the players don't make evaluative judgements?





Raven Crowking said:


> "She informed the players that the items were not evil" is foreign to you?  Again, this is part of the presentation of the milieu, in a game where "evil" has an actual, concrete, detectable meaning.



The second of these quoted passages, to which I responded upthread, makes clear the answer to the first. "She", in the second quoted passage, refers to the GM. That is, the second quoted passage describes the GM informing the player of the value of necromantic artefacts (namely, as being not evil).

_This_ is the way in which, in the approach to play that I described as foreign to me, I say that it is the GM and not the players making the evaluative judgements - whereas I prefer the converse.



Hussar said:


> I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character, now spin around and would boot a player for playing his character in a consistent, established manner.  So much for the vaunted player freedom.





Hussar said:


> I just find it funny that people who claim to be all about player choice are the first ones to eject a player from a group for making choices that the DM doesn't like.



I had similar thoughts.

Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom and sandboxing are advocating for player _exploratory_ freedom - that is, players are free to explore whatever elements of the gameworld they like (perhaps, even, by playing a PC who is, per the GM's rulings, evil). But the setting to be explored - including the values of things in that setting - are determined by the GM. In this approach, _it is the GM's world_. Hence the classic "Wisdom check before you do something silly or contrary to your alignment or whatever" - a mechanic I personally detest, in part because of it's association with other mechanics I detest, but something which seems to be accepted as reasonable procedure by the majority of people on this thread engaged in this discussion of GMing and playing styles. This is a mechanic which reinforces the GM's control over the values of the gameworld - what counts as good and evil, prudent and imprudent, and so on.

As the discussion about the destruction of treasure shows, there is also a presupposition in this approach to play that the principle aim of the players is for their PCs to amass as much wealth as possible. In the real world, I assume comparatively few people would think it permissible to execute, let alone summarily execute, a person simply for causing property damage. Yet look how many posters on this thread are saying that the other PCs are justified in killing this dwarf PC for destroying some loot. (Loot, furthermore, of arguable moral or aesthetic value - when someone attacked Piss Christ while it was being exhibited in Melbourne, not even the most ardent advocates of artistic free speech suggested that the attackers, who were motivated by religious objections to the work, should be killed!).

In my experience, when this general exploratory approach to play is combined with a desire to focus on some goal other than looting, the result is the classic 2nd ed/Dragonlance-style railroad. A lot of post-1990 RPG design can, in my view, be seen as an attempt to design systems that will support non-railroad but also non-mercenary-sandbox play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom and sandboxing are advocating for player _exploratory_ freedom - that is, players are free to explore whatever elements of the gameworld they like (perhaps, even, by playing a PC who is, per the GM's rulings, evil).




I would certainly say that players have the freedom to take action within the campaign milieu, but not that they have freedom to write the milieu.  (There are games, of course, where this restriction need not apply, or would make no sense to apply.)

The problem here is not that the player upset the GM by smashing the treasure, but, rather, that the player upset the _*other players*_.  Something that may seem hard to grasp, perhaps, but it is not a subtle difference.

Especially in a group where the same people meet every week/month/whatever to play, if one player is consistently playing in such a way as to annoy the others, "player freedom" would suggest the freedom to have their characters react in a realistic way -- which is not to buddy up with the PC again and again because the GM refuses to allow them to do otherwise!

Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom to determine the values of things in that setting - (what counts as good and evil, prudent and imprudent, and so on) are also strangely concerned with the player-determined values when dealing with a problem player.  To wit:

In the real world, I assume comparatively few people would think it permissible to execute, let alone summarily execute, a person simply for causing property damage. Yet look how many posters on this thread are saying that the other PCs are justified in killing this dwarf PC for destroying some loot. (Loot, furthermore, of arguable moral or aesthetic value - when someone attacked Piss Christ while it was being exhibited in Melbourne, not even the most ardent advocates of artistic free speech suggested that the attackers, who were motivated by religious objections to the work, should be killed!).​
That seems at odds, to me.



> In my experience, when this general exploratory approach to play is combined with a desire to focus on some goal other than looting, the result is the classic 2nd ed/Dragonlance-style railroad.




The only thing I can say here is, WTF?  I have no idea where this is coming from, or what your experience here could possibly be.

Any approach where the players determine what goals are being focused on, by definition, precludes a railroad (Dragonlance-style or otherwise) by definition, no matter what those goals are.

It is rather as though I said, "In my experience, applying black paint results in white walls".


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 25, 2011)

Here's an interesting post, from the PC on PC Action thread, which describes a remarkably similar situation, but from the 'dwarf player' perspective.



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> It was a Warhammer Fantasy game. We were visiting an island that had been discovered several years previously and then colonized. However, contact was cut off and we'd been sent to investigate. We discovered the island had numerous cults, and most humans (but not demi-humans) had gone mad.
> 
> We found some glowing rocks. Now, our non-magically inclined, poorly-educated PCs interpreted the rocks as being evil. One PC tried to keep them to himself, although his sole motivation was probably profit. We didn't agree. Violently.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2011)

billd91 said:


> It's not that the dwarf's player isn't doing what the DM wants, it's the dwarf player not listening to the other players that makes him a jerk. Let's put it this way: If that dwarf were in your adventuring party, would you get rid of him for what he's done - including committing murder and destroying valuables all of the rest of you were interested in selling? I certainly wouldn't be that keen on having him around and I don't really care how consistently he's being played. Consistently being an ass is worse than occasionally not being one.




I think the break down here is possibly one of expectations.  Some players play in a PvP environment and some in PvE.  If you have a mix of the two, things can get really sticky.

In a PvE game, player decisions are generally based on what is good for the group - after all, the baseline assumption is that it's the group vs the world.  At the extreme, you don't attack other PC's, but also, any action you take should be filtered with the idea of looking at the consequences for the rest of the group.  However, in a PvE game, because everyone should be working towards the good of the group, you don't generally remove any character from the group since that would weaken the group.

In a PvP game, it's everyone for himself.  The player bases his decisions entirely on what he (or she) feels makes the most sense for that character.  Now, in an entirely PvP group, those decisions could very well result in that character being removed from the group.  And, because everyone is groovy with PvP, that should be okay.

Now, when you mix those two groups, it's oil and water.  One player is assuming that his actions should be based on his own personal criteria and the other players are viewing his actions as to how they affect the group as a whole.  This mixing of points of view leads to a very large disconnect in reactions because neither side really is speaking the same language.


----------



## billd91 (May 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom and sandboxing are advocating for player _exploratory_ freedom - that is, players are free to explore whatever elements of the gameworld they like (perhaps, even, by playing a PC who is, per the GM's rulings, evil). But the setting to be explored - including the values of things in that setting - are determined by the GM. In this approach, _it is the GM's world_. Hence the classic "Wisdom check before you do something silly or contrary to your alignment or whatever" - a mechanic I personally detest, in part because of it's association with other mechanics I detest, but something which seems to be accepted as reasonable procedure by the majority of people on this thread engaged in this discussion of GMing and playing styles. This is a mechanic which reinforces the GM's control over the values of the gameworld - what counts as good and evil, prudent and imprudent, and so on.




Your hypothesis is based on some pretty wild assumptions. 

The classic "wisdom check" has often been used, in my experience, to get the player's perceptions more in line with what you could reasonably his character's to be. Often, this is because the GM thinks that the player is making a decision that a PC, knowing what a PC would know, probably wouldn't make, probably out of ignorance or a difference in the perception of the situation between the GM and the player. For example: Player has his PC try to jump a 50 foot gorge. If there's no reason to expect that to work in the rules or in the PC's reality, why would the player make that decision? Probably because he's not really understanding the full situation. Perhaps the GM hasn't made it clear, perhaps the player just wasn't paying enough attention. The wisdom roll allows the GM to prompt the player about something from the PC's point of view. It's basically a "Player, get a clue" moment.

How this is somehow detestable boggles my mind.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 25, 2011)

billd91 said:


> The classic "wisdom check" has often been used, in my experience, to get the player's perceptions more in line with what you could reasonably his character's to be. Often, this is because the GM thinks that the player is making a decision that a PC, knowing what a PC would know, probably wouldn't make, probably out of ignorance or a difference in the perception of the situation between the GM and the player. For example: Player has his PC try to jump a 50 foot gorge. If there's no reason to expect that to work in the rules or in the PC's reality, why would the player make that decision? Probably because he's not really understanding the full situation. Perhaps the GM hasn't made it clear, perhaps the player just wasn't paying enough attention. The wisdom roll allows the GM to prompt the player about something from the PC's point of view. It's basically a "Player, get a clue" moment.




Exactly this.



> How this is somehow detestable boggles my mind.




Doubly exactly this.

Can someone drop some XP for me?

RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> A thought about the Dwarf's POV.
> 
> People have made a big point about the fact that society in this setting doesn't see necromancy as evil. Does that mean that every player must see necromancy as a non-evil thing? Can't a character be wrong?
> 
> ...




The character is free to hold whatever beliefs he/she wishes.  Doing whatever you want can have consequences that the player needs to accept as part of the package. This can include the other party members no longer wishing to adventure with you. In any group there are some behavioral restrictions that must be observed if you want to continue being a part of that group. 

Generally speaking,constantly bringing more harm and loss to the group than benefits in the name of 'doing what you want'  is good way to get booted.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 25, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The character is free to hold whatever beliefs he/she wishes.  Doing whatever you want can have consequences that the player needs to accept as part of the package. This can include the other party members no longer wishing to adventure with you. In any group there are some behavioral restrictions that must be observed if you want to continue being a part of that group.
> 
> Generally speaking,constantly bringing more harm and loss to the group than benefits in the name of 'doing what you want'  is good way to get booted.




Exactly.

If "just playing my character" is good for the dwarf; it is good for the other players when they boot the dwarf from the party.

If "just playing my character" is not allowed for the rest of the party, it should not be allowed for the dwarf.

IMHO, you pick one way to play, and then stick to it.  Personally, I'd go with "let the players choose what their characters do, and let the players sort out the conequences."  I'm strongly in that camp.  I'm not a babysitter.

YMMV.

OTOH, as a player, so long as the inter-party conflict stayed "in-game", I'd be happy to deal with the dwarf.  Indeed, I would congradulate the dwarf on the courage of his convictions while I extracted due payment from his hairy hide.  Mild conflict within the party can make for good role-playing opportunities.  Major conflict within the party can be fun, too, so long as all of the players are mature enough to keep the conflict in-game, and so long as the GM doesn't tie the players' hands when they try to deal with it.

Again, YMMV.


RC


----------



## WHW4 (May 25, 2011)

I don't think the player is a jerk; I think his character is one.

I don't think they should kill him; I think they should wake up early at the next inn they stop at and leave him there.

I think the GM, in giving a Wisdom check, is essentially telling the player "Are you absolutely sure you wish to pursue this course of action?" without calling it a bad decision outright - which it was; because in a game where a group of people are all sitting down and trying to enjoy themselves, you should be mature enough as a player to make some role-playing concessions to allow that to happen. This is not YOUR story. This is everyone's story. Now if everyone enjoys that sort of thing, have at it, bro.

Otherwise, if you want RP that way then I suggest it be an ending for a character and a natural segue to bring in a new one.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 25, 2011)

I think our group has a combo pf PVE and PVP players. For example the player playing the dwarf is a combo of PVP and PVE. He basically believes that the party should do what is the best for the party. 

For example you never attack another party member, its wrong to deny healing to a party member even if that party member has defiled your gods temple.

But here is the rub he feels that way about other players but not his. He doesn't see the dichotomy of it. It has been pointed out to him that he does this and he just does not see it.

We have another player who is more PVE to him everything comes down to a role playing decision. Even if it impacts the party negatively. He also hates anything that smacks of metagaming. He builds his character only on role playing. For example if he has never used a skill in a level he won't rise it.

The rest of us or PVP players we try and role play in a way that will keep the group together and working well.

I used not to be this way but I found that PVE can really have a negative impact on the fun at the table.


----------



## Mort (May 26, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think our group has a combo pf PVE and PVP players. For example the player playing the dwarf is a combo of PVP and PVE. He basically believes that the party should do what is the best for the party.
> 
> For example you never attack another party member, its wrong to deny healing to a party member even if that party member has defiled your gods temple.
> 
> ...




I'm curious did you reverse PvP (player v player )and PvE (players v environment)? Because the context certainly seems like it.

Personally, I almost always prefer PvE for a campaign that runs any length of time - it's just a much better fit for me. (For me) PvP is ok for one shots, very short campaigns and games like Paranoia where it's just the expected norm.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 26, 2011)

Mort said:


> I'm curious did you reverse PvP (player v player )and PvE (players v environment)? Because the context certainly seems like it.
> 
> Personally, I almost always prefer PvE for a campaign that runs any length of time - it's just a much better fit for me. (For me) PvP is ok for one shots, very short campaigns and games like Paranoia where it's just the expected norm.




Yes I see I did reverse it.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> IThe only thing I can say here is, WTF?  I have no idea where this is coming from, or what your experience here could possibly be.
> 
> Any approach where the players determine what goals are being focused on, by definition, precludes a railroad (Dragonlance-style or otherwise) by definition, no matter what those goals are.



My view is that 2nd-ed style railroad is what you get when you combine (i) an emphasis on _exploration_ of a _GM-created world_ as the focus of play, with (ii) an _abandonment_ of self-interested looting as the main goal of play. That is, when you combine one aspect of classic D&D play (the exploration) while abandoning the other (the mercenary/self-aggrandizing focus).

The particular mechanism is, in my view, something like this:

*as in classic D&D play, the GM remains in charge of the world that is to be explored;

*as in classic D&D play, this includes settling evaluative questions within the gameworld (what is good, what evil, etc);

*the play is intended to be aimed at some non-mercenary/looting goal (typically, Dragonlance-style heroics; perhaps, Ravenloft-style gothic angst);

*the players set out to have their PCs achieve this goal;

*the measure of achievement of this goal depends upon the resolution of some evaluative questions within the gameworld;

*therefore, the GM has the principal say over what counts as achievement of the goal.​
The result is that the whole setup is oriented towards the GM, rather than the players, directing play.

A secondary mechanism, I susepct, is this:

*just as, in classic D&D play, the GM decides where the loot is to be found (by stocking dungeons, etc), so in 2nd ed/Dragonlance-style play, the GM decides where the heroism may potentially occur;

*because what counts as heroism depends upon resolving an evaluative question within the gameworld, in deciding where heroism is to occur the GM is deciding not just how the relevant situations will begin, but how they must conclude (if the goal of heroism is to be achieved).​
The result of this secondary mechanism is that the GM takes on responsibility for encounters being resolved in a particular way.

Because of these two mechanism, the railroading dimenion of this sort of play won't be resolved simply by giving the players a choice of whether to save the princess or free the slaves - in fact, because this sort of pseudo-sandbox choice sets up a potential moral dilemma, which (per the underlying exploratory presupposition) the _GM_ has responsibility for adjudicating, this sort of choice can potentially just increase the railroading. (In my view, this conclusion is in fact borne out by various threads over the past few months on ENworld, where GM-established moral dilemmas in combination with GM-enforced alignment mechanisms have been criticised by a wide range of posters as railroading.)

As to the question of where I get these wacky ideas - whereas it is common to criticise the Forge for treating purist-for-system and high-concept as two forms of simulationism, I think that in fact this is a terrific insight, which picks up on the centrality of exploration to both approaches. The above analysis of the mechanism that turns 1st ed AD&D into 2nd ed railroading, via Dragonlance, is an application of the Forge account to that particular historical transition. For me, it gets its empirical cogency from my own engagement with that historical transition, via play (both group play and convention play) and via reading The Dragon magazines of the period.



billd91 said:


> The classic "wisdom check" has often been used, in my experience, to get the player's perceptions more in line with what you could reasonably his character's to be.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> How this is somehow detestable boggles my mind.



As I posted upthread, I have nothing against GM-initiated Perception and Insight checks. Nor, for that matter, do I have anything against Knowledge checks. These are all the GM using the mechanics of the game to feed the player information that, by default, a PC in that player's PC's situation would not have access to. In effect, by spending PC-build resources on these sorts of skills, the player is purchasing the entitlement to additional information to make his/her choices. (I would have thought that the inability of an ordinary human to clear a 50' chasm in a single leap would fall into the category of something that the GM could point out without requiring a Perception or Knowledge check - especially in a system like 3E, where a PC's maximum leap is a mathematically determined value which, if it is not transparent to any particular player, is only because they're not very good at mental arithmetic.)

But the WIS check we're talking about in this thread is not about information. It is about motivations and goals. In particular, it's about the GM querying the rationality of the player's action. And at least for a mainstream RPG, player control over PC motivations and goals seems pretty fundamental to me.

Now if the GM, as one participant to another, wants to tell the player that they're about to do something silly - because it will get their PC killed (a mostly ingame silliness) or because it will destabilise harmony among the players (a mostly metagame silliness) - then by all means do so. Talking to one another about the cleverness or otherwise of player choices is part of playing the game.

But what is the point of turning it into a PC-stat based mechanic? In practice, what this means is that the GM is (needlessly, as far as I can see) limiting his/her participation in the play by reference to a stat on the character sheet which is, relative to the purposes identified in the previous paragraph, a purely arbitrary number.

The only way I can see of regarding the WIS-check as _not_ arbitrary is to assume that the GM, in calling for the check, is not simply limiting his/her participation in the game by reference to an arbitrary number, but rather is in some sense or other _taking over the play of the PC_ - perhaps playing the PC's conscience, or intuition, or something similar.

Why would anyone think it desirable for the GM to present a comment to a player in [i[this particular fashion[/i]? Perhaps because they are so hostile to metagaming that they can't envisage the GM making a comment to the player unless it can be given some ingame interpretation.

Whatever the reason, and whether or not the GM enforces the result of the WIS check or simply uses it as a gentle prod to the player, the WIS-check mechanic (in my view) has the effect of cloaking what is a purely metagame thing - the GM, as participant, suggesting to another player in the game what might make for a good play - in the authority of the GM's role of arbiter of ingame actions and consequences. Intended or not, it is the GM not only putting pressure on the player to play his or her PC in a particular way, but applying that pressure in a fashion that suggests that the GM, as rules artiber and final arbiter of the shared fiction, has some special authority to suggest PC motivations and goals to a player.

That's why I detest it. It is an element of, and before it became such an element it was a prelude to, a whole approach to play - one which attempts to sublimate real, player to player conflicts _into_ the game and the action resolution mechanics, and one which in my view leads naturally (if not inevitably) to railroading according to the mechanisms I have described above - which is in my view one of the more dysfunctional RPGing styles around.

If you want to play a game where finding and selling the loot is more important than asking the question of whether it is a legitimate object of value at all, and where killing a fellow party member is a permissable response to destroying property, then fine - but resolve this at the table via discussion among the real people! Alignment rules and GM pressure via WIS checks won't do the job. (If I've understood the OP, they certainly didn't do the job in this particular case.)

If you want to play a game where non-mercenary considerations are more important to play, then fine (sounds like the sort of game I personally might enjoy) - but if you want to avoid railroading, give evaluative authority to the players! Which means leaving alignment rules and GM pressure via WIS checks to one side.

If you as GM want to particpate in the play by talking to your players about the choices they are making, then fine - I do this all the time when I GM - but don't cloak it in pseudo-authority by the use of WIS-checks and alignment rules. When givin this sort of advice to the player you, as GM, are in no different position than any other audience-member at the table.



WHW4 said:


> II think the GM, in giving a Wisdom check, is essentially telling the player "Are you absolutely sure you wish to pursue this course of action?" without calling it a bad decision outright - which it was; because in a game where a group of people are all sitting down and trying to enjoy themselves, you should be mature enough as a player to make some role-playing concessions to allow that to happen.



As I've asked already, in this and an earlier post, _what is the point of the WIS role_. If you, as GM, think that there is something important to communicate about the effect a player's choice might have upon harmony among the group, _just speak up_! I'm not against GM's speaking. I am against GM's cloaking their metagame commentary on the game in the guise of authority over action resolution and the content of the shared fiction.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My view is that 2nd-ed style railroad is what you get when you combine (i) an emphasis on _exploration_ of a _GM-created world_ as the focus of play, with (ii) an _abandonment_ of self-interested looting as the main goal of play. That is, when you combine one aspect of classic D&D play (the exploration) while abandoning the other (the mercenary/self-aggrandizing focus).
> 
> The particular mechanism is, in my view, something like this:
> 
> ...




I can say I haven't seen such a twisted view of railroading before. I'm really astonished that you suggest any GM-created world that doesn't involve PCs just being looters is fundamentally more of a railroad than one focused on looting. Is exploring a GM-created world with looting as a goal *not* a railroad and why, since that also is entirely GM-created and the rewards for any choice taken by the PCs are also determined by the GM, would that be the case? Is it because there's some sort of objective measure of success - aggregate GP-value looted? Frankly, the difference between the two games utterly escapes me as far as one being a railroad and the other not.

In all refereed games, the GM has considerable control over what counts as success with PC actions, including whether or not they find the loot in a mercenary/self-aggrandizement game. What matters is whether or not the players feel satisfied with their accomplishments and whether or not they've met the goals they've chosen. And if the choices they've made have consequences, great. That's what makes the choices they made meaningful. Honestly, if there were no  consequences of making one choice over another, then the choices really don't matter much.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 26, 2011)

I am totally at a loss over what pemerton is saying. I have read it several times and I still don't understand it. 

I have never seen railroading being described as the DM putting in loot and deciding what alignment the NPCs are.

In our case the whole fracas was not because the dwarf wanted to to destroy the items it was because he didn't talk to any members of his party. He went behind our back. We didn't know he felt strongly about destroying them. Nothing was said. We identified them , detected evil on them and then left the room to deal with an ooze. 

Maybe the DM could have handled it better then a wisdom check. But she was not trying to railroad the player. If she was she would have found a way to stop it. 

The player had total freedom to do what he wanted. The rest of us when we found out what he did choose to deal with our anger in game. We let the dwarf know that we were unhappy that he didn't trust enough to talk.

There was no railroading involved. There was no DM deciding how we would react and no one even considered attacking and killing the dwarf.

The other thing I don't understand are you saying the the DM does not have the right to decide important aspects of the game as to the motivations, and alignment of the NPCs and how things work in the world?

That if they do this it some kind of railroading?

When I DM I enjoy the aspect of presenting the world to the players. I respond to what they have their PCs do. For example if they choose to free the slaves and let the princess die. Then the world goes on because of this change. The PCs may now have an enemy of the Princess's family. But to the slaves they are heroes and have their support. 

How is any of that railroading?

If in the game necromancy is not evil or illegal and the players know this. And they choose to kill necromancers then they should expect to have the law of the land come down on them. 

That is still not railroading that is a consequence.

From what it sounds like you are saying is that it is up to the PCs and the players who get to decide how the world works. If they saw necromancy is evil then it is evil and there should be no consequences to their actions and if there is then it is railroading.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I'm really astonished that you suggest any GM-created world that doesn't involve PCs just being looters is fundamentally more of a railroad than one focused on looting.



I didn't quite say that - I said that a world in which the focus is not on looting but on more moral/thematic goals (like heroism or angst), _and in which the GM has authority over questions of evaluation within the gameworld_, tends strongly towards a railroad.

The italicised part is very important to my view. It underpins my objection to WIS-check mechanics and to alignment mechanics (which I see as being on a par, for current purposes).



billd91 said:


> Is exploring a GM-created world with looting as a goal *not* a railroad and why, since that also is entirely GM-created and the rewards for any choice taken by the PCs are also determined by the GM, would that be the case?



In a looting focused game, of the classic D&D sort, the aim of play is what Gygax called "skilled play" in the original AD&D books. The GM distributes the loot (and other opportunities to cash in, like nobles to be ransomed etc) but the players choose their targets and their strategy. This is all described (from the player point-of-view) in the closing pages of the 1st ed PHB. I don't have a lot of interest in this sort of play, but played in the way that Gygax describes it will not be a railroad - because it is not the GM who determines the rewards (ie the loot gained) - it is the players, using their skill within the parameters that the GM sets.

But in a game where the aim is not looting but some more thematic accomplishment - like heroism - then (in my view) it has to be up to the _players_ to decide what counts as being heroic - and they can then manipulate the GM's world in order to achieve this goal, just as in Gygaxian play they manipulate the GM's world to gain loot.

If it is _the GM_ who determines what counts as heroic, then by default the play doesn't differ from Gygaxian play - it's just that instead of accruing gold pieces, the players accrue GM-awarded "hero points" or "reputation points" or whatever. But the game will still be focused on Gygaxian "skilled play" in pursuit of whatever thematic currency the GM is placing in his/her world. But, of course, most participants at the table will notice that this isn't really heroically oriented play at all - it is still mercenary play with slightly different colour!

At this point, then (in my experience) there are two main ways things can go. The first is that the GM takes control of the game a la Dragonlance and a lot of 2nd Ed play, and via railroading ensures a thematically-focused game.

The second way, which can deliver genuinely thematically-driven, non-mercenary play that is _not_ a railroad, is for the GM to relinquish control over evaluation. This is my personally preferred approach to RPGing.



billd91 said:


> Is it because there's some sort of objective measure of success - aggregate GP-value looted?



That's an important part of it, yes. Like I said above, you can replace gps with hero-points and get a sandbox with a slightly different flavour. but it will still be a mercenary/"skilled play" game. To make it a thematically-focused game the idea of "maximisation of points" has to be replaced by some other focus, in the way I've tried to describe.



billd91 said:


> In all refereed games, the GM has considerable control over what counts as success with PC actions, including whether or not they find the loot in a mercenary/self-aggrandizement game. What matters is whether or not the players feel satisfied with their accomplishments and whether or not they've met the goals they've chosen.



I half agree and half disagree with this. The key word I want to focus on is _satisfied_. _This_ is the central act of evaluation.

In a mercenary/looting game, player satisfaction comes primarily from amassing loot, and secondarily (as Gygax noted in the DMG) from feeling that it was (in some sense) _earned_. The dynamics of a game in which the gps are replaced by honour or reputation or hero points, but in which everything else stays the same, will be pretty similar. In this sort of game, there is probably no need for WIS-checks - players are meant to use their own judgement, although perhaps you could use WIS-checks as some sort of defacto luck mechanic, with WIS then becoming a substitute for a Luck or Oracular Foresight ability. And alignment simply becomes another hurdle or constraint that players have to work within to achieve "skilled play".

But in a game where one or more players is interested in thematic content as the focus of play, and hence where non-mercenary evaluation is at the centre of play, it's a different matter. After all, the very logic of mechanics intended to give the GM control over ingame valuations - like alignment, or WIS-checks, etc - is that players _should not be satisfied_ unless their actions satisfy the evaluations that the GM is delivering. For example, in a game in which the GM says "no evil PCs" and enforces alignment rules, it is intended to be the case that the players _will not be satisfied_ if their actions are judged by the GM to be evil. And if in a group playing that sort of game a significant number of players aim at forcing the GM to take over their PCs by trying to turn their PCs evil, the game has obviously broken down at a fundamental social level, and become pretty dysfunctional.

So we suddenly have a situation where the players are seeking satisfaction by realising or speaking to some thematic/evaluative concern, and the GM is applying mechanics which presuppose that any such satisfaction is meant to be subject to the approval of the GM. In my view this is a recipe for dysfunctional play, and for railroading (or at least attemted railroading) as an element of that.



billd91 said:


> And if the choices they've made have consequences, great. That's what makes the choices they made meaningful. Honestly, if there were no  consequences of making one choice over another, then the choices really don't matter much.



I have nothing against consequences. I'm talking about evaluating those consequences. If the dwarf PC destroys the necromantic loot, there are consequences - namely, the party has lost the chance to cash that loot in to the tune of 30,000 gp. But whether this is a good or bad state of affairs - whether the dwarf has been stupid, or reckless, or morally upstanding, or whatever - in my view should not be for the GM to decide.

To put it another way - a thematically-focused game, in which the thematic meaning of the PCs' actions is decided by the GM and not the players - is not satisfactory to me, and is unlikely to be satisfactory to any player who was invested in playing that thematically-focused game. And in my experience, a game where the GM exerts, or tries to exert, this sort of authority will tend to degenerate into a railroad as the GM pressures the players, more or less overtly, to have their PCs take actions and make decisions that reinforce the GM's conception of what the theme at hand involves. Alternatively, the players will give up on their investment in theme and just go back to mercenary-style play, although instead of collecting gps they may now be collecting GM-approval points. (Which, as I said above, is just a difference of colour.) And in my experience, one or the other of these two trends - railroading, or abandonment of theme in favour of a return to mercenary play, is what produces the worst of 2nd ed AD&D play.


----------



## GSHamster (May 26, 2011)

I'm still parsing over the railroad parts of Pemerton's post, but I understand his point about the WIS-check. Perhaps a pair of examples would illustrate.

Say you're playing in a modern game featuring enemy Nazis who are using mystical black arts to further their agenda of conquest.  Now, as part of the loot, your party finds a cache of non-magical Nazi memorabilia, which is nonetheless quite valuable. However, one of the PCs destroys the Nazi memorabilia, deeming it to be "evil".

This is a reasonable decision. A DM enforcing a WIS-check on that character to prevent destroying the memorabilia is--in a passive manner--overriding the player's ability to choose how her character reacts to situations. The player should determine her own character's morals and values, not the DM.

On the other hand, the DM may think that this situation is more like a character who hates the color red. Then, when presented with a _blue_ statue, the player declares that she destroys the statue because it is red.

Does the DM have the right to override that decision as it makes zero sense? I honestly don't know. But imposing a WIS-check seems like the wrong solution in this case as well.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 26, 2011)

I think you're fundamentally misrepresenting the other side here, albeit not intentionally. In my game, there is a setting. There are things happening within this setting. The players run PCs within this setting, and they are free to interact with the parts they like. They are not in any way forced to follow a theme or plot line.

The PCs can interact with the demonic / mortal realm war, or they can go make a name for themselves taking out bandits. They can open up a business, or they can go raid towns for the fun of it. They can round up a group of like-minded people for some self-defined goal, or they can attempt to move up the social ladder while playing politics.

Wins and losses in these areas are defined by player interpretation. I'm just here to be the middleman, and play out how the setting reacts to the party's actions.

That, to me, is not railroading at all. And my PCs are not going about trying to gain treasure.

The point: just because the game is not about loot, it doesn't mean the entire setting is set with some theme in mind. Sometimes, it's just a big, [adjective] world out there, and probing around is the whole point.

As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (May 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My view is that 2nd-ed style railroad is what you get when you combine (i) an emphasis on _exploration_ of a _GM-created world_ as the focus of play, with (ii) an _abandonment_ of self-interested looting as the main goal of play...




Exploration is Railroad, Freedom is Slavery, and We Have Always Been At War with Eurasia?


----------



## S'mon (May 26, 2011)

Trying to make sense of pemerton's posts - in a Midnight game of heroism vs impossible odds, my heroic LG PC Zana Than once executed a prisoner, a young bandit who probably wasn't evil, to stop him alerting the bandit camp.  Zana was wracked with guilt over having to do this.  IMO it did not affect her LG alignment.  I would not have been happy if the DM declared I was now NE.  However this is NOT 'railroading' and pemerton is wrong to use the R-word here.

If it were a Star Wars game, and the GM declared that my executing a prisoner turned me to the Dark Side and made me an NPC?  It would still be annoying, but as long as I knew we were playing 'Star Wars morality' with limited if any connection to the real world, I guess I could accept it.  And still it would not be 'railroading'.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I have never seen railroading being described as the DM putting in loot and deciding what alignment the NPCs are.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The GM determining that necromancy is legal is not per se railroading. The GM determining that necromancy is not judged evil by some NPC or other is not per se railroading. Clearly, this is all just setting up the gameworld. In some circumstances, in combination with other elements of the gameworld, it could turn into or contribute to a railroad - for example, if one player has made it clear that his/her PC's main raison d'etre is to fight necromancy, and the player has been accepted into the game on that basis, and the GM then presents a world where the PC has no practical option but to tolerate necromancy. But those sorts of circumstances aren't all that common (although the repeated threads on these forums about player vs GM choice in respect of PC build, shared world creation, etc etc show that they aren't unheard of either).

In my view, however, the GM determining that necromancy _is not evil_, in a game where a significant motivation for playing, on the part of one or more players, is _to engage with the thematic question of how we should regard acts of necromancy_, in my view is railroading, or at least a serious potential prelude to railroading. Because the GM is purporting to settle in advance the very issue which the player was hoping to address by playing the game.

Alignment mechanics are the bluntest version of this sort of thing, but not the only form it can take. For example, even without alignment mechanics a GM can establish a world which, in virtue of its political and theological/metaphsysical setup, in effect precludes the players from addressing key thematic questions, by already settling the answers to them.



JamesonCourage said:


> In my game, there is a setting. There are things happening within this setting. The players run PCs within this setting, and they are free to interact with the parts they like. They are not in any way forced to follow a theme or plot line.
> 
> The PCs can interact with the demonic / mortal realm war, or they can go make a name for themselves taking out bandits. They can open up a business, or they can go raid towns for the fun of it. They can round up a group of like-minded people for some self-defined goal, or they can attempt to move up the social ladder while playing politics.
> 
> ...



You're right that I didn't talk about this sort of pure exploration game, because I was focusing on D&D and in particular the transition from 1st ed to 2nd ed play.

As I said above, by setting up the social and political arrangements in a certain way the GM can still foreclose particular moral or thematic issues. This won't be a concern, though,  if the players merely want to explore the GM's gameworld, and aren't interested in addressing those evaulative issues.



Elf Witch said:


> Maybe the DM could have handled it better then a wisdom check. But she was not trying to railroad the player. If she was she would have found a way to stop it.



I'm sure your GM did what she thought was the best thing in the circumstances, given the expectations and established practices for your group.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Exploration is Railroad



In a game in which (i) the exploration includes GM-determined evaluations, and (ii) the main aim of the players is to address some particular thematic/evaluative concern, then yes - or, at least, a common prelude to railroad.

To put it another way: if my aim, in play, is to explore the relationship between freedom and virtue; and the GM tells me that in his/her gameworld all elementals are evil because they wouldn't obey the dictates of the gods; then what is there left for me as a player to do in that game? I can move my PC through the GM's world and do whatever stuff I'm presented with opportunities to do, but how am I going to address my question, and express an attitude towards it, by playing my PC? The GM has already told me what the answer is: if my PC disobeys the gods, the GM's gameworld already tells me that I'm evil.

There's the prelude to the railroad.

And suppose me and my fellow PCs come across some angels fighting some elementals - who should we help? The GM has already told me what the answer is: on the (reasonable) assumption that we don't want to do evil or help evil, we have to fight with the angels against the elementals.

There's the railroad.

When I GM, I want to see what my _players_ think about the relationship between freedom and virtue. Or between heroism and expedience. Or between suffering and obligation. And to express those thoughts through play. In order to do that, I need to offer up a gameworld in which the answers are not pre-given. And I need to offer up situations which (in light of the game's action resolution mechanics, the known interests of the players including as expressed via their PC builds, etc) both open up space for a range of potential responses _and_ place pressure on the players to make some sort of decision.

This is why not all choices about the gameworld, and about what sorts of consequences will follow from a PC's action, are neutral as between opening up room for players to make meaningful thematic choices. If every choice to free a slave, for example, will result in the player's PC being killed by a bolt from the heavens (because that's how the GM has decreed the game works) then that particular domain of thematic exploration, and meaningful decision-making, has been pretty much excluded.

EDIT: To tie this back to the main question in the OP - should the GM replace the loot? A lot of people have responded, No, because that would negate the consequences. But this answer is true only if the main meaningful consequences for the players in question are the acquision or losing of loot. If the main meaningful consequence for the players are that (i) a necromantic object was destroyed, and/or (ii) that a fellow party member went behind the back of his comrades, then replacing the loot doesn't negate those consequences at all. Those consequences stand because the dwarf PC did what he did.

So what counts as a railroad, or as negating consequences or opening up the space for consequences, depends on what the players' basis is for getting satisfaction from the game. What is their concern in engaging with the gameworld? This leads me to reiterate - designing the gameworld, and deciding what possibilities are open to the PCs, and what consequences in the gameworld (eg NPC reactions, or finding more loot) will follow from various PC decisions, may or may not be railroading depending on what the interests of the players are.

But you can't say it's not railroading just because the players (via their PCs) are free to explore whatever they like, if the upshot of those explorations frequently negates or undermines the very reasons that the players have for engaging witht the gameworld in the first place.


----------



## pemerton (May 26, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Trying to make sense of pemerton's posts - in a Midnight game of heroism vs impossible odds, my heroic LG PC Zana Than once executed a prisoner, a young bandit who probably wasn't evil, to stop him alerting the bandit camp.  Zana was wracked with guilt over having to do this.  IMO it did not affect her LG alignment.  I would not have been happy if the DM declared I was now NE.  However this is NOT 'railroading' and pemerton is wrong to use the R-word here.



I'm not too hung up on terminology. I tend to regard railroading as a term that describes dysfunctional or degenerate play in which GM decisions about action resolution and the resulting content of the fiction undermine or negate meaningful player engagement.

The hypothetical scenario you describe seems to fit that description.



S'mon said:


> If it were a Star Wars game, and the GM declared that my executing a prisoner turned me to the Dark Side and made me an NPC?  It would still be annoying, but as long as I knew we were playing 'Star Wars morality' with limited if any connection to the real world, I guess I could accept it.  And still it would not be 'railroading'.



My views here are, if anything, probably more controversial.

I tend to regard these sorts of inbuilt morality mechanics as inclining towards (if not inevitably, at least somewhat reliably) a tendency towards conflict among players and railroading by the GM as one solution to that conflict.

A Star Wars game can potentially avoid this by only ever putting up 4-colour-type situations where the sorts of issues that might cause the conflict don't arise - no hard prisoner choices, for example. But then if such situations never come up, one is inclined to ask why have the morality mechanic in the first place?

And why can it not by the _player_ who decides whether or not, as a result of his/her PC's action, that PC turns to the dark side?


----------



## S'mon (May 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm not too hung up on terminology. I tend to regard railroading as a term that describes dysfunctional or degenerate play in which GM decisions about action resolution and the resulting content of the fiction undermine or negate meaningful player engagement.
> 
> The hypothetical scenario you describe seems to fit that description.




Yes, I think your definition of 'railroad' is very poor, like "blue is a shade of green", it muddies debate.  The DMing you describe may be poor DMing, but "You are explorers in the world of Dragonlance who will be presented with ethical conundrums - choose correctly or you will be Evil" is not Railroading; because the players are free to choose Evil and take the consequences.  Railroading is when the players are *unable* to exercise choice - "You try to kill the prisoner, but an inner voice from Paladine stops you.  Now get on with the adventure!".  

Maybe you have not experienced true 'railroad' scenarios.  If not, look at some stuff from the railroad heyday of the '90s, especially non-TSR, because TSR was really not a big offender, the original '80s Dragonlance modules excepted.  I hear Vampire/World of Darkness was bad, but my favourite as 'worst ever railroad' goes to the Stormbringer scenario 'Rogue Mistress'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 26, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> Say you're playing in a modern game featuring enemy Nazis who are using mystical black arts to further their agenda of conquest.  Now, as part of the loot, your party finds a cache of non-magical Nazi memorabilia, which is nonetheless quite valuable. However, one of the PCs destroys the Nazi memorabilia, deeming it to be "evil".
> 
> This is a reasonable decision. A DM enforcing a WIS-check on that character to prevent destroying the memorabilia is--in a passive manner--overriding the player's ability to choose how her character reacts to situations. The player should determine her own character's morals and values, not the DM.




Okay....that I get.  But that is in no wise what is being discussed here.  At least not AFAICT.  No one is endorsing that the character gets a WIS check so that the GM can then take command of the character; rather that the character gains a WIS check so that the GM ensures that the player has all the information relevant to taking the action that the character should have.

If the player still insists his character destroys the Nazi memorabilia, so be it.  Just as, in the OP, the dwarf destroyed the necromantic items.

The problem in the OP arose when one or more players then claimed that the GM should recompense the PCs (or the other PCs) for the decision made by one PC.

I say No.  In fact, if there are no consequences to the decision the PC made, then there is also no real decision point.  Making the treasure show up elsewhere, in another form, just means that the player doesn't have to decide whether loot trumps ethics, or ethics trumps loot.

Dealing with the consequences is a player problem.  It is not the GM's problem.  The GM should no more intervene in what the players decide to do about the dwarf, then the GM should have intervened in what the dwarf decided to do about the necromantic items.  It is not her problem.  It is not her responsibility.  It is not her job to make it all better.  It is not her place to make the character decisions necessary to deal with what occurred.

IMHO, the GM absolutely *does not *have the right to override a decision, even if he or she thinks it makes "zero sense".  However, the GM does have the *responsibility* to warn the _*player*_ that the decision seems to make zero sense, if he or she believes that the _*character*_ would know this.

I have never seen a Wisdom Check used in any other manner than to give a moderate warning in corner cases, where the GM is unsure whether or not the character would know.  In this case, in general, a failed Wisdom Check means that the character gains no other warning, where a successful Wisdom Check means the GM gives the player more information.

I have never seen a case where a Wisdom Check means that the player must *change* his or her action.....only where it means more information to confirm that action, or to change it *if the player wishes to do so*.

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but I see absolutely no indication in the OP or elsewhere in this thread that anything else occurred in the case in question.


RC


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In a game in which (i) the exploration includes GM-determined evaluations, and (ii) the main aim of the players is to address some particular thematic/evaluative concern, then yes - or, at least, a common prelude to railroad.
> 
> To put it another way: if my aim, in play, is to explore the relationship between freedom and virtue; and the GM tells me that in his/her gameworld all elementals are evil because they wouldn't obey the dictates of the gods; then what is there left for me as a player to do in that game? I can move my PC through the GM's world and do whatever stuff I'm presented with opportunities to do, but how am I going to address my question, and express an attitude towards it, by playing my PC? The GM has already told me what the answer is: if my PC disobeys the gods, the GM's gameworld already tells me that I'm evil.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.



pemerton said:


> When I GM, I want to see what my players think about the relationship between freedom and virtue. Or between heroism and expedience. Or between suffering and obligation. And to express those thoughts through play. In order to do that, I need to offer up a gameworld in which the answers are not pre-given. And I need to offer up situations which (in light of the game's action resolution mechanics, the known interests of the players including as expressed via their PC builds, etc) both open up space for a range of potential responses and place pressure on the players to make some sort of decision.




If you want to see how your PCs feel about relationships between freedom and virtue, by all means set up a similar moral structure. Make sure elements of the cosmology have their opinions on the subject and make sure there are consequences for crossing them. And when they *do* cross them, you'll have your answer in very clear terms. It's when there are few or no consequences, no sacrifices to be made, that you end up with uninteresting and unclear choices.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 26, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.




Indeed.  That is a very good summation of what it reads like.


RC


----------



## S'mon (May 26, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.
> 
> If you want to see how your PCs feel about relationships between freedom and virtue, by all means set up a similar moral structure. Make sure elements of the cosmology have their opinions on the subject and make sure there are consequences for crossing them. And when they *do* cross them, you'll have your answer in very clear terms. It's when there are few or no consequences, no sacrifices to be made, that you end up with uninteresting and unclear choices.




I agree 100%.  I might for instance want to run a Chronicles of Narnia campaign, with a Christian-based morality set by Aslan & his dad - the PCs would be free to make moral choices, but there would be clear (at least in hindsight) 'right' and 'wrong' choices.  That PCs would sometimes make the wrong choice - would sin - would be expected, and part of the setting.  There would be consequences for right & wrong choices.  That's in no wise a railroad.


----------



## RedTonic (May 26, 2011)

I also agree that billd91's summation is exactly what that reads like. I'd XP ya, but the last time I did was too recent. 

How your character perceives himself is your business; how the party perceives him is theirs; but how the rest of the world perceives him is the GM's business. That's not railroading by any practical measure. Extending railroading to cover issues of how the GM resolves your character's actions against the guiding themes of the setting is an incredible attenuation of the definition, IMO--it's no more railroady than the fact that the GM decides what loot is available to the victor. It's a feature, not a bug. 

Sadly, this also doesn't help Elf Witch and her group. 

...I'll echo several previous posters and recommend packing this campaign in for a while and trying out something that is really rules-light. May I mention Dread? I got to try it out at this past Boston game day and it was awesome.  Plus, no real stats to worry about...


----------



## haakon1 (May 26, 2011)

S'mon said:


> As DM I tend to "PCs can do whatever they want"; but as a player I don't see why I should have to put up with the jerk PC.  If he can do whatever he wants, then *so can I, including stickling a dagger in his head.*




Excellent!  Sadly, I've run out of XP giving ability for you.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 26, 2011)

Ignoring the "railroading" discussion for a bit, I've given this a bit more thought.



I think that it might be interesting for the group to do a one shot or two, in D&D or something more wacky like Og Unearthed (where you play cavemen who only know 3-7 TOTAL words).

It sounds like this is actually a really good group, but it also seems like there are some behind the scenes emotions/perspectives that don't mesh. 


I wonder if just taking a break for a bit and doing something totally different would help refresh everyone's perspective?


Or, another potential option, sit down and do a "pure roleplay" session or two (including the DM narrating some scenes...work on character development and the resolution of some of the group conflict, including creating ties within/among members of the group).

The best first level adventures come up with reasons for a group to stay together and work together. Then that sort of stops, assuming parties  want to do so naturally. 

It would potentially be beneficial to have another "get to know you session" 


Your group could even potentially take a page from other rpgs and roleplay conflict, even combat (with the assumption that there'd be no xp or gear rewarded) with the goal of creating a story that develops characters as well as a more cohesive group.

Players could even be encouraged to "DM" making up npc villians, etc, etc...as is often done when a player writes up his/her own backstory.


In essence, I'm thinking to save the current campaign, maybe a reboot?


----------



## Elf Witch (May 26, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I'm still parsing over the railroad parts of Pemerton's post, but I understand his point about the WIS-check. Perhaps a pair of examples would illustrate.
> 
> Say you're playing in a modern game featuring enemy Nazis who are using mystical black arts to further their agenda of conquest.  Now, as part of the loot, your party finds a cache of non-magical Nazi memorabilia, which is nonetheless quite valuable. However, one of the PCs destroys the Nazi memorabilia, deeming it to be "evil".
> 
> ...




I have to disagree with this example in anyway being similar to what happened in our game. First of all Nazis and what they did were evil without a doubt. There is no room for argument on that one unless it is an alternate history and the Nazis are the good guys and the Allied troops the bad guys.

In the GMs world necromancy is not evil. Homes, merchants, even the king use undead servants and soldiers. The goddess of death's clerics prepare the bodies and send the soul to the afterlife. Once the body is a shell it can be legally bought to be used as undead. There are laws pertaining to this only family members are the person in question can arrange the sale of the body. A lot of soldiers do it because it gives their families extra money and even in death they can still serve the throne. 

Again I think I have typed this several times now the wisdom check was not to stop the dwarf from destroying the items it was to see if he thought it was a wise decision to go behind the party's back. After he killed the necromancer and the entire party paid the price for it the party was upset. She wanted to know if the dwarf thought it was a wise decision to go behind the party back again and risk his dwarf being kicked out of the group.

That was what the wisdom check was for not the destruction of the items per say.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The GM determining that necromancy is legal is not per se railroading. The GM determining that necromancy is not judged evil by some NPC or other is not per se railroading. Clearly, this is all just setting up the gameworld. In some circumstances, in combination with other elements of the gameworld, it could turn into or contribute to a railroad - for example, if one player has made it clear that his/her PC's main raison d'etre is to fight necromancy, and the player has been accepted into the game on that basis, and the GM then presents a world where the PC has no practical option but to tolerate necromancy. But those sorts of circumstances aren't all that common (although the repeated threads on these forums about player vs GM choice in respect of PC build, shared world creation, etc etc show that they aren't unheard of either).
> 
> In my view, however, the GM determining that necromancy _is not evil_, in a game where a significant motivation for playing, on the part of one or more players, is _to engage with the thematic question of how we should regard acts of necromancy_, in my view is railroading, or at least a serious potential prelude to railroading. Because the GM is purporting to settle in advance the very issue which the player was hoping to address by playing the game.




I could see this if the the character had in his background that he thought necromancy was evil and that regardless of it being legal he was going to fight it everywhere it was in the world. That a DM putting in good necromancers might lead to railroading.

But it wasn't, the world where the dwarf is from has no necromancers. He had never encounter it before he got to the human city. His main foe are drow. He decided that regardless of the law and what the humans and the humans gods think it is evil. It is why he killed the necromancer. Afterward when he found out that St Cuthbert's temple, the human god he  has chosen to freely serve does not view the practice of necromancy has it falls in this area as evil or illegal he stopped going on about it being evil. 

Personally I don't think he was role playing his character at all. I think he metagamed it. I think he was afraid that the skeletons were some kind of trap set by the DM to hurt us and he didn't trust his fellow players to be smart enough to figure it out.


----------



## LostSoul (May 27, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.




What's happening is that the DM is stripping away the player's ability to _judge_ moral or thematic choices made by the players through their characters.  The DM has _already_ made that judgement, case-closed.

That's not a big problem if you don't care about making that kind of judgement through play, but if that's why you're at the table, then it is a big deal.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 27, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> What's happening is that the DM is stripping away the player's ability to _judge_ moral or thematic choices made by the players through their characters.  The DM has _already_ made that judgement, case-closed.
> 
> That's not a big problem if you don't care about making that kind of judgement through play, but if that's why you're at the table, then it is a big deal.




I have to disagree on this. Just because a DM makes world decisions for the world does not take away the players ability to make moral decisions of their own.

I like a good moral dilemma in game play it makes the game world more real to me and part of why I play. Black and white worlds bore me. If a gray world is handled right you can have moral dilemmas that have more than one right answer.

In my homebrew campaign the church of St Cuthbert and its clerics administer the law they are the cops, judges and executioners. To them the law is black and white. If you murder someone the penalty is death no matter the circumstances. Self defensive as they are attacking you now is not murder. If you steal more than once you start losing body parts.

The church of Pelor is often at odds with the church of ST Cuthbert and has been known to hide criminals from them because they see more shades of gray.

My players know this. This has come up in game. A woman poisoned her husband after suffering abuse at his hands she was terrified of him and felt unsafe.

The PCs had several choices they could ignore it, turn her in to St Cuthbert or to Pelor's clerics. The paladin of Bahment argued that she deserved mercy and the party's help. 

So they helped get her to some clerics of Pelor who could help her and hide from the law.

The players made the choice not me and I didn't penalize the paladin because imo he did the good thing. If he had turned her over to St Cuthbert I would not have penalized him because he did the lawful things. 

The only penalty I would have done was if the paladin choose to do nothing.


----------



## haakon1 (May 27, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Personally I don't think he was role playing his character at all. I think he metagamed it. I think he was afraid that the skeletons were some kind of trap set by the DM to hurt us and he didn't trust his fellow players to be smart enough to figure it out.




Ah, this is a good insight, and makes his action make more sense.

The assumption that the DM is out to "gotcha" the players all the time, like some players assume in Knights of the Dinner Table, probably is still out there in the wild.


----------



## pemerton (May 27, 2011)

billd91 said:


> If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad.



If by making the choice to help the elementals you're deemed to be committing an evil act, it looks somewhat railroady to me (on the reasonable assumption that the players don't want their PCs to do evil).



billd91 said:


> From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad.



When the point of play was to explore thematic/evaluative material, then yes - it is a railroad, or a prelude to it.



billd91 said:


> To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.



Falling and gravity aren't (except in very strange circumstances, perhaps) matters of theme and evaluation. Good, evil, freedom, duty, honour, expedience, etc are. That's the difference.



billd91 said:


> If you want to see how your PCs feel about relationships between freedom and virtue, by all means set up a similar moral structure. Make sure elements of the cosmology have their opinions on the subject and make sure there are consequences for crossing them. And when they *do* cross them, you'll have your answer in very clear terms. It's when there are few or no consequences, no sacrifices to be made, that you end up with uninteresting and unclear choices.



My opinion is more or less the opposite of that. If the players care about the thematic or evaulative issues, then ingame consequences are secondary, because the realworld metagame consequences - "What did you just do!?" - will be where the meaning resides. I run my gameworld to support this metagame - I don't want to try and sublimate the metagame into the gameworld.

And so far from producing unclear or uninteresting choices, it has produced results like: a paladin willingly submitting to a beating from a taunting demon, regarding this as just penance for killing a man; a wizard betraying his home city in order to pursue greater unity and power with his order by allying with Vecna as a new leader of the order; that wizard's ally joining in the betrayal in exchange for promises of a magistracy and redemption of the mortgage on his home (which he had had to mortgage in order to finance his indulgence in trance-inducing herbs); two monks allying with a fox spirit exiled from heaven in order to liberate a rebel god who had been trapped by the emperor of heaven, and to bring a dead god back to life, in a complicated plan that involved tricking borh the heavens and the hells and dramatically transforming the karmic destiny of the world.

More generally - if the players care about theme, and you as GM want it to matter in the game, in my view the best way to achieve this is to open up the space for the players to develop and express their ideas through play.


----------



## haakon1 (May 27, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> The only penalty I would have done was if the paladin choose to do nothing.




I've never penalized a character for moral/religious violations, like this, because I think there are different views -- if I thought it was really off from the rules of their god for a paladin or cleric, I'd ask why they thought it was OK.  But honestly, that's never come up in 25 years of DMing.

However, I do have NPCs and the world in general REACT to actions of the PC's.  For example, in your example, siding with one church would change its cleric leader's reaction to you, and the other church's leader if they found out.  Plus the reactions of other NPC's who know, in different ways depending on the NPC -- family and friends of the poisoned husband might now be an enemy for the PC, but perhaps an Amazon leader might see him as a friend of women, etc. -- whatever makes sense in the campaign.


----------



## pemerton (May 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No one is endorsing that the character gets a WIS check so that the GM can then take command of the character; rather that the character gains a WIS check so that the GM ensures that the player has all the information relevant to taking the action that the character should have.



Here, the information is metagame information (about the effect of the betrayal on player-to-player harmony). My objection is to (i) the GM sublimating that into an ingame matter, and thereby (ii) using the GM's authority over ingame stuff -however subtly and non-determinatively - to try and push the player's play of the PC in one direction or another.



Raven Crowking said:


> In fact, if there are no consequences to the decision the PC made, then there is also no real decision point.  Making the treasure show up elsewhere, in another form, just means that the player doesn't have to decide whether loot trumps ethics, or ethics trumps loot.



Why is _that_ the decision? Rather than the decision to destroy the artefacts? Or to betray the party?

What counts as the meaningful aspect of the decision is relative to what matters to the players.


----------



## haakon1 (May 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If the players care about the thematic or evaulative issues, then ingame consequences are secondary, because the realworld metagame consequences - "What did you just do!?" - will be where the meaning resides. I run my gameworld to support this metagame - I don't want to try and sublimate the metagame into the gameworld.




I'm not sure I follow this.  Perhaps there's a different meaning of metagaming then I'm used to here -- I think of it as being a powergamer thing about trying to "win".


----------



## Elf Witch (May 27, 2011)

haakon1 said:


> I've never penalized a character for moral/religious violations, like this, because I think there are different views -- if I thought it was really off from the rules of their god for a paladin or cleric, I'd ask why they thought it was OK.  But honestly, that's never come up in 25 years of DMing.
> 
> However, I do have NPCs and the world in general REACT to actions of the PC's.  For example, in your example, siding with one church would change its cleric leader's reaction to you, and the other church's leader if they found out.  Plus the reactions of other NPC's who know, in different ways depending on the NPC -- family and friends of the poisoned husband might now be an enemy for the PC, but perhaps an Amazon leader might see him as a friend of women, etc. -- whatever makes sense in the campaign.




When I DM I expect clerics and paladins to follow their god's teachings. The paladin choose to follow a god who puts strong emphasis on protecting the weak and never turning your back on wrong doing.  So if he just walked way washing his hands of what the party had discovered there would have been some kind of consequence. 

One of my house rules for clerics is that they must be the same alignment as their god.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> When I DM I expect clerics and paladins to follow their god's teachings. The paladin choose to follow a god who puts strong emphasis on protecting the weak and never turning your back on wrong doing.  So if he just walked way washing his hands of what the party had discovered there would have been some kind of consequence.
> 
> One of my house rules for clerics is that they must be the same alignment as their god.




And I think, thus is born Pemerton's concerns over railroading.  If the player doesn't do what the DM wants him to do, the DM punishes the PC.  That's pretty much by definition railroading.

Now, most player will totally accept it as a condition of playing a class with a strong alignment component - they've probably got a concept built in that will hopefully follow along with the strictures outlined by the class.  Or, to put it another way, if you play a 2e Paladin, don't bitch that you can't slaughter peasants.  

I think, though, Pemerton is simply pointing to a different style of game where the goal of play has nothing to do with the standard rewards of play - accrual of power/wealth in the fictional setting, or even exploring the setting  - but rather a thematic approach to the game that is completely separate from those rewards.

If my goal during play is to undertake an examination of the moral implications of slavery (for example), and the DM flat out rules that slavery is evil, then, well, my play just went out the window.  We know the answer and all of our actions will flow from that answer that has been handed down by the DM.  My "good" character won't do things that are flat out evil, because, well, I'm playing a good character.  

I'm not convinced railroading is the right term.  But, I can see where Pemerton is going with this.  If the players (and you really have to have the whole group on board with this sort of thing) want to explore a thematic (rather than setting or game) concept, having the DM flat out state that X=Y means that the exploration is finished.  We know that slavery is evil because the DM told us so.  There are no more moral implications that can be explored in this particular game.

Going back to the angels vs elementals example.  If the DM has flat out stated that elementals are evil, and we're playing in Elf Witch's game, any good aligned cleric or paladin would pretty much have to help the angels, otherwise, they get whacked with the alignment punishment stick.

Now, that all being said, if the players are on board with a more traditional style game, then obviously there's no problem.  The players can decide whatever they want based on their own priorities.  But, if the goal of play is to examine whether or not elementals really are evil, then, if the DM flat out states "Elementals are Evil" then play pretty much loses a lot of meaning.


----------



## S'mon (May 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And I think, thus is born Pemerton's concerns over railroading.  If the player doesn't do what the DM wants him to do, the DM punishes the PC.  That's pretty much by definition railroading.




No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.

By the 'railroad' standard some people are giving here, having monsters kill the PCs because the PCs made poor tactical choices in combat is railroading.  Having the PCs be wanted outlaws because they rob and murder is railroading.  Apparently even shifting PC Alignment from G to E because they rob and murder would be railroading; if the player declares that murder and robbery is Good, then for the DM to declare otherwise is hashing his bliss.


----------



## pemerton (May 27, 2011)

haakon1 said:


> I'm not sure I follow this.  Perhaps there's a different meaning of metagaming then I'm used to here -- I think of it as being a powergamer thing about trying to "win".



By "metagaming" I'm meaning thinking about the game as a game at the level of the table, among the real people playing the game.

So it includes what you're describing as _metagaming_ in a pejorative sense, but includes other stuff as well. (Also, I don't generally object to what you are calling metagaming. I expect my players to approach the game as a game - for example, the fact that their PCs keep finding themselves in adventures isn't meant to make them puzzled about why their PCs are so (un)lucky - I expect my players to appreciate that this is the premise of playing a fantasy adventure RPG.)


----------



## pemerton (May 27, 2011)

Hussar, can't XP you again yet but what you say is exactly what I'm talking about.

All I'd want to add is that it's not an approach to play that is that weird or avant-garde (at least in my view - and in this I think I agree with Ron Edwards, who clearly sees some _game systems_ as avant-garde, but not thematically-driven play per se).

I agree with you that it can be a hard approach to play to pull off if not everyone is on board, because players who just want to explore will arc up at the metagaming/attempt to take over the GM's story. And some GM's will arc up at this as well!

But I'm wary of therefore assuming that exploration is a default way of playing an RPG in some a priori sense. I just think it's the way the dominant games have tended to evolve. But the fact that we get things like Dragonlane or White Wolf railroads shows that a lot of people are interested in themes in their play. The problem with those games (and here I'm just spouting Forge orthodoxy) is that they haven't got rid of those elements of classic games and approaches to play that obstruct thematic play.

But I know that it's surprisingly easy to drift even AD&D or Rolemaster to thematic play - just drop alignment rules and change some of your GMing practices and world/scenario-creation techniques. (Of course, if you're using one of those systems for your thematic play combat is going to be a pretty central way of expressing and resolving conflict. Which probably limits the range of themes that can be explored, although perhaps not as much as one might think - after all, classic Hulk comics show you can do Freudian psycho-drama via 4-colour punch-ups!)


----------



## LostSoul (May 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.




The choice that is prevented here is that the PCs cannot be good/evil based on their actions; it has been predetermined by the DM.

edit: Can someone rep pemerton for me for at least one of those posts?  I would appreciate it!
edit2: And Hussar as well.


----------



## Nightson (May 27, 2011)

Yeah, I think we need to stop using the term railroading because it absolutely fails at describing what is being talked about.

Basically, when the DM assigns objective alignment to acts, you're generally unable to have in character ambiguity about the alignment of those acts.  

Removing the in character ambiguity results in decreased opportunity to explore or roleplay the ambiguity and/or moral dilemma.

But this is really just a general problem caused by objective alignments in games, part of why I don't use alignment myself, but I imagine that those who do use alignment feel it brings other benefits to the table to outweigh this.


----------



## Kerranin (May 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.



I'd state it slightly differently - "Railroading is arriving at the same destination regardless of the choices you make." (I know it is only nitpicking )


----------



## S'mon (May 27, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The choice that is prevented here is that the PCs cannot be good/evil based on their actions; it has been predetermined by the DM.




In games like 1e-2e AD&D You can't eat babies, rape cabin boys, sacrifice puppies to Satan and still be classed as Good.  That may be Railroading by Ron Edwards & Vince Baker's Forgeist definition, which seems some kind of Nietszchean "I am my own value-creator" idea, but not by mine or I think any reasonable definition.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 27, 2011)

Can't XP, but I agree with S'mon here. The assertion that if the DM says something is Evil in D&D is a railroad is odd to me. I don't use alignment in my game (since it's not D&D), but in D&D alignments are defined things that are not near as ambiguous as people make them seem. Alignments are usually much more straightforward than they are usually presented, though of course there are disagreements and muddied areas.

I think the type of game Pemerton is discussing is actually pretty uncommon (that being moral exploration themes in D&D). In those types of games you might want to let go of the hard and fast rules on alignment. In most games, defining alignments (and actions that reflect those alignments) are part of the setting, not a railroading tool.

It's a feature, not a bug.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 27, 2011)

Very interesting discussion.



Nightson said:


> Yeah, I think we need to stop using the term railroading because it absolutely fails at describing what is being talked about.




I think what pemerton is describing is what it is to railroad in a narrativist game. Railroading in such a game is quite different (at least in terms of what the GM restricts) than railroading in a traditional game, hence the confusion. I'm not totally clear on this yet myself, though, as my understanding of narrativism is limited.


----------



## LostSoul (May 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> In games like 1e-2e AD&D You can't eat babies, rape cabin boys, sacrifice puppies to Satan and still be classed as Good.  That may be Railroading by Ron Edwards & Vince Baker's Forgeist definition, which seems some kind of Nietszchean "I am my own value-creator" idea, but not by mine or I think any reasonable definition.




You are not classified as "Good" - there is no "Good" to be classified by!  You are judged by the other people playing the game.  That's the point.  

We could talk about why Sorcerer has a Humanity score, if that interests you.


----------



## S'mon (May 27, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> We could talk about why Sorcerer has a Humanity score, if that interests you.




No thank you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Here, the information is metagame information (about the effect of the betrayal on player-to-player harmony). My objection is to (i) the GM sublimating that into an ingame matter, and thereby (ii) using the GM's authority over ingame stuff -however subtly and non-determinatively - to try and push the player's play of the PC in one direction or another.






So, let me get this right.

You think that the player was in the right, because the GM failed to provide enough information for him to make a meaningful decision.  You also think that the GM providing meaningful information is railroading.

I am not at all sure what you mean here by "an ingame matter".  Are you suggesting that the GM providing additional information _*as it becomes relevant during actual game play*_ is somehow worse than providing all possible relevant information before the game begins?

Again, take a look at the OP.  The GM wanted to ensure that the player understood the value of the objects, and understood that there was no moral dilemma present _a priori_ from the game world.  In D&D, at least by RAW, "evil" is more than a metaphysical concept.  It is "real", and it can be detected.  Whether or not something is "evil" in that sense can be a known factor within the context of the world.

Whether or not that context is the sole definition of "evil" is, of course, then open....leaving lots of space for grey matters.  In RCFG I solved this, and opened up more grey area, by simply declaring that "Evil" within the metamagical context merely means "connected to the lower planes".

But, be that as it may, "evil", in the sense of the Detect Evil spell, is not an open question.  And, within the tradition of D&D, necromancy is, far more often than not, considered "evil" in that sense.  It would have been irresponsible of the GM not to have ensured that the player understood that things were different in her campaign milieu before he destroyed the artifacts.  

Had the GM not made sure that the player understood the context, the entire group would have been (rightly) upset.



> Why is _that_ the decision? Rather than the decision to destroy the artefacts? Or to betray the party?




Not at all certain what you are after here.

Clearly, there was a decision to destroy the artifacts.

Perhaps (depending upon how you look at it), there was a decision to betray the party.

But no decision is meaningful without both context and consequence.  

It seems to me that you are trying to claim that context and consequence -- the things that make decisions meaningful -- are railroading.  In fact, from your posts on this thread, I am at a loss how one can have a GM and not be railroading.....it seems as though depriving the players of any decision related to context or consequence is too much of a straight jacket for you.

Which is cool, if you and your players enjoy that.  However, not everyone rolls that way!



RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 27, 2011)

*Objective alignments.*

This appears, in large part, to mainly address "railroading" as alignment decisions. 

The problem is that in D&D alignments ARE. (I'm not the first to bring this up.)



pemerton said:


> Falling and gravity aren't (except in very strange circumstances, perhaps) matters of theme and evaluation. Good, evil, freedom, duty, honour, expedience, etc are. That's the difference.




Good and Evil ARE.

If you want to be something other than good or evil, you CAN! That's what neutral is for.

But from the moment I create a character and write "chaotic good" on his character sheet, he IS good. If I then, from the moment of first playing, start worshipping devils, killing babies, etc, etc, I'm going to switch to evil. From that first moment, I detected as good. I would be immune to damage from holy word, but blasphemy would affect me. And over time, those words on my character sheet would change. Ideally, it would be my responsibility to change the game rule "keyword" on my sheet to neutral and then to evil on my own, when I, as a player believe I've done sufficient evil to counteract my good actions, and I believe that my outlook/philosophy has become one that compromises my goodness.

But what if I didn't? What if I somehow decided that in my view of the world devils were the "good guys" because they "rebeled" from the tyrranical strictures of the gods? I decide that I'm going to keep the keywords "chaotic good". Sure I'm doing things for lawful evil beings, things that they endorse and aprove of, but I don't beleive them to be lawful evil...they're rebels, and they're good because they sought their own freedom! 

A good dm and group that don't mind exploring players doing evil things (rather than a "no evil pc's rule" that many groups have because they've agreed to play a heroic game and not a backstabbing game) will allow this player to do every one of these things. Every one, except for not changing that rule "keyword". Because, the player IS now evil. They can believe that they are not, roleplay as such, etc. But they are. There IS an objective answer. They are now vulnerable to holy word and immune to blasphemy. They detect as evil. I can't fathom a group that would go along with them being Chaotic Good, though I can fathom a group whose characters might also be under the same delusions as the CG/LE character I'm describing.

Worshipping devils is evil. Period. That is part of the rules, not a railroad, not a dm decision, it is as linear as "you drop something, it falls".


But then there are greys. Lots of greys. That is where things can get interesting and this exploration can occur. Just how much devil worship is required to become evil? Is worshiping a devil that you don't know is a devil evil? What if it is only the lawful tenets that you hear for the first year? Not evil then, (but lawful). What if you only call upon the devil once in a time of great need, and then seek to atone (the spell atonement is useful here, but again, it depends on the deed if it's even needed)?

What if, for the slavery example, is a world in which "slavery is evil". (It IS by the way, for D&D RAW). I can play a character who is neutral, really loves his slaves like brothers, treats them kindly, and believes himself to be good, particularly if I do other good things to counteract this evil I am doing, and I am doing as much as I can to mitigate). Heck, I might even be able to push my official alignment to good if I own only one slave, he's more like a hireling, we do lots of good actions together, and that's the only evil thing I do. Because, there is the objective fact "slavery is evil" and then there is the rest of the actions of the character. No evil character exists that never, ever, ever does a good thing. No good character exists that never, ever, ever does an evil thing. 

There is still room for exploration, there is still room for dm consequences, both in the world (arresting characters for killing babies) and in the rules (you've killed every elven child below the age of 10, amounting to attempted genocide...guess you're not "chaotic good" on your sheet anymore).


And then we get to "houserules". Necromancy not being evil (or devils, or slavery) would be a houserule. (Actually necromancy is more debatable, as there are some spells that are not evil and some that are, such as animate dead...but animate dead not being evil would be a houserule). Houserules are generally created by a dm and then accepted by the group (whether they like them or not, there is a tacit acceptance by playing at that DM's table...they agree to play by the rules of the table). Now their characters don't have to believe the truths of the world, but the truths are truths. They are in the same way that my character doesn't have to believe he missed when the numbers don't add up to AC, but I did, in fact, miss and will do no damage. (I could even see roleplaying this event, especially with a bow).

That is not to say there can't be some pretty stupid houserules. I would not play with a dm who stated that devils were actually good, unless the actual nature/behavior of devils was far different from the usual expectations. If it were simply a rule change (like changing their alignment on their entry) but they did everything else the same, it would be as bad as my CG/LE player character mentioned earlier. It would be a world in which the game didn't make sense to me. If the dm were to rule that devils were thought of as good, then that's an entirely other manner.

But changing animate dead to being a neutral act is a matter of refluffing it. Instead of desecrating remains, the gods view remains as just a shell, animating it is no different than animate objects. It's just somewhat easier because it was an object that was previously animate on its own. Conversely, creating golems is not evil, but a dm could refluff that as well. Instead of magical animation, it is the process of stealing someone's soul and binding it to slavery in clay (or stone or iron, etc) form.



The overall point is that the DM does need to determine what is a good act and what is an evil act as a truth. A DM that does not do this HAS HOUSERULED THAT THEY ARE NOT USING OBJECTIVE ALIGNMENTS IN THE GAME whether he is aware that he's housruled it or not. It's part of the system. What the character believes, how they act, etc. is not up to the DM. I'm not saying it's WRONG for a dm to houserule that they are not using objective alignments, but as part of RAW they exist. If someone doesn't like that in their game, they certainly SHOULD houserule them away.


Wow, that was long. If you're still reading, you're a trooper!


----------



## Elf Witch (May 27, 2011)

I don't understand how you can play a game where you want to delve into moral dilemmas without some kind of guideline. If everything is ambiguous then there is no dilemma.

In DnD you have alignments but I also play Shadowrun where there are none but there are laws and violate enough of them it can go bad for you.

For example our group does not do wetworks nor do we use lethal force on corporate assets like wage mage's and their security forces when we are doing a run. We may be thieves for hire but we are not murderers.

Part of this reasoning is because we have several runners who are basically good guys who have been screwed by the system. But we also have some who really don't have any compunction about killing. They just realize that you are more likely to live longer if you don't totally piss off the big corporations, stealing information is one thing killing their people takes it to a whole new level.

In the Angel and elemental example it would depend on why the paladin took the the elemental side  if he would face any kind of penalty. Paladins are allowed to work with evil for the greater good at least they are in my game.

It could be like in Supernatural where Dean takes on heaven to protect the human race. 

When you choose to play a paladin or a cleric then you are choosing to take on extra responsibilities. The alignment matters more than say for a rogue. At leas this is how we play the game. As I have said before we lean more to role playing than roll playing.

I believe that gaming is cooperative not just between the players but also with the DM. Before I DM I talk to my players find out what kind of game they are interested in. If they wanted a game filled with moral ambiguity I would try to run that kind of game.

When we started the game we are playing right now the DM asked what we wanted and we discussed having a more gray world less black and white. So everyone sitting at the table agreed that we would not be playing your typical DnD game by the RAW.


----------



## RedTonic (May 27, 2011)

To speak to the aforementioned example of a slave-owning do-gooder, http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/251423-rose-wind-saga-halmae-updated-may-26-2011-a.html

Within the story hour there's a major character who is a cleric of a good-aligned deity of healing. I believe the character's alignment is actually "good." She owns a slave.

That's a fabulous story hour, btw, and a pleasure to read, which I find isn't often the case with retellings of campaigns. (IME they usually devolve into "you have to have been there!")


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 27, 2011)

Right. 

A good person can do an evil thing, so long as they do many, many more good things, and they also do what they can to mitigate that evil thing.


----------



## S'mon (May 27, 2011)

RedTonic said:


> To speak to the aforementioned example of a slave-owning do-gooder, http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/251423-rose-wind-saga-halmae-updated-may-26-2011-a.html
> 
> Within the story hour there's a major character who is a cleric of a good-aligned deity of healing. I believe the character's alignment is actually "good." She owns a slave.




BTW, when did "slave owning = Evil Act" come into D&D?  The last thing I remember was a Dragon piece probably ca 1990 which suggested that raiding for slaves was Evil, but owning slaves within a slave-owning society was at DM's judgement.  So Scarlett O'Hara wasn't necessarily Evil - at least not for that.  Having Slavery = Evil can make running an Ancient World themed campaign difficult, pre-Christianity this was a pretty rare view at best.


----------



## S'mon (May 27, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Right.
> 
> A good person can do an evil thing, so long as they do many, many more good things, and they also do what they can to mitigate that evil thing.




Kinda depends what that Evil thing is, though.  I can think of plenty of evil acts that would get somebody labelled with Evil alignment by me, no matter what else they did.  Maybe genuine repentance as well as mitigation might make a difference.


----------



## RedTonic (May 27, 2011)

I believe it's also in _The Book of Exalted Deeds_, though I suppose that's not strictly RAW.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 28, 2011)

S'mon said:


> BTW, when did "slave owning = Evil Act" come into D&D?  The last thing I remember was a Dragon piece probably ca 1990 which suggested that raiding for slaves was Evil, but owning slaves within a slave-owning society was at DM's judgement.  So Scarlett O'Hara wasn't necessarily Evil - at least not for that.  Having Slavery = Evil can make running an Ancient World themed campaign difficult, pre-Christianity this was a pretty rare view at best.




I know in the setting Kingdoms of Kalamar slavery is legal and not necessarily evil. A lot of the kingdoms have slavery as a sentence for a crime.

There is a group of evil slavers and a god who and group who fight slavery. 

So its not a black and white issue.

I know modern day ethics see slavery as wrong which is why I think it is considered evil in a lot of games. 

Personally I disagree not the real life aspect which is evil but the game aspect. I think it depends on how slavery is used in a game setting if it is evil or not.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2011)

I agree with S'mon and Elf Witch, but with a caveat.

I actually just went through the 2e and 3e PHB and DMG. Slavery is "usually by evil societies". In none of these sources is it actually defined as "evil". Although, every mention of slavery in those sources is usually tied to something evil (is the purview of an evil god, for example). 

In the 4e PHB, however, I found this under the description for lawful good: "When leaders exploit their authority for personal
gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so."​ 
I also found, under the description for evil: "They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."​ 
Are there societies that view slavery as acceptable/neutral? Sure. Is that core/standard? Maybe marginally in 2e and 3e and, I'd say it is houserule for a 4e game. Though, show me a god of slavery in 2e or 3e and I'll show you a god with an evil alignment.​ 
EDIT: Book of Exalted Deeds quote: "Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil."

The point isn't that morality can't be explored in D&D and the point isn't that it's wrong to develop a society or even a perspective of the gods that changes some of the "standard" moral rules. The point is that it IS a change. That's fine, houserules are great.​ 
My point is that, if I, as DM decide that animate dead or slavery are not evil, or I decide that "aid another always grants +4 instead of +2" then that is a houserule. Again, houserules are fine, and I like Kalamar, but that is a houserule if the behavior is actually considered non-evil. (A cool, reasonable, and excellent/intriguging houserule that I totally approve of by the way...often houserules can be better than the main/original rules).​



In regard to the whole "railroading" component, however, my searches for "slavery" and "evil" came up with some very interesting guidelines, which basically tell the DM to do exactly what has been defined by some in this thread as "Railroading". Look into "changing alignment" in either/both the 2e and 3e DMG. Actually, I'll share those quotes in another post.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2011)

From the AD&D DMG, pg 28:

"Sooner or later a player character will change alignment. A character might change alignment for many reasons, most of them having nothing to do with the player 'failing' to play his character's role or the dm 'failing' to create the right environment. Player characters are imaginary people, but like real people they grow and change as their personalities develop...These are natural changes. There might be more cause for concern if no player character ever changes alignment in a campaign."

"There is no rule or yardstick to determine when a character changes alignment. Alignment can change deliberately, unconsciously, or involuntarily. This is one of those things that makes the game fun-players are free to act, and the DM decides if (and when) a change goes into effect. This calls for some real adjudication."

It goes on to talk about unconscious change. "Unconscious change happens when the character's actions are suited to a different alignment without the player realizing it...If the DM suspects that the player is not acting within his alignment, the DM should warn the player that his character's alignment is coming into question. An unconscious alignment change should not surprise the player, not completely anyway."


So a CG dwarf could absolutely kill a good necromancer. According to the 2e DMG the DM might advise the player that this is not a good act and his character's alignment might change. The PLAYER would then know. The CHARACTER would not know. The PLAYER would then decide if he wanted to perform the action anyway, and explore how he was now neutral or evil, and the CHARACTER would go on acting much the same as before (though would now be vulnerable if a cleric cast holy word).



From the 3.5 DMG, page 134: 

"A character can have a change of heart that leads to the adoption of a different alignment. Alignments aren’t commitments, except in specific cases (such as for paladins and clerics). Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment."

"You’re [i.e. the DM] in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, 'My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,' the appropriate response from you is 'Prove it.' Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players."


And finally, from the 3.5 PHB, page 103-104:

"[Alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

"Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions."



Also from the 3.5 PHB, page 103:
"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 28, 2011)

The conclusion from all of this is that, insofar as I am concerned, your DM is doing a good job....and you can tell her that from me!


RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The conclusion from all of this is that, insofar as I am concerned, your DM is doing a good job....and you can tell her that from me!
> 
> 
> RC




I ABSOLUTELY agree.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 28, 2011)

When I DM I give a lot of latitude when it comes to alignments. One act usually is not enough to shift an alignment. Even for paladins.

I know that for my DM in this case her concern was not so much that he doing an evil act. He is lawful neutral. Yes killing a good person is an evil act. But she takes in motivations when judging evil acts. He wasn't killing to be cruel or for power he thought he was doing the right thing. 

What she questioned was the lawful part. He acted as judge jury and executioner in a city where he did not have the authority to do so. She felt that he is behaving in a chaotic way not a lawful way the same as when he went behind the back of the party to destroy the skeletons.


----------



## S'mon (May 28, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Though, show me a god of slavery in 2e or 3e and I'll show you a god with an evil alignment.[/LEFT]




There's a 1e AD&D 'demigod of Thieves & Slavers' IMC from a Roman Empire type culture who is Neutral alignment, maybe Neutral (evil).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 28, 2011)

Oh, agreed.


I'd never suggest a single action being the reason for an alignment change (unless it was somewhat secretly the culmination of a number of other actions, that at the time seemed good....like infiltrating a church as a priest and at the last moment killing their good god). Maybe a huge act if the player was trying to intentionally change alignments (like self sacrifice on the altar of their evil god to save the good guys might make them neutral instead of evil in one fell swoop). But single acts should be very rare and very meainingful.


And yeah, I only brought up alignments because others brought up "railroading" and such, and it seemed to be relevant to their points. To the OP, it's not AS relevant, though still relevant, because "out of alignment" and "out of character" are both allowed, but #1 is a DM issue, and #2 is a player issue (the player of the character, mainly, but also the players of other characters who now have to deal with this newish individual). 

Sometimes people change. It's the DM's job to record and apply game rules to those changes, and to still provide challenges and consequences to them. But it's not the DM's job to prevent it (though alerting the player is good form if the player is not paying attention, or is sort of uninformed as to how morality fits into the game). It is the player's own job to roleplay these changes, and ideally does so in a meaninful rather than "I'm metagaming and really wouldn't have done that" way. It is the other players' job to determine how to react to this seemingly foreign behavior from the changed individual.


I also give a TON of alignment leeway when DMing, and expect so when playing. 


I'm not saying DMs are supposed to trick players or gotcha them...I'm just saying that consistent behavior of a certain type has an in game rule/name applied to it. When the wrong one is applied, the DM's job (after observing consistency and intensity) is to correct it.



To S'mon, I do wonder...is it a god of slavery or a god of slaves?

A god of slaves might be a god of liberation or enduring, and would certainly be good.


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think what pemerton is describing is what it is to railroad in a narrativist game.



I think so.



Doug McCrae said:


> my understanding of narrativism is limited.



I think that the Forge does a good job in identifying narrativism as an alternative approach to play from challenge/"step-on-up" play and exploration-focused play.

But I think the Forge does a mediocre job of actually elaborating narrativist play. I think that Ron Edwards is an academic biologist. I don't think he's as good at literary criticism, and he offers an overly narrow account of what thematic play can aim at. He talks about human moral questions, but there is a range of other domains of evaluation that a game can focus on - the aesthetic, for example - and "moral" is also a bit overloaded. The narrowness of Edwards' "official" description of narrativism is shown when he describes The Dying Earth as supporting narrativist play - he's right, but not because The Dying Earth address deep moral issues. It's rather because the Dying Earth RPG is written to focus play on a range of aesthetic issues that are't deep mortal questions but are nevertheless fun and amusing.



JamesonCourage said:


> In most games, defining alignments (and actions that reflect those alignments) are part of the setting, not a railroading tool.
> 
> It's a feature, not a bug.



Like your sign-off suggests, it's relative to player goals. In my experience it will start to become a bug about the time that a player wants to address a thematic question (like the moral and aesthetic value of necromancy) via the medium of play. (Elf Witch has said this _didn't_ motivate the player of the dwarf in her game. She's best placed to know! Like I said upthread, I'm trying to talk in general terms about how an RPG can be played and GMed, and am not intending to offer her or her roommate any targeted advice.)



S'mon said:


> In games like 1e-2e AD&D You can't eat babies, rape cabin boys, sacrifice puppies to Satan and still be classed as Good.  That may be Railroading by Ron Edwards & Vince Baker's Forgeist definition, which seems some kind of Nietszchean "I am my own value-creator" idea, but not by mine or I think any reasonable definition.



The reference to Neitszche is interesting. Because in the actual play of a traditional RPG it won't be an actual divinity, nor socially diffused tradition, that enforces alignment. It will be the GM. _That's_ what makes the notion of railroading apposite, in my view.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2011)

S'mon said:


> No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.
> 
> By the 'railroad' standard some people are giving here, having monsters kill the PCs because the PCs made poor tactical choices in combat is railroading.  Having the PCs be wanted outlaws because they rob and murder is railroading.  Apparently even shifting PC Alignment from G to E because they rob and murder would be railroading; if the player declares that murder and robbery is Good, then for the DM to declare otherwise is hashing his bliss.




Yes and no.

If you have two choices, A and B and if you choose A, you are rewarded, and B you get hit with a stick, then there really isn't much of a choice at all.

In Pemerton's scenario, the DM has decided beforehand, which choice results in A and which choice results in B.  The player, OTOH, wants to explore the idea of whether or not A or B is the "right" choice.

Since the DM has already pre-determined the "right" choice, the player is being, if not forced, at least heavily influenced to choose a particular route.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2011)

Elfwitch said:
			
		

> For example our group does not do wetworks nor do we use lethal force on corporate assets like wage mage's and their security forces when we are doing a run. We may be thieves for hire but we are not murderers.




But, that, right there, is the point.  YOU decided that.  If you murdered someone, would the DM directly apply negative effects to your character?  Would you lose abilities?  I don't think so.

Granted, there might be in campaign results, but, that's going to vary from campaign to campaign.  You might get in trouble from the authorities, or you might not, it all depends on how things went down.

But, your group has decided that murder is bad and won't do it.  Great.  Now, imagine for a second that, instead of the group deciding that, the GM says, "Murder is Bad" and if you commit murder during a run, your character will automatically be captured by the authorities and thrown in prison.

Now, how much choice do you have about commiting murder?

On S'mon's point though about D&D specifically.  I'd never, ever run this sort of game in D&D.  It just doesn't work.  Good and Evil in D&D are ontological.  They aren't abstract in the slightest - they're actual physical forces just like gravity.  To do this sort of narrativist game in D&D would require a HUGE amount of reworking of the mechanics.

That doesn't mean that I think D&D is railroading.  It's railroading for a certain kind of game, possibly, but, most of the time, it's not.  Thus my comment about not bitching about alignment if you play a paladin.  You know what you're getting into when you sign up.

BTW, Elf Witch, I hope you don't take any of this as a specific criticism of your DM.  It's certainly not.  I think the only criticism I would have would be that there should have been a bit more conversation between the players at the outset of the campaign just to make sure that these sorts of issues that you're having don't come up later.  But, meh, that's not a huge thing.  Now you know how the group plays and you can work from there.


----------



## LostSoul (May 29, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't understand how you can play a game where you want to delve into moral dilemmas without some kind of guideline. If everything is ambiguous then there is no dilemma.




The guidelines are provided by the people playing the game.

There are no guidelines in Burning Wheel, but I've played a lot of games of BW where moral dilemmas were the focus of play.  It's because the setting provided a moral dilemma without stating anything about the validity of any course of action, and the system's mechanics create desperate characters.

One of the most satisfying moments in my RPG play to date was where, in a BW game, my PC was killed at the hands of another PC because I was taking a moral stand on a certain issue.  (One that's actually politically relevant.)

*

This said, Elf Witch, I am not sure how this plays into your original post!  I don't mean this as a critique or even a comment on the issues you're dealing with; I intend it only as a clarification of a certain reason why people play RPGs.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, that, right there, is the point.  YOU decided that.  If you murdered someone, would the DM directly apply negative effects to your character?  Would you lose abilities?  I don't think so.
> 
> Granted, there might be in campaign results, but, that's going to vary from campaign to campaign.  You might get in trouble from the authorities, or you might not, it all depends on how things went down.
> 
> ...




I guess I am being a blond here but I don't get it. Yes we shadowrunners decided that murder is bad for us. But the DM of that game runs the game based on the world and in that world murder is bad and is illegal and can get you thrown in jail or worse for doing it. 

If we murdered someone in game I am sure that depending on how well we covered our tracks we might get caught and have Lone Star or one of the other law enforcement corps try to capture us or take us out. Or worse have the corporation hire other runners to take us out.

It is not the only way to play a lot of groups have no hesitation about killing and do it all the time. It does not change the fact that under the laws of the game murder is illegal. 

In DnD the only characters who lose abilities are paladins and maybe clerics. And in DnD if played by the RAW evil and good are not just concepts they are a tangible force. 

I guess I look at it this way the DM gets to decide what is good and what is evil in their world. That is part of their job. The players get to decide how they approach the world. Take for example the players find out that a baby is destined to grow up and destroy the world. If in this world killing innocent babies is evil. Then killing that baby now could be an evil act. The party could be caught and prosecuted for it. The paladin and clerics may lose their powers over it. Depending on how the god views their actions.

Or the DM may decide that it was the paladin's god was who sent the message and killing the baby while getting the paladin in trouble with the secular authorities will not cost him his paladinship in the eyes of the god.

The point is the DM has set up a moral dilemma and has let the players know what is considered good and what is considered evil in the world. The players then have to make a choice a very hard choice on what to do. That is what makes moral dilemmas challenging. 

Using a paladin as an example say killing the baby is going to cost him his abilities but he feels that it is still the right thing to do. Then the consequences of losing his abilities is the cost of his choosing what he thinks is the morally correct thing to do. If it is up to him alone to decide of it it effects his abilities then there is no challenge being presented.

I have a caveat here with concerns to actually taking away things from players the players and DM have to have open communication going on. If it is going to totally upset and piss off the player then the DM should rethink the challenge or consequences.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread we did talk about what we all wanted. I think the player of the dwarf has changed what he wants. I think he right now wants to play what we call DnD lite. More killing more rewards less gray areas. Which is why I am thinking of running something short and more light hearted like Chill.


----------



## S'mon (May 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The reference to Neitszche is interesting. Because in the actual play of a traditional RPG it won't be an actual divinity, nor socially diffused tradition, that enforces alignment. It will be the GM. _That's_ what makes the notion of railroading apposite, in my view.




The D&D DM plays the universe with its Alignment rules, yup.  Of course he can play a universe with a different morality from his own.  And all definitions of D&D have different views of what G & E are, esp the leap from 2e to 3e, so if you play by RAW then of necessity you'll be enforcing a different morality in different editions.  It's not much to do with Nietszche though, the DM should not be on a power trip.  He's there to facilitate the players' power trip, if anything.


----------



## S'mon (May 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> If you have two choices, A and B and if you choose A, you are rewarded, and B you get hit with a stick, then there really isn't much of a choice at all.




I completely disagree.  Sometimes I _want_ to get hit with the damn stick!  At any rate, it's my choice.  Maybe I have good reasons for the choice.  I might choose to kill a man I hate, even knowing I'll be executed for it. Railroading is when the DM says "No you can't kill him, he's a Plot NPC".


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I completely disagree.  Sometimes I _want_ to get hit with the damn stick!  At any rate, it's my choice.  Maybe I have good reasons for the choice.  I might choose to kill a man I hate, even knowing I'll be executed for it. Railroading is when the DM says "No you can't kill him, he's a Plot NPC".




Then what do you call it when the DM specifies certain outcomes for specific actions?  

Granted, this is a pretty mild form of railroading that most groups probably have zero problem with.  But, when you've said, "If you do X, I will mechanically penalize you for it" then you've pretty much said, "Don't do X".



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I guess I look at it this way the DM gets to decide what is good and what is evil in their world. That is part of their job. The players get to decide how they approach the world. Take for example the players find out that a baby is destined to grow up and destroy the world. If in this world killing innocent babies is evil. Then killing that baby now could be an evil act. The party could be caught and prosecuted for it. The paladin and clerics may lose their powers over it. Depending on how the god views their actions.




And there is zero wrong with that approach to play.  I've played that way and will probably play that way again.  It's fun.  

The point that's being made here is that it's not the only way to play.  Instead of the DM deciding what is good or evil, the group does.  It's simply a different approach to gaming.  

There is certainly no right or wrong fingers being pointed here.  I've played both styles and enjoy both ways of playing.

Think about it this way.  Is an Adventure Path a railroad?  Some people say yes, some say no.  It really depends on player expectations.  If you expect to be able to do virtually anything in a given setting, then, sure, an AP is a railroad because your choices are constrained within a fixed framework.  OTOH, if you accept the initial parameters of the AP, you can still have a great deal of freedom within that fixed framework and you probably don't consider it a railroad.

The same goes for this style of game.  If you expect that your decisions and your actions will define the alignment of a given concept, then having that alignment dictated from the outset would be seen as railroading, for that style of game.  OTOH, if you accept the initial parameters, then you wouldn't see it as the DM enforcing (or certainly strongly directing) a specific outcome.

---------

I do agree with Lost Soul that we've wandered very far afield and away from your initial premise Elf Witch.  And, I also totally agree that D&D is NOT the system for the style of play that I'm talking about.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2011)

After a bit more thought.

Elf Witch - maybe an example might help.  Sorry for the gaming story.    I recently ran an SF campaign where the PC's were interplanetary ... I guess secret agents would be the best description.  They were tasked by their superiors to perform various tasks around the galaxy.

One of the tasks was to travel to a world and city, find a specific woman, observe the woman and, once the woman left the city, ensure that she arrived at her destination.  During the mission the PC's were not to be observed and they were not to make contact with the woman.  They were given various high tech toys in order to accomplish this goal.

During the mission, they find the woman and observe her.  It turned out that the woman was a terrorist and was going to detonate a bomb at a political rally.  The PC's knew this for a fact.  

Now, this is where the exploration of morality comes in.  Do they obey their orders, trusting that their superiors have sufficient reason for the orders, or do they disobey and prevent the bomb from detonating.  In order to ensure that this choice is based on their own perspectives, both choices have to be valid.  It can't be that choosing one results in their incarceration while the other makes them heroes.

Both choices carry consequences, but none of those consequences are directly negative to the PC's.  The PC's will not be drummed out of the service if they disobey orders (although they might get a good dressing down from their superiors), nor will they be excessively punished regardless of their decision.

Their decision was entirely up to them.  Had I put in place something along the lines of, "Failure to obey orders will result in your execution" then I've pretty much forced the issue towards a specific result.  Or, IOW, I've railroaded to a degree.  

I hope that makes the style of play a bit clearer.


----------



## S'mon (May 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In order to ensure that this choice is based on their own perspectives, both choices have to be valid.  It can't be that choosing one results in their incarceration while the other makes them heroes.




This is just ridiculous.  You really believe that?

I was playing a German soldier in a WW2 game.  I had a choice - one path led to me being a hero (of the Third Reich) as a Brandenburger, the other to the Penal Battalion and a likely miserable death on the Eastern Front.  I chose the latter.  

This was not a raiload.  Railroading would have been if the GM had negated my choice and made me a hero anyway.


----------



## S'mon (May 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, this is where the exploration of morality comes in.  Do they obey their orders, trusting that their superiors have sufficient reason for the orders, or do they disobey and prevent the bomb from detonating.  In order to ensure that this choice is based on their own perspectives, both choices have to be valid.  It can't be that choosing one results in their incarceration while the other makes them heroes.




IMO it would have been a genuine serious choice if letting the bomb go off meant things went on as usual, while stopping the bomb made the PCs wanted fugitives - and the GM was ready to run with either decision.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2011)

See, S'mon, my problem with that is that you have decided, as the DM, what the right answer is.  If doing X gives me a good result and doing Y gives me a bad one, then it's pretty obvious what the right answer is.  If doing X or Y leads to an equivalent result (either equivalently bad or good) then the choice of doing X or Y comes down to what I believe is right, not what the GM wants me to do.

To me, it would be a genuine serious choice if my choice wasn't being overtly influenced by the GM.

To me, choosing to stop the bomb or not should not be based on an economic model where you minimize the cost to maximize the benefit.  It should be based on a belief in what is right or wrong within the context of the setting.

And, to be completely clear, I was completely ready for either eventuality.  Stopping the bomb or not stopping the bomb both carried long term consequences that led into further complications.  

In other words, as far as I was concerned, there was no right answer.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 29, 2011)

S'mon, you deserve XP for those last posts....but I can't give you any right now.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 29, 2011)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If doing X gives me a good result and doing Y gives me a bad one, then it's pretty obvious what the right answer is.




It seems like what you're advocating, Hussar, is a consequence-light campaign. It sounds like you think PCs should be able to kill the king or spare him (or anything in between), and only be bound by how the country changes. If they are arrested, assaulted, assassinated, or otherwise retaliated against after killing the king, then sparing the king is obviously the "right" answer, while killing the king is obviously the "wrong" answer.

That seems incredibly weird to me. It's hard for me to fathom playing in a game world where the only consequences of PC action is how NPCs interact with one another after we, as PCs, act, with no direct reaction to the PCs themselves.

I think I understand you're saying something along the lines of "if they kill the king, there are repercussions against them from his supporters" and "if they don't kill the king, there are repercussions against them from his detractors" and I get it, to some degree. I do not understand how they need to be equal, though. That's not how consequences regularly work.

I'm all for games where that's the case occasionally, but it cannot be a constant motif for the campaign. Every decision cannot carry equal consequences. The GM then must necessarily decide the consequences of actions taken by the PCs. This is not a railroad situation. This is the GM fulfilling his role as arbiter.


----------



## S'mon (May 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, S'mon, my problem with that is that you have decided, as the DM, what the right answer is.  If doing X gives me a good result and doing Y gives me a bad one, then it's pretty obvious what the right answer is.




The S'mon approach:

1. "We stop the bomb.  We save dozens of innocent lives.  And our employers will want us dead."

vs:

2. "We let the bomb go off, dozens of innocents die.  We'll get a commendation and maybe a raise!"

And to you #2 is obviously the right answer, and thus a railroad?!  

Basically by preventing negative consequences for stopping the bomb and similar morally right acts, by preventing any tension between "right thing to do" and "easy thing to do", you've negated the possibility of any genuine heroism.  It's easy to be Superman when the bullets just bounce off.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 29, 2011)

S'mon said:


> "right thing to do" and "easy thing to do"



Isn't this kind of conflict, between two goods, very similar to what pemerton is talking about, and finds desirable in a play experience? If there is some sort of game currency, such as Honor Points or Marvel's Karma, and acquiring Karma is the goal of the game then if one choice, the 'right thing to do' nets the player lots of Karma and the other results in no points at all, then there is no real choice. Otoh if the game awards nothing for doing the right thing, and if doing the right thing is much riskier to the PC's life, as in your example of the German soldier above, *and* if it is generally regarded that a player whose PC has died has 'lost', as in the text of 1e AD&D, then, again the choice is straightforward, but in this case the second choice is clearly superior.

This all assumes a 'game'-y approach where there is some kind of clear scoring mechanism - Karma, PC survival, going up levels, gold, xp, etc. In many games that isn't the case. Or there may be multiple competing scoring mechanisms. Or tension between the nominal scoring mechanism and other types of player behaviour deemed to be desirable by the participants.

In most rpgs I've played I think the strongest tension has been between 'playing your character' ie doing what your character would do, which is regarded as very much a good (in fact the dwarf's player was praised for this upthread), and 'winning the game' - surviving, gaining gold, xp, magic items, etc. Choosing the former over the latter is what is most often lauded as good roleplaying.


----------



## RedTonic (May 29, 2011)

Ganking your friends' fun because of metagame considerations and then crying "it's rolllleplaying!" when you're called out on it is not _good roleplaying, _even if the character's background superficially supports it_. _It's still _being a jerk_. Good roleplaying lets everyone at the table have fun, including the DM; it doesn't continuously hog the limelight; it doesn't sabotage the game; it doesn't create bad feeling around the table.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 30, 2011)

I finally get what some of you are saying. I don't agree with it but I do understand why you could considered it a form of railroading.

The reason I don't agree with it is because to me it is an alien way to play and one that does not interest me at all. I don't see a DM making choices for the NPCs of their world as railroading. 

If you have two choices and you want to explore the moral implications and how they influence the game world if you know that your PC won't face any consequence to their actions to me seems a cop out. 

Part of the reason I play DnD is to explore the concepts of good VS evil and how a group of people can through their actions change the world for better or worse.

Sometimes to be a hero you have to appear as the bad guy the only reward you get is to know that you choose the right path even if the rest of the world does not. 

Just to be clear I am not saying playing that way is wrongbadfun. For me it would be because I wouldn't enjoy it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 30, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> If you have two choices and you want to explore the moral implications and how they influence the game world if you know that your PC won't face any consequence to their actions to me seems a cop out.




I agree.

And it isn't wrongbadfun, but it does seem to me rather weak sauce.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not at all sure what you mean here by "an ingame matter".



Whether or not a player choice will upset the other players is not an ingame matter - it is not an issue about the fiction or the gameworld. It is a metagame matter - an issue that effects the real people actually sitting around the table playing the game.

The WIS check, as a response to this sort of situation, is an attempt to turn what is a metagame matter _into_ an ingame one (by reference to the fiction: namely, the content of a PC's mind). I am personally not a big fan of this sort of approach to RPGing, despite it having a long heritage going back at least to Gygax's discussion of bolts of lightning from the heavens in his DMG (I think in the section entitled "The Ongoing Campaign").



Raven Crowking said:


> Again, take a look at the OP.  The GM wanted to ensure that the player understood the value of the objects
> 
> <snip>
> 
> within the tradition of D&D, necromancy is, far more often than not, considered "evil" in that sense.  It would have been irresponsible of the GM not to have ensured that the player understood that things were different in her campaign milieu before he destroyed the artifacts.



So why make all this crucial information hostage to a die roll?



Raven Crowking said:


> So, let me get this right.
> 
> You think that the player was in the right, because the GM failed to provide enough information for him to make a meaningful decision.  You also think that the GM providing meaningful information is railroading.



As I said upthread, I think you're confusing me with Eamon in relation to the information issue. I never suggested the GM provided insufficient information.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Apparently even shifting PC Alignment from G to E because they rob and murder would be railroading; if the player declares that murder and robbery is Good, then for the DM to declare otherwise is hashing his bliss.





S'mon said:


> In games like 1e-2e AD&D You can't eat babies, rape cabin boys, sacrifice puppies to Satan and still be classed as Good.  That may be Railroading by Ron Edwards & Vince Baker's Forgeist definition, which seems some kind of Nietszchean "I am my own value-creator" idea, but not by mine or I think any reasonable definition.



If you are using alignment mechanics to stop other players taking the game into territory you're not interested in - murder, robbery (other than of orcs?), sacrifice, etc - then this would be exactly what I mean by sublimation of a metagame issue into an ingame issue. I personally don't find this a very effective way of resolving the problem.

If a GM doesn't want to run such a game, I don't see the benefit of saying "no evil PCs" as opposed to "we're going for heroic rather than brutal in this game".

But look upthread at the discussion of slavery - a pretty common fantasy trope, and we can't get agreement from those talking about it as to how D&D alignment rules are to treat it. If you don't want to play a game in which players own or capture slaves, then just say so. Conversely, if you want to make slavery a focus of your campaign (and I have done this in the past), then how is alignment helping, other than encouraging the GM to prejudge the issue and enforce that judgement on the rest of the table?



Raven Crowking said:


> In D&D, at least by RAW, "evil" is more than a metaphysical concept.  It is "real", and it can be detected.  Whether or not something is "evil" in that sense can be a known factor within the context of the world.





Aberzanzorax said:


> The problem is that in D&D alignments ARE. (I'm not the first to bring this up.)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The overall point is that the DM does need to determine what is a good act and what is an evil act as a truth.



Well, what you say is true of AD&D and 3E. It isn't true of 4e - the notions of "good act", "evil act" and "changing alignment" are not canvassed anywhere in the rules as I recall.

This is one reason why I prefer to play 4e rather than earlier editions.



Hussar said:


> I also totally agree that D&D is NOT the system for the style of play that I'm talking about.





Hussar said:


> I'd never, ever run this sort of game in D&D.  It just doesn't work.  Good and Evil in D&D are ontological.  They aren't abstract in the slightest - they're actual physical forces just like gravity.  To do this sort of narrativist game in D&D would require a HUGE amount of reworking of the mechanics.



In 4e this is not true at all. I know, because I'm doing it - running thematically-focused 4e without having to change the mechanics at all.

In AD&D it is not all that hard either - you just ignore the alignment rules, and then you have only the detect/protection from evil things to worry about (I can't remember exactly how I handled these back in the day).

I can't comment on 3E, other than to say that alignment mechanics seem more strongly built in (a wider range of alignment oriented spells, clerics with restrictions closer to those of an AD&D paladin, damage reduction keyed to alignment, etc).


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (May 30, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> She is going to adapt the game further and not make the mistake of introducing anything else like this in the game.




Its a shame your GM sees it as thier mistake.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not at all certain what you are after here.
> 
> Clearly, there was a decision to destroy the artifacts.
> 
> ...





Elf Witch said:


> If you have two choices and you want to explore the moral implications and how they influence the game world if you know that your PC won't face any consequence to their actions to me seems a cop out.





Raven Crowking said:


> I agree.
> 
> And it isn't wrongbadfun, but it does seem to me rather weak sauce.



I think we are working here with different notions of consequences, and also a different understanding of the relationship between game and metagame.

On consequences - choices can have all sorts of consequences. Material gain and loss are only one of many possible ranges of consequence, and often not the most important. So even within the fiction of the gameworld, consequences can ensue even if treasure is not lost or foregone.

Second, if the GM makes up the treasure that has been lost, _from the point of view of the fiction_ it is _still_ the case that some material benefit has been foregone - because, from the point of view of the fiction, then (everything else being equal) had the PC not destroyed the treasure he would have had both the old loot _and_ the new loot. Whereas now he has only the new loot.

So even from the point of view of material gain and loss, if the GM makes up the treasure there are nevertheless consequences for the choice within the fiction.

Now, let's look at the real world. If the GM does not put in new treasure, then what is achieved by the player who chooses to destroy the necromantic treasure out of principle (who, given what Elf Witch has said upthread, is a hypothetical and not an actual player) is to reduce his/her PC's mechanical capabilities, in order to make a point about value. Whereas had the player been expedient, s/he would have had a more mechanically capable PC. Unless you take the view that _playing the game is itself meant to be a lesson in the morality of sacrifice_, this doesn't seem to me to send much of a message other than "if you play the game in order to make points about value, you'll run the risk of having a less mechanically capable PC, and therefore (everything else being equal) a less fun time".

When an author writes a story in which the protagonist affirms the valuable choice over the expedient one, s/he does not per se have a harder time writing the story, or receive fewer royalty payments. Likewise for when an author's protagonist affirms expedience over value. There is no good reason I know of why RPGs need to be different in this respect, or will better support value-focused play by being different in this respect.

In fact, my experience is the opposite: if (i) improved mechanical capability produces a more fun game, and (ii) expedient rather than value-focused play is more likely to proudce that capability, then (iii) players will favour expedience over value. And, as well as my own experience, this is also the impression I get from stories of classic D&D play, where mercenaries are treated as expendable and sheep are herded through the Tomb of Horrors to detect all the traps.

(Part of the reason, in my view, for the drift away from XP rules to "level by fiat" in Dragonlance/2nd-ed style play is to try to sever the nexus express in (ii) above. I think the notion that combat and RPing are at odds, which becomes very prominent around the same time, has a similar origin: combat prowess is the element of AD&D play most affected by treasure acquisition, which in turn is best achieved, in typical AD&D play, by expedient conduct. Unfortunately, these changes to AD&D play tend to very strongly empahise GM force over the storyline as an alternative to "dungeon bashing" (the standard description for mercenary/expedient play), which is certainly not a type of RPGing that I find very functional.)

Still reflecting on the metagame: the real consequences for theme and value-focused play are like the consequences for an author. When the PCs in my game decided to tame rather than kill a dire bear who was threatening them, the important consequences were expressed by one of the players: "I feel really good about not having killed that bear". When one player in my game decided to have his PC ruthlessly kill an NPC rescuee (whose status was ambiguous as between companion and prisoner) as the whole party was fleeing a collapsing temple, the important consequences were the looks of shock and surprise on the faces of the other players. That is, the consequences, like the consequences for an author, consist in _audience response_. The ingame fictional consequences are simply further grist to that mill - they are not ends in themselves.



Elf Witch said:


> I don't understand how you can play a game where you want to delve into moral dilemmas without some kind of guideline. If everything is ambiguous then there is no dilemma.



The board rules put limits on examples I can provide in response to this, but I would say that as a general rule this is not true.

Here is a trivial example that I hope does not violate board rules. Yesterday evening, while shopping, my daughter asked me to buy her a type of packaged chees thatshe has seen her friends take to kinder. It is more expensive than the cheese we normally buy. And it has more packaging. But my daughter wants to fit in at kinder.

The actual values I conemplated when deciding whether or not to buy the cheese were (i) the benefits to the family of saving that money for other, more important things, (ii) the environmental implications of using more packaging, and (iii) the pleasure my daughter would get from fitting in better with her friends. A further value I didn't reflect on at the time, but that is obviously relevant to my decision, is that I could have got the cheaper cheese and given the money saved to Oxfam or MSF.

None of those values is clear cut in terms of their relationship to my choice (how much does my choice support or undercut them?), their importance to the choice (individually, and in relation to other competing values, and in relation to other choices I am making and the way those other choices support or undermine various values), their overall place in a good life, etc. Ambiguity abounds. Nevertheless the choice was a real one that had to be made one way or another.

An example from an RPG, that a player of mine actually had to engage in: one PC had decided to join with the "bad guys" (Vecna cultists), help them sacrifice another PC (a sacrifice that the remaining PCs probably lacked the power to stop in any event) and support Vecna in bringing unity and cohesion to a divided country and its preeminent wizards' guild. The third PC had a choice - do I resist, perhaps futilely, or do I follow the lead of the first PC and join with the new order? The values in play, and the consequences of the various options, were ambiguous, but the decision was nevertheless serious and real. As it happened, the PC joined with the new order, received the personal benefits he was hoping for (redemption of his mortgage and a magistracy) and spearheaded a push to end slavery and ethnic purism within the wizards' guild, which had limited but some genuine success.



Raven Crowking said:


> It seems to me that you are trying to claim that context and consequence -- the things that make decisions meaningful -- are railroading.  In fact, from your posts on this thread, I am at a loss how one can have a GM and not be railroading.....it seems as though depriving the players of any decision related to context or consequence is too much of a straight jacket for you.



Decisions about what elements to introduce into a fiction are meaningful, in my view, _for the audience of that fiction_. (Perhaps we could say that, _within the fictional world_, they have meaning for its fictional inhabitants. But as this meaning is purely fictional, I'm not all that interested in it.)

And part of how they get that meaning is that the choice to introduce them into the fiction shows us something about what the author thinks is worth saying, or reflecting on. That is, authorial choices bring with them implicit valuations about what is worth authoring.

Some ways of producing fiction are intended to downplay this second aspect of authorship (eg most mainstream TV dramas). But an RPG tends to make this second aspect of authorshp extremely prominent, given that the authoring is taking place in real time in front of the audience.

I have nothing against GM-adjudicated RPGs. I run such a game, and can confidently assert that it is not a railroad. But I have a pretty clear conception of my role - namely, to introduce into play situations that give the players the opportunity to do interesting things with their PCs. What I do not do as a GM is _tell_ my players what sorts of authorship decisions they should make via their PCs. I want to see what _they_ think is worth introducing into the fiction. And I certainly _do not_ want to reduce the pleasure they get from the game as a result of the decisions that they make.

I therefore take care to ensure that the ingame consequences - the fictional consequences - of what the players have their PCs do produce _more _opportunities for _more _interesting play. And in 4e, where treasure is basically part of the PC-build mechanics, material gain and loss is pretty orthogonal to that. For me, these days, the emphasis is on the changing relationships between PCs and the world's myth and history (and the various NPCs who represent that myth and history). (In the past I have run more politically-oriented campaigns, but I find that they are less well-suited to play focused on classic fantasy tropes that is intended to progress successfully into epic levels.)


----------



## Elf Witch (May 30, 2011)

So basically your players PCs murdered and betrayed another PC and joined forces with an evil god. One PC even profited from this and in doing so freed some slaves while condemning everyone else to live under the rule of an evil god. There is an old saying that under Mussolini's thumb the trains ran on time.

Is that a fair description of what happened? 

I have no issue if my players want to join forces with the bad guys. I will DM that I will even reward them and allow them to benefit from their actions if that is the type of game they want to play. I have run and played in campaigns where evil wins and the PCs are evil.

The thing is what your PCs did was evil there is no way around that. What I guess I object to is trying to say well no murdering a fellow party member and joining forces with an evil god to enslave your fellow man is somehow a not an evil act. Even if some good things come from it.

I think this should be something talked about out of game. Players and DMs deciding what type of campaign they are interested in. For example in my one campaign if your PC becomes evil then it becomes an NPC. This is something everybody decide because they wanted to play in a heroic game where all PCs were had good in their alignment. 

I really dislike 4E and the whole wealth level being part of the character build instead of being in the DM hands and allowing the DM to decide what kind of power level game they want to run. 

In the its a game and there is no right way or wrong way to play as long as everyone at your table is on the same page and having fun.


----------



## Broken Druid (May 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I have nothing against GM-adjudicated RPGs. I run such a game, and can confidently assert that it is not a railroad. But I have a pretty clear conception of my role - namely, to introduce into play situations that give the players the opportunity to do interesting things with their PCs. What I do not do as a GM is _tell_ my players what sorts of authorship decisions they should make via their PCs. I want to see what _they_ think is worth introducing into the fiction. And I certainly _do not_ want to reduce the pleasure they get from the game as a result of the decisions that they make.
> 
> I therefore take care to ensure that the ingame consequences - the fictional consequences - of what the players have their PCs do produce _more _opportunities for _more _interesting play. And in 4e, where treasure is basically part of the PC-build mechanics, material gain and loss is pretty orthogonal to that. For me, these days, the emphasis is on the changing relationships between PCs and the world's myth and history (and the various NPCs who represent that myth and history). (In the past I have run more politically-oriented campaigns, but I find that they are less well-suited to play focused on classic fantasy tropes that is intended to progress successfully into epic levels.)





Hi. I am Elfwitch's DM. And I thought I'd just jump in here a minute about the contract between DM and Players, role playing and in-game consequences.

First of all, I will cede that the game is a fictional work in progress and that the players are writing the story. However, they are writing from an outline provided by the DM. They are writing in a world built by the DM. 

Good fiction is internally consistent, made that way by following certain rules. And as long as it stays consistent, it makes for an enjoyable experience. Great fiction has a more sweeping scope, embracing the Butterfly Effect. You may only see the initial beating of the wings, with the final effect manifesting much later in the story, but careful perusal always connects the dots.

Our group's contract was for a fully realized world. Life goes on there, even after the PC's have left the building. What they do, or leave undone, can echo down the time line. We choose to write great fiction.

The throwaway NPC helped in Act One Scene Two may show up in Act Four Scene Three to give the party a much-needed assist. Or that same NPC, if mistreated, may cause the party unexpected complications. 

However, our one player has slipped out of the "big picture" mindset. His playing style has gone more toward what I refer to as "D&D Lite", or "Beer & Pretzels" gaming. Which is fine, as far as it goes. It is just frustrating at times to the other players, as well as to the DM. "Kill everything and let the Gods sort it out" mentality does not work in a world with long-term consequences, and is hard to compensate for.


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> So basically your players PCs murdered and betrayed another PC and joined forces with an evil god. One PC even profited from this and in doing so freed some slaves while condemning everyone else to live under the rule of an evil god. There is an old saying that under Mussolini's thumb the trains ran on time.
> 
> Is that a fair description of what happened?



Not really, no.

The PC sided with (former) enemies who murdered another PC. (The player of that other PC was happy enough for his PC to be killed - for various reasons to do with scrying mechanics in Rolemaster the PC in question wasn't working out very well, and a new PC was desired.)

A country already riven by conflict was unified, to an extent, under the rule of an ancient and recently freed Archlich (Vecna). (This campaign occured in the early-to-mid-90s, when the main source on Vecna was the 1st ed DMG.)

I won't explore the comparison to 20th century Fascism because of board rules. Given that it was a _fantasy_ game, comparisons to pre-modern political movements are probably more apposite. And because it was a fantasy _game_, comparisons to other works of fiction are probably more apposite. It's a while since I've seen the movie Hero, but as I remember it, it presents the question of unification versus freedom, in the context of classical China, as a compelling one for a modern audience. Of course, I wouldn't say that my game was in the same league as that movie as a creative work!

Some complexities in fantasy fiction in determining the moral worth of various forms of government are that (i) non-democratic government forms are taken for granted as legitimate and even desirable (see eg The Return of the King), and (ii) the deliberate killing of large numbers of sentient beings on pretty flimsy grounds is taken for granted as legitimate and even desirable (see eg The Return of the King - when Mordor collapses no prisoners are taken!). When Vecna takes over the government of a collapsing kingdom, it's not clear that government is a lot less democratic, nor that the actual death rate goes up.

In part because of these complexities, my game didn't focus on these sorts of issues, so much as on the effects of the change of government on the wizard's guild and the PCs' home city, as I described upthread. As is often the case in fantasy literature, the fate of these more local communities serves as a sort of proxy for the wider moral progress (or decline) of society. (There is also a similarity between these bracketings and the bracketings of larger scale politics in most superhero comices.)



Elf Witch said:


> I have no issue if my players want to join forces with the bad guys.



Well, I put "bad guys" in inverted commas. The NPCs in question went from being the PCs' enemies to their allies (if not friends).



Elf Witch said:


> The thing is what your PCs did was evil there is no way around that. What I guess I object to is trying to say well no murdering a fellow party member and joining forces with an evil god to enslave your fellow man is somehow a not an evil act. Even if some good things come from it.



Again, board rules put limits on this sort of discussion. But "enslave your fellow man" is your interpolation - I didn't say that, and that is not what happened - and the question of the proper attitude of a politician to violence (and the PCs in this game were, among other things, politicians) is a complicated one. (I'm thinking particularly of Machiavelli's The Prince, Max Weber's Politics as a Vocation, and Michael Walzer's work on "dirty hands".) The game in question explored the question (among other things). In the real world, then, the morality of the use of political violence is something that is interesting and much-discussed (even here in Australia I note that it was a recurring theme in discussions of the Bush presidency, and continues to be discussed in relation to the Obama presidency). I have my own views on the matter, but won't express them here. But I certainly think it's a reasonable topic for investigation via fictional works, be they excellent movies (Hero) or much more pedestrian RPGs (the campaign I've been describing).


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2011)

Broken Druid said:


> I will cede that the game is a fictional work in progress and that the players are writing the story. However, they are writing from an outline provided by the DM. They are writing in a world built by the DM.



I think the only thing I differ from in your post is the second and third sentences of this passage. I prefer a game in which the outline is jointly agreed (although, in practice, the GM is likely to be more proactive in respect of it), and in which the GM provides the backstory but the players provide most of the forward momentum. And as long as the backstory hasn't been revealed in play, I regard it as entirely provisional and malleable.

One consequence of this is that, when I consider how earlier actions may have later consequences, I focus less on the internal logic of the fictional world, and more on the sorts of complications or thematic pressures that reintroduction of the old NPC or relationship or whatever else will have on the current state of play. And because this is highly relevant to the attitudes and interests of the players at the moment, it means that their attitudes and interests have a big influence on how the fiction unfolds, beyond just the actions that their PCs take within the gameworld.

Very simple example: whether or not the NPC they helped or slighted in Act One turns out to secretly be a cultist of Orcus will turn much more on whether or not that would be interesting now we're in Act Three, than on any world or NPC description that I wrote down during some earlier moment of GM prep.


----------



## S'mon (May 30, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I really dislike 4E and the whole wealth level being part of the character build instead of being in the DM hands and allowing the DM to decide what kind of power level game they want to run.




4e is really not nearly as bad as pemerton would have you believe.  All 4e PCs need is an item +1 per 5 levels for their weapons & defenses; everything else is gravy.  And that +1 can be provided as an inherent bonus if desired.  And PCs can have up to 5 times (extra +1) or 1/5 (one +1 less) standard treasure for their level and it still works fine, so they can certainly pass up on a single large 'drop' without it hurting the game.


----------



## eamon (May 30, 2011)

S'mon said:


> 4e is really not nearly as bad as pemerton would have you believe.  All 4e PCs need is an item +1 per 5 levels for their weapons & defenses; everything else is gravy.  And that +1 can be provided as an inherent bonus if desired.  And PCs can have up to 5 times (extra +1) or 1/5 (one +1 less) standard treasure for their level and it still works fine, so they can certainly pass up on a single large 'drop' without it hurting the game.



Yeah, especially since if you follow the normal guidelines, due to the strongly exponential scaling of wealth by level the current deficit will soon be merely a blip.  That's not to say_ equipment_ is irrelevant; in particular getting the right vs. wrong equipment really matters.  But you're not going to mess that up with just one missed drop, even if it's a large one.  And even with "useless" equipment, the game remains playable, just probably slightly more grindy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Whether or not a player choice will upset the other players is not an ingame matter - it is not an issue about the fiction or the gameworld. It is a metagame matter - an issue that effects the real people actually sitting around the table playing the game.






No.  Playing without your pants on upsets the other players.  What you do, in game, with your character, in game, upsets the other players* through the medium of upsetting their characters*.



> The WIS check, as a response to this sort of situation, is an attempt to turn what is a metagame matter _into_ an ingame one (by reference to the fiction: namely, the content of a PC's mind).






No.  The Wisdom check, as a response to this sort of situation, is an attempt to ensure that the player has the information that the character probably has, when the Game Master is uncertain exactly how much information the character would have, and has therefore allowed a die roll to determine it.



I wonder how it is that you think you know so much about the motives of others here?  Despite what they say?





> So why make all this crucial information hostage to a die roll?




Like "Roll a Fortitude save", it allows a player to gain some information, without gaining exact information unless the save is made.  Make it, and the GM gives you fuller information.  Fail it, and the character has some niggling sense that there is something to think about here.  In either case, the character may ignore it.



pemerton said:


> I think we are working here with different notions of consequences, and also a different understanding of the relationship between game and metagame.
> 
> On consequences - choices can have all sorts of consequences. Material gain and loss are only one of many possible ranges of consequence, and often not the most important. So even within the fiction of the gameworld, consequences can ensue even if treasure is not lost or foregone.




  Um.....how is this different than the way anyone else is using the term here?  

Truly, pemerton, do you imagine that, because there is a material consequence for throwing your money away, that there are no other potential consequences for that act, or for other acts?  Do you imagine that, because there are other potential consequences, you're going to find your money back in your bank account?

Because, if you do imagine that, please send me a cheque.


RC


----------



## pemerton (May 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No.  Playing without your pants on upsets the other players.  What you do, in game, with your character, in game, upsets the other players* through the medium of upsetting their characters*.



I don't think so. It may be that I misread the OP, but it didn't seem to me to be talking about characters being upset. It seemed to talk about players being upset, about the way the game has unfolded.

Perhaps I misunderstood the situation. But why would I be upset if another PC upset my PC, _unless_ what the player of that PC did also upset me?

Another way to come at the same issue - the OP didn't seem to be asking for RP advice (what should I do about my PC being upset)? It seemed to be asking for advice in relation to an issue of group disharmony.



Raven Crowking said:


> I wonder how it is that you think you know so much about the motives of others here?



I'm not imputing motives. I'm offering my interpretation of certain fairly well-known game mechanical techniques. If I had to suggest a motive, I would opt for the fairly safe "We do it this way because this is the way we've always done it, and the way some reasonably canonical texts suggest to do it." My beef is primarily with those texts, which I think have a tendency to produce problems in play with no countervailing benefits. 



Raven Crowking said:


> how is this different than the way anyone else is using the term here?



Most of the others posters on this thread seem to be focusing on ingame consequences of choices, and primarily material gain and loss at that.

Most are not focusing on thematic consequences within the gameworld - choices made, values affirmed, emotions realised or thwarted - which tend to be the consequences for protagonists on which a lot of fictional works focus. And most are not focusing on the consequences for the players, considered as joint authors and audience, which in my view are the really interesting consequences.



Raven Crowking said:


> Do you imagine that, because there are other potential consequences, you're going to find your money back in your bank account?
> 
> Because, if you do imagine that, please send me a cheque.



Yet the notion that no good deed goes unrewarded is the mainstay of a huge chunk of folk and contemporarary popular fiction, including probably the bulk of American film. Good fiction, or even mediocre fiction, is not generally concerned with affirming the causal patterns of reality. I don't see that it is important for RPGs to be different in this respect.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood the situation. But why would I be upset if another PC upset my PC, _unless_ what the player of that PC did also upset me?




That's an interesting question, but I am not sure that it is relevant to what happened in the OP, or how a "Wisdom Check" is used in general.  But, at least here, I can see what you're trying to get at.....even if I do not agree.

Yes, lots of folks play games where the metagame is entwined with what happens in-game.  You play 4e; this can hardly be news to you.  Group disharmony can arise from in-game actions, especially if those in-game actions appear to arise from a metagame "screw you" motivation.  Or, obviously, when there is a metagame feeling of entitlement to freedom from the consequences of action, which is not actually played out in the in-game milieu.

In the case of the OP, the GM used a method to ensure that the player had the opportunity to know what the in-game norm was.  Nothing more; nothing less.

In the case of the OP, the question is, should the metagame feeling of entitlement to freedom from the consequences of action be played out in the in-game milieu?

My answer is not only No, but Hell No.



> Most of the others posters on this thread seem to be focusing on ingame consequences of choices, and primarily material gain and loss at that.




Yes.....because that is relevant to the question posed by the OP.  The in-game actions of one player caused a material loss to the group.  Should the metagame feeling of entitlement to freedom from the consequences of that action (by some of the group, and related specifically to that material loss) be played out in the in-game milieu?

If the OP's question had been about "thematic consequences within the gameworld - choices made, values affirmed, emotions realised or thwarted", then the answers no doubt would focus on the same.  

It should not be considered at all unusual for an answer to a question to focus on the subject of the question.  That doesn't mean that games in which material goods can be gained and lost cannot or do not also include other consequences.



> Good fiction, or even mediocre fiction, is not generally concerned with affirming the causal patterns of reality.




Some people refer to the causal patterns of fiction as "plot", and refer to the causal patterns of character growth as "satisfying".  Indeed, even fiction which is strongly character-driven or thematically driven relies upon imposing a natural-seeming causal process to make the fiction seem like anything other than the Hand of the Author Moving His Pieces Around.

Fiction that is not concerned with affirming causal patterns is usually called "Unpublsihed" and often called "Unpublishable".  

It has been said that one of the primary draws that fiction holds upon is the affirmation of causality, which we are often unable to trace in real life, but need desperately to believe in to give our lives meaning.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (May 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In fact, my experience is the opposite: if (i) improved mechanical capability produces a more fun game, and (ii) expedient rather than value-focused play is more likely to proudce that capability, then (iii) players will favour expedience over value. And, as well as my own experience, this is also the impression I get from stories of classic D&D play, where mercenaries are treated as expendable and sheep are herded through the Tomb of Horrors to detect all the traps.



Henryk Sienkiewicz describes Cossacks driving herds of cattle ahead of their advancing armies to force their opponents to waste powder and shot.

He writes about how the Cossacks loaded captives with bags of gravel and forced them into the moats in front of their enemies' castles, giving the defenders the option of watching the moat fill up or killing their own people.

And Sienkiewicz relates that peasants who joined the Cossack armies were used in mass attacks of attrition, to save the Cossack soldiers for the main effort after the enemy was worn down, often at great cost to these expendable _tchernya_.

Seeing these tactics in _D&D_ affirms a certain reality, specifically our own. They are also statements of values, and if the referee has his <_excrement_> together, they should have consequences in the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 30, 2011)

It has occurred to me that this discussion is related to the "PC death" discussion.

The real question, AFAICT, is "Should the GM have impossed the consequences that destroying the treasure also therefore removes its monetary value?"  This would seem to me to be a pretty obvious, and natural, consequence for the PCs action.  

Previously, in "PC Death?" discussions, it was argued (by some) that PC death need not be the only consequence, and should only be a consequence if the player involved agrees to it."

In saying that the DM should make up for the shortfall, it seems as though there is a hidden argument (again, by some) that is saying "*No consequence* should befall a PC unless the player involved agrees to it."

I cannot express how vehemently I oppose this argument.


RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 30, 2011)

To extend this line further...

I see (at their extremes) two games being presented here:

One is a game of _actions_, randomness, and statistics representing the game world. The world is artificially "real" in the sense that things happen, and they effect other things...possibly reverberating throught the entire world.

Two/another is a game of _story_, a game in which the characters explore themselves and situations, and ultimately the world fits to the wills of the players (and to some degree/by extension to their characters).


Neither is wrong.

Only one is "standard" D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 30, 2011)

Consequence is a natural part of story.  If the characters in a story have control over all of the consequences, there is no tension, and hence no story.  I can think of no stories in which this is not the case.  Can you think of any?

Story arises out of context, action, and consequence.

"The queen died, and then the king died" is not a story.  "The queen died, and then the king died of a broken heart" is.  Without context and consequence, action is nothing.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It seems like what you're advocating, Hussar, is a consequence-light campaign. It sounds like you think PCs should be able to kill the king or spare him (or anything in between), and only be bound by how the country changes. If they are arrested, assaulted, assassinated, or otherwise retaliated against after killing the king, then sparing the king is obviously the "right" answer, while killing the king is obviously the "wrong" answer.
> 
> That seems incredibly weird to me. It's hard for me to fathom playing in a game world where the only consequences of PC action is how NPCs interact with one another after we, as PCs, act, with no direct reaction to the PCs themselves.
> 
> ...




No.  You're not getting it.

Your situation isn't really feasible in what I'm talking about.

Look at Torchwood - Children of Earth.  Do you sacrifice 10% of the world's children to save the rest?  How do you choose that 10% if you do?  Do you murder your own child to save the rest?

THAT'S moral gaming right there.

Or, look at Supernatural.  Do you murder your own brother to save the world?  

There's a couple of great examples of having real consequences to both options.  

Please don't presume a lack of depth just because we're talking on the Internet and I don't go into exhaustive detail about the game.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> No.  You're not getting it.
> 
> Your situation isn't really feasible in what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...




I'd like you to please refrain from putting words or thoughts into my mouth. Further commenting along this line will result in a lack of response from me. Thank you.

Not all decisions can be like how you described, however. It would strip all meaning and believability if this were so. What path to take to our destination, when to go to sleep, who's on watch... these are not situations where it'd be reasonable to assume that they carried the same significance of what you're describing in a regular fashion.

On the flip side, what you're describing is very cool when it does happen, though it should not happen all the time. What I quoted from you seems to advocate all decisions being equal in consequences, one way or the other:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If doing X gives me a good result and doing Y gives me a bad one, then it's pretty obvious what the right answer is. If doing X or Y leads to an equivalent result (either equivalently bad or good) then the choice of doing X or Y comes down to what I believe is right, not what the GM wants me to do.




To me, this implies that all consequences must be equal, one way or another, else there are "right" answers, which you also speak against:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> See, S'mon, my problem with that is that you have decided, as the DM, what the right answer is.




And that to me is a problem. Should consequences be unequal, then you seem to imply that it is somehow bad. I think that either you end up in a game where consequences matter little (which I stated and you seem to take extreme offense of), or the alternative (which you did not seem to acknowledge):



			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I think I understand you're saying something along the lines of "if they kill the king, there are repercussions against them from his supporters" and "if they don't kill the king, there are repercussions against them from his detractors" and I get it, to some degree. I do not understand how they need to be equal, though. That's not how consequences regularly work.




As you can see, the alternative is as you've described: either choice has meaning, and is potentially filled with many interesting twists and turns that players are sure to love.

I went on to say, however, that I do not think they need to be equal, and I stand by that. Consequences are not regularly equal, and the fact that you seem to have expressed they should be does not make sense to me. If all things are equally important, the game would be immensely exhausting (long discussion on who takes watch in what order each night), and the more stereotypically meaningful decisions (do we kill the king or spare him?) become just as meaningful as stereotypically lesser decisions. To me, that strips away the importance of "real" decisions, and would greatly devalue the game in my eyes.

Since I think the proposed methods (very light consequences for every decision or very important consequences for every decision) are both pretty fringe playing styles, I'm saying that it probably won't appeal to most people. I am not saying that moral decisions should not be made, and there can be a great many moral decisions to be made, even within something as restricting as an alignment system. I also do not think moral decisions need to have equally interesting outcomes, nor do the outcomes need to carry the equivalent implications (either good or bad).

As always, though, if you like that style of game, play it


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Consequence is a natural part of story.  If the characters in a story have control over all of the consequences, there is no tension, and hence no story.



I think that this right here is the point at which our perspectives diverge.

The players of an RPG aren't the characters in a story. They are the authors of a story. And the author of a story _does_ have control over the consequences that befall the characters in that story. The way that the author _exercises_ that control is what makes the story interesting - and it can be interesting even if the author takes a non-standard approach to consequences (cf Camus's Outsider).

So, the way I see things (and this is why I used the notion "railroading" upthread) is that either the GM can attempt to impose his/her own critical/aesthetic judgement on the story - prewrite it, if you will - or s/he can leave space for the players to write the story that they want to write. I think that Dragonlance and its ilk take the first approach. I favour the second.



JamesonCourage said:


> Not all decisions can be like how you described, however. It would strip all meaning and believability if this were so. What path to take to our destination, when to go to sleep, who's on watch... these are not situations where it'd be reasonable to assume that they carried the same significance of what you're describing in a regular fashion.



As a general rule, I prefer that most of these sorts of decisions have no consequences in my game - I can think of dozens of more interesting questions to address in an RPG than who's on watch when!

Path taken is sometimes interesting, and when it is I'm happy for it to be addressed in play.

These day, the question of when to sleep I treat as a consequence of skill challenge resolution rather than as something under the players' direct control - this works better with other aspects of 4e.



JamesonCourage said:


> what you're describing is very cool when it does happen, though it should not happen all the time.



Why not?

In fact, in my game, many decisions are of less heavy thematic weight than what Hussar described, because ultimately my game is a reasonably light, fairly derivative fantasy RPG. But what would be wrong with a heavier game of the sort Hussar describes (assuming that the players had the emotional stamina for it)? I've played like that at Cons, and they're some of the more memorable RPGing experiences I've had.



JamesonCourage said:


> What I quoted from you seems to advocate all decisions being equal in consequences, one way or the other:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> this implies that all consequences must be equal, one way or another, else there are "right" answers



I'm not sure I entirely follow all this, but there seems to be a disconnect here between Hussar and I, on the one hand (I hope, Hussar, that you don't mind me roping you in) and RC and you on the other (and likewise I hope that this creation of groupings is not out of line).

I'll try again: when I go to the theatre or watch a movie or read a book, the authors of the fiction do things that are (hopefully) engaging, interesting, and thought-provoking - not just because of the ingenuity of their plots, but because of the cleverness of their insight.

I want an RPG that is engaging, interesting and even perhaps thought-provoking in the same way. This means that I want my players to have the same sort of freedom as the author of a fiction has. The peculiarity of the RPG form means that much of their authorship is undertaken via the vehicle of their PCs acting within the fictional world.

But if I, as GM, purport to _already settle all the interesting evaluative questions as part of my framing of the world_, then how are my players to exhibit clever insight? To surprise me? To express their own views on the thematic and evaluative questions raised?

When Graham Greene wrote The End of the Affair, he didn't need a referee to tell him whether coming to love Christ via the medium of Catholic representations of Jesus's battered human body is a good or bad thing. Rather, he wrote a book that explored that idea and experience (among others). It expresses his complex view on the matter. And when I read it, it provides me with insight, and enables me to reflect, on my own views of the same matter. Piss Christ (admittedly a photograph rather than a traditional fiction) comes at something like the same topic from a very different perspective.

Not only is a referee's adjudication not helpful to the authors of these works, but I don't need or want a referee's adjudication to help me in responding to them. In fact, any attempt at such adjudication would just be another contribution to the same discussion - perhaps worthwhile, perhaps not, but no more or less definitive than the works themselves.

Likewise in an RPG. The players play their PCs. This tells us things about the players and can also be used by the players to tell us other things as well. I, as a fellow player or GM, can respond to that. But a referee's adjudication of the evaluative points made is not necessary. The points made carry their own meaning - they generate their own responses in their audience - _this_ is the consequence that drives the game forward. How that consequence then relates to ingame matters is a secondary issue - there are any number of ways of handling that, and I think general prescriptions are hard to give.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage - I agree, they don't have to be equal.  They do, however, have to have some level of equivalency, if you see what I mean.  If option X is 100% rewarded and Option Y is 100% punished, then no one is going to choose Y.  At least, no rational actor will.

I will also totally agree that this is not for everyone.  I think I said that earlier.

But, if you don't have equivalent outcomes, then there is no debate.  Why would there be?  If doing X means you win and doing Y means you lose, then, well, there's not a whole lot of discussion to be had.

Take another possible example.  I want to explore the topic of terrorism in my game.  I make sure that the players are groovy with this theme beforehand because, well, I don't want to start any fights.

Now, I set the game in the 1970's in Northern Ireland and the PC's are members of the IRA.  Of course, not every decision point will be a moral quandary - the example you give of "when to go to sleep, who's on watch..." is a bit of a red herring.  It's completely outside of the theme we want to examine.

But, during play, the question will come up - what is acceptable?  Are civilian casualties acceptable?  To what degree?  What about escalation?  How does this all fit within the context of a modern society?  Etc, etc.

If the DM simply states, "terrorism is evil" then there is no more exploration of the theme.  We know the answer, insofar as this campaign is concerned.  It's no different than a physical exploration DM handing the PC's a fully detailed map of the area to be explored including all answers.  It removes the primary motivation of play.

I don't think anyone proposed "very light consequences for every decision" since that would be pointless.  The decisions that are based around the concept being explored should carry important consequences, regardless of what is decided.  But, you cannot play this style of game if the DM simply labels things beforehand.

Is necromancy evil?  Nope, not in this setting.  Ok, conversation is finished.

Which is a perfectly fine way to play.  There's nothing saying that you have to have moral introspection in the game.  Heck, the alignment system is pretty much designed from the ground up to prevent this kind of philosophical discussion from grinding the game to a halt.  Ten billion paladin debates show that.  Why are we killing orcs?  Because orcs are evil and they need killing.

If you take a moral position that killing evil is not self-justifying, then a great deal of D&D play gets really sticky.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Henryk Sienkiewicz describes Cossacks
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Seeing these tactics in _D&D_ affirms a certain reality, specifically our own. They are also statements of values, and if the referee has his <_excrement_> together, they should have consequences in the game.



Those examples suggest that the Cossacks were extremely expedient.

I don't object to players being expedient, but I do think that a game in which expedience is the only, or the only reliable, route to success will tend to discourage players engaging in play that expresses other values.

Of course, what counts as "success" is up for grabs across different groups and different playstyles - but for any sort of conventional ongoing campaign game, PC survial is probably a minimum element of it.

Hence my view that, if in this conventional sort of game you want players to feel free to explore or express a range of evaluative or thematic notions (of which expedience might be one), then it is helpful to ensure that the mechanics of PC life and death don't unduly favour expedience. This is one respect in which I think that 4e supports my play preferences better than classic D&D.

There are games that push this issue more overtly than 4e: HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel, for example, make a player who wants to play expediently active choose that approach (because of the contribution to successful action resolution made by relationship-grounded augments, and spiritual attributes, respectively). 4e doesn't expressly say anywhere that the default to expedience is excluded. However, my view (and like the rest of my views, my views on 4e seem to command comparatively little assent!) is that 4e pushes in a similar direction to HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel in a more passive-aggressive way - because it doesn't support classic D&D exploration very well, I think it will produce a pretty boring RPG experience unless the players actively engage it with some sort of thematic concerns in mind. (The alternative, which WotC seems to adopt in its modules, is to leave the GM in charge of theme and story and to reduce the game, from the player point of view, to a skirmish game with a very high degree of colour.)


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (May 31, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> The player playing the warlock and the dwarf made the role playing decision not to trust the new characters. They feel it is some kind of trick.



They made a player desicon to roleplay it that way. So being difficult on purpose.


----------



## billd91 (May 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> If the DM simply states, "terrorism is evil" then there is no more exploration of the theme.  We know the answer, insofar as this campaign is concerned.  It's no different than a physical exploration DM handing the PC's a fully detailed map of the area to be explored including all answers.  It removes the primary motivation of play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is necromancy evil?  Nope, not in this setting.  Ok, conversation is finished.




I think you are utterly wrong on both counts. Both of these statements - terrorism and necromancy and their relationship to evil - are merely statements that may be part of a conversation. But they're no end to a conversation. Declaring either to be evil or not evil is hardly different from calling them illegal or legal. If the PC is willing to countenance the in-game consequence of living on the run on a paltry stipend from the local unit,  the potential of being killed by an SAS shoot-to-kill operation, the potential of having their families harassed by the RUC or UVF, the likelihood of being caught and ramrodded through a hostile court system for something as little as possession of a few rounds of ammunition... then declaring terrorism evil on some objective scale of alignment isn't much of an issue. Particularly not when society at large (outside of their own close-knit community) brands them evil anyway and will act quite seriously and harshly on that assumption.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

Hussar, another good post!



Hussar said:


> If you take a moral position that killing evil is not self-justifying, then a great deal of D&D play gets really sticky.



One way I try and deal with this issue is to use a lot of undead and demons. (Given that they're often still sentient, the issue doesn't go away entirely, but it casts it differently enough that other options/interpretations open up - for example, killing undead may release a soul to its proper resting place, and demons may not have souls at all.)

And in my current game, nearly all of the violence against humanoids has been against soldiers engaged in what are recognisably military operations - be they goblin, hobgoblin or gnoll soldiers. Which still raises moral issues, but different ones from the killing of civilians.

Some hobgoblin and goblin prisoners have been taken and released on their own recognisance, having sworn the appropriate oaths. Other hobgoblin prisoners have been slaughtered in acts of brutal (and arguably misplaced) revenge. This is part of what the game permits being brought out (like your example of terrorism in a modern RPG).

In the first Rolemaster game I GMed, one of the players played a paladin who used a two-handed sword, but who abhorred killing. In RM this can work, because most fights end with a combatant unconscious or otherwise hors-de-combat rather than dead. It wasn't until something like 6 months into the campaign that the player rolled a death crit against a humanoid opponent, chopping off his head. The player had his PC go out into the wilderness, to fast and meditate in repetance. I rolled a random encounter, and it turned out to be a RM variant of the Barlgura demon.

I had the demon start taunting the PC about his moral failings. I assumed that the player would reason that no demon can speak the truth, and hence that this was a sign that he should regard his penance as done, kill the demon, and rejoin the party. In fact, however, the player took the demon as a sending from his PC's god, and had his PC offer no resistance as the demon beat him to a pulp - at which point, getting bored, the demon moved on and left him for the other PCs to find and revive him.

For me, this was one of several formative experiences which affirmed that, if you trust your players and open up a space in which they feel they can trust you, then things will happen which are more interesting than just making the players dance to your own interpretive or evaluative script. (And who was right about the demon - me as GM, or the player? We never needed to decide. The event was what it was. Would it have added anything to the game to have the demon move on to a village and massacre all its inhabitants? I don't think so - all that would have done, that I can see, is pointlessly punish the player, and shut down the roleplaying in just the sort of way that you have been talking about.)


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> JamesonCourage - I agree, they don't have to be equal.  They do, however, have to have some level of equivalency, if you see what I mean.  If option X is 100% rewarded and Option Y is 100% punished, then no one is going to choose Y.  At least, no rational actor will.
> 
> I will also totally agree that this is not for everyone.  I think I said that earlier.




I'm going to disagree with part of this in a moment, but I think you did mention it wasn't for everyone. But neither is my style of game (I'd label it as "fringe" as well as what I was discussing earlier).



> But, if you don't have equivalent outcomes, then there is no debate.  Why would there be?  If doing X means you win and doing Y means you lose, then, well, there's not a whole lot of discussion to be had.




The debate becomes which of the positive outcomes do we want to pursue? I've had PCs that would rather die than budge on their views. What's the benefit, other than being stubborn? It's -in their mind- not corruption of their mind or soul. If they are slain because of this, they may not chalk it up a win, but they'll know that their will was unbreakable, and they will revel in that fact.

However, equivalent choices are equal choices, really. Maybe I'm not grasping something, but if choices are always to have equally interesting outcomes, then every choice must mean very little, or it must mean quite a bit. I suppose it might fall somewhere in between, but proposing that all choices must be equivalent is just odd to me.

To answer your question, again, it goes back to "which of the positive outcomes do we want to pursue?" I think that expecting negative consequences for attacking several towns unprovoked and ill-equipped and expecting positive consequences for assisting a town while well-equipped isn't a bad thing. I think it speaks to the consistency and believability of the game world. Attacking a town and defending a town can both be interesting, no matter if you succeed or not. However, the expected consequences of those actions and how they affect your character should not necessarily be defined as equivalent in my mind.

This does not mean I'm in any way against an interesting result either way. But I think certain actions -even tied to themes- should carry obviously negative consequences. This, to me, is not a railroad situation, as I originally stated.



> Take another possible example.  I want to explore the topic of terrorism in my game.  I make sure that the players are groovy with this theme beforehand because, well, I don't want to start any fights.
> 
> Now, I set the game in the 1970's in Northern Ireland and the PC's are members of the IRA.  Of course, not every decision point will be a moral quandary - the example you give of "when to go to sleep, who's on watch..." is a bit of a red herring.  It's completely outside of the theme we want to examine.
> 
> But, during play, the question will come up - what is acceptable?  Are civilian casualties acceptable?  To what degree?  What about escalation?  How does this all fit within the context of a modern society?  Etc, etc.




If we're exploring terrorism, I think that walking up to a semi-important paper pusher and shooting him in front of his armed guards and a plethora of cameras carries with it certain negative consequences for your character. And I think it should.

Now, if you define yourself as "doing well" even if you get shot and killed, then that's fine. I think individuals can define whether they're doing well on their own terms. However, I think that expecting equivalent consequences for this as you would for, say, taking out a prime minister via a long-range sniper rifle with an escape plan, then I'll disagree.

Consequences, as defined: "something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." To this end, the idea that they must somehow be equivalent when exploring a theme is still something I disagree with.



> If the DM simply states, "terrorism is evil" then there is no more exploration of the theme.  We know the answer, insofar as this campaign is concerned.  It's no different than a physical exploration DM handing the PC's a fully detailed map of the area to be explored including all answers.  It removes the primary motivation of play.




I agree with you. I don't think differing levels of consequences implies that statement whatsoever, however.



> I don't think anyone proposed "very light consequences for every decision" since that would be pointless.  The decisions that are based around the concept being explored should carry important consequences, regardless of what is decided.  But, you cannot play this style of game if the DM simply labels things beforehand.
> 
> Is necromancy evil?  Nope, not in this setting.  Ok, conversation is finished.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I agree here, too. Although, I don't think "different actions will have different consequences" is near the same as "necromancy is Evil." They are two completely different things.

Saying "necromancy is Evil" might kill a game if the theme is exploring whether or not necromancy is inherently Evil. However, saying "different actions will have different consequences" does not kill that game at all. It just says that my methods determine my success within this particular theme. Which, I think, is the standard method of determining things like DCs, and subsequent success or failure.

If I am missing or misrepresenting something, let me know. I appreciate a civil discussion on this matter.

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If we're exploring terrorism, I think that walking up to a semi-important paper pusher and shooting him in front of his armed guards and a plethora of cameras carries with it certain negative consequences for your character. And I think it should.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm not Hussar, but do have a response to this.

I don't think you're misrepresenting anything.

I think you _may_ be missing something. Because you _seem_ to be focused mostly on ingame causal consequences of action resolution; and _seem_ not to be considering the implications these have for how players will approach the game.

A concrete example of this is the encounter between the paladin and the demon I described in my previous post. One possible consequence of that encounter, in which the paladin lets a demon beat him to a pulp as punishment for wrongdoing, is that the demon, unchecked, goes on to massacre the inhabitants of a village. An alternative, though, is that the demon just disappears off the stage, never to be thought of again by players or GM as an ongoing participant in the fiction. (If the question ever does come up, the GM can decide retrospectively that the demon, having got its fill of paladin-bashing, returned back to the abyss.)

For me, when deciding which sort of consequence should follow, I think first and foremost about how the consequence will support or undermine the player's engagement with the game. I then think about how a consequence that is useful in this respect can be worked into the fiction. There are many ways in which this can be done and internal ficitonal plausibility maintained.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As a general rule, I prefer that most of these sorts of decisions have no consequences in my game - I can think of dozens of more interesting questions to address in an RPG than who's on watch when!
> 
> Path taken is sometimes interesting, and when it is I'm happy for it to be addressed in play.
> 
> These day, the question of when to sleep I treat as a consequence of skill challenge resolution rather than as something under the players' direct control - this works better with other aspects of 4e.




What is being put forth to me is equivalent consequences for actions in a game. This has not been specified or reduced to "only actions that are pertaining to the theme" and even if it were, my post above addresses my feelings on this (I disagree). 



> Why not?
> 
> In fact, in my game, many decisions are of less heavy thematic weight than what Hussar described, because ultimately my game is a reasonably light, fairly derivative fantasy RPG. But what would be wrong with a heavier game of the sort Hussar describes (assuming that the players had the emotional stamina for it)? I've played like that at Cons, and they're some of the more memorable RPGing experiences I've had.




Let me preface this by saying that while this is solely my personal opinion, I'd wager an educated guess that not only my players would agree with me, but most of the other people I tend to speak with to with some regularity.

To me, at least, these sorts of decisions being piled up one after another will result in a devalued sense of what they should be.

I've "played" a game like this before with my group that we called "ethics board" with no dice or other mechanical system. They were presented with ethical dilemmas, and they decided what they thought the right course of action was. I decided the outcome based on those decisions, and we either addressed it more in-depth if their decision drew complications, or we moved on to a new dilemma. In this game, which we played a handful of times, the players felt less and less emotionally invested in the dilemmas, specifically because of their frequency. The first dilemma was extremely satisfying to play through, though the repetition of such important decisions drew the mystery out of it. It lessened their emotional attachment to the world they were a part of (which included characters and a setting as well).

Additionally, the pure time dedicated to each dilemma near the beginning of the game was such that if these decisions were made with the same fire initially elicited from the players, then the game would crawl to such a halt that the mechanical representation would become essentially subsystems that distracted from the main theme of a game.

This is, again, just my take on things. Could this be done successfully with the right group of people? Sure, it probably could be. I wouldn't recommend it, though.



> I'm not sure I entirely follow all this, but there seems to be a disconnect here... [SNIP]
> 
> Likewise in an RPG. The players play their PCs. This tells us things about the players and can also be used by the players to tell us other things as well. I, as a fellow player or GM, can respond to that. But a referee's adjudication of the evaluative points made is not necessary. The points made carry their own meaning - they generate their own responses in their audience - _this_ is the consequence that drives the game forward. How that consequence then relates to ingame matters is a secondary issue - there are any number of ways of handling that, and I think general prescriptions are hard to give.




Well, as someone who pretty much loathes story-driven fantasy games, I cannot agree that my style can possibly accept players as any type of author. I believe strongly in character-driven fantasy games, where the actions of PCs determines the story, but the idea of story every trumping the mechanics with any regularity rubs me the wrong way to such a degree that were I to be informed that a game would be using this method within a fantasy setting, I'd simply skip the game altogether.

Now, in other games and settings, I'm okay with the story coming first. I play Mutants and Masterminds on occasion. When I do play, I find it is much more fulfilling to attempt to play in the vein of comics or shows than it is to play with just the power mechanics in a setting while sticking to the rolls trumping story. Of course, a game like M&M has rules built in that allow that level of narrative control (hero points and the one GM fiat), and that suits that style well.

In a game like D&D, I don't personally find this to be the case, and I'd much rather see what sort of interesting story emerges from character actions (with appropriate consequences) rather than see what type of story I can help create via character actions. I think there's a subtle but world-changing difference there.

As always, though, this genre allows both of us to have fun, and that's pretty amazing. I'm glad we can both enjoy ourselves so thoroughly, and be so passionate about our preferences. Play what you like 

EDIT:



> I'm not Hussar, but do have a response to this.
> 
> I don't think you're misrepresenting anything.
> 
> I think you may be missing something. Because you seem to be focused mostly on ingame causal consequences of action resolution; and seem not to be considering the implications these have for how players will approach the game.




I really do appreciate your wording here. Thank you for being considerate.



> A concrete example of this is the encounter between the paladin and the demon I described in my previous post. One possible consequence of that encounter, in which the paladin lets a demon beat him to a pulp as punishment for wrongdoing, is that the demon, unchecked, goes on to massacre the inhabitants of a village. An alternative, though, is that the demon just disappears off the stage, never to be thought of again by players or GM as an ongoing participant in the fiction. (If the question ever does come up, the GM can decide retrospectively that the demon, having got its fill of paladin-bashing, returned back to the abyss.)
> 
> For me, when deciding which sort of consequence should follow, I think first and foremost about how the consequence will support or undermine the player's engagement with the game. I then think about how a consequence that is useful in this respect can be worked into the fiction. There are many ways in which this can be done and internal ficitonal plausibility maintained.




See, as I said above, I'm against story-driven games. In this sort of situation, I'd think of this specific demon's motivations, and have him act on those. If that means he goes to a village to massacre the inhabitants, I'd have him pursue that action. If that means he is currently satisfied and returns to the abyss, than I'd have him pursue that action.

I will not determine what would make the best story, and then pursue that fiction. To me, that bends the believability of the game too much for my taste, and it rubs me the wrong way. In another type of game, however, it's what I'd expect, and what my players would expect as well.

I think I'm approaching the themed campaign differently than you or Hussar might be, as I don't look at it from the fiction-first scope that you seem to. I look at it from the individual-first scope, and that colors my views quite differently (but not objectively better by any means).

Again, I'm glad we can talk about such things so civilly, and both enjoy the hobby even with our individual tastes. Play what you like


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I think you are utterly wrong on both counts. Both of these statements - terrorism and necromancy and their relationship to evil - are merely statements that may be part of a conversation. But they're no end to a conversation. Declaring either to be evil or not evil is hardly different from calling them illegal or legal. If the PC is willing to countenance the in-game consequence of living on the run on a paltry stipend from the local unit,  the potential of being killed by an SAS shoot-to-kill operation, the potential of having their families harassed by the RUC or UVF, the likelihood of being caught and ramrodded through a hostile court system for something as little as possession of a few rounds of ammunition... then declaring terrorism evil on some objective scale of alignment isn't much of an issue. Particularly not when society at large (outside of their own close-knit community) brands them evil anyway and will act quite seriously and harshly on that assumption.




The thing is Bill91, what you are outlining is the _beginning_ of the campaign, not the end.  That's the point where we're starting from, because, well, we're members of the IRA in the 1970's.  

However, none of the issues you bring up, which are all certainly elements in the game, actually addresses the point of play - which is to engage in the examination of the morality of terrorism.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Well, as someone who pretty much loathes story-driven fantasy games, I cannot agree that my style can possibly accept players as any type of author. I believe strongly in character-driven fantasy games, where the actions of PCs determines the story, but the idea of story every trumping the mechanics with any regularity rubs me the wrong way to such a degree that were I to be informed that a game would be using this method within a fantasy setting, I'd simply skip the game altogether.




Ahh, yup, that's the issue right there.

This is SO not the game for your tastes.  

To be fair, this is not to my tastes all the time either.  I enjoy this from time to time, but, certainly not as a regular diet - too heavy mang.    It's simply a different form of gaming, not one that is meant to replace anything.

Yeah, if you're approaching the game with an individual level scope, and not a thematic one, then, ohh, this is going to be a train wreck.  In a thematic game, your character isn't really the most important thing in the game.  He's still important, because he's the vehicle through which you interact with the world, but, decisions and discussions aren't centered so much on the ideas of realistic interaction with the world (I hate that phrase, but, I'm drawing a blank on how to phrase it better).  

Thus in my way above example of the terrorist woman in the SF game, the possible results were - obey orders and the woman's bosses become aware that the PC's have entered into things and begin actively pursuing the PC's, possibly tipping information to the general public that the PC's organization has had a hand in the attack, or prevent the attack, meaning that the PC's own organization will be supremely angry, and forcing the woman's organization into higher security hiding, making them much, much more dangerous in the future.

Thus, equivalent but not equal reactions.  Both choices carry serious consequences and will drive the campaign in very different directions.

Or, take Supernatural.  Let's be honest.  From an individual first scope, it makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer.  The bad guys have the heroes by the short and curlies multiple times, but never just force the issue.  But, that's not the point of the show.  The point of the show is to carry on examining the theme of relationships of family and the sacrifices that families go through.  It's repeated over and over again, particularly in the 5th season.

If Supernatural was an RPG (well, it is, but, I mean the TV show.), Dean and Sam would be dead, killed by one side or the other.  But, while totally believable, doesn't really serve to answer the theme that the show has set up.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 31, 2011)

While I agree that the PCs are authors of the fiction taking place in the world and should not be passive but an active part of it but they are not alone. The DM is also involved in the fiction taking place.

The DM is responsible for how the NPCs of the world respond to the PCs actions. The only thing the DM has to go on is the mores and social norms and laws that have been laid down in game. Now in most games this part of the world building is done by the DM. But there is nothing stopping the players from being involved in the creation of the world.

Now say that it has been decided that necromancy is not considered evil in a certain area. And one of the players decides his PC sees all necromancy as evil. This opens up a lot of interesting role playing because his world view is different than the norm. Not wrong different. If the player is just allowed to say hey I declare necromancy evil and all the NPCs will now agree with me you have just broken any consistency in the fiction being created.

What imo is better fiction is how this PCs reacts to the world view. If he goes off on a quest to destroy all necromancers and destroy all necromancer artifacts. This decision is going to bring him into conflict with the NPCs and maybe the other PCs. What the outcome of those conflicts are needed to be role played out. Most likely unless he is very smart it might end bad for his PC. But that maybe okay with the PC because he stood by his beliefs and died a martyr to the cause.

Another possibility is that PC tries to change the law and people's minds about it. Another cool road to role playing. But the fact that the game world says necromancy is not evil is not railroading or stopping the PC from exploring other options on the subject. And in the end changing the world view to necromancy is evil.

I read a lot of books on writing and I have taken several courses in it and one thing I have learned about fantasy writing is that you have to have internal consistency. How magic works, the laws and mores have to be consistent through the story or have a compelling reason to change. The world is not in a vacuum with no substance until the character inter acts with it. 

Sometimes the character changes the world and sometimes the world changes the character. 

In my game my issue with the player is that there is no role playing with the other PCs no discussion on why he thinks necromancy is evil. It is just evil even when other PCs say no its not always evil and here is why. I would really like to know why he thinks all necromancy is evil. Who knows if he made a compelling enough argument my character might change her view on the subject.


----------



## The Shaman (May 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Those examples suggest that the Cossacks were extremely expedient.



Those examples demostrate that _human beings_ are extremely expedient.

I mentioned the Cossacks because I just finished reading _With Fire and Sword_ this weekend, but there's actually nothing specific to the Wild Lands about those examples, which crop up all over the world through human history.

A recurring joke among gamers is that if an object _can_ be set on fire, at some point in the game it _will_ be set on fire, and indeed, the Cossacks set a forest on fire to burn out an army in Sienkiewicz's tale. There're are good reasons players think to try these things.







pemerton said:


> I don't object to players being expedient, but I do think that a game in which expedience is the only, or the only reliable, route to success will tend to discourage players engaging in play that expresses other values.



Given that human beings choose inexpedient solutions based on their values in a world that favors expedience, I think too much emphasis on 'expressing other values' runs the risk of producing a game which is overly restrictive and contrived.







pemerton said:


> Of course, what counts as "success" is up for grabs across different groups and different playstyles - but for any sort of conventional ongoing campaign game, PC survial is probably a minimum element of it.



Agreed.







pemerton said:


> Hence my view that, if in this conventional sort of game you want players to feel free to explore or express a range of evaluative or thematic notions (of which expedience might be one), then it is helpful to ensure that the mechanics of PC life and death don't unduly favour expedience.



I tend to see it as more interesting when characters pursue the inexpedient with the full knowledge there are more expedient solutions.

On our last game-night, one of the adventurers allowed himself to be fired upon by a pair of Cardinal's Guards with arquebuses in order to satisfy his personal honor. There was no mechanical benefit to be derived from this action - he did it because he feared the social consequences of _not_ doing it, social consequences without mechanical limitations or advantages in the rules of the game.

In my experience some of the games which offer some kind of mechanical advantage for expressing character values very interesting - _Pendragon_ and _Dogs in the Vineyard_ come to mind. I don't find them better than games which lack these rules, however.







pemerton said:


> There are games that push this issue more overtly than 4e: HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel, for example, make a player who wants to play expediently active choose that approach (because of the contribution to successful action resolution made by relationship-grounded augments, and spiritual attributes, respectively). 4e doesn't expressly say anywhere that the default to expedience is excluded. However, my view (and like the rest of my views, my views on 4e seem to command comparatively little assent!) . . .



Yeah, you've seen the reception _my_ views on character backgrounds and attributes get, so I know how that goes. 







pemerton said:


> . . . is that 4e pushes in a similar direction to HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel in a more passive-aggressive way - because it doesn't support classic D&D exploration very well, I think it will produce a pretty boring RPG experience unless the players actively engage it with some sort of thematic concerns in mind. (The alternative, which WotC seems to adopt in its modules, is to leave the GM in charge of theme and story and to reduce the game, from the player point of view, to a skirmish game with a very high degree of colour.)



Knowing next to nothing about 4e, I'm not in a position to dispute that.

I do find the idea that players may be responsible for introducing thematic concerns through their play very interesting. It fits with my approach, creating a game-world in which the adventurers are enmeshed in an environment filled with genre tropes off of which to play.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, yup, that's the issue right there.
> 
> This is SO not the game for your tastes.




Apparently 

Though I do like story-driven games when the mechanics call for it, like in M&M. And in those types of games, I'm expecting to run it with story put first, and my players expect it, too. It's not the only way to play at all, but the book and mechanics make it clear that the story is more important than anything else, and it fits the game well.



> To be fair, this is not to my tastes all the time either.  I enjoy this from time to time, but, certainly not as a regular diet - too heavy mang.    It's simply a different form of gaming, not one that is meant to replace anything.




Oh yeah, it's just a playstyle thing. No objective right or wrong way to play, in my mind.



> Yeah, if you're approaching the game with an individual level scope, and not a thematic one, then, ohh, this is going to be a train wreck.  In a thematic game, your character isn't really the most important thing in the game.  He's still important, because he's the vehicle through which you interact with the world, but, decisions and discussions aren't centered so much on the ideas of realistic interaction with the world (I hate that phrase, but, I'm drawing a blank on how to phrase it better).




Well, I think you _can_ have a thematic game from the individual scope, though it's admittedly much harder. Is it as effective as changing scopes? Probably not for most people. To that end, if you want to explore that type of game, I might agree that more people might do better with a story-first type scope.

As for "realistic" being used... I think using the word verisimilitude is sort of unnecessary, as "realism" is often enough to get the point across. It's like "omnipotence" being used. Yes, it's non-sense in that you "can make a rock so big you can't lift it" and so on. But saying "omnipotent within the realm of logic" is basically what everyone means, so it's sort of annoying when people talk about semantics when it's just obstructing the conversation.



> Thus in my way above example of the terrorist woman in the SF game, the possible results were - obey orders and the woman's bosses become aware that the PC's have entered into things and begin actively pursuing the PC's, possibly tipping information to the general public that the PC's organization has had a hand in the attack, or prevent the attack, meaning that the PC's own organization will be supremely angry, and forcing the woman's organization into higher security hiding, making them much, much more dangerous in the future.
> 
> Thus, equivalent but not equal reactions.  Both choices carry serious consequences and will drive the campaign in very different directions.




It sounds like an interesting game. I'm not much into SF games, but maybe it's because I've had no luck running them, and no chance to play in one (I'm stuck GMing).



> Or, take Supernatural.  Let's be honest.  From an individual first scope, it makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer.  The bad guys have the heroes by the short and curlies multiple times, but never just force the issue.  But, that's not the point of the show.  The point of the show is to carry on examining the theme of relationships of family and the sacrifices that families go through.  It's repeated over and over again, particularly in the 5th season.
> 
> If Supernatural was an RPG (well, it is, but, I mean the TV show.), Dean and Sam would be dead, killed by one side or the other.  But, while totally believable, doesn't really serve to answer the theme that the show has set up.




You know what's interesting about that? I've seen maybe four to five episodes of the show (season 2? It was a few years ago) because one of my close friends (who I game with) was pretty into it. I couldn't put my finger on it, but I was really put-off by it. I stopped watching it.

Then again, I love things like the Justice League show, and that's often littered with similar situations. All superhero material is. To that end, I guess I see it as a different genre, and accept it as story-oriented (maybe that's why I'm okay with M&M being played that way).

Anyways, I had a good discussion. Thanks


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I enjoy this from time to time, but, certainly not as a regular diet - too heavy mang.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In a thematic game, your character isn't really the most important thing in the game.  He's still important, because he's the vehicle through which you interact with the world, but, decisions and discussions aren't centered so much on the ideas of realistic interaction with the world



I don't agree that thematic play has to be heavy, because not all themes are heavy. One example - the dwarf PC in my game has the following backstory, which the player wrote up:

In Derrik's Dwarfholme, every young dwarf joins the military, but is not considered a non-probationer until s/he kills his/her first goblin. Unfortunately for Derik, in 10 years of service he never even saw a goblin - every time there was an attack on the Dwarfholme, or a retaliatory raid by the dwarf army, he was somewhere else - running errands, cleaning latrines, etc.

Eventually, it became too embarassing and Derrik's mother packed him a bundle of supplies and sent him out into the world to make his fortune outside the Dwarfholme. Thus, he found himself drinking in the Hammer and Anvil, a dwarven pub in the old Nerathi city of Kelven.​
(The instructions to players that generated this backstory were (i) your PC must have some sort of relationship to something s/he values, and (ii) your PC must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.)

In a recent session, after the PC had reached paragon tier and become a Warpriest of Moradin, I wanted to introduce some dwarf NPCs into the ingame situation, for two reasons: (i) to deliver a holy symbol to the Warpriest PC (he didn't have one yet); (ii) to help with the tactical setup of the likely next encounter (hobgoblins and bugbears raiding a village). I decided that the dwarf NPCs would be a dwarf war party retreating from a skirmish with hobgoblins, who had been told by an angel of Moradin that they could get help from a warpriest if they headed south through the hills. And the angel left a holy symbol for them to give to the warpriest as a token of sincerity.

When it actually came time to run the dwarf thing, I decided that the leader of the dwarf warparty would be someone who had known Derrik when he was a runner of errands and cleaner of latrines. So he comes to where the PCs are staying, sees Derrik, and asks "Derrik! What are you doing here? And where's the Warpriest?- An angel said that we would find one here." The ensuing skill challenge, in which Derrik and his fellow PCs tried to explain that Derrik was the Warpriest, culminated in Derrik driving his point home by knock all the dwarves flat with a single sweep of his halberd (mechanically, he expended one of his close burst encounter powers and made a successful Intimidate check).

The doubting dwarves were then very apologetic, and saw Derrik in a new light. (And Derrik then proceeded to lead the bulk of them into death or serious injury under the feet of a hobgoblin-controlled Behemoth during the village raid - but that's a different episode, although the attitude of Derrik to his dwarven henchmen was certainly coloured by the circumstances in which they met.)

This is an example of theme guiding a player in setting up his PC, and guiding me as GM in setting up a situation, and then being played off by both of us (and the other players, though to a lesser extent) in the resolution of the situation. But it's not heavy at all. (As I posted upthread, I think Ron Edwards is wrong to "officially" identify narrativist play with heavy thematic material, and gets it right when he ignores his own "official" characterisation of narrativism when it comes to the classificaiton of particular games - and so classifies Dying Earth as supporting narrative play even though its themes are much more light and ironic - closer to the dwarf example I've just described, for instance.)



Elf Witch said:


> The DM is also involved in the fiction taking place.
> 
> The DM is responsible for how the NPCs of the world respond to the PCs actions. The only thing the DM has to go on is the mores and social norms and laws that have been laid down in game.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure exactly what is going on in the last of these quoted paragraphs. I don't think anyone here is talking about a player's ability to change the ingame situation purely be metagame stipulation. But I am talking about (i) a GM having regard to a player's metagame interests before setting up the ingame situation, and (ii) having regard to those interests in resolving the ingame situation.

The example above of the dwarf encounter shows the sort of thing I have in mind. I beleiev that it also shows that it is not true that all a GM has to go on is the mores and social norms and laws that have been laid down in the game. Even in the real world, there is no predictive social science comparable to physics or chemistry despite the richness of data available, and there is also no general agreement on the mores, social norms and laws that govern various societies. Contemporary anthropologists and historians disagree over the mores, social norms and laws that governed the Aztecs. And even members of the same society often can't agree on the mores, social norms and laws that govern them - hence political, legal and other cultural disputes break out.

In an imaginary world the amount of data is far less, and the scope for imaginative projections, retrofittings and ad hoc fudgings is even greater. So the idea that the imaginary mores, social norms and laws must settle the matter is one I reject. Given what had been established, to date, about the situation of dwarves and Warpriests of Moradin in my game, any number of ways of setting up and running a dwarf encounter were possible. I chose the one that I thought would amuse my player, and bring back into play some stuff that had been sitting in the background for the past four or five levels.

Likewise when a player decides to play an anti-necromancy PC in a world in which necromancy is widely accepted as permissible. How will the various NPCs react to this fantasy version of John Brown or the Sea Shepherds? The GM has a lot of flexibility, and if s/he _wants_ to run a game that will support the players in generating and engaging with this sort of thematic stuff, then I would encourage him/her to use that flexibility to support, prod and energise the players - not to shut them down by (for example) always having the constabulary arrive, and by never having any of the constabulary be sympathetic, and by having the heavens turn as one on the PC for breaking divine law, etc, etc.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Those examples demostrate that _human beings_ are extremely expedient.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There're are good reasons players think to try these things.Given that human beings choose inexpedient solutions based on their values in a world that favors expedience, I think too much emphasis on 'expressing other values' runs the risk of producing a game which is overly restrictive and contrived.



I can see why you see the risk.



The Shaman said:


> I tend to see it as more interesting when characters pursue the inexpedient with the full knowledge there are more expedient solutions.
> 
> On our last game-night, one of the adventurers allowed himself to be fired upon by a pair of Cardinal's Guards with arquebuses in order to satisfy his personal honor. There was no mechanical benefit to be derived from this action - he did it because he feared the social consequences of _not_ doing it, social consequences without mechanical limitations or advantages in the rules of the game.



I have got this sort of thing happening in games with the sort of mechanics you refer to here - the paladin story I mentioned upthread, which happened in RM, is an example. 



The Shaman said:


> In my experience some of the games which offer some kind of mechanical advantage for expressing character values very interesting - _Pendragon_ and _Dogs in the Vineyard_ come to mind. I don't find them better than games which lack these rules, however.



I'm a big fan of vanilla narrativism - I was a vanilla narrativist before I was a FoRE, and part of what made me a FoRE was finding someone who could coherently interpret my play experience to me - but I think I see more thematic play in a system that is a bit more forgiving of inexpedience.

A big consideration, in my view, is what happens to that player if his(?) PC is killed by the Cardinal's Guards? If he's staking "winning or losing" the game on the roll that's one thing; if by taking the challenge he "wins" whatever happens (even if winning here just means something like "earns group approval, so that if his PC dies he will be able to bring into play one of his PCs offsiders as his new PC") then there's a sense in which the informal table rules have supported his choice.

4e is more forgiving than RM even without such informal table rules, because the nexus between expedience and mechanical success is much looser than in a more purist-for-system game like RM. But as I said earlier, it pushes less hard in this sort of way than many other modern games.



The Shaman said:


> I do find the idea that players may be responsible for introducing thematic concerns through their play very interesting. It fits with my approach, creating a game-world in which the adventurers are enmeshed in an environment filled with genre tropes off of which to play.



It's very hard to tell when you're comparing techniques and play experiences over the internet, but I think the main way that I GM differently from you is this: you have a rich backstory with random tables to generate coincidences that the players must then exploit; whereas I have a loose backstory and make self-conscious choices to create situations that the players must then exploit (and at the same time thereby firming up the backstory).

I don't know if you looked at Raven Crowking's blog where he talked about the importance of mundane animal encounters, but that is close to the opposite of my approach, which focuses only on the "relevant" details. I'm not sure whether or not my players experience immersion, but I don't think they could experience "I'm really in this fantasy world" immersion (unless they're doing all the heavy lifting themselves) - if they're relying on me, it would have to be some sort of "emotional investment" immersion.

I don't know how much you use fine points of detail to draw your players into the world - it would seem to me to fit with the idea of a detailed backstory and detailed random tables - but if you do a lot of that then that would be another difference between our approaches. From my impression of your game, I could see your players asking "What would my guy do?", whereas for my players I think it is more often "What should (I have) my guy do?".

Of course, in cases like your player whose PC took the fire from the Cardinal's Guards, or my player whose paladin took the punches from the demon, these two questions can merge into one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that this right here is the point at which our perspectives diverge.
> 
> The players of an RPG aren't the characters in a story. They are the authors of a story. And the author of a story _does_ have control over the consequences that befall the characters in that story. The way that the author _exercises_ that control is what makes the story interesting - and it can be interesting even if the author takes a non-standard approach to consequences (cf Camus's Outsider).




Yup.  Our persepectives definitely diverge here.  If I want to write a story, I'll write a story.  If I want to play a role-playing game, my goal (if a player) is to take on the role of a character within the fantasy milieu; it is never "to write a story".  My goal as a GM is to enable the same.

There is nothing wrong with "writing a story" as a goal if that's what you like, obviously, but I personally differentiate between "story telling games" (Once Upon a Time?) and "role-playing games".  That's a difference of _*kind*_, not a difference of _*value*_, mind you, and has to do fundamentally with how I view rpgs.  So, obviously, YMMV and, equally obviously, it does.



> I'm not sure I entirely follow all this, but there seems to be a disconnect here between Hussar and I, on the one hand (I hope, Hussar, that you don't mind me roping you in) and RC and you on the other (and likewise I hope that this creation of groupings is not out of line).




Sorry, I'm not at all certain what Hussar's opinions are, so you'll have to rely upon your own words!

However, I have always found rpgs to be "engaging, interesting, and thought-provoking - not just because of the ingenuity of their plots, but because of the cleverness of their insight" _*as a consequence of their being tied into believable context and consequences*_, because the _*characters*_ in the work must deal with the fictional milieu as it is.  If the characters "have the same sort of freedom as the author of a fiction has", the outcome seems artificial and contrived, to me.  The weakest of weak sauce.

Not only do the PCs not get to decide that gravity no longer works today (as an author certainly can), or that a comet brings all the dead back to life, the NPCs don't, either.  Once a persistant "fact" of the world is brought into play, it remains a persistant "fact".  The actions of PC and NPC alike must take those "facts" into account.

In exploring how those "facts" are taken into account, PCs and NPCs offer many different belief systems and theories, many different ideas of what "the good life" is, or how best to deal with a persistent world.

I would feel cheated without this.

Again, YMMV and apparently does.


RC


----------



## billd91 (May 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The thing is Bill91, what you are outlining is the _beginning_ of the campaign, not the end.  That's the point where we're starting from, because, well, we're members of the IRA in the 1970's.
> 
> However, none of the issues you bring up, which are all certainly elements in the game, actually addresses the point of play - which is to engage in the examination of the morality of terrorism.




How about the morality of the PCs? Isn't that really what you're getting at?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (May 31, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> To extend this line further...
> 
> I see (at their extremes) two games being presented here:
> 
> ...




*Is starting to wonder whose ignore lists I'm on.*


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Is starting to wonder whose ignore lists I'm on.



Not mine. I wasn't sure if you wanted a reply from me, but I'll have a go.

My preferred analytic and classificatory scheme for RPGing is the Forge one. The second approach to RPGing that you set out seems to equate (roughly, more-or-less) to Forge-ist narrativism.

Your first approach is underspecified, in my view. All RPGing depends upon there being a gameworld - a shared imaginative space - in which events occur and consequences reverberate. The question is, what constrains or determines those consequences? In simulationist play - which I think is what you are trying to capture in your first approach - it is the sort of stuff Elf Witch talks about above (the internal logic of the gameworld) _to the exclusion of other concerns_, like thematic concerns or the desire to pose challenges to the players.

It is not as if, in my game, events don't have consequences. But I determine those consequences having regard first to what would keep the thematic elements of the game moving along, and treat the logic of the gameworld as setting outer constraints of permissibility. But in simulationist play the logic of the gameworld is the alpha and the omega - be it causal logic (purist-for-system simulationism) or genre logic (high concept simulationism).

The other way I would want to add to your first approach is to build on the idea of the gameworld being "artificially real". The question is - who gets to determine this reality? Or, to put it another way, if there are different views or desires at the table, who gets to decide what the logic of the gameworld requires? This is where the issue of GM force comes in: if the mechanics run out, is the success of my PC's action resolution simply hostage to the GM? (Hussar is one poster on this thread who has talked about this issue in the past.) If a question arises as to what sort of behaviour is cosnsistent with divine laws ABC, or alignment XYZ, or the table's agreement to run a heroic/non-evil game, am I simply hostage to the GM? (I raised this issue upthread.)

My view is that by talking about the fiction in an abstract or impersonal fashion, this issue tends to be occluded. One thing I like about the Forge is that it is upfront about the need for the fiction to be constructed via some procedure or other, and focuses attention on the role of the various game participants in that process of construction.

When the players primarily want to explore a gameworld that they can take for granted as given, then GM primacy can be a reasonable procedure. But I think it is a procedure that is more vulnerable to breakdown than is sometimes acknowledged - as soon as a non-GM participant starts to value his/her own preference as to ingame logic over the smooth running of the game, conflict can break out. The heroic-enforcement railroading of scenarios like Dragonlance, Dead Gods etc is intended to preempt such conflict by rules fiat - but, of course, such rules fiat won't solve these conflicts anymore than an insistence on rule zero will - if a participant doesn't like what the GM is doing, no appeal to the rules text will settle what is essentially a social conflict.

Notice also that the sort of conflict I'm talking about here can arise even among players all sincerely committed to exploratory play. In classic D&D, the conflict might arise over (for example) how hard it is to surf doors over tetanus pits in White Plume Mountain. In 2nd ed D&D, the conflict might arise over (for example) what a hero would really do in situation XYZ, or how a hero would respond to Ravenloft horrific event ABC.

The potential for conflict is obviously much greater is you have players interested in gamist or narrativist play taking part in an ostensibly simulationist game - because they will be trying to shape the ingame situation (whether directly, or via pressure on the GM) to reflect their own metagame concerns. I have been guilty of this myself, to at least a modest degree, in a 2nd ed game, although the player group was large enough (7 players, I think) and the GM sufficiently focused on another player (the one with the prophecy-centric PC) that most of my thematic play was able to be had in RPing with the other players, treating the GM's situations as a backdrop to that rather than the real focus of play.

Just to conclude - the only reason I have for emphasising the potential conflicts that can arise in simulationist play is that some posts on this thread (eg Hussar's) have tended to suggest that it is a sort of safe-haven default, whereas narrativism requires a special degree of group consensus. For the reasons I've given, I don't agree that this is so as an a priori matter.

If, as a matter of practical fact, it is easier to get group consensus for simulationist play, this would tend to suggest either (i) that RPGers overlap heavily in their expecations about how ingame logic works - which might be plausible if they all read the same books and play the same computer games - or (ii) that RPGers are used to ceding authority to the GM even when the dictates of that authority are at odds with their own preferences - which I think is also plausible, at least for those schooled in RPGing in the same sort of way that I was (in the 80s and early 90s).

A final thought - if a lot of actual RPGing is viable only because (i) and/or (ii) holds, then this suggests a further reason why the hobby is only slow-growing. Because both of these are likely to be pretty unusual traits in the population as a whole.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree that thematic play has to be heavy, because not all themes are heavy. One example - the dwarf PC in my game has the following backstory, which the player wrote up:
> 
> In Derrik's Dwarfholme, every young dwarf joins the military, but is not considered a non-probationer until s/he kills his/her first goblin. Unfortunately for Derik, in 10 years of service he never even saw a goblin - every time there was an attack on the Dwarfholme, or a retaliatory raid by the dwarf army, he was somewhere else - running errands, cleaning latrines, etc.
> 
> ...




I think we are talking at cross purposes. I never supported the type of play where the DM shuts down the goals or the play of the PCs. I feel a DM should encourage the PCs and help them realize their goals.

But the PCs need to play smart. Getting in trouble with the law and being chased by the local law is not necessarily shutting the PC down. It can be a reaction to actions of a PC. I am sorry but I don't buy the PCs are special BS and therefore nothing bad ever happens to them because they are the PCs. I would find playing in a game where no matter what actions the PC takes it never results in anything but positive outcomes to be boring and trite and would leave me feeling very unsatisified. 

Just like in combat doing stupid things can get your PC killed doing stupid things in the social settings can get your PC in trouble. 

Bringing  back the PC actions in our game. Destroying the skeletons was the last straw for two of the PCs they no longer want to work with the dwarf. So they left the party. The DM didn't step on the PC or try and shut him down. But there was unpleasant in game consequences from his actions.

When he murdered the necromancer the DM was not shutting him down by putting him in jail. Two of the PCs reported the murder to the authorities. If they hadn't there is a good chance the PC would have gotten away with it. What was the DM supposed to do hand wave it away have no consequence for the dwarf? How is that fair to the other players? All that would do is say to the other players what your PCs chooses to do is not important.

If the DM was bringing holy hell raining down on the PC for murder then he would have found himself being executed for murder instead of just cooling his heels in jail while the rest of the party was being black mailed into taking care of a problem for the authorities. The reason he had to sit in jail while we did the mission was a purely metagame thing. The player was out of town for a month on business so it was a way to explain his absence and allow the rest of us to keep playing. The metagame solution fit the fiction of the story.

Putting this into a Shadowrun example during an extraction you choose to have your runners use lethal means and they kill the security forces and a few Lone Star officers along the way. You have just attracted the law and forced the corporation to try and hunt you down. The GM in this would not be playing the NPCs correctly if he just ignored what you did because hey you are the PCs you always get a get out of trouble card. 

Now if the players played their PCs smart then the runners covered their tracks erased all security footage and left it almost impossible to track them. Then I would cry foul if the GM had them caught. That is railroading and what I consider a form of DM cheating.

But if the players went in guns blazing and made no effort to cover their tracks then they are playing in a stupid way and deserve to be caught or killed by the law or the hired runners that the corporation has hired to deal with the problem.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 1, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not only do the PCs not get to decide that gravity no longer works today (as an author certainly can), or that a comet brings all the dead back to life, the NPCs don't, either.  Once a persistant "fact" of the world is brought into play, it remains a persistant "fact".  The actions of PC and NPC alike must take those "facts" into account.




Nicely said.  (I'm out of XP for you.)


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 1, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Bringing  back the PC actions in our game. Destroying the skeletons was the last straw for two of the PCs they no longer want to work with the dwarf. So they left the party.




You know, IMC, retired PC's sometimes come back as NPC's.  It might be fun to have them show up down the road as the core of a rival party.




Elf Witch said:


> Putting this into a Shadowrun example during an extraction you choose to have your runners use lethal means and they kill the security forces and a few Lone Star officers along the way. You have just attracted the law and forced the corporation to try and hunt you down. The GM in this would not be playing the NPCs correctly if he just ignored what you did because hey you are the PCs you always get a get out of trouble card.
> 
> Now if the players played their PCs smart then the runners covered their tracks erased all security footage and left it almost impossible to track them. Then I would cry foul if the GM had them caught. That is railroading and what I consider a form of DM cheating.




In D20 terms, I wouldn't give the NPC investigators a free pass to automatically determine who did it, but I'd give them:
Take 20 (they're there all week to find evidence)
+2 tool bonus (they've got everything needed)
+2 Aid Another Bonus (they have a large team)
+19 skill (9th level detective with max skill points, max ability, and a +3 from Skill Focus)

So that's a DC43 on the CSI investigation.  The PC's need to beat that with a 1d20+skill role on Forensics, to see if they are better at destroying evidence than CSI is at finding it.  Good luck with that!  Opps, I guess you left behind a single hair with some DNA on the follicle, or missed the FOURTH secret hidden camera -- too bad, so sad!

My point, other than having fun with the example: don't nerf the NPC's.  If you mess with the best, you die like the rest.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 1, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think we are talking at cross purposes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't know if we are talking at cross purposes. We _are_ talking about quite different ways of approaching an RPG.

I'm not sure how much your notion of "playing smart" overlaps with my notion of "expedience". I think there is probably at least some overlap. I quite like a game that makes non-expedient play viable. A trivial example - in the real world, it is _never_ smart to use archery against a tank. But in the world of 4-colour comics it can be, if you are Hawkeye or Green Arrow. I like a fantasy RPG that supports at least that much deviation from "playing smart".

Being chased by the law is certainly not, per se, shutting the PCs down. But there are any number of ways a GM can both set up and resolve such a situation. Depending on whether the GM is driven mostly by regard to his/her sense of ingame causal logic, or mostly by regard to what s/he thinks would make for a fun or genre-consistent plotline, or mostly by regard to what s/he thinks will most enliven the thematic concerns her players want to deal with, a very different game will result.

As to getting killed in combat for doing stupid things - in my previous campaign, which ran for a little over 10 years, one PC died, very early in the campaign. In my current campaign, three PCs have died. In one case the party suffered a "TPK" at the hands of a cursed haunting set up by some goblins. A subsequent email conversation established that all but one of the players wanted to keep going with the same PC, and so the next session began with the party all captured by the goblins after being defeated by the haunting, except for the half-elf who was absent, presumed dead (and they could smell something dubious roasting on the goblin's fire), and imprisoned with a drow they didn't recognise (the new PC). In the case of the two other PC deaths, a quick discussion with the player again established a desire for the PC to keep going, and reasons for the Raven Queen to send the PC back into the land of the living (with various sorts of plot and thematic consequences) were quickly worked out.

So I don't disagree that social conflict should have just as much at stake as combat. But I don't think of it in terms of PCs getting killed or getting into trouble. I think of it in terms of leading to results that drive the game forward.



Elf Witch said:


> I don't buy the PCs are special BS and therefore nothing bad ever happens to them because they are the PCs. I would find playing in a game where no matter what actions the PC takes it never results in anything but positive outcomes to be boring and trite and would leave me feeling very unsatisified.



I think the expereince of play should always be positive _for the players_. They are playing to enjoy themselves.

Given that I play a game that is a longrunning campaign with a single PC per player, that positive experience for the players means that they have to be pretty reliably able to engage the game (and hence the gameworld) via their PCs.

The question of whether or not bad things happen to the PCs is orthogonal to that. Getting beaten to a pulp by a demon (as described upthread) is a bad thing. Having your newly acquired dwarven followers squashed by a behemoth is a bad thing (at least sort of, even if you also take a small degree of pleasure in some of them getting their comeuppance). Feeling you have no real choice but to join your companion in betraying your city is a bad thing (even if you can rationalise it away with a "greater good" argument).

But all these bad things happening to PCs weren't bad things for the players of those PCs, because they were occurring in a context where the player was enjoying the RPGing experience, because being able to use the PC to engage the gameworld in a thematically relevant/expressive manner.

EDIT: I like a game in which adversity for the PC is not per se adversity for the player. This requires the GM to frame the adversity for the PC in a certain sort of way.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 2, 2011)

billd91 said:


> How about the morality of the PCs? Isn't that really what you're getting at?




No, not really.  That's not the point of the campaign.  The point of the campaign is exploring the issues surrounding terrorism - both moral and ethical.  The morality of the individual PC's would help drive that exploration, but, by and large wouldn't really be the focus.

For me, in this specific campaign, I'd be much more interested in the events leading up to the terrorist act - what drives the character?  What makes a regular guy off the street go to such extremes?  And then look at the fallout from the terrorist act - how does this affect the PC's on a personal level?  How do the people that the PC's care about react?

The actual terrorist act is mostly irrelavent in this style of play.  Determining the plan of action, carrying it out, that sort of thing, is pretty much incidental.  You cannot explore the theme of terrorism without a terrorist act occurring, much like you cannot have a murder mystery without someone stopping breathing at some point in the narrative.

So, issues like the police searching for the PC's, being shot while trying to escape custody, that sort of thing, aren't really moving towards the point of the game.  Sure, these are entirely realistic, believable results of the action in the game.  But, they don't really speak to why the game is being played in the first place.

Pemerton - I'm curious.  What theme do you think was being explored by the dwarf player.  Sure, he's bringing his backstory into the game (with your help) in an interesting way.  But, what theme is in play here?  I like your paladin example much, much better.

In the paladin example, if you're playing in an events based campaign where believability is the primary concern, then the demon should just eat the paladin.  That's probably the most likely outcome.  The player would know that and would thus, not accept getting a beating from the demon, particularly if he knows that doing so will result in the neighbouring town getting eaten as well.

But, in a thematic game, that isn't the goal.  The goal is to explore the theme, in this case some sort of redemption.  Killing the paladin or punishing his behavior by allowing his play to theme result in a  further downward spiral, becomes problematic.



			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> You know what's interesting about that? I've seen maybe four to five episodes of the show (season 2? It was a few years ago) because one of my close friends (who I game with) was pretty into it. I couldn't put my finger on it, but I was really put-off by it. I stopped watching it.
> 
> Then again, I love things like the Justice League show, and that's often littered with similar situations. All superhero material is. To that end, I guess I see it as a different genre, and accept it as story-oriented (maybe that's why I'm okay with M&M being played that way).
> 
> Anyways, I had a good discussion. Thanks




Oh, totally agree here.  Genre plays a HUGE aspect here for me.  I don't do this sort of thing in D&D because I find D&D just isn't really geared for this kind of play.  It's too event based for me.  If I am going to do this sort of thing, there are much, much better tools in the box for getting the job done.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 2, 2011)

A later thought.

I think this sidebar discussion over different play styles is a stellar example of what can happen at a table when play styles aren't made really clear at the outset of the game.  

If JamesonCourage sat down for one of my thematic games, not knowing what the game was about, I'm thinking he'd be pretty unhappy (and probably out the door pdq).  The same way that if I sit down at a real events based game like JamesonCourage is talking about, and I start playing it as a thematic game.  We might be playing the same system, but, we are really not playing the same game.

Wheeling this back around to Elf Witch, I have no idea if that's what happened at that table.  It might be - in which case, no one at the table was being a jerk, they were just working from very, very different assumptions.  Making sure everyone is on the same page style wise, and that they stay on the same page, makes for much better games in the long run.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> No, not really.  That's not the point of the campaign.  The point of the campaign is exploring the issues surrounding terrorism - both moral and ethical.  The morality of the individual PC's would help drive that exploration, but, by and large wouldn't really be the focus.
> 
> For me, in this specific campaign, I'd be much more interested in the events leading up to the terrorist act - what drives the character?  What makes a regular guy off the street go to such extremes?  And then look at the fallout from the terrorist act - how does this affect the PC's on a personal level?  How do the people that the PC's care about react?




That sounds an awful lot like 1) you really *are* exploring the PC's morality if you're looking into what drives the character and 2) by describing terrorism as extreme and then planning on presenting reactions to the terrorist act, aren't you doing exactly what you say we shouldn't be doing by defining terrorism as evil? Won't the players get the exact same impression as if they had already been told that terrorism, in the game world's objective morality, is evil? I'm not seeing a significant difference. 

As far as how the fallout of the act affects the PCs on a personal level, you can get that with the act being objectively defined as evil as well as without that being done. So again, I'm not seeing a significant difference.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't know if we are talking at cross purposes. We _are_ talking about quite different ways of approaching an RPG.
> 
> I'm not sure how much your notion of "playing smart" overlaps with my notion of "expedience". I think there is probably at least some overlap. I quite like a game that makes non-expedient play viable. A trivial example - in the real world, it is _never_ smart to use archery against a tank. But in the world of 4-colour comics it can be, if you are Hawkeye or Green Arrow. I like a fantasy RPG that supports at least that much deviation from "playing smart".
> 
> ...




No I don't consider expedience and playing smart to be the same thing at all.

While sometimes being expedient is playing smart it not always true.

Killing the necromancer in front of a member of his guild and a cleric of a lawful god was expedient it got the job done but it was really dumb. The smart thing would have been to sneak back and do the deed.

Personally I think sneaking back and destroying the skeletons could have been smart if he had not just stood there waiting for us and letting us know he did it.

I also like RPGs to allow cinematic things like  a halfling about to be burned to death by a dragon throwing pepper in its nose and the DM not bothering to roll because the idea was so good and the halfling escape.

I don't think it is good DMing to just throw the law at the PCs and throw them in jail if the PCs have been cleaver and worked hard to cover their tracks. It should never just be fait accompli. My DM in the situation we had used throwing the dwarf in jail to further and the plot. We were blackmailed into investigating weird things in a mine which in turn led us to the main bad guys of the story.

We have only had one PC death in three years of play. And that death was really caused by the player doing something really stupid. 

The game should always be about what is fun for everyone at the table including the DM. And I never play in a game for very long if there is adversarial play at the table directed at the players and not the PCs. 

There is a big difference between kicking a PC out of the party for pissing off his fellow PCs and kicking a player out. Something that I have not seen happen at a table in years.

If I play a paladin I don't have any issue with losing abilities if I break my code. So a DM can throw moral dilemmas at me give me bad and worse choices and I will happily role play them out. But if a player hates that then the DM should not do it. It is all about knowing what your players enjoy.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The point of the campaign is exploring the issues surrounding terrorism - both moral and ethical.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Very good stuff.



billd91 said:


> That sounds an awful lot like 1) you really *are* exploring the PC's morality if you're looking into what drives the character



Without more information, it's hard to tell - so at a minimum, not necessarily.

For example, in The Human Factor Graham Greene explores the morality of the protagonist, but that is not the point of the story - it's not primarily a character study. The exploration of the morality of the protagonist is a means to an authorial end, of generating a certain sort of reflection on political commitment and political hope.

Another example might be American Psycho - I've not read the book, only seen the movie, but while the work is primarily in the form of a character study, that isn't what it's about - or, rather, by engaging in a study of _this particular_ character, more general thematic concerns are brought into play.

I assume that this is the sort of thing that Hussar is envisaging in his terrorism game.

More generally - exploration is not at odds with thematic play - and some sort of exploration of the shared imaginative space is central to RPGing - but the question is whether exploration is an end in itself.



Hussar said:


> In the paladin example, if you're playing in an events based campaign where believability is the primary concern, then the demon should just eat the paladin.  That's probably the most likely outcome.



I just wanted to point out here (and I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just making a more general point about this style of RPGing) that I still, as GM, came up with a rationale for the demon to walk away - namely, that it had become bored toying with a paladin who didn't fight back.

This is why I think that language like "preserving ingame believability" or "the players just being able to chang things to suit their PCs on a whim" are not very helpful. The gameworld - which, to work, has to be believable according to whatever constraints the participants share - is the medium through which play is taking place. It's about what the GM (and players) have principal regard to in establishing and responding to the ingame situation.

Two concluding thoughts on this point.

First, most people are pretty forgiving of unlikelihoods and contrivances occurring in other fictions - what are the odds that Gandalf breaks free of Saruman just in time to save Frodo at the river crossing? not to mention LotR being, among other things, one big retcon of The Hobbit - and I don't see why it _has_ to be any different for an RPG.

Second, most RPG worlds are utterly absurd when considered from the point of view of history or sociology. But people forgive them because either (i) they're ignorant of history and sociology, or (ii) they've become accustomed to certain genre conventions. Both sorts of accommodation strategies can also be pursued in preserving verisimilitude in a theme-focused game.



Hussar said:


> What theme do you think was being explored by the dwarf player.  Sure, he's bringing his backstory into the game (with your help) in an interesting way.  But, what theme is in play here?



Revenge (mostly of the nerdish variety!). And the related theme of how a lowly person, having now acquired power and status, should respond to those who used to be on top. There are even echoes of the X-Men "protecting a world that hates and fears them" - another related theme - especially once the dwarf PC has his newfound underlings with him in the subsequent fight.

In his discussion of narrativist play, Ron Edwards says:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be _addressed_ in the process of role-playing. "Address" means: 

*Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place. 

*Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all. 

*Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances. . .

How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme. 

I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I mentioned. . .

A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "_the_ guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us [by the author], constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level.

Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way. . .

The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, _not _by pre-planning. . .

That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict, so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say, "problematic human issue" instead. . .

Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage anyone. . .

Given that theme arises during Narrativist play, what does it look like . . . ? This breaks down into three independent issues . . .

1. The potential for personal risk and disclosure among the real people involved. . . [Some] games are, for lack of a better word, "lighter" or perhaps more whimsical - they do raise issues and may include extreme content, but play-decisions tend to be less self-revealing. . .

2. The depth and profundity of the resulting themes. . .

3. The humorous content. . . Is the humor acting to bring participants' emotions closer to the Premise, or to distance them?​
Edwards also cites Robin Laws in Over the Edge:

Instead, [the GM] should be seeking ways to challenge PCs, to use plot development to highlight aspects of their character, in hopes of being challenged in return. . . For years, role-players have been simulating fictional narratives the way wargamers recreate historical military engagements. They've been making spontaneous, democratized art for their own consumption, even if they haven't seen it in those terms. Making the artistry conscious is a liberating act, making it easier to emulate the classic tales that inspire us.​
And he contrasts this sort of play with pastiche, by which he means simply exploring someone else's story:

What happens when you want a story but don't want to play with Story Now? Then the story becomes a feature of Exploration with the process of play being devoted to how to make it happen as expected. The participation of more than one person in the process is usually a matter of providing improvisational additions to be filtered through the primary story-person's judgment, or of providing extensive Color to the story. Under these circumstances, the typical result is pastiche: a story which recapitulates an already-existing story's theme, with many explicit references to that story.​
I think that pastiche is the output of a lot of module play, and especially adventure path play. The basic outcome is known in advance ("Five heroes stopped Kyuss" or "Three heroes just managed to escape - or, perhaps, drew their last breath - in the jungle shrine of Tamoachan") with colour and (thematically) minor improvisations happening along the way. (The improvisations may be tactically very important - the fact that classic D&D tactics involve engaging the fiction directly in a way that 4e tactics don't is, in my view, one reason why those who are mostly used to simulationist or simulationist-heavy gamist play in D&D find it hard to find the roleplaying in 4e.)

I think Edwards is right to be wary about the phrase "moral or ethical", because this underdescribes the range of evaluative questions, or questions that have evaluative implications, that can be addressed. I think even "problematic human issue" is a bit narrow - nearly any question of human motivation or behaviour can be made the thematic subject of a fiction, given that for a human to act is for a human to implicitly express a valuation of the goal at which s/he aims. I think Edwards' points (1), (2) and (3) are better at signalling the open-ended scope of thematic play - if it can be engaged or expressed via fiction, then (in principle) it can be engaged or expressed via RPGing.

So to go back to my dwarf example: the question is, How should one act having once been law and now being high? Should one indulge former tormentors, or get back at them? (And if the latter, how hard?) What sort of responsibility does one now have for them? And is it relevant that, if such responsibilities existed, they shirked them in relation to you? The player, in the way he had his PC act, expressed some views on this. To which I, having set up the situation, then had to respond - like Laws says, set up scenes that challenge the PCs (and their players) and be challenged in return!

The issue of depth and humour also comes in here. For example, I could make things harder for the player of the dwarf by letting him find out that he and his family would have been killed back in Dwarfhome but for one of his tormentors stopping a particular goblin attack - ie by raising a doubt that the tormentors really did shirk their responsibilities. This would increase the depth - because responsibilities and loyalty are now being conceived not purely in terms of interpersonal relations, but other social consequences of one's actions. It would shift the tone from Hogan's Heroes, past The Great Escape, and somewhere closer to (although not at) Full Metal Jacket. It would also probably kill the humour. For this player, in this campaign, with this particular issue, I don't think that I'll do that. (Where I'm gradually building up to something a bit more serious for this player is with the relationship, in my campaign, between the minotarus and the dwarves - the dwarves were servants of the minotaurs, and much of the culture of which they're justly proud was learned from the minotaurs. Bits and pieces of this have come out, but I'm still working out how excalty I'll bring it to fruition - maybe some sort of conflict where authenticity to self or allies requires repudiating minotaur-dom, which is also to repudiate dwarfdom.)

So anyway, there's the premise(s). And there was an emotional engagement by the players at the table - not a very deep or self-revealing one, of course, given the fictional content.

Sorry for the too-long reply, but I really think that there is sometimes too much of a notion of narrativist or thematic play having to be highbrow or profound. This is no more true of RPGs than other fiction. In the cop show with romantic undertones genre, for example, I think Castle cleans the floor with Bones from the perspective of plotting, scripting _and _a lively engagement with its thematic material. And Almodovar's films show that extremely deep material can be dealt with in a superficially light-hearted way involving absurd situations. Not that my game is in Almodovar's league - very occasionally it might produce fiction as good as Castle! (I think RPGs, as tolerable fiction, benefit hugely from the author=audience factor.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In his discussion of narrativist play, Ron Edwards says:





Going back to the original post, I'm not at all sure that anything Edwards has to say is relevant.  

So, maybe the dwarf's player would prefer a different style of campaign play?  Is it a more popular style?  No.  Would changing to that style be likely to make the GM better for her group as a whole?  No.

There is a reason that context-choice-consequence is more popular than "choose your context then choose your consequence; everyone partakes of the GM's role to adjudicate context and consequence".  Moreover, if the outcome of an adventure in context-choice-consequence play is known in advance, as you suggest, then you have serious problems.  In a module - or any adventure, if you know the outcome, you are no longer playing context-choice-consequence, and it should not surprise anyone that the results, by removing meaning from choice, are likely to be unsatisfying.  I get the strong impression that you fail to understand classic play.....as I am sure you feel I fail to understand narrativist play.

When Ron Edwards creates a game that satisfies as many people as Gary Gygax's, Monte Cook's, or Mike Mearls' games do, then it will be relevant to bring him into the "What should I do?" question.  Until then, "Try doing this relatively unpopular thing that I happen to like" is pretty bad advice.

IMHO, at least.  YMMV.

I'm pretty sure I -- and, IME, most players -- would greatly enjoy the game described in the OP, and would suggest caution in changing it.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Going back to the original post, I'm not at all sure that anything Edwards has to say is relevant.



I think it's relevant to answering Hussar's question to me, which is what I was trying to do. 



Raven Crowking said:


> When Ron Edwards creates a game that satisfies as many people as Gary Gygax's, Monte Cook's, or Mike Mearls' games do, then it will be relevant to bring him into the "What should I do?" question.  Until then, "Try doing this relatively unpopular thing that I happen to like" is pretty bad advice.



My post wasn't really giving anyone advice, other than perhaps advising Hussar to be more liberal in his appreciation of the themes that can be addressed in narrativist play - and even then, I'm sure that Hussar is more than capable of RPing without needing my advice!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think it's relevant to answering Hussar's question to me, which is what I was trying to do.




Fair enough.

But, as the OP's GM is apparently actually reading this thread, I reiterate:  Going back to the original post, I'm not at all sure that anything Edwards has to say is relevant. 

So, maybe the dwarf's player would prefer a different style of campaign play? Is it a more popular style? No. Would changing to that style be likely to make the GM better for her group as a whole? No.

I would think long and hard before undoing the consequences of player choices.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a reason that context-choice-consequence is more popular than "choose your context then choose your consequence; everyone partakes of the GM's role to adjudicate context and consequence".




That's not how it works; it's very much about context-choice-consequence.  Context highlights "problematic feature of human existence", the choices the players care about deal with those issues, and thus consequences will be in response to those choices.



Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, if the outcome of an adventure in context-choice-consequence play is known in advance, as you suggest, then you have serious problems.




1. The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation.

2. Do the monsters in the Caves of Chaos have the right to self-government (or even life!), given that these are "the Borderlands", civilization is encroaching on their territory, and that they engage in some pretty barbarous acts?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> That's not how it works; it's very much about context-choice-consequence.  Context highlights "problematic feature of human existence", the choices the players care about deal with those issues, and thus consequences will be in response to those choices.





C-C-C is a shorthand:  Within a given context, you make choices, and accept the consequences of those choices.  The players are the authors of the PCs' intents; they are not the authors of the world, and do not get to pick and choose what consequences they wish to occur.



> 1. The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation.




Will they?



> 2. Do the monsters in the Caves of Chaos have the right to self-government (or even life!), given that these are "the Borderlands", civilization is encroaching on their territory, and that they engage in some pretty barbarous acts?




That contextual question is no less valid if the players don't take semi-DM authorial stance, or get to choose the consequences of their actions.  Indeed, I would say that it is more valid using the classic play model!  After all, it is not Fyodor Dostoyevsky's musings on morality that make *Crime and Punishment* compelling, but rather the way Raskolnikov deals with the consequences of his choices, how he interprets the context that led to those choices, and how the consequences make him reinterpret the original context.

Even when reading a first-person fictional narrative, the narrator should not be mistaken for the author, and the narrator's control over context and consequence should not be mistaken for the author's.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> C-C-C is a shorthand:  Within a given context, you make choices, and accept the consequences of those choices.  The players are the authors of the PCs' intents; they are not the authors of the world, and do not get to pick and choose what consequences they wish to occur.




Yeah, that's how it works.

I am reminded of this:

The fun in these games1 from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook.​
Mentioned in the blog post: Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, some varieties of Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures



Raven Crowking said:


> Will they?




No, not necessarily, now that I think about it a little more.



Raven Crowking said:


> That contextual question is no less valid if the players don't take semi-DM authorial stance, or get to choose the consequences of their actions.  Indeed, I would say that it is more valid using the classic play model!  After all, it is not Fyodor Dostoyevsky's musings on morality that make *Crime and Punishment* compelling, but rather the way Raskolnikov deals with the consequences of his choices, how he interprets the context that led to those choices, and how the consequences make him reinterpret the original context.
> 
> Even when reading a first-person fictional narrative, the narrator should not be mistaken for the author, and the narrator's control over context and consequence should not be mistaken for the author's.




I agree.  My view is pretty well covered by the blog post I linked to.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, that's how it works.
> 
> I am reminded of this:
> 
> The fun in these games1 from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook.​




Meh.

The fun in these games -- at least the games that I am talking about -- comes from the unfolding interplay of context, choice, and consequence in an unpredictable pattern.

The result may then be told as a story, but the goal is not to "create an amazing story".  The experience....the "journey" if you will....is the point of playing a role-playing game.  This is rather like riding a roller coaster.  Reaching the "destination" just means that the ride is over.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> 1. The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation.




Just for the record, I've run B2 in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e, for various groups of players over the years.  "The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation" is actually one of the _*least*_ likely outcomes IME.

I've seen PCs move on to other challenges while the Caves were half occupied, become leaders of orc tribes, get slaughtered by lizard men before reaching the Caves, wipe out the Keep, etc., etc.  That the Caves will be entirely neutralized is actually, IME, rare.  They are the gift that keeps on giving.

IMHO, once you (esp. as a GM) have decided what the end-point will be, the consequences of PC actions begin to sculpt toward that end-point, rather than flowing naturally from what has occurred.  This actually removes agency from the players.  Their choices matter less (sometimes much, much less), because whatever they choose, they'll always end up at (roughly) the same point.

This is one way that a good game (IMHO and IME) is _*not*_ like riding a roller coaster.  When you ride a roller coaster, you always know where the ride will end.  When you play a good game, where things draw to a conclusion is entirely the result of the decisions of the players, filtered through the context and consequences determined by the GM.  It cannot be predicted ahead of time.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Meh.
> 
> The fun in these games -- at least the games that I am talking about -- comes from the unfolding interplay of context, choice, and consequence in an unpredictable pattern.
> 
> The result may then be told as a story, but the goal is not to "create an amazing story".  The experience....the "journey" if you will....is the point of playing a role-playing game.  This is rather like riding a roller coaster.  Reaching the "destination" just means that the ride is over.




I must not be explaining myself well!  I'm agreeing with what you're saying, and you seem to be disagreeing with what I'm saying. 

Context, choice, consequences?  Yes!  You have authority over your character's actions not the game world?  Yes!  You play for the experience, not a specific end goal?  Yes!

The only difference is that you set up the game in a way that highlights "problematic feature of human existence", make choices about those issues, and the consequences of your choices serve to deepen the original context - those moral and ethical issues we're dealing with.  

Contrast this with "smart play" - we don't want to set up the context to focus choices and consequences of smart play.  This is why you get XP for GP in AD&D and The Shadow of Yesterday relies on Keys to determine (mechanical) character growth.



Raven Crowking said:


> Just for the record, I've run B2 in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e, for various groups of players over the years.  "The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation" is actually one of the _*least*_ likely outcomes IME.




Yeah, I was wrong on that one!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I must not be explaining myself well!  I'm agreeing with what you're saying, and you seem to be disagreeing with what I'm saying.




Well, then you are a wise individual, and a real humanitarian to boot!  



> The only difference is that you set up the game in a way that highlights "problematic feature of human existence", make choices about those issues, and the consequences of your choices serve to deepen the original context - those moral and ethical issues we're dealing with.
> 
> Contrast this with "smart play" - we don't want to set up the context to focus choices and consequences of smart play.  This is why you get XP for GP in AD&D and The Shadow of Yesterday relies on Keys to determine (mechanical) character growth.





If you set up a believable context, and follow-through with the naturally occurring consequences that flow from player choices, there is no contrast.  Even if the players try to focus on "smart play", the in-game consequences for ignoring ethical considerations can bring the "smart" part of "smart play" into question pretty quickly.

But there is still a major difference between "In taking an ethical stand, my character can only die if I choose to let it happen" and "In taking an ethical stand, my character must bear the brunt of whatever consequences naturally occur, good or ill."  

The first is, IMHO, "ethics lite" and ignores what is probably the most fundamental problems of human existence:  We don't get to choose when our moral/ethical decisions come back to haunt us, or how much we have to pay to make an ethical stand.

An example of an ethical problem in a 3e version of B2:  When the PCs encounter the evil clerics, I had decided to make them priests of the spider-goddess Mellythese.  The players engaged the priests in debate, as part of the natural course of the game.  I paraphrase the following:

PC1:  But you can't sacrifice human beings!  It's wrong!

Priest:  We never sacrifice the innocent.

PC2:  But....babies!  You can't sacrifice innocent babies!

Priest:  No one is born innocent....​
Needless to say, the situation was not wholly black and white.

The same group decided to use its last healing on an NPC orc they had rescued from the bugbear cave (and whose honourable behaviour they admired) rather than a more wounded PC.

The Caves themselves are automatically set up to force the players to decide what to do about the non-combatant females and young......And the PCs don't get to choose the consequences of what they decide!

(In a different setting, recently, the PCs decided to let a group of hobgoblin mercenaries go....they even let them keep their arms and armour!....on the basis of ethics.)

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 2, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I am reminded of this:



That's a really interesting article, particularly the section, 'The standard narrativistic model'. Although the author says he won't explain what narrativism is, I found it quite illuminating. I was struck particularly by how similar narrativist rpgs seem to traditional rpgs, with the GM setting up situations and the PCs portraying their characters (and only that).

This quote, from a little further on than the part you quoted, reads exactly like something Raven Crowking would write!



> Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters.




Do you have any more links that go a bit further in explaining narrativism? I read Ron Edwards on the subject years ago, and found him rather impenetrable.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 2, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I must not be explaining myself well!  I'm agreeing with what you're saying, and you seem to be disagreeing with what I'm saying.
> 
> Context, choice, consequences?  Yes!  You have authority over your character's actions not the game world?  Yes!  You play for the experience, not a specific end goal?  Yes!
> 
> ...





So are you saying that under narrativist play the participants negotiate a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measured against?  So the statement "This game will explore the ramifications of falsehoods and trust" would signal that situations where the PCs choices regarding teling the truth and/or believng the statements of others would be watched more carefully and drive more consequence than other activities, but the choice-->consequence chain is otherwise intact?


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you set up a believable context, and follow-through with the naturally occurring consequences that flow from player choices, there is no contrast.  Even if the players try to focus on "smart play", the in-game consequences for ignoring ethical considerations can bring the "smart" part of "smart play" into question pretty quickly.




There should be no contrast between the _consequences_, I agree.  The big difference lies in the choices that players make and how the other players judge those choices.

If you are going to focus on "smart play", the choices you make are going to be different from the ones you make while focusing on "thematic play" (ie. Forge Story Now), and the way the other players judge those choices will be different.

Sometimes there are contrasts between the consequences, though (and therefore the new context); I think this is because the DM will focus more on presenting a new context that reflects the theme of the game.  Since we're just human and none of us know the full range of naturally-occurring consequences from any action, there's a wide range of believable ones.  Personally, I want more believable consequences and choices than others who play in this style. 



Raven Crowking said:


> But there is still a major difference between "In taking an ethical stand, my character can only die if I choose to let it happen" and "In taking an ethical stand, my character must bear the brunt of whatever consequences naturally occur, good or ill."
> 
> The first is, IMHO, "ethics lite" and ignores what is probably the most fundamental problems of human existence:  We don't get to choose when our moral/ethical decisions come back to haunt us, or how much we have to pay to make an ethical stand.




I agree; I would rather deal with the harsh consequences of my PC's actions if that's what's believable than be treated with kid gloves.  That's probably why my PCs don't have a great survival rate in these types of games.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2011)

To my mind, this isn't a question of consequence or context or whatever... 

... it's a question of _conduct_.

It the group okay with the dwarven rogue's conduct? Ignoring the party's vote on selling the treasure, murdering helpful NPC necromancers, then sticking the group with bail, etc.

This isn't a trick question. In some groups that kind of abrasive, drama-bringing PC is okay, even desirable (PC's like that virtually ensure the party will be living in, ah, interesting times). 

In others, they're poison. Their players are simply being pricks. It is entirely possible to role-play without pissing off the rest of the table. If you find it necessary to piss people off while role-playing, perhaps some soul-searching, or WoW PVP, is in order.

Let me be clear: a thorn-in-side PC can be a wonderful thing, so long as everyone else is game. 

Does the rest of the group enjoy this kind of play? That's the only question in need of answer, and it can't be answered in-game.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 2, 2011)

Nagol said:


> So are you saying that under narrativist play the participants negotiate a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measured against?  So the statement "This game will explore the ramifications of falsehoods and trust" would signal that situations where the PCs choices regarding teling the truth and/or believng the statements of others would be watched more carefully and drive more consequence than other activities, but the choice-->consequence chain is otherwise intact?




Yep.  I don't know if those actions will _necessarily_ drive more consequences; sometimes the conflict posed by the context will be resolved, though usually, in my experience, that brings up a new and unexpected dimension of conflict.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2011)

Mallus said:


> and it can't be answered in-game.




I was with you up to this.

It most assuredly can be answered in-game.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, as the OP's GM is apparently actually reading this thread, I reiterate:  Going back to the original post, I'm not at all sure that anything Edwards has to say is relevant.
> 
> So, maybe the dwarf's player would prefer a different style of campaign play? Is it a more popular style? No. Would changing to that style be likely to make the GM better for her group as a whole? No.



Are you confusing your dwarf players? Hussar, in the post to which I replied, didn't say anything about the OP. He was talking about an episode from my game, involving a dwarf PC and the player of that PC, that I described upthread. And Edwards' account of narrativist play _is_ relevant (in my view) to explaining the episode of play that Hussar was asking about.



Raven Crowking said:


> Even when reading a first-person fictional narrative, the narrator should not be mistaken for the author, and the narrator's control over context and consequence should not be mistaken for the author's.



It follows from this that the players shouldn't be mistaken for the PCs. But this doesn't tell us that the players aren't authors.



Raven Crowking said:


> The players are the authors of the PCs' intents; they are not the authors of the world, and do not get to pick and choose what consequences they wish to occur.





Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, once you (esp. as a GM) have decided what the end-point will be, the consequences of PC actions begin to sculpt toward that end-point, rather than flowing naturally from what has occurred.  This actually removes agency from the players.



These two things are true to an extent. The first is not entirely true - in most RPGs, even fairly traditional ones, the players get to author things like the appearance of their PCs, their PCs' starting equipment (within certain limits), the colour of their PCs' clothes, the names and history of their PCs families, mentors etc (within certain limits), and various other background details.

But they don't mark any sort of necessary distinction between simulationist and narrativist play. In the episodes of play I've described upthread, involving a paladin and a demon, a dwarf and his former tormentors, and a wizard betraying his former allies and his home city, the players were not authors of the world and didn't get to pick and choose what consequences occur. And neither player nor GM had decided what any end-point would be - in each case, the choices of the players to have their PCs to act in certain ways were unknown to me until they were made in play, and I then had to resolve the consequences of those choices in the real time of play. This is what Robin Laws is talking about when he says (as quoted upthread) challenge the PCs (and their players) and they will challenge you.



LostSoul said:


> Since we're just human and none of us know the full range of naturally-occurring consequences from any action, there's a wide range of believable ones.



I agree with this, and have stressed it repeatedly upthread. The contrast between simulationism and narrativism isn't about the believability of ingame consequences, but the concerns that shape the decision-making process about those consequences.



Doug McCrae said:


> Do you have any more links that go a bit further in explaining narrativism? I read Ron Edwards on the subject years ago, and found him rather impenetrable.





Nagol said:


> So are you saying that under narrativist play the participants negotiate a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measured against?



For actual play examples of narrativist play (from my game) see posts upthread here (dealing with loyalty and betrayal), here (dealing with atonement - does the inflicter of suffering deserve suffering in return?) and here (dealing with revenge - how should one who was at the bottom respond to former tormentors now s/he is at the top?).

The last of those episodes is further analysed here. This last post also contains some of the highlights of Edwards' extracted out.

There's nothing esoteric or mysterious about these episodes of play. There need not be any "negotiation of a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measure against". There could be, I guess, but in my games it just emereges naturally out of play. In the paladin case, the context is introduced implicitly by the players' decision to play a paladin in a fantasy game. In the dwarf revenge case, the context was also generated by the players' backstory, which was put together in response to some very simple general instruction I gave to the players at the start of the game (give your PC at least one relationship/loyalty, and give your PC a reason to be ready to fight goblins). In the betrayal case, the context had emerged out of play, plus an understanding among the players (to which I was not privy at the time) that one of the PCs (a seer) would be taken out of the game because they didn't like the way that the divination mechanics played.

As a GM, all you have to do is not punish the players for the choices they make for their PCs. "Not punishing", here, _does not mean_ letting the players decide what happens. As the blog to which LostSoul linked indicated, this can lead to problems if a player has to play both his/her PC and the antagonism to that PC. It means, at a minimum, not removing the players' ability to engage the gameworld via his/her PC in ways that s/he cares about - which often, but not always, means at least not killing the PC. Particularly if the game is meant to be an ongoing open-ended one of the classic campaign variety, the consequences should recognise the choice that the player has made for his/her PC, but build on or develop or respond to that in a way that opens up room for more responses (in the case of my dwarf, for example, having dealt with his tormentors by becoming their war leader, they were then led by him into death/injury at the hands of a behemoth - this doesn't invalidate the player's choice, or punish him for it, but it adds a new complication to it). (EDIT: What LostSoul said two posts upthread.)

And on the side of the players, all that is needed is an interest in thematic ideas rather than simply "winning" the game - and therefore a readiness to spend effort, in play, on thematic issues. In my experience, players who build rich backstories into their PCs, and who then try to bring those backstories into play - especially those who build clerics, paladins, political actors, etc (ie PCs whose hijinks naturally lead into thematically rich territory) - are often signalling an interest in this sort of play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Are you confusing your dwarf players? Hussar, in the post to which I replied, didn't say anything about the OP.




I have no idea what is in Hussar's post.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 3, 2011)

Backstab the crap out of the dwarf.  Maybe his next character will listen to reason


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have no idea what is in Hussar's post.



OK. Hussar was asking me about my interpretation of an episode of play in my game involving a dwarf PC. I answered his question. I quoted Edwards as part of that answer. And I'm still pretty sure that the Edwards I quoted was relevant - that is, relevant to my interpretation of the episode of play in my game upon which Hussar had asked me to elaborate.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> As a GM, all you have to do is not punish the players for the choices they make for their PCs. "Not punishing", here, _does not mean_ letting the players decide what happens. As the blog to which LostSoul linked indicated, this can lead to problems if a player has to play both his/her PC and the antagonism to that PC. *It means, at a minimum, not removing the players' ability to engage the gameworld via his/her PC in ways that s/he cares about - which often, but not always, means at least not killing the PC.* Particularly if the game is meant to be an ongoing open-ended one of the classic campaign variety, the consequences should recognise the choice that the player has made for his/her PC, but build on or develop or respond to that in a way that opens up room for more responses (in the case of my dwarf, for example, having dealt with his tormentors by becoming their war leader, they were then led by him into death/injury at the hands of a behemoth - this doesn't invalidate the player's choice, or punish him for it, but it adds a new complication to it). (EDIT: What LostSoul said two posts upthread.)
> 
> And on the side of the players, all that is needed is an interest in thematic ideas rather than simply "winning" the game - and therefore a readiness to spend effort, in play, on thematic issues. In my experience, players who build rich backstories into their PCs, and who then try to bring those backstories into play - especially those who build clerics, paladins, political actors, etc (ie PCs whose hijinks naturally lead into thematically rich territory) - are often signalling an interest in this sort of play.




Which gets very difficult if the players are playing at cross-purposes or at least not agreed on accepting the same campaign style.

Rogue player has character kill goodie-two-shoes in town and other player characters turn him in.  He wriggles free through GM intervention and can continue to engage the world through clandestine operations as a fugitive on the run a la _The A Team_, _The Hulk_, or _The Fugitive_.  Other players want no part of that play style.  Who wins?


The GM could run the two separate campaigns in the same timeslot only by compromising the enjoyment of everyone.
The GM could bend the suspension of disbelief at the table by ignoring the player choices, consequences, and current situation and have the murder and fallout be ignored by the environment.  
The GM could whisk all the characters somewhere far away with little hope to return where the PCs have to rely on one another to survive while sacrificing his and the rest of the group's attachment to the established milieu.  
The other players could roll their eyes and surrender their choices and have thier characters join the fugitive.  
The rogue player could be forced to not engage the game world with that character as the culture's justice is meted out.

At some point there has to be a reckoning between the group as to what sort of game is being played.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 3, 2011)

billd91 said:


> That sounds an awful lot like 1) you really *are* exploring the PC's morality if you're looking into what drives the character and 2) by describing terrorism as extreme and then planning on presenting reactions to the terrorist act, aren't you doing exactly what you say we shouldn't be doing by defining terrorism as evil? Won't the players get the exact same impression as if they had already been told that terrorism, in the game world's objective morality, is evil? I'm not seeing a significant difference.
> 
> As far as how the fallout of the act affects the PCs on a personal level, you can get that with the act being objectively defined as evil as well as without that being done. So again, I'm not seeing a significant difference.




Extreme =/= evil.  I don't think anyone would disagree that terrorist acts are extreme, but, there are loads of examples (most of which are against site policy to talk about, I'm sure you can think of a few) where extreme acts that are quite clearly acts of terrorism are not evil and are, in fact, historically lauded as acts of freedom from oppression.

If I objectively state that terrorism=evil, then all acts of terrorism become evil.  Therefore, no act of violence by a civilian group against a government body is morally valid.

That's quite obviously not true.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 3, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> That's not how it works; it's very much about context-choice-consequence.  Context highlights "problematic feature of human existence", the choices the players care about deal with those issues, and thus consequences will be in response to those choices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This, I think, nails it on the head.  Particularly in light of some of the responses.  If, during play, the clearing of the Caves of Chaos is the least likely outcome, then the campaign you have just highlighted here, LostSoul, will almost never come to light.

Thus, if you actually WANT to play Caves of Chaos as a Thematic narrative game, you're going to have to skip the actual clearing bits, and get to part 2.  Because, in the thematic game, THAT'S where the game is.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2011)

Nagol, I've got not doubt that the group has to be on the same page, more-or-less.

In my own group there's one play who's more interested in 4e as a gamist excercise than a thematic exercise, but happily the 4e mechanics (or, at least, the way we use them) mean that that player's pursuit of tactical victory neither impedes nor is impeded by the other players treating the tactical game as a vehicle for expressing theme. So I think a bit of accommodation can sometimes be possible.

There are two glosses that I would want to add to your post, though.

First, the idea of "GM intervention" I think is a little misleading. Very few games have a "justice system resolution table", so the conequences of a murderer being "turned in" are always up to the GM to determine. There is nothing distinctive about narrativist play in this respect - what is distinctive is the _considerations_ that inform the GM's determination.

Second, I don't think that narrativist players are particularly prone to being disruptive or derailing games, or pose any extraordinary problem in terms of expectation management. Hardcore gamist players, for example, who focus on PC optimisation and who approach every ingame situation from a fiction-light pawn stance, are a well known issue for simulationist GURPS, HERO, 3E or even AD&D 2nd ed play.

And a certain sort of simulationist player, who wants to roleplay out every shopping expedition , for example, and who plays the character to the exclusion of engaging the situations the GM is presenting to the group, is disruptive of mainstream D&D play focused on simulation as a chassis for gamism, because this sort of simulationist player refuses to "step on up".

So I agree that some sort of mutuality in the group is important, but I don't think that simulationism provides any sort of privileged safe harbour. In fact, in my (admittedly limited) experience it is fairly easy for a narrativist player to drift a group in that direction - you keep following the GM's plot hooks, but treat the GM's storyline as simply a backdrop against which thematically driven PC-to-PC interaction takes place, which interactions in turn inform the way the group engages with the GM's storyline. This is perhaps not the most functional RPGing of all time (it depends a fair bit on how the GM responds). But at least in my experience, it is evidence against the notion of simulationism (or very exploration heavy gamism of the classic D&D variety) as a default approach to RPGing.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Nagol, I've got not doubt that the group has to be on the same page, more-or-less.
> 
> In my own group there's one play who's more interested in 4e as a gamist excercise than a thematic exercise, but happily the 4e mechanics (or, at least, the way we use them) mean that that player's pursuit of tactical victory neither impedes nor is impeded by the other players treating the tactical game as a vehicle for expressing theme. So I think a bit of accommodation can sometimes be possible.
> 
> ...




I've seen them, but they aren't necessary most of the time.  Although the result is defined by DM fiat, there is only so far the DM can walk before damaging suspension of disbelief, establishing precedent for PC immunity, and/or extending the punishment of justice to the innocent players. All of which negatively affect the campaign and play group.  After all, long-term incarceration is often more damaging to the PC than death in D&D.  So if the DM is trying to keep the PC in play despite the social consequence of a capital crime, he is limited to consistently less likely legal results of not guity verdicts, wereguild, exile, or suicide missions.  

Not guilty verdicts and wereguild generate a feeling of immunity as the PCs expect consistency of ruling and tend to fall into riches during play.  Exile and suicide missions force the other players in the position of accepting the same punishment or condemn the rogue player themselves.  This can poison camraderie more than the DM providing a response since the DM is already an outsider to that team spirit.



> Second, I don't think that narrativist players are particularly prone to being disruptive or derailing games, or pose any extraordinary problem in terms of expectation management. Hardcore gamist players, for example, who focus on PC optimisation and who approach every ingame situation from a fiction-light pawn stance, are a well known issue for simulationist GURPS, HERO, 3E or even AD&D 2nd ed play.
> 
> And a certain sort of simulationist player, who wants to roleplay out every shopping expedition , for example, and who plays the character to the exclusion of engaging the situations the GM is presenting to the group, is disruptive of mainstream D&D play focused on simulation as a chassis for gamism, because this sort of simulationist player refuses to "step on up".




I'm unsure that narrativist are more innocent of disruption.  I have two players at my table that try to explore narrative themes.  One pursues it without group agreement and derails sessions, group goals, and generates a fair amount of conflict within the group.  It's at least as disruptive to the group as a the fiction-light camp -- the group has less internal strife with them even though the consequences of their actions are at least as damaging to the group efforts because it isn't pursued as a solitary choice.



> So I agree that some sort of mutuality in the group is important, but I don't think that simulationism provides any sort of privileged safe harbour. In fact, in my (admittedly limited) experience it is fairly easy for a narrativist player to drift a group in that direction - you keep following the GM's plot hooks, but treat the GM's storyline as simply a backdrop against which thematically driven PC-to-PC interaction takes place, which interactions in turn inform the way the group engages with the GM's storyline. This is perhaps not the most functional RPGing of all time (it depends a fair bit on how the GM responds).




Simulationism isn't a safe harbour, but it can provide the framework of shared expectation that allows the players to continue to engage in the campaign in a personally meaningful way.  More important is consistency of application and response from the DM.  It isn't simulationism to say "Your character is accused by his compatriots of killing the respected necromancer X.  As he is considered both extremely dangerous and a flight risk, he's being held without bail for the investigation to complete.  Based upon your character's statements and witness statements, a guilty verdict is likely.  Would you like to roll a replacement character or wait for the trial?"  It is an application of narrative power that helps maintain the imaginary society at a predictable and understandable level for the group and provides understandable and predictable consequence to meaningful player choice.



> But at least in my experience, it is evidence against the notion of simulationism (or very exploration heavy gamism of the classic D&D variety) as a default approach to RPGing.




Exploration-heavy gaming is by no means the default for RPGing -- take for example most superhero games where the characters are a reactive and defensive force.  It was the stated default for D&D though that became the unstated default and then supplanted by the unstated default of heroic action in a developed plot.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2011)

Excellent post, Nagol!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> There need not be any "negotiation of a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measure against". There could be, I guess, but in my games it just emereges naturally out of play. In the paladin case, the context is introduced implicitly by the players' decision to play a paladin in a fantasy game.



This seems to be the major difference between your play style and the 'standard narrativistic model' in the article. If I read it right, then in that model the player, during char gen, specifically and clearly chooses the crux of the ensuing conflict. For example if a character has 'Love for son' as his story driver then the GM will write a scene in which that love is challenged, for example the son may commit a terrible crime.

In a typical D&D game it's not clear what a player is communicating by choosing the paladin class. Maybe he just likes the idea of being a knight in shining armour and is looking forward to jousting and damsel rescuing, rather than having to choose between his church and his faith, or whatever.

In another thread you talked about Pendragon being drifted towards narrativism and I see now how that could easily happen, by using Passions. A Passion can be anything, they are chosen by the player, such as Hate (Saxons) 15 or Love (Guinevere) 20 (they are always quantified). This is just like selecting Love (Son) above.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Extreme =/= evil.  I don't think anyone would disagree that terrorist acts are extreme, but, there are loads of examples (most of which are against site policy to talk about, I'm sure you can think of a few) where extreme acts that are quite clearly acts of terrorism are not evil and are, in fact, historically lauded as acts of freedom from oppression.




But extreme's just another label, isn't it? One that will have repercussions. What's the big deal with having one more? So far, based on your posts and if I were to try to describe this in 4e power terms, I think we can put descriptors on the power "Act of Terrorism" of extreme, illegal, and violent. All of those will be certain to bring on negative consequences in a campaign run with any verisimilitude. Why's attaching evil as a descriptor railroading while the others are not?



Hussar said:


> If I objectively state that terrorism=evil, then all acts of terrorism become evil.  Therefore, no act of violence by a civilian group against a government body is morally valid.
> 
> That's quite obviously not true.




Not all acts of violence by civilians against a government body are really terrorism either, though quite often governments will brand them such in their efforts to control the public discourse. A more scholarly and less political definition would suit a game involving terrorists or insurgents well.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 3, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Which gets very difficult if the players are playing at cross-purposes or at least not agreed on accepting the same campaign style.
> 
> At some point there has to be a reckoning between the group as to what sort of game is being played.




Yeah.  I don't think this problem is specific to any style of play; if the players don't want to play the same game, there are going to be problems.



Nagol said:


> So if the DM is trying to keep the PC in play despite the social consequence of a capital crime, he is limited to consistently less likely legal results of not guity verdicts, wereguild, exile, or suicide missions.




One interesting feature of Burning Wheel - a game that facilitates Story Now - can be found in its Compromise mechanic.  This allows the DM to create driven NPCs who go in looking for the death penalty or maiming, play them faithfully, and not have to worry that he's going to remove the PC from play.  The Compromise mechanic makes it unlikely that one side is going to get its way without having to make concessions.  This is how the guilty verdict death penalty should be turned into exile, a suicide mission, weregild, or a not guilty verdict with some backroom deals.



Nagol said:


> Exploration-heavy gaming is by no means the default for RPGing




Jargon alert!  I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means Exploration as defined in the Big Model.  If not he can correct me.

*Exploration*
The Big Model defines roleplaying as Exploration: the imagining of fictitious events, places, and people. Exploring fictional content is the basis and fundamental definition of all roleplay.
There are five "elements" of exploration, or five things that players will explore. All five are always present, although different games will emphasize and prioritize some over others. The five elements of exploration are character, setting, color, situation, and system.[3]​
Why "Exploration" is used and "Roleplaying" isn't I don't know, but there ya go.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 3, 2011)

If you remove character, setting, color, situation, and system does anything remain?

Without a system, there is no game.  

Without character, setting, and situation there is no story.  

Without colour, there isn't even a static scene left.

(Unless, of course _these_ terms are also redefined!)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 3, 2011)

Interesting quote from Dogs In The Vineyard, which corresponds strongly with what pemerton has being saying -



> PLAYING GOD?
> 
> In most RPGs with religious content, the GM arbitrates the characters’ morality. The GM plays God (or the gods) as an NPC, giving and withholding moral standing— whatever form it takes in the particular game: Faith Points, Alignment Bonuses, whatever— based on the characters’ actions. Not in Dogs.
> 
> ...



 - page 94


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2011)

From over 30 years of gaming, of GMing, and of role-playing the various gods in various campaign worlds, I call bull.

Do players consider the consequences of their actions?  Surely they do.  Does that mean that "posing the question and then answering it yourself"?  Never seen it happen.

Again, the idea that consequences are stripped from PC choices, for good or for ill?  

How dull would that be. 


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 3, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Do players consider the consequences of their actions?  Surely they do.  Does that mean that "posing the question and then answering it yourself"?  Never seen it happen.




You've never made a ruling on the Alignment of a PC based on his actions?

(Whether or not that's "dull" is a matter of personal taste.)



Raven Crowking said:


> Again, the idea that consequences are stripped from PC choices, for good or for ill?




I don't know where you are getting that idea from.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 3, 2011)

As far as I can tell, providing answers to fundamental ethical questions is the most important thing a player does in Dogs In The Vineyard. It's what the game is primarily about. So for the GM to answer those questions is a major no-no.

It would be the equivalent of an OD&D referee deciding which route the PCs take thru his mega dungeon, or a Tomb of Horrors DM lobbing the module over his screen and letting the players read it. It would go against the basic aim of play.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2011)

Doug, thanks for the responses (can't XP you yet).



Doug McCrae said:


> This seems to be the major difference between your play style and the 'standard narrativistic model' in the article. If I read it right, then in that model the player, during char gen, specifically and clearly chooses the crux of the ensuing conflict.



I think Edwards has in mind a more tightly focused sort of game then the traditional, sprawling, ongoing D&D campaign. One thing I'm trying to get across in this thread is that you don't have to go to funky games or avant-garde play to play narrativist - it's completely viable in classic gonzo fantasy!



Doug McCrae said:


> In a typical D&D game it's not clear what a player is communicating by choosing the paladin class. Maybe he just likes the idea of being a knight in shining armour and is looking forward to jousting and damsel rescuing, rather than having to choose between his church and his faith, or whatever.



True. But a bit of preplay conversation, plus what the player reveals through play in the first session or two, can go a long way to sorting this out.



Doug McCrae said:


> Interesting quote from Dogs In The Vineyard, which corresponds strongly with what pemerton has being saying



Yep.


Doug McCrae said:


> In another thread you talked about Pendragon being drifted towards narrativism and I see now how that could easily happen, by using Passions.



That makes sense.



LostSoul said:


> I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means Exploration as defined in the Big Model.



Yep.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2011)

billd91 said:


> But extreme's just another label, isn't it? One that will have repercussions. What's the big deal with having one more? So far, based on your posts and if I were to try to describe this in 4e power terms, I think we can put descriptors on the power "Act of Terrorism" of extreme, illegal, and violent. All of those will be certain to bring on negative consequences in a campaign run with any verisimilitude. Why's attaching evil as a descriptor railroading while the others are not?




Well, the big deal would be that point of play is to examine the morality of an act of terrorism.  I would have no problems with adding "extreme", "illegal" or "violent" as descriptors, since that fits pretty much every possible act of terrorism I can think of.

But, if you add "evil" to the descriptors, you've just answered the entire point of play.  See Doug McCrae's quote from DitV for a better worded answer than mine.



> Not all acts of violence by civilians against a government body are really terrorism either, though quite often governments will brand them such in their efforts to control the public discourse. A more scholarly and less political definition would suit a game involving terrorists or insurgents well.




Ahh, but now you see the problem.  If we define all acts of terrorism as evil, now we have to actually define whether or not a given act is actually an act of terrorism.  That shifts the point of play from an examination of morality to one of semantics.  All you have to do is look at the bajillion paladin alignment discussions on the Internet to see what kind of rabbit hole that is to dive into.

Because, now, in order for an action to be considered evil, it has to fit the definition of terrorism.  IOW, it becomes all about semantics.  

OTOH, if you don't pre-define terrorism as evil, then the discussion becomes about whether or not the given act is morally justifiable or not, not whether or not it's a terrorist act in the first place.

Oh, and just a point about the railroading thing... railroading really isn't the right term here.  I totally understand why people don't consider it railroading at all.  But, basically, the GM, by playing God and defining a given act's moral dimensions, the GM has taken away the ability of the players to work towards a definition.

It's only railroading if you kinda squint and tilt your head to the side.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, the big deal would be that point of play is to examine the morality of an act of terrorism.  I would have no problems with adding "extreme", "illegal" or "violent" as descriptors, since that fits pretty much every possible act of terrorism I can think of.
> 
> But, if you add "evil" to the descriptors, you've just answered the entire point of play.  See Doug McCrae's quote from DitV for a better worded answer than mine.
> 
> ...




The way to avoid that to define a set of underlying behaviours and judge actions against that set.  So you don't say 'terrorism is evil' you say 'deliberately acting with disregard for other life for personal gain is evil; the worse the ratio, the greater the evil'.  So a bomb designed to go off in an empty building -- probably not very evil versus a bomb designed to go off in a crowded theatre -- probably very evil.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The way to avoid that to define a set of underlying behaviours and judge actions against that set.  So you don't say 'terrorism is evil' you say 'deliberately acting with disregard for other life for personal gain is evil; the worse the ratio, the greater the evil'.  So a bomb designed to go off in an empty building -- probably not very evil versus a bomb designed to go off in a crowded theatre -- probably very evil.




I would say that you're missing the point though.  If you define that set before play starts, then you've removed the primary motivation for the game.  The whole point of the game is to explore the situation and see if any definitions can actually be made.

Once you've pre-defined the morality of the situation, you've removed the primary impetus for play in this style of game.

Now, in other types of games, that's perfectly groovy.  If I am running a more traditional game, for example, then pre-defining morality makes sense - after all we don't want to bog the game down in endless morality debates.  The point of a more traditional game is to explore the situation, not from any specific point of view, or even with any really specific thematic goal in mind, but, to explore the event for its own sake.

But, in the type of game I'm outlining, "endless morality debates" IS the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 4, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> As far as I can tell, providing answers to fundamental ethical questions is the most important thing a player does in Dogs In The Vineyard. It's what the game is primarily about. So for the GM to answer those questions is a major no-no.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of an OD&D referee deciding which route the PCs take thru his mega dungeon, or a Tomb of Horrors DM lobbing the module over his screen and letting the players read it. It would go against the basic aim of play.




I understand this point in the context of 'Dogs', but surely even in 'Dogs' this depends on the group having some consensus about what valid ethical responces might be and addressing the problems posed in a way that the group finds to be mature and sophisticated.

What happens if one or more of the 'Dogs' play like psychopaths, using their position to abuse and terrorize people? 

To a large extent I think this quote, "The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.", entirely misses the point.   Even in D&D I seldom (if ever) am giving or withholding dice on the basis of 'the state of a PC's soul', and the game is unbiased with regards to which alignment stance is the correct one.   I never go, "Since your CE you get a -2 penalty on all actions."  Yet, presumably, D&D is one of the systems which 'Dogs' is judging in that quotation. 

When I think of holding a player to the consequences of their actions, I'm rarely if ever thinking about this in terms of mechanics rather than narrative.  The narrative develops according to the players actions and the dictates of the setting.   A player that acts like a psychopath is going to be feared and resented by most, and admired or groveled before by a some others.  They are going to attract the attention of those that hunt down psychopaths, and they are going to be subject at times to rebellion by a few that refuse to be intimidated.   This is going to occur regardless of my judgement upon the evils (or lack there of) of being a sadistic sociopathic killer.  It's just a natural consequence of the actions.  If you threaten a person, society, or community then at some level they'll try to defend themselves.  If there is any chance they've been so threatened in the past, then they are probably pretty good at defending themselves.

When I play D&D, for every diety out there willing to judge someone deficient for any action, there is almost certain another diety that looks on the action approvingly.  I have my own feelings on the matter, but I know more try to impose those directly than I cheat on the dice.  I usually have much less to worry about me judging the players actions, than I do have to worry about one player judging another player's actions as incompatible or unacceptable.

I would presume that that is the far more likely conflict in Dogs as well.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 4, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> So do you think the fair thing would be to find a way to give us more treasure?



The fair thing would be to 'meta-game' and kill the offending player character. If that's too harsh, how much would a dwarf fetch on the slave market? You might be able to recoup some of those lost gee-pees. 

In all seriousness, the DM has no responsibility to 'fix' anything in this situation, in my opinion. If anything, the DM could create another adventure to give your party an opportunity to obtain more treasure. Of course, no promises it will be obvious stuff like coins or gems.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 4, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This way of approaching the game is all fairly foreign to me. I'm used to the GM having the primary responsibility for presenting the gameworld, but the players having the primary responsibility for interpreting it in moral/political terms - so, for example, if the GM establishes a group of wizards who are both necromancers and (ostensibly) lawful good I assume that it is up to the _players_ to decide whether they morally approve of those wizards or regard them as wicked defilers of corpses.



The keyword here is _players_. If the _group _decides to go against the grain of the campaign world on some matter and play that way, cool. If a single player decides to lone wolf his character to the detriment of the group - Not. Cool. At. All.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The way to avoid that to define a set of underlying behaviours and judge actions against that set.  So you don't say 'terrorism is evil' you say 'deliberately acting with disregard for other life for personal gain is evil; the worse the ratio, the greater the evil'.



There are at least two problems here.

First, this seems to capture personal self-defence - which is, after all, acting with disregard for the life of another in pursuit of personal gain. The standard move to distinguish pesonal self-defence from the impugned conduct would be to define "personal gain" relative to some sort of moralised baseline - so that protecting myself from wrongly-threatened harm doesn't count as personal gain - but this just pushes the question of evaluation back one step. And there are other difficutlies with this sort of moralised baseline which have been explored a lot in the literature on coercion (which gives rise to a similar issue in distinguishing threats from offers).

Second, even if a definition is settled upon, there is the problem of determining whether any given act falls under the definition. This is almost always non-trivial and controversial. 

And generalising: I'm a professional philosopher. The morality of political violence is one area where I've done a fair bit of work. At both high and low levels of abstraction, the area is rife with disagreement. I have published defending the moral equality of soldiers (ie that the typical soldier fighting in an unjust cause is no more a murderer than the typical soldier fighting in a just cause). But there are many other leading scholars who argue the opposite (eg Jeff McMahan, probably the leading contemporary author in the field). I used to hold the view that terrorist violence can be analysed in a very similar framework to warfare, and this is still a common view (eg I think Tony Coady still holds it). But my work on moral equality of soldiers has led me to the view that terrorism probably is different (as per the arguments of eg Michael Walzer, Raimond Gaita). And then when we drill down to particular cases, most authors in the field regard attacks on civilian targets as unjustified, but there is always dispute over who counts as a civilian (eg Coady argues that police and political officials are not, but not everyone agrees) and some authors (eg Ted Honderich, writing in response to the second Intifada) argue that attacks against civilians sometimes may be justified, at least where there is good reason to believe that they may produce a just political consequence.



Hussar said:


> Once you've pre-defined the morality of the situation, you've removed the primary impetus for play in this style of game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> in the type of game I'm outlining, "endless morality debates" IS the game.



I think of it slightly differently. If the game rules prevent the game progressing unless an authoritative evaluative classifiction of PC action takes place, then there are two main options - endless morality debates, or deference to a GM's judgement ("passing judgement on the state of  PC's soul"). The former can grind the game to a halt - if you want that, go to philosophy seminars! The latter shuts down the point of play, and undoes the meaningful part of the players' choices for their PCs (which in my view is a problem, whether or not you want to call it railroading). 

The way you make this sort of game work is by _removing_ the need for endless debate. Instead, the players' choices for their PCs are allowed to speak for themselves. Players and GM, as participants, can have views, and express them - but that is metagame stuff. It is not part of resolving or adjudicating actions in the game.



Celebrim said:


> surely even in 'Dogs' this depends on the group having some consensus about what valid ethical responces might be and addressing the problems posed in a way that the group finds to be mature and sophisticated.
> 
> What happens if one or more of the 'Dogs' play like psychopaths, using their position to abuse and terrorize people?



The same question could be asked of Hussar's terrorism-oriented game. Or of a typical D&D game - what happens if a player has his/her PC rob the merchants and slaughter all the villagers? In my view this is not a problem about the adjudication of PC action - it is a metagame/social contract problem. It's solved by finding out whether or not the player is actually interested in playing the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The same question could be asked of Hussar's terrorism-oriented game. Or of a typical D&D game - what happens if a player has his/her PC rob the merchants and slaughter all the villagers? In my view this is not a problem about the adjudication of PC action - it is a metagame/social contract problem. It's solved by finding out whether or not the player is actually interested in playing the game.




This to me seems like judging the PC's far more harshly than any in game judgment is likely to be.  

"Ok, that's it, you aren't playing the game [I envisioned], so either get back to playing the game [I envisioned] or we quit.", is simply applying the moral judgment of the players actions at the metagame level.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 5, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> This to me seems like judging the PC's far more harshly than any in game judgment is likely to be.
> 
> "Ok, that's it, you aren't playing the game [I envisioned], so either get back to playing the game [I envisioned] or we quit.", is simply applying the moral judgment of the players actions at the metagame level.




I can just imagine it:

"What do you mean your terrorist/freedom fighter PCs _like_ killing people?  You're supposed to be agonising over the moral consequences of blowing up minor political officials of a regime you regard as oppressive, not enjoying it!  Get out of my group!"


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 5, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I can just imagine it:




No, I really don't think you can.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> This to me seems like judging the PC's far more harshly than any in game judgment is likely to be.
> 
> "Ok, that's it, you aren't playing the game [I envisioned], so either get back to playing the game [I envisioned] or we quit.", is simply applying the moral judgment of the players actions at the metagame level.




Really?

I point to the paladin as a prime example of the game enforcing a specific moral point of view to the degree of pretty much destroying the character if you stray from that moral point of view.

Any of the divine classes in D&D follow the same strictures as well.  If you perform an act contrary to the alignment on your character, you get beaten with the mechanics stick.



S'mon said:


> I can just imagine it:
> 
> "What do you mean your terrorist/freedom fighter PCs _like_ killing people?  You're supposed to be agonising over the moral consequences of blowing up minor political officials of a regime you regard as oppressive, not enjoying it!  Get out of my group!"




Yeah, this gets back to the idea of "don't play with douchebags".  There's another thread on the forums right now, Players that Just Don't Get Genre which outlines precisely what you're talking about.

A player who decides that his amoral sociopath character fits into a game based around the theme of morality is no different than the player who brings in Sir Killsalot to the high RP court intrigue game, or any other player who brings in a character that just doesn't fit into the game.

Celebrim's example of the player who abuses the system and brings in his psychopath to DitV, pretty much by definition "doesn't get the game".


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm a professional philosopher.



That's also known as a _sophist_.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?
> 
> I point to the paladin as a prime example of the game enforcing a specific moral point of view to the degree of pretty much destroying the character if you stray from that moral point of view.




Sure.

But a Paladin is a pretty specific sort of character.  No one is forced to play a Paladin, and in 3e its hard to argue that there is an inherent advantage to be gained in agreeing to play a Paladin.

At some level, playing a Paladin is fundamentally no different than taking the 'Curious' disadvantage in GURPS.  (And obviously, it's fundamentally no different than taking a particular 'Code of Honor' disadvantage in GURPS.)  You are choosing to engage in an open social contract where by you agree to RP under certain restrictions.  If you have 'Curious', then the DM gets to say, "You can't resist pulling the lever."  If you have "Paladin of Tyr", then the DM gets to say, "You can't resist protecting the innocent."

I'm not saying that either situation might not be bad GMing in that particular situation, but bad GMing is not something a system can protect against.



> Yeah, this gets back to the idea of "don't play with douchebags".




So, in my game world I the GM have to decide if the characters actions constitute obeying their stated alignment, and in your game world I the GM have to decide whether the characters actions constitute the player is a douchebag?

Call me crazy, but my game world seems to demand less judgementalism of me.



> A player who decides that his amoral sociopath character fits into a game based around the theme of morality...




I absolutely and completely disagree.  If a game based around the theme of morality cannot tolerate the presence and problem presented by an amoral sociopathic character, then it's not a very serious game about morality.



> is no different than the player who brings in Sir Killsalot to the high RP court intrigue game, or any other player who brings in a character that just doesn't fit into the game.




And again, if you high court intrigue game can't tolerate a character whose primary motivation is killing the other nobles then its not a very serious or well thought out high court intrigue game.



> Celebrim's example of the player who abuses the system and brings in his psychopath to DitV, pretty much by definition "doesn't get the game".




No, I think he gets the game very well.  Because if the system doesn't have anything to say about one of God's Watchdogs that isn't well serving the interests of the King of Life, then it doesn't have much to say at all.  I mean, just as an example of plotting, if a Dog can get his mouth washed out with soap by one of the Elders, then a Dog can certainly be put down as rabid by one of the Elders, right?  Or should they?

So here's the plotting: One of the Dogs has gone rabid.  There is a disagreement among the Elders.  Some want the Dog put down.  Others believe that putting down the Dog would undermine the authority of the entire Watchdog institution.  Also, the Dog was considered by some in the institution a valued friend.  They want some other solution.  The Dog is one of the PC's. 

Are you saying that's outside the scope of the game?

This is in my opinion the central conflict of DitV as the game world has been described to me: are the Dogs really servants of the King of Life or not?  How would they know?  Do they really have the right to judge, or just the authority?  And play tests reports I've heard about the system suggest that its so brittle that its easy to break it even if you aren't trying to do so, which suggests that there could easily be disagreements about whether a person 'got the game or not'.   Moreover, if the game is to be a really interesting discussion of morality, then there has to be some internal conflict over that either ideally between the PC's as they weigh and defend particular courses of action and ways to restore justice after it has been lost, and if not then between the PC's and the GM as he presents different viewpoints that they might not have considered.   Telling someone that they 'don't get the game' under these circumstances is exactly like judging their moral stance and indicates to me that maybe you are only interested in the game if it doesn't challenge your perceptions beyond a certain point.  One of these points beyond which you are comfortable talking is challenging the inherent morality of the God's Watchdogs themselves, which to me seems like THE one and overriding question of morality in the game which if it isn't addressed means the game is pretty dang unserious.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 5, 2011)

I've tried to say out of this really silly thread because I knew that ultimately it would devolve down to something like advocating "don't play with douchebags", which in my experience is a euphamism for, "deal with things you don't agree with by being a douchebag".

But, in the interest of actually answering the OP, if I was player in this group this is what I would do.

I would IC, have my character sit down with the other characters in the party, and I would try to create a mutually acceptable legally binding contract as the bylaws of our mercenary company.  I would then make the lawful character, sign the contract.  IF the contract demanded of the character things that his faith could not abide by, then he would have to according to the dictates of his faith refuse the contract and leave the party.   And, if he did sign the contract, then I would think that he would be required by his faith not to break his oath regardless of the consequences.  And if he did, we have legal recourse in game to redress the breach of faith, loyalty, and trust at the character rather than the player level.  Problem solved, and no one has to resort to calling anyone else a "douchebag".


----------



## the Jester (Jun 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> To put it another way: if my aim, in play, is to explore the relationship between freedom and virtue; and the GM tells me that in his/her gameworld all elementals are evil because they wouldn't obey the dictates of the gods; then what is there left for me as a player to do in that game? I can move my PC through the GM's world and do whatever stuff I'm presented with opportunities to do, but how am I going to address my question, and express an attitude towards it, by playing my PC? The GM has already told me what the answer is: if my PC disobeys the gods, the GM's gameworld already tells me that I'm evil.
> 
> There's the prelude to the railroad.
> 
> ...




Your definition of "railroad" is MUCH bigger than mine, and I always thought that I was the poster child for "smacks of a railroad" hate with the ability to sniff out even hidden tracks. 



pemerton said:


> But you can't say it's not railroading just because the players (via their PCs) are free to explore whatever they like, if the upshot of those explorations frequently negates or undermines the very reasons that the players have for engaging witht the gameworld in the first place.




Sure I can. To me, your "elementals vs. angels" scenario above is highly incomplete.

If a player wants to explore the intersection of virtue and freedom, then he has a LOT of opportunities. Interacting with humans or demihumans, or (especially) with humanoids that are traditionally thought of as "evil"; his own actions in regards to things like the kobolds enslaved by the goblins; his interactions with government, religion, etc in the campaign setting; the way he deals with prisoners; there are a million opportunities. Just because the dm says, "All monsters of type x are evil" doesn't suddenly invalidate the player's desire to explore the interaction of good and freedom. That's like suggesting that telling the player "All mind flayers are evil" is a railroad as soon as he meets mind flayers with a chain of slaves. 

The railroad in your scenario would come if the pc went to attack the angels and the dm said, "Whoa there, you can't do that!" _Only when a dm controls the path the players are on by forcing some pc actions or refusing others_ do I see a railroad.  Setting decisions are NOT a railroad, although it's easy to build a setting that strongly promotes railroad style gaming; but a setting is not a railroad in itself.

Your post implies giving a great deal of control over the campaign to the players, to the point of letting them rewrite the world's mythic backstory, changing religion and political elements, etc. If a player wants to do that- if he needs that level of control over the setting- _he needs to assume the dming chair._ And run his own campaign. Not try to tamper with my milieu.

And what happens when one player wants to explore blah blah blah so you can't say "all elementals are evil" and another wants to explore blah blah complex religion stuff blah blah so you have to say "No religion is evil"? What happens when one pc wants to explore stuff that requires that orcs all be evil while another wants to explore stuff that requires that not all orcs are evil? Are you suggesting you have to simultaneously accommodate all of them or else you're railroading?

Yeah- I'm not seeing the rails here. Your definition of meaningful player choice seems to disparage hard decisions and devil's choices, which (at least in my playstyle) are a good part of the fun.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 5, 2011)

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]

That sounds alot like the contracts that require a gawd oath in KotD/Hackmaster.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 5, 2011)

Gentlegamer said:


> [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]
> 
> That sounds alot like the contracts that require a gawd oath in KotD/Hackmaster.




I haven't fully read through Hackmaster, but I have great respect for what I have read.

In my case, the notion of a party contract originated probably when I was 12 as a way of dealing with division of treasure in a way everyone thought was equitable.  I believe it had been endorsed by the Basic and 1e AD&D rules as something a party should outline before play, and I probably hit upon it as important because it reminded me of the contract Bilbo agrees to in the Hobbit before joining Thorin & Co.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The same question could be asked of Hussar's terrorism-oriented game. Or of a typical D&D game - what happens if a player has his/her PC rob the merchants and slaughter all the villagers? In my view this is not a problem about the adjudication of PC action - it is a metagame/social contract problem. It's solved by finding out whether or not the player is actually interested in playing the game.




Sooo kicking a player for doing something you don't want is *not* a railroad, but having actual consequences for actions and letting the pcs make choices about their course of action is?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 5, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> No, I really don't think you can.




What, you don't like my sense of humour?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, this gets back to the idea of "don't play with douchebags".  There's another thread on the forums right now, Players that Just Don't Get Genre which outlines precisely what you're talking about.
> 
> A player who decides that his amoral sociopath character fits into a game based around the theme of morality is no different than the player who brings in Sir Killsalot to the high RP court intrigue game, or any other player who brings in a character that just doesn't fit into the game.
> 
> Celebrim's example of the player who abuses the system and brings in his psychopath to DitV, pretty much by definition "doesn't get the game".




Well, the slight problem for me Hussar is, I'm actually from Northern Ireland, grew up in Belfast, I have a passing familiarity with terrorist psychology, and the fact of the matter is, lots of terrorists (and other people) _like_ killing people and will do so with a very minimal moral justification, really just a cloak to drape over "We like killing you".  Most terrorist groups do set limitations on violence, but those limitations are instrumental, not moral - "We don't want to kill too many of their civilians, or they'll start killing too many of our civilians".  If you believe Spielberg's 'Munich', maybe Mossad agents do debate the morality of political assassinations, but IRL most people drawn into political violence are, by the nature of things, people who _like _violence.   So arguably your narrativist approach is only possible through rejecting realistic simulation of terrorist psychology.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Your definition of "railroad" is MUCH bigger than mine
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree the scenario I sketched is incomplete. It's about 50 words on a messageboard post. It's meant to give a general feel for the state of affairs I had in mind.

When you say the player has a lot of (other) opportunities, that's incomplete too. How do you know? You're making assumptions about how the gameworld is set up, how the GM presents situations, etc. Likewise when you say it's not a railroad unless the GM says "Whoa there, you can't do that!" What about if the GM has more angels come and take revenge upon the PCs for helping the elementals? Or has every cleric in town refuse them healing? Or just has all there friends and allies turn on them? There's any number of ways, within a given game situation and among a given group of players, to shut down or railroad the players, without literally telling them that their PCs can't pursue a certain course of action.

The last time I was railroaded in the sort of way I'm talking about, my PC was around 9th level, and had a rich backstory and engagement with the campaign world based around being an exiled count whose brother had usurped his holdings as a puppet of some evil overlords (drow, maybe?). The whole focus of my play throughout the campaign had been striving to undo the evil overlords (there was some sort of prophecy involved) so that I could either win back or defeat my brother, and reclaim my land and title.

And then the GM time travelled all of us 100 years forward - no brother still alive, completely different political situation in my homeland, all the work that I and the other players had done on deciphering the GM's prophecy invalidated (because that work had been anchored in the gameworld as we'd been exploring it for 9 levels). I left the game not long after that.

The GM never said "Hey, you can't do XYZ". But the time travel thing, sprung without warning or stated reason (I think that the GM may have become lost in the convulations of his own prophecy), invalidated - rendered meaningless - nearly every prior choice I'd made for my PC, and all the relations that I had built up for my character (and other PCs) that were embedded into the gameworld.

I could still choose whether to pull the left lever or right lever at a fork in the dungeon - perhaps, even, whether to attack the angels or the elementals - but the _meaning_ of any such choice had been stripped away by the GM. As per the quotes from Ron Edwards upthread (#246), all I would be doing is providing a bit of improvisation and colour to the GM's story. That's not what I'm looking for in an RPG, either as player or GM.



the Jester said:


> Setting decisions are NOT a railroad



That's just not true as a general rule. It may sometimes be true. But a decision like the one I just described - that suddenly the PCs time travel 100 years into the futuer - can be a railroad. And the one that I played through was.

A different example: healing is very important in standard D&D play. Decisions by the GM about the availability of healing to PCs, then (eg locations and attitudes of NPC clerics), can very easily have a railroading effect.



the Jester said:


> Your post implies giving a great deal of control over the campaign to the players, to the point of letting them rewrite the world's mythic backstory, changing religion and political elements, etc.



I don't quite see the implication. I'm also not sure what "rewriting" mean here.

I've posted some lengthy actual play examples upthread, where I talk about backstory, and how a player's decisions for his/her PC can interact with it. The key points:



pemerton said:


> Ithe dwarf PC in my game has the following backstory, which the player wrote up:
> 
> In Derrik's Dwarfholme, every young dwarf joins the military, but is not considered a non-probationer until s/he kills his/her first goblin. Unfortunately for Derik, in 10 years of service he never even saw a goblin - every time there was an attack on the Dwarfholme, or a retaliatory raid by the dwarf army, he was somewhere else - running errands, cleaning latrines, etc.
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> to go back to my dwarf example: the question is, How should one act having once been law and now being high? Should one indulge former tormentors, or get back at them? (And if the latter, how hard?) What sort of responsibility does one now have for them? And is it relevant that, if such responsibilities existed, they shirked them in relation to you? The player, in the way he had his PC act, expressed some views on this. To which I, having set up the situation, then had to respond
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I could make things harder for the player of the dwarf by letting him find out that he and his family would have been killed back in Dwarfhome but for one of his tormentors stopping a particular goblin attack - ie by raising a doubt that the tormentors really did shirk their responsibilities. This would increase the depth - because responsibilities and loyalty are now being conceived not purely in terms of interpersonal relations, but other social consequences of one's actions. It would shift the tone from Hogan's Heroes, past The Great Escape, and somewhere closer to (although not at) Full Metal Jacket. It would also probably kill the humour. For this player, in this campaign, with this particular issue, I don't think that I'll do that. (Where I'm gradually building up to something a bit more serious for this player is with the relationship, in my campaign, between the minotarus and the dwarves - the dwarves were servants of the minotaurs, and much of the culture of which they're justly proud was learned from the minotaurs. Bits and pieces of this have come out, but I'm still working out how excalty I'll bring it to fruition - maybe some sort of conflict where authenticity to self or allies requires repudiating minotaur-dom, which is also to repudiate dwarfdom.)



I don't think this is ceding an unusual degree of authority to the player - that dwarves exist in the gameworld is a function of the ruleset chosen (4e D&D + "points of light" setting), and it's not as if I (as GM) have any independent conception of how dwarven military conscription practices might work.

As to the minotaur thing - I can't remember, but I _think_ I came up with that in the course of play, and have been gradually building on it since.

Rather than player control over backstory, what my playstyle _does_ require is that the GM, both in framing situations and in resovling them (including the derivation of ingame socio-political consequences) have regard to how such resolutions will shape the ongoing game in light of what the players are interested in. (The 100 year time travel is Exhibit A for a GM _not_ doing this.)



the Jester said:


> And what happens when one player wants to explore blah blah blah so you can't say "all elementals are evil"



This seems confused, to me. My point in the angels and elementals example wasn't that you can't say that all elementals are evil, and therefore they're not - it's that you don't say anything either way - you simply describe their conflict with the gods - and leave it up to the players to decide what, if any attitude, they (via their PCs) want to take towards the elementals.

Another actual play example: the WotC module Bastion of Broken Souls contains, as a central figure, an exiled god (can't remember the name - when I adapted the module to my RM Oriental Adventures game, the god's name became Desu). Desu owns an artefact - the Soul Totem - that the PCs need to resolve a major metahpysical crisis. In the module, the author states that Desu has gone mad from millenia of exile, and the only way for the PCs to recover the artefact is to beat him up and take it. The implicit justification for this act of robbery is that Desu, having been exiled by the gods, is fair game. (Necessity is lurking in the background as a secondary justification, but necessity is always a bit more tenuous.)

This is a setting detail. But in what way is it not a railroad? Of course, it is possible for a game to unfold in such a way that the PCs, if they are to achieve their goals, are forced to make the tragic choice to kill a worthy person. But there is nothing in Bastion of Broken Souls, as written, that supports this approach to Desu. Interestingly, there is another NPC in the module - an angel who is also a living gate, who must be killed if the gate to Desu's prison it to open - who can be approached in this way. But the module provides no support for this approach either - it presents the angel as inevitably and implacably opposed to the PCs.

When I adapted the module, I disregarded both bad pieces of advice. Given that the PCs (who included two monks as well as an exiled animal lord) had already decided that heaven's judgment was suspect, they ended up befriending Desu and gaining use of the Soul Totem through that means. And they opened the living gate by persuading the angel that making contact with Desu was a moral necessity, even if her instructions from the gods did not permit it - she therefore let herself be killed by the PCs.

The bottom line, in my view, is that the game won't stop working, or the GM lose control over backstory, just because the GM refrains from imposing evaluative judgments ahead of time, and creates situations which give the players the space to do this themselves. In fact, my experience is that it makes interesting and surprising play - like the players tugging on the heartstrings of a guardian angel to persuade her to let herself be killed - more likely.



the Jester said:


> What happens when one pc wants to explore stuff that requires that orcs all be evil while another wants to explore stuff that requires that not all orcs are evil? Are you suggesting you have to simultaneously accommodate all of them or else you're railroading?



Taking "PC" there to mean "player", and assuming that you're going to all play together, than yes.

Interestingly enough, if you subsitute "goblins and hobgoblins" for "orcs" then you get my current campaign. The wizard PC in that game thinks that all goblins and their ilk are evil, and deserving of death. Besides repeated statements to that effect, he has executed helpless hobgoblin prisoners when given the chance. He takes the same attitude towards devil worshippers. The sorcerer PC, in the same game, takes a different view. He has, on multiple occasions, released goblins and hobgoblins prisoner on their own recognisance after having extracted oaths of non-violence and repudiation of Bane. He has (tentatively) negotiated with devils. And he has been shocked by the wizard's behaviour (and vice versa - the wizard has from time to time mooted tracking down and killing the released prisoners, but has not yet had the opportunity.)

The friction between these two PCs is an ongoing, if too date reasonably low-level, element of the campaign. My job as GM, as I see it, is to provide opportunities to both players to keep playing their PCs in the way they have shown they want to (including allowing the friction to express itself from time to time) without forcing a situation that will make ongoing party play (a pretty core element of D&D) unviable. Will there be a reconciliation between the two? Will one or the other PC have a change of mind? Only play will answer those questions.



the Jester said:


> Your definition of meaningful player choice seems to disparage hard decisions and devil's choices, which (at least in my playstyle) are a good part of the fun.



I don't see this at all. How is deciding whether or not to kill the prisoners, when you know your fellow PCs (and playes) will be shocked, not a hard decision? How is deciding whether or not to embrace your former tormentors who now need your help not a hard decision? How is deciding whether or not to disobey the gods and make cause with an exile from the heavens not a hard decision?

If by "hard decision" you mean "decision that risks having me, as a player, have to disengage from the game because my PC has been pointlessly killed or otherwise invalidated as a vehicle for play" then yes, I'm not a big fan of those sorts of decisions. I like to run a game where the players' choices, and the way I respond to them, drive play onward - not shut it down.



Celebrim said:


> This to me seems like judging the PC's far more harshly than any in game judgment is likely to be.
> 
> "Ok, that's it, you aren't playing the game [I envisioned], so either get back to playing the game [I envisioned] or we quit.", is simply applying the moral judgment of the players actions at the metagame level.





the Jester said:


> Sooo kicking a player for doing something you don't want is *not* a railroad, but having actual consequences for actions and letting the pcs make choices about their course of action is?



What I actually said was "In my view this is not a problem about the adjudication of PC action - it is a metagame/social contract problem. It's solved by finding out whether or not the player is actually interested in playing the game." So it's not about judging PCs - it's about interaction with real people (ie game participants). And the judgments at issue are probably not moral judgments, but aesthetic ones.

I also said nothing about excluding a player. Nor does it say anything about a GM unilaterally deciding to do so. There are other ways of dealing with - and resolving - conflicts at the table. Like talking to people. And finding out what their conception of "the game" is.



Celebrim said:


> In my case, the notion of a party contract originated probably when I was 12 as a way of dealing with division of treasure in a way everyone thought was equitable.  I believe it had been endorsed by the Basic and 1e AD&D rules as something a party should outline before play, and I probably hit upon it as important because it reminded me of the contract Bilbo agrees to in the Hobbit before joining Thorin & Co.



Bilbo, Thorin etc are going on a treasure hunt. The contract is a contract between treasure hunters. So adopting a party contract right away establishes a certain point and tone for the game. The Fellowship in LotR didn't enter into such a contract, because they weren't treasure seekers.

As classic D&D bleeds into Dragonlance and post-Dragonlance D&D, a degree of confusion seems to emerge as to whether the PCs are primarily treasure hunters (and hence, in some sense at least, mercenary) or primarily heroes (and hence, in some sence at least, self-sacrificing) or both. The lattermost, which seems to be assumed in a lot of 3E and 4e rulebooks and adventures, is an unstable situation, given the tension between the two sorts of motivation. I don't think that the designers for D&D have done a very good job of giving players and GMs tools to resolve this issue (although 4e goes some of the way with the notion of "treasure parcels").


----------



## RLBURNSIDE (Jun 6, 2011)

*They*

~ we'll have to leave out the overtly political comments at the door, I think. Thanks. Plane Sailing, ENworld admin ~


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2011)

Celebrim - how exactly, in character, does one make a binding party contract with a psychopathic killer?

But, like Pemerton, I see this as a social contract issue.  If the group has decided to play a thematic based game and you bring a character that runs entirely counter to that theme, that's not the fault of the game, it's just a douchebag thing to do.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Well, the slight problem for me Hussar is, I'm actually from Northern Ireland, grew up in Belfast, I have a passing familiarity with terrorist psychology, and the fact of the matter is, lots of terrorists (and other people) like killing people and will do so with a very minimal moral justification, really just a cloak to drape over "We like killing you". Most terrorist groups do set limitations on violence, but those limitations are instrumental, not moral - "We don't want to kill too many of their civilians, or they'll start killing too many of our civilians". If you believe Spielberg's 'Munich', maybe Mossad agents do debate the morality of political assassinations, but IRL most people drawn into political violence are, by the nature of things, people who like violence. So arguably your narrativist approach is only possible through rejecting realistic simulation of terrorist psychology.




In this case I have ZERO problem with rejecting a realistic simulation of terrorist psychology because simulating terrorist psychology is also completely besides the point of the game.  You're example of Spielburg's Munich is spot on.  THAT'S the direction this kind of game would go.

The simulationist cow gets led gently behind the shed and turned into hamburger before play starts.  I know that people cannot seem to understand how you can play without simulation, but, it is quite possible and, once you uncouple yourself from the idea that an RPG actually has to simulate anything, all sorts of interesting games come to the fore.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree the scenario I sketched is incomplete. It's about 50 words on a messageboard post. It's meant to give a general feel for the state of affairs I had in mind.
> 
> When you say the player has a lot of (other) opportunities, that's incomplete too. How do you know? You're making assumptions about how the gameworld is set up, how the GM presents situations, etc. Likewise when you say it's not a railroad unless the GM says "Whoa there, you can't do that!" What about if the GM has more angels come and take revenge upon the PCs for helping the elementals? Or has every cleric in town refuse them healing? Or just has all there friends and allies turn on them? There's any number of ways, within a given game situation and among a given group of players, to shut down or railroad the players, without literally telling them that their PCs can't pursue a certain course of action.




Where you're getting disagreement from multiple people (as far as I can tell) is that negative in-game consequences for player actions are not a bad thing. If you do something in-game that makes all clerics mad at you, you should have no reasonable expectation that they still heal you of their own accord. You could force them to with threats, or bribe them to, or lie to them, or atone, or any number of other actions. If those actions are available, you are not being railroaded. You made the decision yourself, you can deal with the consequences yourself.

If you were stopped from taking the action, then now you're getting into railroad territory. If all NPCs inexplicably hate unless you're following a plot (not necessarily a specific course of action), then you're getting into railroad territory. If you can take the actions you want, and those actions might make certain NPCs think less of you or act against you, it's not a railroad.

The three examples you gave should, in my mind, be expected in an average game. If you side with the elementals, expect their enemies (the angels) to retaliate. They may not, but it's unreasonable not to expect it, as you've clearly exposed yourself as an enemy. Just like if all your friends and allies turn on you because you've betrayed the cause they believe in, you should not be surprised either. 



> The last time I was railroaded in the sort of way I'm talking about, my PC was around 9th level, and had a rich backstory and engagement with the campaign world based around being an exiled count whose brother had usurped his holdings as a puppet of some evil overlords (drow, maybe?). The whole focus of my play throughout the campaign had been striving to undo the evil overlords (there was some sort of prophecy involved) so that I could either win back or defeat my brother, and reclaim my land and title.
> 
> And then the GM time travelled all of us 100 years forward - no brother still alive, completely different political situation in my homeland, all the work that I and the other players had done on deciphering the GM's prophecy invalidated (because that work had been anchored in the gameworld as we'd been exploring it for 9 levels). I left the game not long after that.




Leaving the game is your call (and I've always been against "time travel" in a fantasy setting... when it's used, it's always been an illusion). However, "all the work" you and the other players had done with their characters should not be for nothing. My players had quite a few "time skips" where they had literally a decade or more of downtime. The political landscape changed during this time. Past a certain point, the players began to deal with things they no longer had deep investments in (other than things like "the multiverse"). However, they had deep, _deep_ investment in the individual characters they were playing. They were seeing new situations to deal with from their individually and immensely developed personal point of view. It made for some interesting play.

Now, connecting is with a setting is something I strongly promote. However, being ripped away from a setting should not mean you no longer have any connection to the character, in my opinion. If I was playing, and my character was captured and taken across "the Great Wastes" to an unrecognizable desert area, I wouldn't think "well, he means nothing now, since everything I cared about is at home." I'd play the character, and how he responds to such an ordeal.

When playing, my interest is in connecting with a character, not in writing the setting or story around me. If everything I've "worked on" suddenly disappears, it will still influence who my character is. I'm much more opposed to something like "you have amnesia" unless it's stated as a campaign idea (which I've played in and had fun with). That might kill my connection to a character, but honestly, I'd probably have a lot of fun re-exploring everything with him again, and seeing how it winds up this time around.



> The GM never said "Hey, you can't do XYZ". But the time travel thing, sprung without warning or stated reason (I think that the GM may have become lost in the convulations of his own prophecy), invalidated - rendered meaningless - nearly every prior choice I'd made for my PC, and all the relations that I had built up for my character (and other PCs) that were embedded into the gameworld.




Your connections meant nothing, yes, but it seems as if your character is defined by the way you can shape the setting. That's the wrong approach to take as a player in one of my games (as it likely won't work). Of course, a fun playstyle is subjective, so don't think I'm knocking your style. In D&D, however (or more accurately, in fantasy games), I expect the GM to control the setting, and for the players to explore it.



> I could still choose whether to pull the left lever or right lever at a fork in the dungeon - perhaps, even, whether to attack the angels or the elementals - but the _meaning_ of any such choice had been stripped away by the GM. As per the quotes from Ron Edwards upthread (#246), all I would be doing is providing a bit of improvisation and colour to the GM's story. That's not what I'm looking for in an RPG, either as player or GM.




I totally disagree with this. If you were affecting things when making decisions, than it's not true. Just because all of your decisions on the setting were no applicable, it does not make all past decisions meaningless. And, realistically, I'm guessing that if you did affect the setting in any significant way (which I don't know if you did) before the time leap, then there would be some residual effects for you to find. I don't know if you found any, or if you stayed long enough for them to probably surface.



> That's just not true as a general rule. It may sometimes be true. But a decision like the one I just described - that suddenly the PCs time travel 100 years into the futuer - can be a railroad. And the one that I played through was.




Setting decisions aren't a railroad, as a general rule. It does not force decisions on behalf of the players. It might encourage them, yes. It might prohibit things (no guns in this setting), yes. But unless the setting itself literally forces the players to follow a plot, it's not a railroad. And, as a general rule, I don't think this is the case.

Now, some setting might be. But for the most part, setting is something that GMs insert to help define the gameworld, and to limit possible interactions within the gameworld. This is not to kill player choices, but to set up a consistent world where players have a better idea of what their interactions will mean.

You may have been railroaded by a setting change, but setting decisions are not generally for railroads.



> A different example: healing is very important in standard D&D play. Decisions by the GM about the availability of healing to PCs, then (eg locations and attitudes of NPC clerics), can very easily have a railroading effect.




If the players want to get healing, yes. But if they have the choice on how to deal with it, then it's not being railroaded. Sure, GMs can attempt to railroad via healing, but then again, they can also play favorites amongst the players, so we probably shouldn't have those either.

It's important -in my mind- to think of these things in terms of how they're used with decent to good GMs. And to that end, it's completely reasonable to accept "I pissed off the clerics, and they don't want to heal me now." If you're talking about "I didn't agree to fight the dragon when the hermit in Nation A asked me to, and now clerics in all nations won't heal me" then it's a bad-GM issue, not any other issue.



> I don't quite see the implication. I'm also not sure what "rewriting" mean here.
> 
> I've posted some lengthy actual play examples upthread, where I talk about backstory, and how a player's decisions for his/her PC can interact with it. The key points:
> 
> I don't think this is ceding an unusual degree of authority to the player - that dwarves exist in the gameworld is a function of the ruleset chosen (4e D&D + "points of light" setting), and it's not as if I (as GM) have any independent conception of how dwarven military conscription practices might work.




Well, maybe that's where you and I differ (I'm not, nor have I been, trying to speak for other people, though I have been trying to expand upon what I've taken some to mean). When someone mentions being from a dwarven military, I have a concept in my mind of how that is. Now, I may not have thought in-depth about it, but as soon as it gets brought up, I can pretty much answer questions about it.

So, if someone brought a detailed backstory to me that included serving in the dwarven military service in Kalamane where their unit got into a skirmish with the elves of Nissalli, I'd tell them that it didn't happen. Because that never happened. That's writing something into a setting that isn't there. There was no skirmish between those two nations. There was no hard feelings between those two nations. Likewise, if the player told me his unit got into a skirmish with the trolls of Salik, I'd say "that makes sense" and inquire about details, if I was curious.

At least in my experience as a player and GM, the backgrounds of players are subject to the setting of the GM. If I said "my character was raised by dragons" I would not expect most people I play with to roll with it at face value. Now, maybe something could be worked out, but if I was told "no, it's not how the setting works, since dragons in this setting have an Intelligence of 4" or "because all dragons eat people compulsively" then I'd accept it and move on.

To that end, players do not often write the setting in my experience, though I've seen great leniency in GMs working with players to have a particular background come to fruition within the internal consistency of the game world.



> Rather than player control over backstory, what my playstyle _does_ require is that the GM, both in framing situations and in resovling them (including the derivation of ingame socio-political consequences) have regard to how such resolutions will shape the ongoing game in light of what the players are interested in. (The 100 year time travel is Exhibit A for a GM _not_ doing this.)




Now, I think a GM should only play the type of game the players are interested in. My players like fights (one is meh about them, but enjoys them), they like intrigue, they love NPC interaction, they like exploring the setting, they like interaction with forces or learning about history. One loves politics, while the rest don't. Now, I have no plans to run a politically-based game, even though I like politics as well, because of this.

Where we differ, however, is the meta-reasoning behind setting or NPC decisions. I make decisions based on what I believe the NPC would do, while you actively seek to move the game towards interesting places and situations. I react more, and you guide more, it seems to me. I make no attempt to make the game particularly interesting, though the players often attempt to (which works wonders). My players think I have a very interesting setting and game, and their proactive interaction with it has driven many interesting events to happen.



> This seems confused, to me. My point in the angels and elementals example wasn't that you can't say that all elementals are evil, and therefore they're not - it's that you don't say anything either way - you simply describe their conflict with the gods - and leave it up to the players to decide what, if any attitude, they (via their PCs) want to take towards the elementals.




I think you can accomplish this just as easily in a game like D&D by saying "all elementals are Evil" but then letting the players choose how they feel about them. I had an NPC monk who was Lawful Evil who mercilessly killed Evil creatures, but refused to believe when magic told him he was Evil. He was a cold-blooded murderer and torturer to Evil creatures, and pretty normal to most everyone else. Though, if you tried to stop him from carrying out his "justice" then he'd label you Evil, and you're fair game.

Was he Evil? Yep, he sure was. Did he believe it? Nope, not one bit. He thought he was a good person. The absolute statement of "all elementals are Evil" does not prevent players nor NPCs from disagreeing with that statement in the least, as they have no such meta knowledge. Does tradition state so? Yeah. Does magic? Yep. Do they believe it? It's up to them. People have many beliefs founded on faith, especially in a D&D universe.



> Another actual play example: the WotC module Bastion of Broken Souls contains, as a central figure, an exiled god (can't remember the name - when I adapted the module to my RM Oriental Adventures game, the god's name became Desu). Desu owns an artefact - the Soul Totem - that the PCs need to resolve a major metahpysical crisis. In the module, the author states that Desu has gone mad from millenia of exile, and the only way for the PCs to recover the artefact is to beat him up and take it. The implicit justification for this act of robbery is that Desu, having been exiled by the gods, is fair game. (Necessity is lurking in the background as a secondary justification, but necessity is always a bit more tenuous.)
> 
> This is a setting detail. But in what way is it not a railroad? Of course, it is possible for a game to unfold in such a way that the PCs, if they are to achieve their goals, are forced to make the tragic choice to kill a worthy person. But there is nothing in Bastion of Broken Souls, as written, that supports this approach to Desu. Interestingly, there is another NPC in the module - an angel who is also a living gate, who must be killed if the gate to Desu's prison it to open - who can be approached in this way. But the module provides no support for this approach either - it presents the angel as inevitably and implacably opposed to the PCs.




This, to me, is the module commenting on the extreme natures of such beings. Angels are depicted as being pure, and an admittedly crazy individual might have snapped in such a way that he is not going to negotiate, under any circumstances (like the insanity many PCs suffer from). If the module was commenting the mentality of certain important NPCs, it's not railroading. Saying "the paladin in the module will never negotiate with demons, even for the greater Good, as he sees all such attempts to be trickery at best" is a comment on his personality. To that end, it's not a railroad.

Now, if the module forced a particular plot point, it's being railroady. If you can't steal the item from the crazy guy, or put him to sleep and take it, or otherwise take it without beating the crap out of him... yeah, that's railroady.



> When I adapted the module, I disregarded both bad pieces of advice. Given that the PCs (who included two monks as well as an exiled animal lord) had already decided that heaven's judgment was suspect, they ended up befriending Desu and gaining use of the Soul Totem through that means. And they opened the living gate by persuading the angel that making contact with Desu was a moral necessity, even if her instructions from the gods did not permit it - she therefore let herself be killed by the PCs.




That sounds cool. I like that take on it. I see this as just another take on NPC mentality, though. It's no more or less railroady to me.



> The bottom line, in my view, is that the game won't stop working, or the GM lose control over backstory, just because the GM refrains from imposing evaluative judgments ahead of time, and creates situations which give the players the space to do this themselves. In fact, my experience is that it makes interesting and surprising play - like the players tugging on the heartstrings of a guardian angel to persuade her to let herself be killed - more likely.




I agree with this. In the game I developed and run, there's no such thing as alignment, and I think play is better for it in "grey" areas. However, in a game like D&D where Good and Evil are real things in the setting, then having "black" and "white" being more prominent makes sense to me.



> Taking "PC" there to mean "player", and assuming that you're going to all play together, than yes.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if you subsitute "goblins and hobgoblins" for "orcs" then you get my current campaign. The wizard PC in that game thinks that all goblins and their ilk are evil, and deserving of death. Besides repeated statements to that effect, he has executed helpless hobgoblin prisoners when given the chance. He takes the same attitude towards devil worshippers. The sorcerer PC, in the same game, takes a different view. He has, on multiple occasions, released goblins and hobgoblins prisoner on their own recognisance after having extracted oaths of non-violence and repudiation of Bane. He has (tentatively) negotiated with devils. And he has been shocked by the wizard's behaviour (and vice versa - the wizard has from time to time mooted tracking down and killing the released prisoners, but has not yet had the opportunity.)
> 
> The friction between these two PCs is an ongoing, if too date reasonably low-level, element of the campaign. My job as GM, as I see it, is to provide opportunities to both players to keep playing their PCs in the way they have shown they want to (including allowing the friction to express itself from time to time) without forcing a situation that will make ongoing party play (a pretty core element of D&D) unviable. Will there be a reconciliation between the two? Will one or the other PC have a change of mind? Only play will answer those questions.




To this end, in my game, I find it important that the players make characters where inter-party conflict is at a minimum. I've played many games where players made characters independent of how they'd interact with the party, and it nearly always results in PCs being banished from the party. Player violence has luckily been rare, but when PCs are about ready to fight in-game, players become annoyed at the situation out-of-game (not at one another, luckily for me).

So, my advice for others is different than yours, but mine is ultimately very subjective. I'd just advise people to make characters that don't have mentalities that will divide the party. Differences, to be sure, as that's very interesting. But I've seen more than one PC disappear to NPCville because their mentality was poorly thought out.



> I don't see this at all. How is deciding whether or not to kill the prisoners, when you know your fellow PCs (and playes) will be shocked, not a hard decision? How is deciding whether or not to embrace your former tormentors who now need your help not a hard decision? How is deciding whether or not to disobey the gods and make cause with an exile from the heavens not a hard decision?




In my mind, these things can happen regardless of absolutes like "all elementals are Evil."



> If by "hard decision" you mean "decision that risks having me, as a player, have to disengage from the game because my PC has been pointlessly killed or otherwise invalidated as a vehicle for play" then yes, I'm not a big fan of those sorts of decisions. I like to run a game where the players' choices, and the way I respond to them, drive play onward - not shut it down.




Yeah, like I said, we differ here, but it's playstyle. Play what you like 



> What I actually said was "In my view this is not a problem about the adjudication of PC action - it is a metagame/social contract problem. It's solved by finding out whether or not the player is actually interested in playing the game." So it's not about judging PCs - it's about interaction with real people (ie game participants). And the judgments at issue are probably not moral judgments, but aesthetic ones.
> 
> I also said nothing about excluding a player. Nor does it say anything about a GM unilaterally deciding to do so. There are other ways of dealing with - and resolving - conflicts at the table. Like talking to people. And finding out what their conception of "the game" is.




Yeah, I agree. Sitting down and deciding as a group "we want to be treasure hunters" is a lot different from "we want to fight goblins for the town guard" and I think discussing even the very basic premise of a party is important. I'd advocate players picking an overall goal for their PCs that cannot be accomplished, such as "rid the world of Evil" or "protect the nation" or something along those lines.



> Bilbo, Thorin etc are going on a treasure hunt. The contract is a contract between treasure hunters. So adopting a party contract right away establishes a certain point and tone for the game. The Fellowship in LotR didn't enter into such a contract, because they weren't treasure seekers.
> 
> As classic D&D bleeds into Dragonlance and post-Dragonlance D&D, a degree of confusion seems to emerge as to whether the PCs are primarily treasure hunters (and hence, in some sense at least, mercenary) or primarily heroes (and hence, in some sence at least, self-sacrificing) or both. The lattermost, which seems to be assumed in a lot of 3E and 4e rulebooks and adventures, is an unstable situation, given the tension between the two sorts of motivation. I don't think that the designers for D&D have done a very good job of giving players and GMs tools to resolve this issue (although 4e goes some of the way with the notion of "treasure parcels").




I do think there should be more core support for this sort of thing, but like I said, I think even just a bare-bones sketchy goal goes such a long way for party cohesion and player happiness.

As always, these are just my views, my preferences, etc. Take them with a grain of salt. Additionally, I'm not advocating you stop playing your way in the least. Play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage - Sorry dude, tl&dr.    I'll come back to your wall of text later.  I gotta go to work.

But, your final point is spot on.  I too am in no way advocating a "right" way of playing.  I'm advocating "a" way of playing, but, certainly not a "right" one.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing things a more traditional way.  It's a lot of fun.

---

Threadomancy has dredged up yet another example of what happens when you bring your psychopathic character into the wrong campaign - Going to Church, Don't forget your sawed off shotgun

Again, if the group agrees to play X and you bring a character that doesn't fit with X, that's not the fault of the GM or the system.  That's just the player being a jerk.  Celebrim, your example in DitV pretty much dictates the entire campaign to the rest of the group because you've chosen to play a character that runs counter to the assumptions built into the game.  Everyone now has to play to your character because everything they do has to center on how everyone in the setting reacts to the fact that we have this psychopath in the group.

I think there's some miscommunication at that table IMHO.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In this case I have ZERO problem with rejecting a realistic simulation of terrorist psychology because simulating terrorist psychology is also completely besides the point of the game.  You're example of Spielburg's Munich is spot on.  THAT'S the direction this kind of game would go.
> 
> The simulationist cow gets led gently behind the shed and turned into hamburger before play starts.  I know that people cannot seem to understand how you can play without simulation, but, it is quite possible and, once you uncouple yourself from the idea that an RPG actually has to simulate anything, all sorts of interesting games come to the fore.




OK, thanks, I suspected as much!    I can see how this (Narrativist) approach can work as long as there is strong and explicit buy-in from all participants before play begins.  If you don't have that explicit buy in you are going to have players taking a Simulationist approach (like mine above) or in case of games like D&D a Gamist approach, and trying to 'drift' the game in their preferred direction.  

I think for us guys on ENW playing D&D, the issue is that most D&D players are not looking for Narrativism, and a player like pemerton who apparently comes into a game looking to drift it in a Narrativist direction is going to be the problem.  Conversely if I came into Hussar's sci-fi game I'd probably be looking for a largely simulationist approach in terms of consequences, I'd get frustrated if any choice appeared to be equally valid in terms of my PC staying alive & successful.  Which is ok and all, but something I think we've established here is that Narrativism is a narrow play style, it is actually very easy to take an 'invalid' approach for a Nar game.  And this doesn't necessarily make the player a douchebag; as in your terrorist example they may not have understood the narrow &n un-simulationist, often unrealistic, foundations on which the game is set.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 6, 2011)

Dear all, let's make sure that terrorist-related examples, should they be really necessary, don't veer towards political comment please.

Thanks


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I can see how this (Narrativist) approach can work as long as there is strong and explicit buy-in from all participants before play begins.  If you don't have that explicit buy in you are going to have players taking a Simulationist approach (like mine above) or in case of games like D&D a Gamist approach, and trying to 'drift' the game in their preferred direction.
> 
> I think for us guys on ENW playing D&D, the issue is that most D&D players are not looking for Narrativism, and a player like pemerton who apparently comes into a game looking to drift it in a Narrativist direction is going to be the problem.
> 
> ...



One of the points I'm trying to make is that there is nothing narrower about narrativism than simulationism. And the notion the narrativism requires a special sort of explicity buy in is also false, in my experience.

To get a dwarf PC with an interesting background, all I had to tell my player was (i) there needs to be something or someone to whom your PC is loyal, and (ii) your PC needs a reason to be ready to fight goblins. To get the player of that PC to engage in interesting narrativsit play, all I had to do was to provide the player with an opportunity for his PC to act on that background. It's not very esoteric, and I don't think my player has especially rarefied tastes or interests as an RPGer.

I also think a lot of the recurring points of discussion among "mainstream" D&D players - player entitlement; alignment and paladin worries; GM control over setting elements; playrs who are too passive (but at the same time too assertive!); etc, etc - are in fact the result of mostly simulationist GMs bumping heads with players with competing priorities for play.

Someone on these boards in the past few months - but I can't remember who - said that part of the problem of recruting players to RPGs is that prospective new players get told that it's a game of collective or collaborative storytelling - a bit like what we used to do as kids - except that, in pratice, it turns out this isn't true, and that in fact the focus of much D&D play is about the players exploring the GM's (or the module author's) world and story.

Every time I see a post from a GM talk about "taking time out of the main storyline to address a PC's backstory" or something similar, I wonder about the point of a game where the "main storyline" is not something that the players are driving, based on the PCs they've brought to the game, but is something foisted on them by someone else. To me, it doesn't seem to get much more videogame-y than that!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage, thanks for the long reply.

Some thoughts in response (and if Hussar's paying attention, sorry, more TL;DR):



JamesonCourage said:


> Where you're getting disagreement from multiple people (as far as I can tell) is that negative in-game consequences for player actions are not a bad thing.



I never said they were. But I did say that ingame consequences that _shut down play_ - when the player is still wanting to play, and is still a member in good standing of the play group - are undesirable. Pointless death is a major candidate here, although not the only one.

One of my favourite ever PCs in a game I GMed was Xialath, a wizard in a Rolemaster game set in Greyhawk. Born into slavery in Rel Astra, he had (as part of his backstory) been trained as a criminal enforcer before buying his freedom and becoming a successful lawyer. When he actually entered the game as a PC, his story quickly turned into one of decline and near-fall - he became addicted to a trance-inducing drug (in an effort to improve the rate at which he regained spell points), lost his house as he couldn't afford payments on his lease, had a number of near-death or death-but-raised experiences as he was (i) pushed off a floating disc by a demon when the party demon summoner lost control, (ii) knocked off a levitating skiff to fall down the side of the Crystalmist Mountains when hit by a stone from a mountain giant, and (iii) eventually went into a cataonic state from drug withdrawal when he ran out of money. He was temporarily redeemed when a valley elf wizard rescued him from catatonia, joined him in Rel Astra and reintroduced him to the joys of life - but this came to an end when she, shapechanged into a songbird, was cut in half by another out-of-control demon! It was at this point that his companion decided to change sides, from Rel Astra to Vecna (as I was talking about somewhere upthread) - and having nothing left to live for, Xialath agreed to change sides also in return for having his house returned to him and being granted a magistracy. (He then went on to find new meaning in campaigning for an end to discrimination in the wizards' league, and to slavery in the new Great Kingdom.)

I think some of the choices and turning points I've described here were hard ones. And some of the consequences were, I think, negative for the PC. But none of them brought play to an end, or removed from the player the capacity to use his PC as a vehicle for engaging the gameworld and making the points that he wanted to make.



JamesonCourage said:


> If you do something in-game that makes all clerics mad at you, you should have no reasonable expectation that they still heal you of their own accord.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where we differ, however, is the meta-reasoning behind setting or NPC decisions. I make decisions based on what I believe the NPC would do, while you actively seek to move the game towards interesting places and situations. I react more, and you guide more, it seems to me.



Interestingly, it seems the opposite to you - I react to the decisions that the players make, in order to keep pushing them to new decision points and new choices. Whereas decisions that the GM makes purely on the basis of his/her own judgment of what is "reasonable" within the gameworld seem to me to be more guiding of the players - it seems to me that, on that approach, the GM is primarily responsible for what happens in the gameworld.



JamesonCourage said:


> However, "all the work" you and the other players had done with their characters should not be for nothing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm not that interested in just "playing a character" - I see the character as a means to an end. (One shots or conventions are a bit different, although even then I find that the character tends to come alive, for me, because of the relationships and backstory in which s/he is embedded.) My PC is my vehicle for doing stuff. And when I've been pursuing that end for 9 levels, doing a whole lot of stuff, only to have all that effort undone by the GM, my interest in starting from scratch is pretty slight.

And that past play has been rendered meaningless - not in the sense that it didn't happen (it did, and it was good while it lasted), but in the sense that I had gradually built up a whole set of undestandings and expectations and ingame realities about my PC, which I could then use to do the stuff I wanted to do. And then the GM vacated it all. (The fact that ingame changes achieved by my PC might endure into the future isn't really all that relevant to me here - the point of my play wasn't to get the GM to edit some detail of his gameworld notes, but to build up my PCs relationship and situation in the gameworld so I could do stuff with it, in play.)



JamesonCourage said:


> it seems as if your character is defined by the way you can shape the setting. That's the wrong approach to take as a player in one of my games (as it likely won't work). Of course, a fun playstyle is subjective, so don't think I'm knocking your style. In D&D, however (or more accurately, in fantasy games), I expect the GM to control the setting, and for the players to explore it.



My player isn't defined in the way you describe - but my interest and investment in the game is defined by the way I can use my PC to do stuff, which is typically going to be expressed by building up certain relationships in the setting and acting on them.

As a GM, I expect to have principal responsibility for the bacstory, although the players have a role too - particularly when their PCs are concerned - but once the game is in motion, the setting is a joint possession. If the players have their PCs do stuff, not only is it done at the ingame level (ie is there some ingame consequence) but it is done at the metagame level too - I as GM shouldn't negate it or undo it by (eg) teleporting all the PCs to some other time or place where what they've done is of no consequence to the situation in which they now find themselves.



JamesonCourage said:


> It's important -in my mind- to think of these things in terms of how they're used with decent to good GMs.



Sure. For me, this means that I do my best to introduce consequences that don't negate or undo what the players have chosen. Sometimes this requires a judgment call. I posted an example of this upthread in my discussion of the dwarf PC in my group - if I were to suddenly introduce a new, serious element to his so far somewhat comic dealings with the NPC dwarves (eg it turns out that one of his tormentors, on whom he's now had his revenge, was responsible in the past for saving the PC's family from death) would I be adding a complication that drives things forward? Or would I be undoing what the player has done, in part by introducing seriousness where he had (not unreasonably) though that there was only comedy, and therefore retrospectively making his PC look pretty bad in a way that the player coulnd't reasonably have been expected to anticipate? I think maybe the latter, which is why I'm approaching it very cautiously.

But to me, this reflection reinforces the way in which decisions about setting, and campaign backstory, and consequences, can very much have the effect (inadventently at least in my case, given that I'm trying to avoid it) of shutting down or invalidating certain sorts of player choices. Which is why I used the word "railroading" way upthread.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> JamesonCourage, thanks for the long reply.
> 
> Some thoughts in response (and if Hussar's paying attention, sorry, more TL;DR):
> 
> I never said they were. But I did say that ingame consequences that _shut down play_ - when the player is still wanting to play, and is still a member in good standing of the play group - are undesirable. Pointless death is a major candidate here, although not the only one.




I think that I'd classify "undesirable" as "negative" for all intents and purposes. That is, if it is desirable, it's not really negative to the player. To the PC, sure, it might be negative, but even that seems somewhat muted from your examples (such as the paladin willingly taking the beating, as it served to help the PC move in such a way that he's somewhat redeemed).

As far as character death goes, I don't hold that any character death is pointless. In my last session (which was a big one), two PCs ended up dead. The second died rather in a rather heroic way, essentially pinning down the magic of two demons and a dragon singlehandedly before being focused on and killed.

The first character, however, simply flew up into view of the most powerful demon on the realm, who was anchored in place magically. It killed him. He had been warned, and he ignored it to go after a taunting demon, and it cost him his life. What did this do, however? It caused one PC to literally mourn for days in the tent of his fallen comrade (the same PC who ended up dying), and then go about seeing if he could learn demonic phrases to say when dispatching demons. This character had been largely against combat up to this point (he was a healer), and vowed vengeance on behalf of his friend. Without his friend dying, he may not have been so driven to confront the two demons that eventually killed him, but without him, his three remaining comrades would surely have died (they barely won the fight without him, and only because of what he had contributed thus far).

Deaths are only meaningless if the players let them be. I've had several PC deaths, and the funerals or ceremonies that follow often carry with it great avenues to roleplay down.

I'm not even going into the "threat of death makes it more exciting" even if I do subscribe to it. I think from a pure RP standpoint, it's much more exciting saying "yes, we killed two of the twelve Imprisoned, but at the great cost of one of our own" and seeing the character development that follows such a sacrifice.



> One of my favourite ever PCs in a game I GMed was Xialath, a wizard in a Rolemaster game set in Greyhawk. [SNIP]




And this sounds like a cool story to me, with cool events. I'd probably have a good time playing in it.



> I think some of the choices and turning points I've described here were hard ones. And some of the consequences were, I think, negative for the PC. But none of them brought play to an end, or removed from the player the capacity to use his PC as a vehicle for engaging the gameworld and making the points that he wanted to make.




I don't see PCs as platforms, because I don't see PCs as authors. With my group, it's about immersion, and attaching to the specific character. To that end, the consequences in-game to the character, desirable or not, drive the immersion. Things don't always go the way you want them to. To my group, the point of the experience is the journey, not the destination. So, while we may experience a bump in the road, that bump really drives home immersion in a way that constant meta concerns would interfere with.

As I said, it's a playstyle thing. It's right for my group, and undoubtedly wrong with yours. I'd lay odds, though, that I could have fun in your style of game.



> Interestingly, it seems the opposite to you - I react to the decisions that the players make, in order to keep pushing them to new decision points and new choices. Whereas decisions that the GM makes purely on the basis of his/her own judgment of what is "reasonable" within the gameworld seem to me to be more guiding of the players - it seems to me that, on that approach, the GM is primarily responsible for what happens in the gameworld.




I would not classify "the demon stops beating paladin out of boredom to pursue what it would naturally do next [such as kill the paladin, or moving on to a town, or tormenting travelers, or any other such activity that seems reasonable for a demon of its mindset]" as guiding the players in the least.

With my style, I'm reacting to the decisions the players make as well, I just don't react in any way that will prompt new decisions unless those decisions seem reasonable. From that point of view, I'm not guiding them anywhere. Where they travel to -and the consequences of those travels- are played out based solely on their decisions. If I were to prompt new choices or decisions, then I'd say I'd be guiding them -which, as far as I can tell, is the style you GM from.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that style to me inherently (it's how I run M&M, for example), but from my point of view, it's definitely more guiding than mine is. And generally speaking, guiding is a precursor to railroading.



> I'm not that interested in just "playing a character" - I see the character as a means to an end. (One shots or conventions are a bit different, although even then I find that the character tends to come alive, for me, because of the relationships and backstory in which s/he is embedded.) My PC is my vehicle for doing stuff. And when I've been pursuing that end for 9 levels, doing a whole lot of stuff, only to have all that effort undone by the GM, my interest in starting from scratch is pretty slight.




That's understandable, but we have a fundamental split in how we play. I think we've explored this somewhat in the past. But, if nothing else, I prefer a simulationist approach while greatly favoring immersion, and I'm not sure you share those goals. In the end, we both have fun, so that's good 



> And that past play has been rendered meaningless - not in the sense that it didn't happen (it did, and it was good while it lasted), but in the sense that I had gradually built up a whole set of undestandings and expectations and ingame realities about my PC, which I could then use to do the stuff I wanted to do. And then the GM vacated it all. (The fact that ingame changes achieved by my PC might endure into the future isn't really all that relevant to me here - the point of my play wasn't to get the GM to edit some detail of his gameworld notes, but to build up my PCs relationship and situation in the gameworld so I could do stuff with it, in play.)




My player isn't defined in the way you describe - but my interest and investment in the game is defined by the way I can use my PC to do stuff, which is typically going to be expressed by building up certain relationships in the setting and acting on them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this sounds like you achieved things "which I could then use to do the stuff I wanted to do" and that's not a bad thing. Even in my simulationist approach, it's a good thing. However, losing those things is not the devastating thing that it seems to be with your situation (I'm not diminishing it, I know there are other factors, such as the entirely setting changing).

From a simulationist point of view, exploring this could be very interesting from the character perspective. From the more narrative point of view, it's stopping you from telling the story you want to. Maybe your GM just had a more simulationist take on things, and your wants went unheard or were dismissed. If the latter is the case, perhaps finding a more satisfactory GM was the answer (which it sounds like you either pursued, or you starting GMing, which are both good answers).




> As a GM, I expect to have principal responsibility for the bacstory, although the players have a role too - particularly when their PCs are concerned - but once the game is in motion, the setting is a joint possession. If the players have their PCs do stuff, not only is it done at the ingame level (ie is there some ingame consequence) but it is done at the metagame level too - I as GM shouldn't negate it or undo it by (eg) teleporting all the PCs to some other time or place where what they've done is of no consequence to the situation in which they now find themselves.




That's probably true most of the time. I tend to see the session as joint, but the setting being GM-run. If the GM wants to do that, I think he has more right than any player at the table. Now, it's probably bad GMing to enforce it, and I think players should only play if they're having fun, but I think the responsibility of setting falls to the GM.



> Sure. For me, this means that I do my best to introduce consequences that don't negate or undo what the players have chosen. Sometimes this requires a judgment call. I posted an example of this upthread in my discussion of the dwarf PC in my group - if I were to suddenly introduce a new, serious element to his so far somewhat comic dealings with the NPC dwarves (eg it turns out that one of his tormentors, on whom he's now had his revenge, was responsible in the past for saving the PC's family from death) would I be adding a complication that drives things forward? Or would I be undoing what the player has done, in part by introducing seriousness where he had (not unreasonably) though that there was only comedy, and therefore retrospectively making his PC look pretty bad in a way that the player coulnd't reasonably have been expected to anticipate? I think maybe the latter, which is why I'm approaching it very cautiously.




Well, as you might guess, I probably wouldn't decide to make the "more interesting" decision. I'd make one I thought was reasonable, and stick with it. I think any story that progresses from natural consequences has much more meaning than story that was decided most of the time.

My players do love taking down the big bad demons, though, and there's story enough behind them. However, the really epic tales to them are the result of random die rolls, especially via the "Hit Chart" (on a hit, roll d100 to see the effect, which can be anything from a bonus in combat, to a mortal wound, groin shot, or weapon damaged type effect (with saves as appropriate). There are at least two instances where these random rolls have produced player-favorite stories to rehash to our two newer players (one of which included a melee human fighter PC losing both eyes, separately, on two different attacks in the same fight. The PC was played for over two more years real time, and died of old age 70 years later game time at the age of 90).



> But to me, this reflection reinforces the way in which decisions about setting, and campaign backstory, and consequences, can very much have the effect (inadventently at least in my case, given that I'm trying to avoid it) of shutting down or invalidating certain sorts of player choices. Which is why I used the word "railroading" way upthread.




I'd say that "invalidating play choices" is not railroading necessarily. You do that simply by choosing limits. Playable races or classes are the most common. What if one player wants to start at level 10, not 1, for a concept? What if someone didn't want to have a reason to fight goblins, and instead had a concept of some sort of sympathizer?

I think, in general, the demand of "needs to be loyal to something or someone" and "needs to be ready to fight goblins" is just as railroady as "this is semi-medieval times, so no guns allowed." That is, I don't think it's really railroady, as it's a setting issue, and a meta issue. When comparing it to "you made a bad decision, and your character had something bad happen to it, even if you don't really like it," I find the latter even more acceptable, as it's even less of a meta issue. It's not a setting issue, it's a playstyle issue.

Meta issues draw immersion away from the game. Narrative games tend to be more meta in nature. That's not to say my game doesn't have a plethora of immersion-breaking moments, though. "What do I know about this" or "I'll roll a Knowledge check" do break the immersion somewhat. Narrative games have the advantage of this not hurting the feeling of the game.

However, they also don't allow for you to explore the character's mind, and that to me is the big downfall of the approach (though this is personal, and I'm not even speaking for my group right now). When playing a character, I can see how another person might approach things, and it really opens up new ways of thinking. It really let's you explore some depths to your own mind that you wouldn't normally reach. The more meta this becomes, however, the more drawn out of the character you become. This prevents this style of self-exploration that could be taking place, which is probably the most fascinating thing about playing a character to me.

Then again, I hate movies where I'm reminded I'm watching a movie. This means that I naturally hate claymation, breaking the fourth wall, most "stupid humor" or the like. This, as a personal preference, carries over into the game I run, and the group shares the playstyle (though definitely not my taste in movies). Escaping the meta is valuable, and really feeling the emotion of the character (not the situation) is what we often seek at the table.

At any rate, I really enjoy the long discussion. I'm not sure we're headed anywhere, but I think your style is interesting, and not quite as heavy-handed as I first imagined. I'm pretty sure I'd have fun in your game. As always, play what you like


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 6, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> You've never made a ruling on the Alignment of a PC based on his actions?




Sure I have.  But what does that have to do with the _*player's*_ answer?  Or, to put it another way, do your villians wear "I'm Evil And I'm Proud" tee shirts?  Or do they imagine themselves the good guys?

I can write "Evil" in the NPCs stat block; that doesn't mean that I have answered what "Good" and "Evil" mean to the NPC.  Likewise, a PC might suffer a change of alignment as a consequence to action, but that doesn't mean that the PC thinks of himself as a different alignment.  Only if there is a game-mechanics related effect is the PC even aware of the change.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 6, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Sooo kicking a player for doing something you don't want is *not* a railroad, but having actual consequences for actions and letting the pcs make choices about their course of action is?




That's what I'm getting from those posts, too.  

Sort of like in _*Back to the Future III*_, when the train has left the tracks and is flying around in the sky, going to any time zone that McFly and Doc Brown so desire.......I'm thinking that would still qualify as a "railroad" to some!


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> One of the points I'm trying to make is that there is nothing narrower about narrativism than simulationism. And the notion the narrativism requires a special sort of explicity buy in is also false, in my experience.
> 
> To get a dwarf PC with an interesting background, all I had to tell my player was (i) there needs to be something or someone to whom your PC is loyal, and (ii) your PC needs a reason to be ready to fight goblins. To get the player of that PC to engage in interesting narrativsit play, all I had to do was to provide the player with an opportunity for his PC to act on that background. It's not very esoteric, and I don't think my player has especially rarefied tastes or interests as an RPGer.




OK, here I don't see where this is any different than simulationist play.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 6, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure I have.  But what does that have to do with the _*player's*_ answer?  Or, to put it another way, do your villians wear "I'm Evil And I'm Proud" tee shirts?  Or do they imagine themselves the good guys?
> 
> I can write "Evil" in the NPCs stat block; that doesn't mean that I have answered what "Good" and "Evil" mean to the NPC.  Likewise, a PC might suffer a change of alignment as a consequence to action, but that doesn't mean that the PC thinks of himself as a different alignment.  Only if there is a game-mechanics related effect is the PC even aware of the change.




I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.  Let me try and put your post in my own words and we'll see what I'm not getting.

The player's answer to the situation may call for a DM judgement on Alignment, but that doesn't necessarily change how the player sees his PC.  He may take damage from his Talisman of Pure Good, but the player can still decide that the PC sees himself as good, or that his actions are for the greater good.

Does that sound right?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 6, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from.  Let me try and put your post in my own words and we'll see what I'm not getting.
> 
> The player's answer to the situation may call for a DM judgement on Alignment, but that doesn't necessarily change how the player sees his PC.  He may take damage from his Talisman of Pure Good, but the player can still decide that the PC sees himself as good, or that his actions are for the greater good.
> 
> Does that sound right?




Close enough for government work!


----------



## S'mon (Jun 7, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, here I don't see where this is any different than simulationist play.




Me neither.  Playing the dwarf naturally, as the dwarf he is, and this stuff will come up.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2011)

S'mon said:


> OK, thanks, I suspected as much!    I can see how this (Narrativist) approach can work as long as there is strong and explicit buy-in from all participants before play begins.  If you don't have that explicit buy in you are going to have players taking a Simulationist approach (like mine above) or in case of games like D&D a Gamist approach, and trying to 'drift' the game in their preferred direction.
> 
> I think for us guys on ENW playing D&D, the issue is that most D&D players are not looking for Narrativism, and a player like pemerton who apparently comes into a game looking to drift it in a Narrativist direction is going to be the problem.  Conversely if I came into Hussar's sci-fi game I'd probably be looking for a largely simulationist approach in terms of consequences, I'd get frustrated if any choice appeared to be equally valid in terms of my PC staying alive & successful.  Which is ok and all, but something I think we've established here is that Narrativism is a narrow play style, it is actually very easy to take an 'invalid' approach for a Nar game.  And this doesn't necessarily make the player a douchebag; as in your terrorist example they may not have understood the narrow &n un-simulationist, often unrealistic, foundations on which the game is set.




I disagree that narrativist needs to be more narrow, since going the non-simulationist route allows for play that would not normally occur if you go the sim route - see the example of playing a nar version of Keep on the Borderlands earlier.  If the most likely result of sim play of KotB is not a game based around the morality of cleaning out the Caves, then, obviously, sim play is the wrong approach to use if you want to play out that morality theme.

I would also point out that your earlier example in the Terrorist Game would be perfectly fine as a player.  You are basically saying that "my character behaves in such and such a way for such and such a reason" and you can explore the ramifications of holding those beliefs.

My problem comes when the GM makes that the objective reason for the behavior of the characters.  Instead of "my character acting in such and such a way", it becomes, "Your characters will act in such and such a way for such and such a reason."  The GM is defining the characteristics of the PC's.

In some games, like D&D, that's pretty much expected.  That's what alignment is all about after all.  Your character is Good and, as such, is expected to act in certain ways because your character is Good.  (or evil, or whatever)  However, if the game is about exploring the idea of whether or not something actually is moral, then starting with an objective definition negates the entire point of play.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Meta issues draw immersion away from the game. Narrative games tend to be more meta in nature. That's not to say my game doesn't have a plethora of immersion-breaking moments, though. "What do I know about this" or "I'll roll a Knowledge check" do break the immersion somewhat. Narrative games have the advantage of this not hurting the feeling of the game.




Phew, I managed to wade through all of that.  Good stuff.  

I think I actually agree with this.  In a Narativist game, immersion in the sense of "I want to act like my assumed persona is really there and that is the primary consideration" tends to get in the way of things.  Since the primary concern is to fit events into a specific theme, then some results will be rejected, despite being perfectly reasonable, simply because other results fit better with the theme.

Obviously since the players are frequently in, what I believe is called, author stance in a Nar game, first person immersion is going to fall by the wayside.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Phew, I managed to wade through all of that.  Good stuff.




Thanks, I do tend to ramble 



> I think I actually agree with this.  In a Narativist game, immersion in the sense of "I want to act like my assumed persona is really there and that is the primary consideration" tends to get in the way of things.  Since the primary concern is to fit events into a specific theme, then some results will be rejected, despite being perfectly reasonable, simply because other results fit better with the theme.
> 
> Obviously since the players are frequently in, what I believe is called, author stance in a Nar game, first person immersion is going to fall by the wayside.




I'm glad I think we're on the same page. I'm not saying my way is better for playing, just that it helps me and my group immerse, which is more important to us than the story is. However, it's really just subjective, and other people will have different experiences.

Thanks for your insight, Hussar. It's really helped me see things from your perspective a lot easier. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2011)

Oh totally JamesonC.  It's all about what you and your group want out of a particular game.  The real problem generally comes when there's some sort of disagreement on what people want out of the game.  Particularly when that's not laid out on the table clearly.

I remember one group I played in where the first campaign the DM ran was pretty much along the lines of what you're talking about - first person immersive gaming.  Then we switched campaigns to Shackled City and I made the mistake of shifting focus to a more story based perspective.

After all, we were playing an adventure path.  From my perspective, the point of playing an adventure path is so that you have clear goals and a fairly high paced game.  Instead, the DM continued to play in the original style and I was continually frustrated on how slowly things were progressing.  From my POV, the journey wasn't the focus, but achieving goals and seeing the unfolding storyline.  From his POV, the focus hadn't changed at all - it was still the same style as the original campaign.

I actually wound up quitting the group, despite a very good DM, simply because my goals in play were just so divergent from what the group wanted.

I think, had I sat down at the outset and laid all this on the table, I could have saved myself a whole pile of frustration.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 7, 2011)

Yeah. Really, that's a pretty important thing I've recently discovered. Although, really, it's just as important for players to talk over the type of play they are expecting. The whole "CN rogue in a good party" or "paladin in a party of mercs" cause more problems for me than anything else. Funny how relevant it is to the original topic.

On that note, sorry, Elf Witch, for the huge hijacking. I hope some of this has been interesting, if not helpful.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In a Narativist game, immersion in the sense of "I want to act like my assumed persona is really there and that is the primary consideration" tends to get in the way of things.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Obviously since the players are frequently in, what I believe is called, author stance in a Nar game, first person immersion is going to fall by the wayside.



I think that's probably right as a general rule, although there are subtleties.

First, some definitions:

In *Actor *stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

In *Author *stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn *stance.)​
Most RPGs use author stance for PC generation, because there is at that stage no PC to be played. Classic Traveller and Runequest are possible exceptions - and I'm sure there are some others - where character generation can be experienced as a part of play, where I'm "being my guy" and resolving my guy's history. But generally, in choosing stats, race, class, feats, starting equipment etc I'm not immersing in my PC - I'm authoring him/her from an external perspective. (And even in Traveller, if I decide whether or not to try for re-enlistment based on a metagame estimation of the payoffs for me as player rather than ingame considerations as my emerging PC, I've left actor stance.)

Second, if a player makes decisions at the authoring stage that are intended to seed a certain theme, then it may be that playing from then on in actor stance will still produce the desired thematic payoff - simply by playing my PC's motivations and knowledge, I'll get to where I want to go.

In my experience, author stance is very common in all sorts of party play, whenever a player makes a decision about his/her PC's motivations and actions out of considerations of preserving party harmony and integrity. (A lot of the time when people say, Don't use roleplaying to excuse being a jerk, what they're actually urging is the adoption of author stance for this sort of purpose.)

A blog that LostSoul has linked to a few times (including in this thread?) is interesting on this issue of stance:

Players can have different roles in a roleplaying game. . . One type of player role is when the game requires a player to be an advocate for a single player character . . . this means that his task in playing the game is to express his character’s personality, interests and agenda for the benefit of himself and other players. This means that the player tells the others what his character does, thinks and feels, and he’s doing his job well if the picture he paints of the character is clear and powerful, easy to relate to. . .

Games without character advocacy can be tricky because traditionally game design has operated from the faulty assumption that all games involve an identical, overarching player role that only requires the player to “play the character”. . . 

when you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle. . . that it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. . .

instead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him, the player is thrust into a position of _authorship_: he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself. . .

all but the most experimental narrativistic games run on a very simple and rewarding role distribution that relies heavily on both absolute backstory authority and character advocacy. . .

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications. . . The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. . .  once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation . . . that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved . . . The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games . . .) . . . The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences). 

These games . . . form a very discrete family of games wherein many techniques are interchangeable between the games. The most important common trait these games share is the GM authority over backstory and dramatic coordination . . . this underlying fundamental structure is undermined by undiscretionary use of narrative sharing . . . fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character . . . And it works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. If the player character is engaged in a deadly duel with the evil villain of the story, you do not ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father. The correct heuristic is to throw out the claim of fatherhood if it seems like a challenging revelation for the character, not ask the player whether he’s OK with it – asking him is the same as telling him to stop considering the scene in terms of what his character wants and requiring him to take an objective stance on what is “best for the story”. Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters.​
I think that this is right, and that author stance, in standard narrativist play, is typically going to focus on "What would it be cool for my character to do (or be)?" rather than on broader considerations of "What would be cool for the story?"

Which relates back to another point that has come up in this thread - the sort of play I've been talking about has nothing to do with not imposing consequences for PC acts, or of seeking player permission to impose consequences. But it is about making sure that those consequences will lead to further choices that drive the game forward. (My discussion upthread of how I should proceed with my dwarf PC's behemoth-squashed followers is a real-time working of how a GM thinks about consequences in this sort of play. But it's not the job of the _player_ to think about his/her PC's actions in that sort of way.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, here I don't see where this is any different than simulationist play.





S'mon said:


> Me neither.  Playing the dwarf naturally, as the dwarf he is, and this stuff will come up.



The differences, as I see it, are (i) the rationale for the constraints imposed on PC backstories - ie the mutually understood reason for requiring a loyalty (namely, that in the course of play that loyalty will be tested) - (ii) the way that the backstories are going to be brought into play (as I discussed upthread), and (iii) the context for the player of responding to those situations in which the backstory is brought into play (ie that the GM is not going to "gotcha" the player - which is important, for example, in my consideration, also discussed upthread, of exactly how to proceed from the fact that the dwarf PC had his former-tormentors-now-followers squashed by a behemoth).


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 7, 2011)

When I play Story Now games, I think: "What would my character do?"  The answer is usually full of theme, because that's how I built him, and that's the situation the GM has put him into.

The big difference with Step On Up play is that I often make decisions that *I know* will be _mechanically_ poor ones, but those decisions fit with the theme that I built into the character; the choices I make reflect the desperation of the character, and the other players _applaud me for it_.

The big difference with Right To Dream play is that I don't have any care for pre-conceived notions about what a similar character in the same genre/setting/world is supposed to do in that situation, and the other players _applaud me for it._

I play my character full-out, consequences be damned.  

That tends to end in short campaigns full of dead PCs - often at the hands of other PCs.  

I consider that a very satisfying end.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The differences, as I see it, are (i) the rationale for the constraints imposed on PC backstories - ie the mutually understood reason for requiring a loyalty (namely, that in the course of play that loyalty will be tested) - (ii) the way that the backstories are going to be brought into play (as I discussed upthread), and (iii) the context for the player of responding to those situations in which the backstory is brought into play (ie that the GM is not going to "gotcha" the player - which is important, for example, in my consideration, also discussed upthread, of exactly how to proceed from the fact that the dwarf PC had his former-tormentors-now-followers squashed by a behemoth).




Sorry, I'm still not seeing the difference.  Unless, of course, your _*the GM is not going to "gotcha" the player *_delimits the natural consequences that flow from player choices, in which case that is not a difference I would support.

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]:  I don't see the problem with any of the things you describe within a typical sandbox-style campaign setting, assuming simulationist principles, where the game is designed to use broad-based (rather than knife-edge) balancing.  I guess what I am saying is that, IME, normal campaign play includes all of the elements you describe.  Indeed, if would be extremely odd if it did not.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> When I play Story Now games, I think: "What would my character do?"  The answer is usually full of theme, because that's how I built him, and that's the situation the GM has put him into.
> 
> The big difference with Step On Up play is that I often make decisions that *I know* will be _mechanically_ poor ones, but those decisions fit with the theme that I built into the character; the choices I make reflect the desperation of the character, and the other players _applaud me for it_.
> 
> ...



Nice post. My game is definitely less hardcore than what you describe here.

Subject to that qualification, the first and third paragraphs reflect my experience (and, more often, what I see from my players).

The second paragraph is interesting. Some of the examples of play I posted upthread involved "mecanically suboptimal" choices - eg letting oneself be beaten senseless by a demon - but otherIs are mechanically neutral - eg the way the dwarf responds when he has the chance to get one up on his former tormentors. And getting addicted to a trance-inducing drug is both mechanically optimal (early on, when it gets back spell points faster) and mechanically suboptimal (later on, when the PC runs out of money and starts suffering the withdrawal consequences). 

So I don't see any consistent pattern here in my own games.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 7, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah. Really, that's a pretty important thing I've recently discovered. Although, really, it's just as important for players to talk over the type of play they are expecting. The whole "CN rogue in a good party" or "paladin in a party of mercs" cause more problems for me than anything else. Funny how relevant it is to the original topic.
> 
> On that note, sorry, Elf Witch, for the huge hijacking. I hope some of this has been interesting, if not helpful.




No problem I have found the conversation interesting, glad our little issue sparked some good conversation.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, I'm still not seeing the difference.  Unless, of course, your _*the GM is not going to "gotcha" the player *_delimits the natural consequences that flow from player choices



When I said "the GM is not going to 'gotcha' the player", I glossed it with a reference to my discussion upthread of the considerations that I think are relevant to working out the downstream consequences of the dwarf PC in my game having led his former-tormentors-now-followers to an unhappy squashing-by-behemoth. What I am talking about here, and what that gloss was meant to indicate, is the relevance, for a narrativist/thematically-driven playstyle, of parameters on the determination of consequences _other than_ "what would naturally flow". (Where "naturally" might be understood as "naturally, given ingame causality and logic" or "naturally, given the genre" - not that these need be mutually exclusive ways of reasoning.)

Glossing the gloss: I'm not sure, in a simulationist game, how a GM would decide whether or not one of the squashed NPCs, despite being a former tormentor, had also been responsible for saving the lives of the PC's family. Perhaps a die roll would be used to do the job. Or maybe it would be deemed so improbable that the possibility is disregarded.

In the sort of game I play, though, I will make that decision based on my best attempt to drive the game forward without negating or invalidating the player's engagements and decisions to date - which includes, in this case, a consideration of how fair or appropriate it is to turn something that the player treated in a rather light-hearted or humorous fashion into something much heavier and more serious.

This is what I take Laws to be talking about (in a quote I reproduced way upthread) when he talks about challenging the PCs so that the players will in turn challenge you. It is also part of what I take to be in the mind of the author of the blog I quoted a few posts up when he talks about experience helping a GM determine consequences - because if I stuff this up, then instead of choices producing consequences producing choices etc, I'll risk getting player withdrawal and turtling instead.



Raven Crowking said:


> that is not a difference I would support.



I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that you don't think I have identified a relevant difference between simulationist and narrativist play styles? Or that you don't/wouldn't enjoy narrativist play? Or that narrativist play is mistaken or misguided in some fashion? Or something else?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Glossing the gloss: I'm not sure, in a simulationist game, how a GM would decide whether or not one of the squashed NPCs, despite being a former tormentor, had also been responsible for saving the lives of the PC's family. Perhaps a die roll would be used to do the job. Or maybe it would be deemed so improbable that the possibility is disregarded.




Or, perhaps, if it made sense, it would be so.  See The Shaman's many postings about how he uses random encounters to simulate the common trope of coincidence within a genre framework.



> I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that you don't think I have identified a relevant difference between simulationist and narrativist play styles? Or that you don't/wouldn't enjoy narrativist play? Or that narrativist play is mistaken or misguided in some fashion? Or something else?




If you had meant that the difference was that *your the GM is not going to "gotcha" the player* delimits the natural consequences that flow from player choices, I would not enjoy that, no.  Nor would I recommend any course that delimits the natural consequences that flow from player choices, as I believe doing so reduces the meaningfulness of those choices.

OTOH, I don't think you have identified a relevant difference between simulationist and narrativist playstyles here, either.



RC


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, I don't think you have identified a relevant difference between simulationist and narrativist playstyles here, either.



I still don't think I follow.

Upthread I've described a certain bundle of approaches:

(i) to how a GM sets up ingame situations that the players then engage via their PCs (namely, with heavy consideration being given to how they relate to the established thematic direction of the game);

(ii) to how a player engages with those situations via his/her PC (namely, with heavy consideration being given to the thematic material that s/he has built into his/her PC, both via background and over the course of play); and 

(iii) to how a GM determines the consequences that flow from what the PCs do (namely, with heavy consideration being given to the thematic point that the players have made in deciding what their PC's do, and being careful to build on that without crushing or invalidating it - as per my concerns about whether it would be a mistake to render serious something which the player has treated in a humorous and light-hearted fashion).

I regard this bundle of approaches as characteristic of the sort of narrativist play that I engage in, that Ron Edwards describes in the passages I quoted upthread, and that LostSoul's blogger (Eero Tuovinen) is talking about in the passage I quoted upthread.

This - and, in particular (iii) - which draws its rationale from (i) and (ii) - is a fairly elaborate gloss on my earlier phrase "the GM is not going to 'gotcha' the player". It makes fairly clear, I think, why the notion of "natural consequences" (whether understood as meaning "natural given the causal logic of the gameworld" or "natural given genre") is not the principal concern in GMing a narrativist game. As is indicated (for example) in the HeroQuest rulebook, and as mentioned upthread by myself and others, natural consequences set an outer limit on where the GM and players can go. But within that limit, choices in narrativist play are made primarily as per my (i) to (iii) outlined above.

Are you saying that you don't think (i) to (iii) mark a significant difference between narrativist and simulationist play? If so, I'm puzzled as to what you think narrativist play _is_, given that (i) to (iii) are pretty much a summary of what the standard texts on narrativism (Forge essays, rulebooks for Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroQuest, Burning Wheel etc) say in characterising that particular way of RPGing.



Raven Crowking said:


> See The Shaman's many postings about how he uses random encounters to simulate the common trope of coincidence within a genre framework.



I'm familiar with those posts (and noted the possibility of a die roll in my post to which you replied). That is almost the exact opposite of how narrativist play approaches the issue - given that the point of play is to bring out and address the salient thematic material, it would make no sense to leave the question to a random table.

(I would only roll dice if I thought the reasons telling in favour of going one way and the reasons telling in favour of going the other way were equally balanced, such that decision by lot was the only rational decision procedure. But this is pretty rare, and certainly doesn't apply in this case - because the episode can certainly stand on its own as a humorous one, that is the clear default unless the reasons for pushing it in a serious direction instead are clearly countervailing ones.)


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2011)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm familiar with those posts (and noted the possibility of a die roll in my post to which you replied). That is almost the exact opposite of how narrativist play approaches the issue - given that the point of play is to bring out and address the salient thematic material, it would make no sense to leave the question to a random table.
> 
> (I would only roll dice if I thought the reasons telling in favour of going one way and the reasons telling in favour of going the other way were equally balanced, such that decision by lot was the only rational decision procedure. But this is pretty rare, and certainly doesn't apply in this case - because the episode can certainly stand on its own as a humorous one, that is the clear default unless the reasons for pushing it in a serious direction instead are clearly countervailing ones.)




I think this gets right to the heart of why someone would choose a more narrative approach to the game.  If you leave things up to random chance - either purely from PC actions, or some sort of table, then there is a chance that the play you are looking for simply won't occur.

It gets back to the example of Keep on the Borderlands as a narrative game about using force to take the land from indiginous peoples.  Certainly an interesting way to go (and I actually did have a DM once do precisely this, although not with KotB).  If you go the pure Sim approach, and the PC's get killed by stirges in the second encounter, well, you're not actually going to play the game you want to play.

Not that it's a bad game mind you.  Just not what the group is looking for.

You shouldn't have to play and replay scenarios multiple times just to get the game that you want to play.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2011)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], slightly tangential to my agreement with your post just above - did my explanation upthread of the thematic content of dwarf-PC-deals-with-former-tormentors make sense?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I still don't think I follow.




That probably makes two of us.

I do not think that your (i) to (iii) mark a significant difference between narrativist and simulationist play.....possibly not a difference at all.  

Perhaps there is no such thing as a difference between the two, apart from the degree to which the GM mitigates against consequences for the PCs (not "Gotcha!" the players).  Indeed, this mitigation against consquences seems to fly in the face of bringing out and addressing "the salient thematic material", and you are under a misaprehension when you suggest that simulationist play requires leaving "the question to a random table".

In The Shaman's posts, the random table doesn't determine how the thematic material is addressed.  Rather, the random table is a prompt to the GM's creativity, to which the thematic material is then appropriately applied by the GM.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2011)

RC, I don't know where your notion of "mitigation against consequences" is coming from, or what you take it to encompass. Can you give an example from actual play - whether your own experience, or one of the actual play examples I mentioned upthread?



Raven Crowking said:


> In The Shaman's posts, the random table doesn't determine how the thematic material is addressed.  Rather, the random table is a prompt to the GM's creativity, to which the thematic material is then appropriately applied by the GM.



It seems to me that the random table doesn't determine _how_ the thematic material is addressed - it seems to me to determine _whether or not_ it is addressed.

Example: In an episode involving escape from a goblin fortress, the PCs in my game encounterd a slave held by the goblins. It was the mother of one of the PCs, who was himself a refugee from a sacked city who believed all his immediate family to be dead.  As I understand The Shaman's approach, whether or not any given slave is a parent of a PC would be determined via the table. In my approach, it is determined _by my deliberate choice as a GM_ - and what motivates that choice is that it will push the player to engage with the gameworld along the sorts of thematic lines that the player has indicated to me via his PC's backstory and his prior play of his PC.

Example: As I've mentioned a couple of times now, it will make a big difference to the thematic significance of the dwarf PC in my game having led one of his former-tormentors- turned-followers into a confrontation with a behemoth which resulted in that NPC being squashed, whether or not that squashed former tormentor, while a dwarven soldier in good standing, saved the life of one of the PC's family members. As I understand The Shaman's approach, whether or not any given dwarven soldier was responsible for such a feat would be determined via the table. In my approach, it will again be determined by my deliberate choice as a GM. What pushes in favour of going that way is that would increase the pressure on the player (via the honour of his PC, who is after all a Warpriest of Moradin) quite a bit. What pushes against it is that it would escalate an episode which the player had approached in a light-hearted and humorous fashion into something much more serious, thus potentially punishing the player for not anticipating the change of tone (and therefore not having his PC do more to keep the NPC from being squashed).

A random table will not help with this. I don't need a prompt to my creativity. I already know what the relevant game elements (actual and potential) are. What I have to decide is what exactly should be done with them in order to frame a suitable situation for that player to enage with (via the medium of his dwarf PC). 

Another way of putting it would be this: I am wondering what the consequences should be for the dwarf PC who let his former-tormentors-now-followers be squashed by a behemoth. Should those consequences include having permitted the death of someone to whom he owed a deep debt of familial gratitude (although he did not know of that debt at the time)?

This is about consequences, but the notion of mitigation plays no role that I can see. I hadn't even thought of the possibility of such a consequence until I started discussing the episode with Hussar upthread.

Nor does the notion of "naturalness" play much of a role. It is neither natural nor unnatural that one of the squashed dwarf NPCs should also be a former saviour of the PC's family.

What is guiding my decision about this issue are the competing metagame considerations I've stated above (pushing the player vs invalidating/"gotcha-ing" the players' prior engagement with the situation). This is certainly not simulationist play - I'm not simulating anything (a world, a genre, a causal process). If you're saying that you GM your game in this fashion, then you're fessing up to narrativism.

But I'm pretty sure that that's not what you're saying, and that you don't GM a narrativist game. It certainly wouldn't fit with the general trend of your posting history.

The main thing that is puzzling me about this conversation, therefore, is your apparent reluctance to distinguish your approach from my (i) to (iii) upthread. I am assuming that you think something is at stake here - that (i) to (iii) capture something that you think is important to play, even though - earlier in this very thread, if I recall correctly - you seemed to be insisting that your approach to GMing is very different from mine (to the extent of suggesting that I don't understand classic D&D play).

I guess it would help me if you said something about how you see your (simulationist? or Gygaxian-style gamist with a very heavy simulationist substrate?) play as incorporating/reflecting (i) to (iii) above.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> RC, I don't know where your notion of "mitigation against consequences" is coming from




(1)  The idea that the GM was "wrong" in the OP to follow through on the obvious consequences of the dwarf PC's actions.

(2)  "the GM is not going to 'gotcha' the player". 

(3)  Mitigation occurs any time you say "X is okay, but not Y" as a consequence.  That is what the term means.  That you do not mitigate X doesn't mean that no mitigation is occurring.



> It seems to me that the random table doesn't determine _how_ the thematic material is addressed - it seems to me to determine _whether or not_ it is addressed.




I don't think you are understanding [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION].  From what I have read of his posts on the topic, a random roll might determine that there are prisoners there, but the GM determines who they are.  

Again, the random roll acts as a *spur to*, rather than a _*limiter of*_ creative content.

Again, I am not seeing why you are hung up on random tables re: simulationism.  Simulationism =/= random.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], slightly tangential to my agreement with your post just above - did my explanation upthread of the thematic content of dwarf-PC-deals-with-former-tormentors make sense?




Pretty much.

How about a slightly different take.  Say you want to play a redemption theme.  Your character is a substance abusing individual that has recently gotten on the wagon, but is struggling with all the issues of substance abuse.

In a Sim game, tables will determine if and when this will enter play.  In most Sim style games, I would make rolls (some sort of saving throw, or something similar) from time to time (possibly provoked by various triggers) to determine whether or not I fall off the wagon.  As a player, I have little control over the timing.  It might work out fantastic or it might completely flop, pretty much entirely dependent on how the dice gods smile that day.

Now, step away from that for a second and head towards something like Spirit of the Century.  The substance abuse issue becomes an Aspect of the character.  That Aspect can be triggered by either the player or the GM.  At least two involved sets of eyeballs can shape and control when and how this theme comes up in play.  

And, as an added benefit, when the issue does come up, by invoking the Aspect, the player gains some authorial power over how things roll out in the game.  It's not all dumped onto the dice gods.

Now, that being said, I've had fantastic sessions come out of letting the dice gods decide.  Totally get that.  But, it's not the only way of doing things.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Pretty much.



Cool.



Hussar said:


> Say you want to play a redemption theme.  Your character is a substance abusing individual that has recently gotten on the wagon, but is struggling with all the issues of substance abuse.
> 
> In a Sim game, tables will determine if and when this will enter play.  In most Sim style games, I would make rolls (some sort of saving throw, or something similar) from time to time (possibly provoked by various triggers) to determine whether or not I fall off the wagon.  As a player, I have little control over the timing.  It might work out fantastic or it might completely flop, pretty much entirely dependent on how the dice gods smile that day.



A good example.

Not wanting to derail your example too much, but I've actually GMed the game you describe. In a narrativist fashion. Using that paradigm of purist-for-system play, namely, Rolemaster.

How did it work?

Well, the drug in question was a trance-inducing intoxicant that greatly enhanced spell point recovery, so the player always had a reason to have his PC fall off the wagon.

And the Rolemaster spell+ritual system (the latter from RMC3) means that a typical mid-to-high level party has sufficient magical capability to exercise control over the results of those random rolls _if they really want to_, so when the player decided that he would have his PC fall off the wagon (either because he needed some spell points now!, to do some important thing, _or_ because he decided that his PC couldn't cope anymore with the emptiness of his existence) and then eventually failed an addiction check, the players could still, between them, exercise control over how this played out. (In the end, another PC took control of the drug-using one and got him magically cleaned up - this was the culmination of a sort of drug-induced-decrepitude-meets-complete-subordination-to-the-will-of-my-wizardly-better-companion plot line, and was the springboard for a new approach to the redemption issue as the now-sober PC had to try and rebuild a dignified life beginning from such an unpromising position.)

I'll try and draw a general corollary - when ProfCirno, and Kamikaze Midget, and others, in those various wizards vs warrior threads a few months ago, were talking about high level spells conferring _narrative power_ on a player, they were right. The existence of that sort of magic is what allowed my group to drift Rolemaster into narrativist play. I think it would be much harder, for example, in a system like Runequest, which doesn't provide players with the same sort of resources to take control of the narrative and override the random rolls.

(I think that RM has some other features that support drifting to narrativism also, but that would derail your example even more. And of course, as you say, you could just use a system that doesn't require drifting at all!)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2011)

Re:  Fantasy Narcotics

The biggest flaw in the BoVD drugs was that there was little reason for a PC to actually make use of those substances.  That is a real limitation on what is likely in a simulation-based game, and I note that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] resolves the problem the same way I did -- drugs that balance an in-game benefit with in-game consequences.

However, I have some problems with the "As a player, I have little control over the timing" idea.

(1)  As a player, you always have the choice to fail a save, and you always have the choice to simply have the PC indulge the vice, save or no save.

(2)  A thematic exploration of "a substance abusing individual that has recently gotten on the wagon, but is struggling with all the issues of substance abuse" is _*enhanced*_, not *damaged*, by the player not having full control over how addicting the addicting substance is.

(3)  This is, once again, mitigating against consequences.  You can explore the theme; you do not wish to explore the theme so thoroughly as to deal with the obvious potential consequence of your fictional character's life spinning outside your control.

In my opinion, the sim game provides the superior (not inferior) exploration of the theme!

EDIT:  Take a look at the beta rules for the DCC RPG (free download), specifically patron magic and spellburn.  Would you claim that these rules are narrative or sim?


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 10, 2011)

A while back the PCs in my game captured a kobold.  A day or two later on they came across a town that was being raided by a nearby wight lair.  They were short on time so they decided to throw up an Undead Ward around the town, then come back later on.

In order to get the components for the Undead Ward the Wizard sacrificed the kobold.

That was just something that happened, not a "Sit up, pay attention now" moment.  We were more concerned with the allocation of resources than the morality of the issue.

In a more recent game the PCs were in a gaming den/whorehouse.  One of the PCs engaged a well-connected NPC in a game of skill and lost; he had to buy the NPC time with a haughty courtesan.  One of the PCs had reason to speak with the prostitute, and when the PC went to see her, she discovered that the NPC was abusing her.

The PC attacked the NPC to protect the haughty courtesan, even though the consequences were dire.

That was just something that happened, not a "Sit up, pay attention now" moment.  We were more concerned with the possible consequences of the PC's actions than any moral stance taken by the PC.

It should be noted in this situation that I, as DM, decided on the fly that the haughty courtesan was the NPC that the PC was looking for.  This made sense; the PC was looking for an Eladrin to sacrifice (again, a moral issue we give only passing thought to), and who else but a haughty courtesan would an Eladrin _spend_ time with?  I was using AD&D's harlot table, so it's unlikely that there was another more suitable prostitute.

That being said - I made the decision because I knew the player gets invested in exactly that kind of situation.  While it's easy to say, "That makes sense", that wasn't the reason I made the decision.  I did it to press the player's buttons and to see what kind of decision she would make.  Would she risk upsetting this NPC - who represents a powerful guild the PCs were dependent on - to stand up for a prostitute she doesn't even know?

I broke my own rules by making that the basis for my decision!  I was no longer being impartial; I was guiding play toward that theme, even if it was in a way that made perfect sense in the game world.  If I used that same criteria to make _all my decisions_ about the game - things that make perfect sense but _also_ push specific player buttons - the game would be totally different.​
It's a matter of _why you are playing the game_; what kinds of decisions - both your own and those of the other players - do you want to focus on?

*

As for the DCC game's spellburn and patron rules, out of context they can fit any creative agenda.  As a part of a greater whole I'm not sure, I've only skimmed the document.  It's similar to my Warlock Pact stuff; that could easily be drifted to Story Now play, but in the context of the game as a whole it's Step on Up.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 10, 2011)

LostSoul, I am sorry to hear that you broke your own rules to make that decision (!), but those were *your *rules, not rules necessary to simulationist play.

I have had quite a few occurrences which, I guess, would have broken your rules for what you imagine sim should be like, over years of game play, going back to the first games I played.  When I was running the Middle World (3e), I even had players decide how they would handle the afterlife, when they were called to answer for how they lived and died.

I had started posting some here:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/114298-middle-world-lakelands-afterlives.html

Edit:  I had only transcribed a bit of this, but perhaps you can tell me if it sounds sim or narrativist to you? http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/94155-middle-world-lakelands-4-pbem-3-a.html 

RC


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Jun 10, 2011)

Because it seems that your group has tendency for financial ruin, at least as long you have this dwarf with you.

However as consolation I must tell you, that there has never been a group in the history of D&D that can drive themselves to a financial ruin more readily than my current group.

I had a big "dungeonish" adventure where the bulk of the treasure was a Grand Treasure in the end (this system is more or less endorsed in DMG). During the encounters treasure was minimal. Just before finishing the adventure they thought that it sucks to have so little treasure, so they quit the adventure! So no grand treasure!

Later on they allied with a bad guy who betrayed his master. I played this NPC as a vile backstabber with some redeeming qualities. So when they defeated the BBEG and gathered up the treasure, this NPC asked if he could pick treasure first. So knowing all the treasure by heart, he took the most valuable magic item: Minor circlet of blasting. Then he rode away with gratitude from the players. Only after this episode players casted "detect magic" on the treasure... This circlet was about 50% of the value of the BBEG treasure.

In my games selling and buying magical items is semi-forbidden and discouraged, because I want to avoid magic marts. So when my players couldn't sell a magical crossbow at a local cornerstore, they sold it as a normal masterwork item! 2330 gp item was sold for 165 gp... Much later they had a cleric to join the group, who used a normal crossbow. That cleric is now 7th-level and his mainweapon is still an ordinary masterwork crossbow.

Once they forgot to check if BBEG elite werewolf had magical items, so they gathered up his treasure and sold all the magical weapons and a shield as mundane masterwork items. Party has contant 24/7 access to detect magic, but sometimes they don't bother to use it. They are not concerned at all with magical items.

In the previous session they received their second ever +2 magical weapon: Battleaxe +1 of Spell Storing. They though it sucked, so they gave it away for free. They actually lost money, because they had a hireling wizard cast Identify on it. One of the PCs is still using a nonmagical primary meleeweapon (made from ordinary steel/iron). The best meleeweapon they have is a warhammer +1.

But I saved the best for the last:
I once had guest players in my campaign, and I had been shooting of my big mouth and revealing my adventure to one of the guest players earlier on! So he knew that BBEG human fighter had a brooch of shielding.
So after the BBEG was defeated, the guest PC encouraged the party wizard to cast detect magic on BBEG (I really wouldn't call this metagaming). So the player or PC perhaps got a little bit upset, because he was getting told what to do. So he pretended to cast detect magic and lied that there's no magic here. Guest PC failed in Sense Motive check, and that was it. Guest PC took the brooch and never came back to adventure.

I could continue this list forever, but according to my modest estimates the group has tossed away about 20.000 gp, starting from 2nd level and reaching 8th level.

P.S. Before you tell me to help my players more, please read the story above about brooch of shielding. My players hate being pushed in a certain way and getting told or adviced what to do!


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 15, 2011)

pemerton said:


> It seems to me that the random table doesn't determine _how_ the thematic material is addressed - it seems to me to determine _whether or not_ it is addressed.



I think that's a matter of what you consider to be "thematic material."

Is an encounter which is appropriate to the genre but not tailored to the specific adventurers in the campaign 'thematic?'







pemerton said:


> As I understand The Shaman's approach, whether or not any given slave is a parent of a PC would be determined via the table.



If not by an encounter from a random table, then perhaps by some other kind of random generation.







pemerton said:


> In my approach, it is determined *by my deliberate choice as a GM* - and what motivates that choice is that it will push the player to engage with the gameworld along the sorts of thematic lines that the player has indicated to me via his PC's backstory and his prior play of his PC.



In the campaigns I run, the players are responsible for engaging their choice of themes - I assess the consequences of those choices and respond in ways which are consistent with the setting and the genre.







pemerton said:


> As I understand The Shaman's approach, whether or not any given dwarven soldier was responsible for such a feat would be determined via the table.



I'm not entirely sure I _grok_ the example well enough to say - I can't think of any analogous situations in games I've run.







pemerton said:


> A random table will not help with this. I don't need a prompt to my creativity.



I dont "need" it, either - I use it because I enjoy the results that come from increasing stochasticity in this element of roleplaying games.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 15, 2011)

[MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION], on your last point - I didn't mean to imply that you do need a prompt to your creativity. What I was trying to say was that creativity on my part is crucial to my approach (ie coming up with thematically relevant ideas) and I don't need a table to help with this - I need, rather, to be able to judge how my ideas will work if introduced into the game.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 15, 2011)

I was thinking about something else and I think it might have helped me to understand where Pemerton and Hussar are coming from.

In my game, though I adopt a fairly "this is the way the world is" style for plot and even stats, I do change one thing up.

Not all my players can make every session. When they decide to engage in an encounter, I'll scale it to how many of them are there (4 kobolds to fight rather than 7 for example).

I wonder if this "scaling to meet the needs of the group" is analagous to what you're doing with plot?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 15, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I was thinking about something else and I think it might have helped me to understand where Pemerton and Hussar are coming from.
> 
> In my game, though I adopt a fairly "this is the way the world is" style for plot and even stats, I do change one thing up.
> 
> ...




To some degree, I suppose.  Although, for me, it's a bit different too.  

I'll freely admit that when I go for these themed games, they're not going to last all that long - a few months, maybe six on the outside.  They're too focused to really speak to long term play.  It's something that works better in short bursts.  At least for me.

So, before the game even starts, it's all on the table that this campaign is going to be about X (whatever X is) and everyone is groovy with that.  

Because this is all decided before play even starts, there doesn't really need to be a whole lot of changing going on.  It's simply that the world's "logic" (if that's the right term) is based on thematic needs, rather than simulationist ones.  To borrow from Terry Pratchett, a Thematic Game runs on Naritvium.  

This is certainly not something I would ever spring on a group mid campaign.  That kind of speed shift results in stripped gears.  For what I want to achieve, things are laid out right at the outset and a lot of the expectations of the what's in the game are likely fairly predictable.

The events that happen in the game are a lot less important than the reactions of the players to those events.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I wonder if this "scaling to meet the needs of the group" is analagous to what you're doing with plot?



The word "plot" makes me cautious here - not meaning that you're in any way at fault in using the word, but it can have implications that are very contentious in this context of discussing play styles.

Borrowing some terminology from The Forge (as I like to do!), I distinguish _situation_ from _plot_. By situation I mean the starting point for gameplay. This has got both a fictional/ingame aspect - where are the PCs?, who/what is confronting them?, etc - and also a metagame aspect - what is at stake?, what are the players hoping to achieve by engaging the situation via their PCs?, etc.

My goal is always to frame situations that are engaging at both levels. And of course the two levels feedback on one another in various ways, because the ingame situation is probably the result of some earlier meaningful choices made by the players (and so in certain respects at least reflects their metagame concerns), and the players achieve their metagame desires by using their PCs to affect the fictional, ingame state of affairs.

By plot I mean, roughly, what happens in the fiction once the players engage the situation via their PCs. In the sort of game I prefer this should not be predetermined, although certain outcomes might be more predictable in advance than others. Because the plot that is the result of resolving a situation establishes parameters for setting up new situations, there is an obvious limit on how predetermined I (as GM) can be in settling on interesting and relevant situations.

A minor example of plot: Twitch, the imp, turns up unexpectedly and uses his tail to stabs the sorcerer with whom he'd previously tried to bargain, while also taunting him. Does the sorcerer try to reopen negotiations? To capture Twitch to wring his secrets from him? Or to ruthlessly kill him? As it turned out, the latter. But when I set up the situation, I didn't know which way it would go. (The issue of bargaining with devils, and whether its a good or bad thing to do, has been a recurring subtheme in the game and something over which two PCs in particular have repeatedly clashed. And its complicated by the presence of a tiefling PC in the group, who is not one of the two PCs primarily involved, but who by default has some sort of interest in the matter!)

Twitch escaped - something that I didn't know would in advance would happen - and the PC in question has vowed to track him down. This is obviously highly relevant to future situations that I frame in this campaign.

In a game like 4e, which does not have a distinctive scene-opening and scene-closing mechanic, the distinction between plot (*the players are still having their PCs do stuff in order to resolve a situation*) and situation (*it's now the GM's role to set up some new fictional state of affairs for the players to engage with, as part of driving the story forward*) of course can sometimes be blurry. I regard it as part of my job as GM to exercise judgement in wrapping a scene up and transitioning to the next scene. Some of the "loose" aspects of time-based mechanics in 4e - skill challenges for non-tactical movement resolution, a certain flexibility in what counts as a short rest, the absence of very many long-duration magical effects, etc - make this easier than it would be in a game like Rolemaster, which is not so loose in these respects. Closing scenes, and moving to new situations, is crucial for my sort of play, however, because it stops the game becoming bogged down in what is (relative to my purposes and desires) the needless minutiae of exploration.

Some practical examples of this from recent sessions that I've GMed: 

*A player describes how his PC searches some NPCs for loot. As GM, I know that their is nothing interesting to be found, but let the player roll his Perception check. The check result is OK but not wonderful. I tell him there's nothing interesting there. The PC with the stronger perception than returns from chasing a fleeing enemy. That PC's player explains that his PC will search too. I say that there's no need for a roll, and that his PC confirms that there's nothing interesting to be found. This makes it clear that the "searching the bodies" subscene is over.

*Two PCs are riding on the back of a captured behemoth chasing a fleeing NPC cleric. I am resolving this as a complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successess before 3 failures). Due to a series of bad rolls, both PCs end up being thrown from the back of the war beast when it stumbles while crossing a narrow valley. Given that this is the third failure, the skill challenge is over - the NPC has escaped (and I have plans on how to use her in the future). I don't expressly tell my players this, but I do tell them that they have lost any sight of her. I also ask them whether they want to keep heading in the direction that she was running, or return to the other PCs. If they had gone for the first option, they would have reached the path to a nearby city (thus potentially guessing where the NPC had fled to). In fact they went for the second option. I didn't call for any skill checks on the return, and simply indicated that they returned to the village where they had left the other PCs. Again, this makes it clear the the "chasing the fleeing NPC on the back of a behemoth" subscene is over.​
When playing in this sort of fashion, it is bad GMing to frame a situation that doesn't grab the players, to bring the engagement with a particular situation to a close that is premature reletive to the interests of the players (because this stops them making choices that from their point of view are still meaningful), or to allow a particular situation to drag on when there is nothing more to be done that is interesting to anyone at the table. This last category is important and sometime a bit subtle - from the mere fact that a player tells me that a PC is searching a body, for example, it doesn't follow that the player regards the search as important. Typically, in fact, the player regards possible loot as important, and is going through an accepted game mechanical process for finding loot. Cutting this short - as in the first example above - doesn't stop any meaningful choices, but rather just makes it clear that there is nothing to be gained by the player going through that particular process.

It's also bad GMing to frame future situations in ways that negate or undo what the players have achieved via their resolution of previous situations. But, of course, _threatening_ those achievements is one way to grab the players and get them engaged. That is why this is a delicate matter. It is also a matter where it is important to keep ingame and metagame separate - because a threat to an ingame state of affairs that the players have brought about via their PCs can often affirm, rather than undermine, the metagame point that they made by achieving that state of affairs. For example, by having had their PCs succesfully treat with an exiled god in their quest to right a karmic wrong that heaven is ignoring, the players may have made a point about the priority of choice and free will to simply following the dictates of law. If constables of heaven then turn up to try and punish the PCs for what they've done, this _affirms_ the players' metagame point, by giving them further material with which to develop the statement they are making, via their play, about the moral inadequacy of the way heaven is approaching the issue of karma and law. (This example is taken from my last long-running Rolemaster campaign.)

My impression of many WotC adventures is that they involve the PCs aligning with NPCs only to have those NPCs suddenly turn and betray them. This is an example of framing a situation which is potentially very debilitating for my approach to play, because it runs the risk not just of undoing what the PCs have achieved in the fiction, but also rendering irrelevant or misguided what the players were trying to do at the metagame level. It is part of what makes many published scenarios not very suitable for my approach to play. (Which is not to say that I can't use betrayal by NPCs - but generally it has to be part of an ongoing dealing with that NPC, so that the players can see their own thematic concerns and interests reflected and further developed in the way the relationship with the NPC unfolds. The 4e drow module P2 Demon Queen's Enclalve looks much better to me in this respect, making negotiation and the risk of betrayal a focus of play, rather than something just to be sprung by the GM upon the players willy nilly.)

Some of the actual play examples I've mentioned above - like the demon taunting the paladin, or the angel sending the dwarven NPCs to meet the warpriest PC - are examples of framing situations in ways that will grab the player. They introduce conflict, and risk, without invalidating prior player choices and engagement with the game.

Other of those actual play examples illustrate how plot is determined _in the course of actual play_ - such as the paladin allowing himself to be beaten to a pulp, or the dwarf deciding to get back at his tormentors in a certain way, or a wizard PC deciding to join in the sacrifice of his companion, or another wizard PC deciding to join with that choice as part of his program for recovering from the consequences of drug addiction and losing his house.

And other of those actual play examples illustrate how, in bringing a situation to an end, and transitioning to the next situation, I try to preserve rather than undo the validity of the players' choices - by having the bored demon return to the abyss rather than destroy a nearby village, for example, and by trying to make sure that any complication I introduce in relation to the dwarven NPCs recruited by the dwarf PC doesn't punish the player for treating the theme of revenge on tormentors in a light-hearted rather than a serious fashion.

And to finish this long post - some quotes from a recent online column by Chris Perkins which suggest that he has at least some similarities in the way he approaches GMing:

I’d be lying to you if I said I knew the full extent of Alex’s story from the very beginning, or how the various facts would come to light. As happens, a lot of Alex’s story was dreamt up along the way. But from the outset, I knew three things were true:

<snip>

The truth about Alex’s father and Lenkhor Krige (whose last name I stole from the wonderfully alluring actress Alice Krige) came much later, whenever something would happen in the game that drove home the need to give Alex’s story a forward push. The decision to make Lenkhor a sympathetic character was a spontaneous decision that happened in the middle of a session, when it occurred to me how cool it would be to give Alex two father figures, each repentant for different reasons: his conniving biological father who gave him away, and the dragonborn archmage who made him into the man he’s become. Also, I was wary of the “evil archmage” cliché and wanted the leader of the Shan Qabal to be something unique and unexpected.

The heroes stormed into Lenkhor’s tower expecting a big fight, and what they got was a withered husk of a mighty archwizard lying on his deathbed. The image of a figure who was simultaneously powerful and weak appealed to me, as did the idea that Lenkhor would do anything—magical and otherwise—to prolong his life, if only to aggravate his apprentice.

For Jeremy, who enjoys a good roleplaying challenge, it was an opportunity for Alex to confront the architect of the Wyrmworn Experiment and realize he’s not dealing with a monster but a wizard whose lifelong quest for knowledge and power matched his own. This decision to portray Lenkhor as something other than a threat also opened the door to the possibility of Alex becoming a member of the Shan Qabal, which is basically what happened at the end of the paragon tier.​
To me, this seems like good stuff. Of course, others may well prefer a different sort of game!


----------

